Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#491176 - 08/25/09 06:03 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: Forest Glen]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
Originally Posted By: Lex Express
The 7 is busier than the L but the L gets crowded. Try boarding the L at Bedford Avenue at 8 AM


Unlike the 7, the L doesnt have any good transfers west of Bway Junction, so people just continue piling up on the L. At least the 7 train can unload passengers at 74 st with transfers to the QB line and then again it can unload passengers at Queensboro plaza with transfers to the Astoria Line. If the 7 didnt have those trnasfers the 7 would have the same crowding problems as the L. If the Broadway/Nassau line still had mid-town access, as well as Bway Junction-Essex st exp crowding on the L would probably be different from today.

Top
#491194 - 08/26/09 02:40 AM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R160Etrain]
MikeGerald45 Offline
Transport Workers Union Steward
****

Registered: 07/23/03
Posts: 1469
Loc: Staten Island
From a previous message: "Unlike the 7, the L doesn't have any good transfers west of Bway Junction.."

I believe that in Manhattan, there's Eighth Avenue with transfers to/from the A, C and E lines. There's Sixth Avenue with transfers to/from the 1,2,3,F, and V lines. There's Union Square (its original terminal) with transfers to the 4,5,6,N,R,Q and W lines. And in Brooklyn there Myrtle Avenue with a transfer to the M train. And at the Lorimer and Metropolitan Avenue station there is a transfer to/from the G train.

While west of the Broadway Junction station, the L-train does not share its tracks with any other route, I'd say there are several transfer options.

Mike

Top
#491195 - 08/26/09 06:49 AM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: MikeGerald45]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
Sorry, what I meant to say was that in Brooklyn, the L doesnt have any good transfers west of Bway Junction. I mean there is nothing on the G/M lines thats going to make L riders transfer to those lines. At least on the flushing line A LOT of people transfer to the QB and Astoria lines because they ACTUALLY go somewhere important. Not like the G/M where they go no where and instead just pile on more riders on the L.

Top
#491213 - 08/26/09 02:03 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R160Etrain]
NX Sea Beach Express Offline
Transport Workers Union Steward
***

Registered: 12/16/05
Posts: 1470
Loc: Brooklyn
What is a good and bad transfer?

The transfers to the G and M are heavily utilized. Thus for those who require these transfers regularly, they are good.

I think that a 'bad' transfer is the G at Court Sq because to continue the trip out to Queens to a local station, instead of staying on the train, you have (i) walk far to get the E to ride it 1 stop to (ii) get the R to continue the trip.

Another 'bad' transfer IMO is the S to the A C E at 42 St. That walk is ridiculous! smile
_________________________
Please stand away from the moving platform as trains enter and leave the station. Your safety...

Top
#491215 - 08/26/09 02:21 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: NX Sea Beach Express]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
Originally Posted By: NX Sea Beach Express
What is a good and bad transfer?

The transfers to the G and M are heavily utilized. Thus for those who require these transfers regularly, they are good.

I think that a 'bad' transfer is the G at Court Sq because to continue the trip out to Queens to a local station, instead of staying on the train, you have (i) walk far to get the E to ride it 1 stop to (ii) get the R to continue the trip.

Another 'bad' transfer IMO is the S to the A C E at 42 St. That walk is ridiculous! smile


Good question.

On the L line the transfers to the G/M trains pile on more riders on the L then they take off.

:Note Im talking about the am rush where riders need to go to Manhattan

Myrtle-Wyckoff is a good transfer for M riders because they can transfer to the L.
But the transfer is bad for the L, because unless you're going to lower manhattan there's no point in transferring to the M. And even so there are better and faster alternatives to lower manhattan. 4/5 trains anyone?

Now at 74 st-Broadway on the Flushing Line, this transfer is good because QB riders can transfer to the 7 line. this transfer is also good for the Flushing line because it takes a load off the 7 local train. Heck ride the 7 downtown during the weekends, and you'll see a difference in crowding from before it arrives at 74 st, to after it leaves 74 st.

Now the transfer at lorimer st. This transfer is good for the G train because G riders can transfer to the L to go to Manhattan. Now for the L train this is a bad transfer because unless you want to take the G to transfer to the A/C/F trains there is no point in transferring to it and even so, you can transfer to practically every line in manhattan!?

