|
|
| Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure (1392515) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
|
| (1394324) | |
Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:38:10 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon May 2 22:24:16 2016. Because this is more than the (L) closure and it's a split (M/T) I'd be looking to do anyway as soon as the (M) comes back online when that work is done on Myrtle.Again, WEEKENDS and CBTC work along QB that likely will still be going when the (L) is shut down is the main reason I came up with this in the first place since the (M) likely would need a Manhattan terminal other than Essex on weekends then anyway, with 96th/2nd the most logical. Politics being what they are and the likelihood the Manhattan Borough President if this plan were implemented on weekends (not to mention those on the UES) would likely also want it on weekdays is why I came up with the split M/T. It's also why I would encourage people to take the (G) the other way to Fulton and an OOS transfer at Atlantic-Barclays to the 2/3/4/5/B/D/N/Q/R or Hoyt for the A/C, especially if they are looking for lower Manhattan. The idea is to keep as many people away from Court Square as possible. |
|
|
| (1394325) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:40:57 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon May 2 22:24:55 2016. Except I would not be surprised if the Manhattan Borough President, who has already advocated keeping the (L) running in Manhattan between 1st and 8th Avenues went to court to force the MTA to keep that running if they threatened to shut that down and if the MTA had to have the (M) terminate in Manhattan on weekends insist on that being a weekday terminal as well.Politics also plays into the M/T split. |
|
|
| (1394326) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:42:10 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon May 2 22:09:35 2016. Unfortunately to me, politics could force that anyway. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1394327) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:43:11 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon May 2 22:03:00 2016. Unless she took the MTA to court to force them to do that. |
|
|
| (1394329) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon May 2 22:46:25 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:40:57 2016. She can if she wants to. Anyone can go to court to attempt to force the MTA to keep the L running between 1st and 8th Avenues. Doesn't mean she (or they) will get her wish. Brewer is no more important or special than anyone else who tries to do this, given her figurehead office. |
|
|
| (1394330) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon May 2 22:55:01 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:43:11 2016. Nope. Anyone can take the MTA to court. I work in Civil Court, so I know. We deal with lawsuits against the MTA all the time. Any lawsuit she brings won't be taken any more seriously than the average lawsuit brought against the MTA. You greatly overestimate how much power borough presidents really have on their own. |
|
|
| (1394334) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon May 2 23:42:44 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 21:26:22 2016. You are rapidly surpassing 33rd Street in the ignorance department. Keep going and you will pass him in the arrogance department as well. |
|
|
| (1394335) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon May 2 23:45:13 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 21:28:27 2016. No changes to any lines other than (L) and (M). Accept it. Live with it. |
|
|
| (1394354) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue May 3 06:22:42 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:43:11 2016. She can take them to court, but good luck arguing her case in front of whichever judge hears the case. Because the MTA's counsel will argue their side as well. No guarantee that a judge is going to side with Brewer. |
|
|
| (1394359) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 3 07:45:32 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:42:10 2016. There are many tics involved here (poly = many ; tics = irksome bugs)But nothing that a can of flit cannot fix. Out here some folks dance on their poarch while spraying their roases with Flit. They are called Flit Kickers! Time comes to pack up most politicians in a box and sip them off to Siberia. ROAR |
|
|
| (1394362) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue May 3 08:51:18 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon May 2 22:03:00 2016. No one at the MTA will have to listen to her.True. But her idea has value and the MTA will consider the idea on its own merits and decide accordingly. |
|
|
| (1394363) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue May 3 08:53:21 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon May 2 23:45:13 2016. They might send a few more J/Z trains from Bway Jct to Chambers or Broad just because they have to get people across the East River and don't want to overload 6th Ave. |
|
|
| (1394368) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue May 3 11:06:44 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:40:57 2016. Ridiculous. The boro presidents have zero power. |
|
|
| (1394369) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue May 3 11:06:45 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:40:57 2016. Ridiculous. The boro presidents have zero power. |
|
|
| (1394377) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue May 3 12:33:05 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by AlM on Tue May 3 08:53:21 2016. J/Z service has nothing to do with 6th Avenue. |
|
|
