The person riding the express might save a few minutes, but again the trains still have to merge into the one tunnel and the trains will be backed up. You aren't solving anything by building this express if it still merges back when it goes via the river tunnel to Manhattan.
If you want to build a new line and a new river tunnel, then make it parallel to the L rather than just under it and using the L's tunnel.

But it reduces crowding, plus merging isn't even, plus the L has CBTC as well.

7/<7> doesnt even have CBTC and they do a pretty good job of merging.

Now the E/F, THOSE lines are horrendous at merging.

But if they fix the terminals and L service gets beefed up to 2-3 min then I guess it wont be needed, unless L service is beefed and crowding still persists, then by all means imput a peak directional express.

It only reduces crowding before it gets to the tunnels. But when they merge, all you do is create a bottleneck. What good does an extra set of tracks do if they still use the same river tunnel and Manhattan stations?
Just scrap this <L> fantasy. CBTC is enough.

I actually can't imagine the Canarsie line having express service. I'm glad the BMT built it only two tracks.

Building it with three tracks in Brooklyn does not add any capacity to the line if it has to merge at 8th Ave. This means you have to run the same TPH as if the entire line was 2-tracked. That means you can't run train service more often, you just distribute the train across one more track.

Thank you, and exactly my point.

well i think they should have built a lower level.

The 7 train is a three tracked line and its service pattern is efficient. Why is the L different?

In actuality it helps with a am and pm like exp train.

Back when they ran the 7 local, the line ran with more service at every station. The express takes away service from the local so both the local and express don't have optimal service. Also, the 7 has a very efficient terminal at Times Sq., and turns around trains quickly enough at Main St. Both of the L's terminals are inefficient so they allow for longer wait times. The L also seems more crowded than the 7 (don't have ridership figures though).

If that's true ,why don't the mta fix this issue?

They are plain broke to fix the stations.

So you answered your own question then?

yeah but i can be wrong.

Which is why you answered it anyway, right...?

Yea but I wanted somone else to answer it.

Yea but I wanted somone else to answer it.but back to subject( what if the L went into NJ.)?

If there wasn't a nassau/jamaica Line, the BMT canarsie line would have most likely have been built with four tracks to handle the additional ridership.

L-Canarsie Express
Canarsie to 8 Av
late nights, evenings and weekends all local

K-Canarsie Local
Broadway Junction to 8 Av
late nights, evenings and weekends take the L

Well what if they would have put in 4 tracks then it could have been a k,still.

They would have to send the local or express tracks (whichever one) to a different line than 14th St. to avoid creating a giant bottleneck at Bedford Ave. as trains join from the express/local tracks to just one track under 14th St. per direction.

The 7 obviously has higher ridership, the L makes 19 stops in brooklyn while the 7 makes 18 stops in Queens, one more stop than the 7, but Main st alone racks in 58,681 riders on an average weekday.

The only reason why the L is more crowded than the 7 is because
- it doesnt have peak express like the 7
- it's trains are shorter in length than the 7
-The 7 has twice the track capacity of the Canarise Line
- And the transfers at 74 st-Broadway (E/F/R/V) and Queens Plaza (N/W) make a HUGE difference in crowding.

Lets not forget that the (7) local during rush hours runs the same headways as the (L). Even the 7 local despite it's merger with the <7> can run at 4-6 mins. Which shows you how bad the terminals on the L are. So the 7/<7> have twice the track capacity of the Canarsie line. Basically the (L) is like the (7) local train running by itself without the <7>. If they fixed the terminals to allow more track capacity an <L> without a doubt would alleviate crowding.

So people get your facts straight before assuming that an <L> would cause a bottleneck. If the (7) can do it so can the (L)

The L trains are only 30 feet shorter than the 7, and they're wider. Thus they have higher capacity. An L train can hold 1,944 people while a 7 train (let's say it ran R142A's for lack of R62A capacity data reasons) can hold 2,008 people. 64 people is not that big of a difference.

Neither of us have the ridership figures of either line, so we should not make assumptions about which line has higher ridership (while it has nothing to do with bottlenecking anyway). Also, of course the <7> causes a bottleneck. It causes one 5 days a week in the AM rush when it merges with the local at QBP, causing locals to be held at 33rd St. The L would have the same problem.

I personally went to 8 Avenue and took the L train today. The announcements said the next L train would be leaving in 10 minutes. I looked into the tunnel and there was an L train waiting to pull into the terminal… after an L train just pulled into the terminal 1 minute ago. The L train I boarded ended up leaving within 5 minutes. After arriving at 6 Avenue, I saw another L train across the platform stalled. If anything could immediately improve the L line, I'd say extra terminal tracks: either a second platform or long tail tracks would do.

It's not a bad at all when the <7>/(7) trains merge. Plus I wouldnt consider it a bottleneck since a lot of trains merge in the subway system. Examples: A/D at 59 st, E/F at 36 st, E/F at Forest Hills, 4/5 at 125 st,etc. A bottleneck is something like E180 st or Rogers Junction, that's a bottleneck.

Also the (L) is 81 ft shorter than the (7), NOT 30 ft.

R62's are 51 ft
R143's are 60 ft

Dont forget that the (L) uses 8-car sets not 10 car sets

51x11=561
60x8 =480

subtract the difference and its 81 ft.

Also, without even guessing the (7) train obviously has the higher ridership.
the (7) stops at more popular stops than the (L). Example: Times Square, Grand Central Station, Roosevelt Av, Citi Field and Main st-Flushing.





Agreed. You'd think that the line with the best technology in the subway system would have decent terminals but sadly it doesnt. CBTC is useless if the terminals limit the amount of trains you can run per hour.

The 7 is busier than the L but the L gets crowded. Try boarding the L at Bedford Avenue at 8 AM