Now the transfer at Queensboro Plaza is a good transfer for the Astoria Line, because Astoria riders can transfer to the Flushing Line. This transfer is also good for the flushing line because it relieves the load off the 7 train. Like I said before about 74 st-Broadway, you'll see a difference in crowding from before it arrives at Queensboro Plaza to after it leaves Queensboro Plaza.

In conclusion the transfers at the G/M pile on more riders for the L then it takes off riders, as its heading to Manhattan. On the 7/<7> line its different. These transfers take off riders slightly more than it adds on as the 7 makes its way into manhattan.


Edited by R160Etrain (08/26/09 02:24 PM)

Top
#491221 - 08/26/09 03:54 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R160Etrain]
Forest Glen Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 19171
Loc: Springfield Gardens, Queens
At Queensboro Plaza heading towards Manhattan it seems like more people transfer from the 7 to the N/W than vice versa
_________________________
"This station is Forest Glen. Red line to Shady Grove via downtown Washington. Next stop is Silver Spring."

Top
#491236 - 08/26/09 08:18 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: Forest Glen]
Grand Concourse Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 06/26/02
Posts: 18592
Loc: Manhattan
They'll take the 7 because it is more frequent. Even both the N and W running, it can still be some time till either shows up and meanwhile at least two-three 7 trains will have passed.
But no doubt the N/W transfer at 59th-Lex is still much easier than the 7 at 42nd.

Top
#491254 - 08/27/09 06:58 AM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: Grand Concourse]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
Its because the 7/<7> is constantly dropping off passengers at Queensboro Plaza is the reason why the astoria line requires efficient service.

But back on the L line, the point im trying to make is that L riders going to manhattan dont have any reason to transfer to the G/M lines, which results in more people piling up on the L.

Top
#491338 - 08/29/09 06:12 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R160Etrain]
MikeGerald45 Offline
Transport Workers Union Steward
****

Registered: 07/23/03
Posts: 1469
Loc: Staten Island
I understand the point that you are making concerning "bad" transfers, as in transfers that relieve the L-train of riders while furthering the goals of getting riders to their destinations.

Mike

Top
#491377 - 08/31/09 11:20 AM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: MikeGerald45]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
Exactly. Bway Junction is the only good transfer in Brooklyn for the L.

Top
#491389 - 08/31/09 05:44 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R160Etrain]
R32_3348 Offline
MTA Executive
****

Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 4456
Loc: Jackson Heights
People do use the transfers to the G/M lines. They may transfer to the M because they are headed to lower Manhattan and the M has better transfers in Manhattan than the L does. The G is more useful than you think; riders not going to Manhattan (or maybe heading to 53rd St. stations) would use the G.

Top
#491422 - 09/01/09 10:21 AM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R32_3348]
NX Sea Beach Express Offline
Transport Workers Union Steward
***

Registered: 12/16/05
Posts: 1470
Loc: Brooklyn
I agree. Both transfers are typically crowded especially at rush hour, so I'm probably just missing the point of this thread.
_________________________
Please stand away from the moving platform as trains enter and leave the station. Your safety...

Top
#491458 - 09/02/09 01:29 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R32_3348]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
Originally Posted By: R32_3348
People do use the transfers to the G/M lines. They may transfer to the M because they are headed to lower Manhattan and the M has better transfers in Manhattan than the L does. The G is more useful than you think; riders not going to Manhattan (or maybe heading to 53rd St. stations) would use the G.


Yes, while the M does go to Lower Manhattan, but L riders are proablby going to take the L into Manhattan, and transfer to the 4/5 or the 2/3, or any other line that goes to Lower Manhattan, depending on their destination, plus the M takes 10 mins to show up and is all local to boot.

Yes of course those transfers are used, but they do absolutely NOTHING to alleviate crowding on the L. If the 7/<7> had useless transfers like the L, the flushing line would be much more crowded.