| (1394378) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue May 3 12:53:09 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by AlM on Tue May 3 08:53:21 2016. "They might send a few more J/Z trains from Bway Jct to Chambers or Broad just because they have to get people across the East River and don't want to overload 6th Ave."Yes, all fine and good - but that is simply just not as satisfying as re-writing the subway map! Re-writing the subway map often is one of Wallyhorse's claim to fame. Why just solve a "simple problem" with shuttle buses, rider transfers to other lines, and pointed directions for better travel until the tunnels are fixed - when one can re-write the entire subway map for several lines! You are thinking that Wallyhorse actually WANTS to solve the 14th Street Tunnel Closure problem - that is really not the case! Nope this is just his usual attempt to re-write the subway map - one of his usual proposals - and the 14th Street issue is the method to do so. Wallyhorse maintains the spirit of wanting to tinker with the subway system - sometimes a useful endeavor - except he often takes it to extreme ends. At least he is consistent in his own way. Mike |
|
|
| (1394382) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue May 3 13:26:54 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by AlM on Tue May 3 08:51:18 2016. Right. They can consider it. But she can't override them if they choose the option of closing both tubes simultaneously like Wallyhorse seems to be implying. |
|
|
| (1394383) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Tue May 3 13:44:50 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 21:23:36 2016. one of the reasons I do it the way I doExcept that you don't do it any way, because you don't run the subways (thank goodness). You would do it that way if you could, but you can't, so you don't. |
|
|
| (1394389) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue May 3 15:39:46 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue May 3 12:33:05 2016. You said the L shutdown would only affect the L and M. I pointed out a possible exception. |
|
|
| (1394398) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue May 3 16:23:54 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by AlM on Tue May 3 15:39:46 2016. You said"They might send a few more J/Z trains from Bway Jct to Chambers or Broad just because they have to get people across the East River and don't want to overload 6th Ave." (Emphasis mine.)How would more J/Z overload 6th Avenue? J doesn't enter the 6th Avenue tracks. |
|
|
| (1394400) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue May 3 16:39:30 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue May 3 16:23:54 2016. L is dead. Add more trains over the WB. Limit how many you can send to 6th Ave. So send some to Chambers. |
|
|
| (1394401) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue May 3 16:41:31 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:40:57 2016. Any politician can scream all they want but if a certain operation is logistically impossible which it would be in the case of a long term sequestered Manhattan 14 St shuttle, even SCOTUS couldn’t compel compliance. |
|
|
| (1394403) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue May 3 16:44:07 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon May 2 22:09:35 2016. If some of you recall, the R was routed all the way to 179 St but was eventually cut back to Ctl due to the additional length of the line impacting on service reliability. Even operating out of Continental, the on time performance of the line leaves a lot to be desired. |
|
|
| (1394404) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue May 3 16:48:07 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by randyo on Tue May 3 16:41:31 2016. in the case of a long term sequestered Manhattan 14 St shuttle, even SCOTUS couldn’t compel compliance.True, but no one here knows if the 14th Street line would have to be sequestered for a long period of time. |
|
|
| (1394405) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue May 3 16:48:10 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue May 3 06:22:42 2016. I addressed that in another post, but nobody knows what could happen if the case is heard by a judge who is annoyed at the MTA end decides to use all his/her available power to put the screws to the agency. |
|
|
| (1394407) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue May 3 16:58:44 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue May 3 16:23:54 2016. That’s the point of adding additional J/Z service. Additional Js or Zs will get passengers across the Willy B where they can transfer to to the F at Essex for 6 Av, N or Q at Canal and the 4/5/6 at Chambers and the A/C at Fulton. That would help out passengers for Union Sq, 6 Av or 8 Av on the 14 St Line. |
|
|
| (1394428) | |
Re: Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue May 3 18:30:28 2016, in response to Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:38:10 2016. Then suspend CBTC work for the duration of the L outage.Done. Problem solved. |
|
|
| (1394429) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue May 3 18:32:29 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 2 22:40:57 2016. Boro Prez's are figure heads.They also have no financial skin in the game, like offering operating subsidies. |
|
|
| (1394444) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue May 3 19:26:39 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by randyo on Tue May 3 16:44:07 2016. That was also when the F was a Hillside Express along with the E. Apartment landlords threatened to sue the TA for degrading their service east of Forest Hills to an all-local. |
|
|
| (1394446) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue May 3 19:30:06 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by randyo on Tue May 3 16:58:44 2016. They wil probably spread the 5 minute interval period out from 1 to 2 hours.Killing skip/stop along Broadway is what is stupid. |
|
|
| (1394455) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue May 3 19:49:57 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by randyo on Tue May 3 16:58:44 2016. Poster should have articulated that. My point, however, was aimed at Wallyhorse and his absurd reconfiguration plans.In theory (and likely practice based on what we know from previous (L) disruptions) the pattern of additional (M) (put-ins from Bway Jct or Canarsie) should work reasonably well. If more capacity is needed, the the (J) and (Z) will definitely need tweaking. Not necessarily more trains, but reconfiguring the service pattern.