Top
#491465 - 09/02/09 03:50 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R160Etrain]
NX Sea Beach Express Offline
Transport Workers Union Steward
***

Registered: 12/16/05
Posts: 1470
Loc: Brooklyn
So then for example, the Coney Island transfer is basically useless because few people change trains at this station? Am I following the logic now?
_________________________
Please stand away from the moving platform as trains enter and leave the station. Your safety...

Top
#491473 - 09/02/09 07:35 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: NX Sea Beach Express]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
Originally Posted By: NX Sea Beach Express
So then for example, the Coney Island transfer is basically useless because few people change trains at this station? Am I following the logic now?


No, you're not following the logic. Plus Coney Island is the first stop for the D/F/N/Q, so that is TOTALLY different from what Im trying to say. What I'm saying is that besides Bway junction, the transfers to the G/M lines dont appeal to a lot of L riders heading into Manhattan to actually make them get off the train. Now the 7 train for example: the transfers at 74 st-Bway and Queensboro plaza make A LOT of riders get off the 7 and transfer to other lines.

Maybe if the MTA ever figures out that the problem with L line is the terminals and the L FINALLY runs 2-3 min headway then trains should be less crowded. CBTC on the L line has obviously been a total failure ON the Canarsie Line. There is NO POINT in putting future technology on the Canarsie Line if it has prehistoric caveman terminals. For that they could have just worked on testing out CBTC on the Queens Blvd first, a line that ACTUALLY needs CBTC. I dont care if they took a time machine and got technology from Star Wars and added it on the L, no matter how advance the Canarsie Line would get unless the terminals are fixed, the L will always be crowded, L riders will always have to let 4-5 trains go by and the L will always runs 4-6 headways. The (6) and & (7) lines run more frequent than the L and they dont even have CBTC!

Overall, im not complaining, im just stating the obvious problems with the L train and ways to improve it.


Edited by R160Etrain (09/02/09 07:37 PM)

Top
#491481 - 09/03/09 01:08 AM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R160Etrain]
Q89LCL Offline


**

Registered: 10/30/08
Posts: 3027
Loc: Brooklyn,NY
well good speech the L needs its terminal Redone with more tracks and same goes for Rockaway pk.
_________________________
Q89LCL says" need help in the(A),(C),(E) or(L) or LIRR/NICE Bus/SCT forums just PM me"

Top
#491493 - 09/03/09 11:32 AM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: Q89LCL]
MikeGerald45 Offline
Transport Workers Union Steward
****

Registered: 07/23/03
Posts: 1469
Loc: Staten Island
A few different points:

From the point of view of easing the crowded-ness of the L-trains during the rush hours, the points concerning the transfer stations have some merit.

With all of the trouble of implementing the CBTC on the L-line, I would really not like to see any or all of that trouble brought to the Queens Blvd line. The folks in Queens would rise up very mad at all of the re-routes, bus subsitutions, delays and outages of service, etc. that plagued the L-line for years. In addition there's the whole issue of mixing CBTC-capable cars on tracks with non-CBTC capable cars, and signal blocks, etc.

Because the L-line relatively isolated, it made a good candidate for CBTC, however all concede that there were many problems getting it implemented. Thus the chance to greatly improve the implementation in the future, hopefully.

Then there is the whole issue of "compensation" - how does the MTA compensate the riders for all of the delays and problems that occured over the years, when the supposed improved service does not materialize? That is one of the undertones of this discussion - the idea that CBTC has not really worked.

The #7 line while it has the Times Square terminal that handles and turns around all of its trains, the terminal situation in Queens is different. According to the schedule, the Main Street-Flushing terminal handles about half of the #7 local trains, and about all of the #7 express trains. During the rush hours, the 111th Street station (the yard access point) terminates and relays half of the #7 local trains. Only half of the #7 local trains actually go to Main Street-Flushing, this reduces the load on that terminal. In addition, at certain points, the Willets Avenue-Stadium station terminates and relays some express trains.

Extending the L-line Eighth Avenue station with a set of tail tracks (like those at Times Square for the #7 line) is an expensive undertaking. I am pretty sure that somebody in the MTA has looked at that as a solution and discounted it, if such an analysis has been done it, publicizing it would be good.

In talking about the L-line sometimes it would help to explain what the "obivious" problems are, that "totally ruin" the line. So while we are throwing the baby out with the bath-water, not seeing any shades of degree just black or white characterizations - the rest of us has a since of the size of the problem.