Getting (L) riders (or anyone from beyond the corridor) to use (J)(Z) to transfer at Canal or Fulton will be a much harder sell. We have seen how time and again people universally reject the "go down to go up" concept. There also is a deeply ingrained aversion to the Nassau Street line as though you get cooties, or wind up in Willoughby if you ride it. MTA should come up with some promos that will make the (J) appeal to hipsters as the way to get to lower Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1394468) | |
Re: Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 3 21:39:09 2016, in response to Re: Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Joe V on Tue May 3 18:30:28 2016. Which then causes delays with other CBTC projects down the road. |
|
|
| (1394469) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 3 21:42:51 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by randyo on Tue May 3 16:48:10 2016. Right:That's one of the things I have factored in when I do what I do. |
|
|
| (1394473) | |
Re: Differences and how things are factored in |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 3 22:31:32 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon May 2 23:42:44 2016. BIG difference between me and 33rd Street:33rd Street was looking at it from a purely selfish standpoint in regards of combining the (M) and (V) into the current (M) because he as I remember happened to live near the 2nd Avenue station that was the (V) terminal, so he'd get an empty train as opposed to an (F) that was jammed. What I'm looking at here takes into account other factors: The notorious conga line at 71-Continental: In a perfect world, you can have 13-15 (M) trains per hour go to 71-Continental at all times, however, there is that small problem known as the conga line that will only get worse with additional (M) trains. Add to that the added potential for unruly passengers not wanting to get off at 71-Continental and the line could be even worse. Court Square handling the crush of displaced (L) riders: We all know for many (L) riders, the (G) at Lorimer to Court Square is going to be the preferred option since you can get the (E), (M) and (7) there. The problem is, those lines by the time you get to Court Square are likely jammed with those who take other lines normally and crowding will likely be a major issue there. These two factors were why I was looking at adding OOS transfers to the (G) at Broadway (for the J/M/Z) and at Fulton Street for the 2/3/4/5/B/D/N/Q/R at Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center, encouraging passengers to take the (G) to either of those locations OR taking the (G) to Hoyt-Schermerhorn and switching there to the A/C (especially if looking for lower Manhattan). The two factors combined are also why I would be looking at having the (G), (M) and (R) all go to 179 via QB local (except late nights when all three would go to 71-Continetal) while the (F) is QB express all the way (except late nights) since (G) passengers then would have the option of transferring to the (E), (M) or (R) at Queens Plaza (with the (R) during the (L) shutdown being 24/7 to 71-Continental_ or via a new OOS transfer the (N), (W) and (7) at Queensboro Plaza. Not idea, but being able to split the (G) passengers up between Court Square and Queens Plaza (and to a lesser extent Queensboro Plaza) is worth sending the G/M/R all to 179 (except late nights when it would be to 71-Continental). Weekend CBTC Work on Queens Boulevard: This is the BIG sticky point as I doubt the MTA can delay CBTC work on QB because of the (L) shutdown because that could have a major ripple effect with future CBTC projects down the road. That likely means there will be times where on weekends only one track is available in one or both directions for the (E), (F) and (R), meaning no room then for the (G) that would have to be cut to Court Square or the (M) that would need most likely a Manhattan terminal other than Essex to terminate. As noted, my original idea was to have the (M) terminate at 96th/2nd on weekends when QB was unavailable so displaced (L) riders have direct 6th Avenue service at Myrtle-Wyckoff no matter what, however, that brings me to..... Politics: We already have heard the Manhattan Borough President insist on keeping the (L) in Manhattan running during the tunnel shutdown between 1st and 8th Avenue due to many in that part of Manhattan (particularly those east of Avenue A as well as those who live in Stuvessanttown, most notably Peter Cooper Village) actually using the (L) as the 14th Street Crosstown along with more likely the bigger concern of gridlock that could be there and have ripple effects throughout Manhattan unless possibly draconian restrictions on non-essential vehicles being in the area was put in effect. If my original idea of the (M) to 96th/2nd on weekends due to CBTC took effect, as was noted by others there are those on the upper east side (an area with considerable political clout) who would demand such also be done on weekdays). That was why I came up with the M/T split with the (M) running as it does now with the (T) supplementing it on weekdays (max of 5-7 TPH to 96th/2nd weekdays, even at peak hours) and the (T) late nights (3-5 TPH, 4-6 TPH late Friday and Saturday) and weekends (7-9 TPH) being the line between Metropolitan and 96th/2nd. I'm not looking at just one factor when I do this. |
|
|
| (1394484) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 3 23:32:11 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue May 3 19:49:57 2016. That is one thing that does need to be considered, and actually was with the idea of the "Brown (K)" that would run from Canarsie to Broad Street that was suggested by someone else. Extra J/Z service to at least Chambers if not Broad needs to be considered regardless. |
|
|
| (1394485) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 3 23:32:44 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue May 3 19:49:57 2016. That is one thing that does need to be considered, and actually was with the idea of the "Brown (K)" that would run from Canarsie to Broad Street that was suggested by someone else. Extra J/Z service to at least Chambers if not Broad needs to be considered regardless. |
|
|
| (1394486) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 3 23:33:30 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 3 23:32:44 2016. Sorry about the double post. |
|
|
| (1394492) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 00:53:29 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue May 3 13:26:54 2016. No she can't, but if she took the MTA to court and a judge rules in favor of the Borough President..... |
|
|
| (1394503) | |
Re: Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed May 4 07:11:07 2016, in response to Re: Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 3 21:39:09 2016. Good. |
|
|
| (1394516) | |
Re: Differences and how things are factored in |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Wed May 4 09:06:21 2016, in response to Re: Differences and how things are factored in, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue May 3 22:31:32 2016. You are way off base. Your plans have been turned to Swiss cheese by those of us who actually understand scheduling and resource allotment. You keep changing the basis of your argument to ever more tenuous arguments. All of them are plain BS.Anyone can sue MTA if they have sufficient financial resources and a complaint that has a legitimate chance of prevailing. Any judge who might decide against MTA because of a personal grudge or agenda is not an impartial jurist and would have their decision negated (and likely be removed from the bench) for violating the basic tenet of justice. In the meantime, while this legal drama was going on, something absolutely awful happens because the repairs weren't being made; or were being made with service running. The people who brought suit would then be fair game for a boatload of civil damages suits. Politics ultimately goes along with what can be most expeditiously executed with the least amount of potential blowback and best potential for looking good when it's all said and done. No politician who wants to keep making money during and after office is going to risk creating a public interest or safety debacle. MTA has already presented valid public safety concerns about what happens if the work is not performed as quickly as possible. MTA has already presented the case and plans for improving convenience by expanding access to First Av and Bedford Av. MTA has already justified the need to shut down the tunnel and the Manhattan side of the line to get the work done. Manhattan service is simply not doable because of the lack of required infrastructure to operate and maintain trains without access to Brooklyn. One mishap and whoever was responsible for compelling MTA to operate in spite of their warnings will have their career ended. In the end, your fantasy subway map is simply not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. In all probability, never. You may keep putting up all the infeasible and nonsensical routing plans you want; however, they will continue to be torn up in your face. Your lame whining about political intervention is where you and 33rd Street are soul mates; though, you are more passive-agressive about it. |
|
|
| (1394530) | |
Re: Differences and how things are factored in |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 11:09:55 2016, in response to Re: Differences and how things are factored in, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Wed May 4 09:06:21 2016. Politics are only one factor.Oh, and for the record, I see why they want to shut down 14th Street as well during the tunnel shutdown. That could work, but if it say causes gridlock because drivers refuse to (or can't) give up their cars and with extra buses on 14th Street causing gridlock there or elsewhere and the Manhattan portion of the (L) being shut down blamed, there will likely be a push to at least get one tunnel to where work can be done, but service run between 1st and 8th avenues because especially if those drivers causing such gridlock are from New Jersey, it will be very difficult to put in draconian measures to prevent gridlock without blowback from most likely New Jersey officials (especially since by then there will be a new Governor in NJ). That likely is why the Manhattan Borough President wants the (L) running between 1st and 8th Avenue during the shutdown and could go to court to force it, citing concerns of gridlock from drivers who can't or won't give up their vehicles. The other parts were spelled out, with CBTC work specifically the driving reason for the split M/T, one case where because of potential politics a weekend situation could cause something to be done seven days a week to keep those in an area with considerable political clout happy. |