The floor is open.
Mike

Top
#491509 - 09/03/09 01:55 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: MikeGerald45]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
Despite the delays, CBTC on the QB line would be worth it. Plus the MTA has already proposed putting CBTC on the QB line. Hopefully it gets approved.

http://www.mta.info/mta/news/releases/?en=080227-HQ4

Top
#491514 - 09/03/09 05:21 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R160Etrain]
bronxlord Offline
Straphanger
**

Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 51
Loc: 7 train, 40th Street
I understand and empathize to a certain extent about the L train being crowded, but please do not identify it as a problematic line. The point about the L not having great transfers in Brooklyn is valid. While I find the G to be a very useful train, its primary employment benefit for people transferring from the L is to get to downtown Brooklyn and maybe the Citibank building in LIC. Also, having it stunted at Court Square reduces its usefulness for the L rider who could take it to Queens Plaza and beyond.

As far as the M goes, its not a great train. When I lived in Bushwick, every now and then I would take the M from lower Manhattan or LES to Central Avenue and walk, and while I did not mind, I did note to myself that I would not be able to tolerate this every day. The M is too few and far between. If the transfer was at Myrtle Avenue where the J/Z stop as well, then it would be better.

The 7 definitely benefits from better transfers, and now that the direct in-system link is being built at Court Sq/45th Rd to the G, E & V trains, will only enhance the line.

As far as CBTC goes, it needs more time to judge its effectiveness. Terminal capacity and labor disputes have really marred it.

Overall, arguing about the L and 7 are like arguing about a Lexus and a BMW. Both are great trains. Try commuting on the 2/5 in The Bronx & Brooklyn, or on the JMZ regularly, and then see how bad the "problems" of the L & 7 really are.
_________________________
"The 2 train is the train to keep the man down" - Sean Cloherty

Top
#491522 - 09/03/09 08:22 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: bronxlord]
Forest Glen Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 19171
Loc: Springfield Gardens, Queens
With the exception of Myrtle, the worst crowding on the L occurs between Graham Avenue and Union Square. Once the L gets past Broadway Junction it empties out.
_________________________
"This station is Forest Glen. Red line to Shady Grove via downtown Washington. Next stop is Silver Spring."

Top
#491523 - 09/03/09 09:26 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: Forest Glen]
MikeGerald45 Offline
Transport Workers Union Steward
****

Registered: 07/23/03
Posts: 1469
Loc: Staten Island
Hopefully by 2030 they will have fixed the bugs and implementation problems in CBTC for the Queens Blvd and Flushing lines.

Mike

Top
#491582 - 09/04/09 10:44 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: MikeGerald45]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
They should turn Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs into a terminal. That way they can short turn trains to ease crowding south of Myrtle. Also fix the 8 Av terminal so that it can handle the increased capacity.

MTA can turn Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs into a terminal by adding another platform and track behind the northbound wall. Basically converting the station from a one platform two track station into a 2 platform 3 track station.

L-Canarsie Local
Canarsie to 8 Av
rush hours some trains terminate at Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs


4-6 mins to Canarsie
2-3 mins to Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs


Edited by R160Etrain (09/04/09 10:46 PM)

Top
#491592 - 09/05/09 02:12 AM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R160Etrain]
MikeGerald45 Offline
Transport Workers Union Steward
****

Registered: 07/23/03
Posts: 1469
Loc: Staten Island
The MTA can right now terminate trains at the Myrtle AVenue station, and in the very distant past some trains did terminate there. The basic problem is then that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the trains then do not reach the Canarsie terminal - lengthening the headways for those riders. Basically those riders who are east of the Myrtle Avenue station have to wait longer for their trains.

The load would still be on the Manhattan Eighth Avenue terminal to be able to turn around all of those trains quickly enough. The ability of the terminal to turn around trains is seen as a problem now, regardless of the eastern terminal of any L-train. Some would say that the basic problem remains.

For comparison purposes, the #7-train has short-turn trains at 111th Street, and the #6-train has short-turn trains at Parkchester. In either case, the main southern terminal (Times Square or Brooklyn Bridge) does not have a problem returning all of the lines trains to service quickly enough.

So can the MTA short-turn at Myrtle Avenue - YES. Would that really help the problem - MAYBE NOT. Of course, it depends upon which problem one is really trying to solve.

Mike

Top
#491800 - 09/07/09 07:31 PM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: Q89LCL]
R32_3348 Offline
MTA Executive
****

Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 4456
Loc: Jackson Heights
Originally Posted By: R160Etrain
Yes of course those transfers are used, but they do absolutely NOTHING to alleviate crowding on the L. If the 7/<7> had useless transfers like the L, the flushing line would be much more crowded.

If the transfers did NOTHING to help the L, then the transfers weren't used at all. These transfer points do get crowded so you can't say they don't help the L. They don't necessarily help it very much, but they still help.
Originally Posted By: R160Etrain
Maybe if the MTA ever figures out that the problem with L line is the terminals and the L FINALLY runs 2-3 min headway then trains should be less crowded. CBTC on the L line has obviously been a total failure ON the Canarsie Line. There is NO POINT in putting future technology on the Canarsie Line if it has prehistoric caveman terminals. For that they could have just worked on testing out CBTC on the Queens Blvd first, a line that ACTUALLY needs CBTC. I dont care if they took a time machine and got technology from Star Wars and added it on the L, no matter how advance the Canarsie Line would get unless the terminals are fixed, the L will always be crowded, L riders will always have to let 4-5 trains go by and the L will always runs 4-6 headways. The (6) and & (7) lines run more frequent than the L and they dont even have CBTC!
You really need to stop exaggerating with your posts. CBTC has NOT been a total failure on the L. First of all, the L line isn't even 100% CBTC/ATO so you can't say if it's a failure or not until both of those have happened, which will be when the R160s get CBTC.
Originally Posted By: Q89LCL
well good speech the L needs its terminal Redone with more tracks and same goes for Rockaway pk.

Why do they need more tracks? They're just fine with the number of tracks they have now. They just need the tracks to extend past the station. And how does the L not need CBTC if it's one of the most crowded lines in the system? Of course it needs CBTC. The line was running at capacity and still couldn't meet passenger demand. You don't have to wait 4-5 trains to get on the L either. You don't even have to do that on the 4/5/6. You can get on the 2nd train, if not the 1st.

And the only reason the 6 and 7 have lower headways is that both of the lines run over capacity as well. Not to mention that they are basically two services combined in one, and local station headways are twice that of the headways of both lines in Manhattan.

Top
#491832 - 09/08/09 08:35 AM Re: An (L) Line What If? [Re: R32_3348]
R160Etrain Offline
Transportation Alternatives Organizer
**

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 1937
Originally Posted By: R32_3348
Originally Posted By: R160Etrain
Yes of course those transfers are used, but they do absolutely NOTHING to alleviate crowding on the L. If the 7/<7> had useless transfers like the L, the flushing line would be much more crowded.

If the transfers did NOTHING to help the L, then the transfers weren't used at all. These transfer points do get crowded so you can't say they don't help the L. They don't necessarily help it very much, but they still help.
Originally Posted By: R160Etrain
Maybe if the MTA ever figures out that the problem with L line is the terminals and the L FINALLY runs 2-3 min headway then trains should be less crowded. CBTC on the L line has obviously been a total failure ON the Canarsie Line. There is NO POINT in putting future technology on the Canarsie Line if it has prehistoric caveman terminals. For that they could have just worked on testing out CBTC on the Queens Blvd first, a line that ACTUALLY needs CBTC. I dont care if they took a time machine and got technology from Star Wars and added it on the L, no matter how advance the Canarsie Line would get unless the terminals are fixed, the L will always be crowded, L riders will always have to let 4-5 trains go by and the L will always runs 4-6 headways. The (6) and & (7) lines run more frequent than the L and they dont even have CBTC!
You really need to stop exaggerating with your posts. CBTC has NOT been a total failure on the L. First of all, the L line isn't even 100% CBTC/ATO so you can't say if it's a failure or not until both of those have happened, which will be when the R160s get CBTC.
Originally Posted By: Q89LCL
well good speech the L needs its terminal Redone with more tracks and same goes for Rockaway pk.