|
|
| (1394531) | |
Re: Differences and how things are factored in |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 4 11:18:05 2016, in response to Re: Differences and how things are factored in, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Wed May 4 09:06:21 2016. MTA has already justified the need to shut down the tunnel and the Manhattan side of the line to get the work done.Source? |
|
|
| (1394532) | |
Re: Differences and how things are factored in |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 4 11:28:17 2016, in response to Re: Differences and how things are factored in, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 11:09:55 2016. 14th Street is not particularly loaded with NJ-plated vehicles.Adding 10-20 buses for a 14th street bus shuttle to replace the L will cost a lot of passenger time and MTA money but is not going to cause gridlock. They will be a fairly small percentage increase in the number of vehicles on the street. |
|
|
| (1394533) | |
Re: Differences and how things are factored in |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 11:32:09 2016, in response to Re: Differences and how things are factored in, posted by AlM on Wed May 4 11:28:17 2016. 14th Street may not, but those NJ-plated vehicles add to the overall volume of traffic. |
|
|
| (1394534) | |
Re: Differences and how things are factored in |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 4 11:40:50 2016, in response to Re: Differences and how things are factored in, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 11:32:09 2016. Sure, but NJ politicians aren't going to give two hoots about the lack of a 14thstreet crosstown subway. |
|
|
| (1394535) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 11:48:09 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Michael549 on Tue May 3 12:53:09 2016. Actually, the J/Z idea is something that likely will be needed as well as 6th avenue can only take so many trains (main reason why in my M/T split the (T) is actually less TPH during the week than on weekends when it absorbs the (M) shuttles).The 14th Street issue has more to do with gridlock. As noted, the real concern is those vehicles coming from New Jersey that many there can't or won't give up. Even if that traffic doesn't come near 14th Street itself, the additional bus traffic on 14th coupled with other traffic in the area can cause gridlock that has ripple effects that the vehicles from New Jersey add to unless a draconian measure that makes it so there is a large area that non-essential vehicles are banned from 14th and nearby streets, something I suspect New Jersey officials (especially with by then a new Governor there) likely won't accept. That to me is partially why the Manhattan Borough President wants the 14th Street portion kept open, knowing gridlock could be a problem. As also said, in a perfect world you could have 13-15 (M) trains go to 71-Continental, but the already-existing conga line problem will likely be worse and you may have to anyway have the (G), (M) and (R) all go to 179 at all times so the (G) can also stop at Queens Plaza and divide up those looking for Court Square between there and QP (especially since those looking for the (R) can switch there). And then there is the CBTC work issue, which is why I came up with the split in the first place. |
|
|
| (1394536) | |
Re: Differences and how things are factored in |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 11:48:50 2016, in response to Re: Differences and how things are factored in, posted by AlM on Wed May 4 11:40:50 2016. Unless it affects THEIR residents in major restrictions on driving in Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1394537) | |
Re: Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 11:54:58 2016, in response to Re: Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Joe V on Wed May 4 07:11:07 2016. For you. The MTA likely won't look at it that way. They most likely need to get CBTC done on the entire system and that is why they likely would NOT suspend CBTC work on Queens Boulevard, even with the (L) shut down. That is the driving force behind the M/T split as I'm also looking regarding CBTC work at 10-12 years later. |
|
|
| (1394539) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 4 12:19:49 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 11:48:09 2016. Even if that traffic doesn't come near 14th Street itself, the additional bus traffic on 14th coupled with other traffic in the area can cause gridlock10-20 additional buses can't cause gridlock. |
|
|
| (1394541) | |
Re: Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed May 4 12:21:56 2016, in response to Re: Split M/T during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed May 4 11:54:58 2016. I don't care what the MTA wants. CBTC can wait, forever. It does not add capacity. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