Why do they need more tracks? They're just fine with the number of tracks they have now. They just need the tracks to extend past the station. And how does the L not need CBTC if it's one of the most crowded lines in the system? Of course it needs CBTC. The line was running at capacity and still couldn't meet passenger demand. You don't have to wait 4-5 trains to get on the L either. You don't even have to do that on the 4/5/6. You can get on the 2nd train, if not the 1st.

And the only reason the 6 and 7 have lower headways is that both of the lines run over capacity as well. Not to mention that they are basically two services combined in one, and local station headways are twice that of the headways of both lines in Manhattan.
Originally Posted By: R32_3348
Originally Posted By: R160Etrain
Yes of course those transfers are used, but they do absolutely NOTHING to alleviate crowding on the L. If the 7/<7> had useless transfers like the L, the flushing line would be much more crowded.

If the transfers did NOTHING to help the L, then the transfers weren't used at all. These transfer points do get crowded so you can't say they don't help the L. They don't necessarily help it very much, but they still help.
Originally Posted By: R160Etrain
Maybe if the MTA ever figures out that the problem with L line is the terminals and the L FINALLY runs 2-3 min headway then trains should be less crowded. CBTC on the L line has obviously been a total failure ON the Canarsie Line. There is NO POINT in putting future technology on the Canarsie Line if it has prehistoric caveman terminals. For that they could have just worked on testing out CBTC on the Queens Blvd first, a line that ACTUALLY needs CBTC. I dont care if they took a time machine and got technology from Star Wars and added it on the L, no matter how advance the Canarsie Line would get unless the terminals are fixed, the L will always be crowded, L riders will always have to let 4-5 trains go by and the L will always runs 4-6 headways. The (6) and & (7) lines run more frequent than the L and they dont even have CBTC!
You really need to stop exaggerating with your posts. CBTC has NOT been a total failure on the L. First of all, the L line isn't even 100% CBTC/ATO so you can't say if it's a failure or not until both of those have happened, which will be when the R160s get CBTC.
Originally Posted By: Q89LCL
well good speech the L needs its terminal Redone with more tracks and same goes for Rockaway pk.

Why do they need more tracks? They're just fine with the number of tracks they have now. They just need the tracks to extend past the station. And how does the L not need CBTC if it's one of the most crowded lines in the system? Of course it needs CBTC. The line was running at capacity and still couldn't meet passenger demand. You don't have to wait 4-5 trains to get on the L either. You don't even have to do that on the 4/5/6. You can get on the 2nd train, if not the 1st.

And the only reason the 6 and 7 have lower headways is that both of the lines run over capacity as well. Not to mention that they are basically two services combined in one, and local station headways are twice that of the headways of both lines in Manhattan.


Didnt know L wasnt 100% CBTC. Thx for explaining. But still, Queens Blvd Line would have been better suited for CBTC than the Canarsie Line.

As for the transfers, while they are useful, they dont convince a lot of Canarsie riders to get off the L.

Also at Rockaway Park, i think another issue with the Canarsie terminal is that the crossing tracks or "X" tracks are too far from the Canasie terminal.

http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigbklyn-2.png

Correct me if im wrong but isnt this the same issue with the E train at Jamaica Center where the crossing tracks are too far from jamaica Center?

Plus the crossing track close to Rockaway Parkway only allows L trains to leave the station from the northbound track to the southbound track, but not vice versa, why they didnt build another crossing track to allow incoming L trains to switch from the northbound track to the southbound track doesnt make sense.

Overall, even though the L is heavily used, it doesnt need CBTC, at least for now. It justs needs better terminals, then that's it, problem solved. Lines that do need CBTC NOW is the Lexington Av line and the Queens Blvd Line.

Top
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Moderator:  Chemmy, Q89LCL 
Newest Members
Natethekid39, UBB_Support, perrierberet, Meagan, zakir
4367 Registered Users
Who's Online
1 registered (FamousNYLover), 62 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Shout Box

Forum Stats
4367 Members
20 Forums
26635 Topics
499334 Posts

Max Online: 464 @ 04/24/08 04:14 PM