Armandito

8 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Don't know why, but I see this as being the most likely outcome for a Atlantic Avenue Subway Conversion, it could also make an RBB connection a lot easier IMO:

 

For the Rockaway extension, I'd keep current service as is and replace the Rockaway Park with an extension of an SAS route from Manhattan.

On 11/19/2020 at 8:23 AM, mrsman said:

I do like the idea of using the Atlantic branch for a subway.  Direct Brooklyn to Jamaica service is a big plus.

If there is funding for a new East River tunnel, then it seems like the best option would be a  connection.  Lower Manhattan - Downtown Brooklyn - East New York - Jamaica as an express subway with few stops in between (just places where there would be transfers to other subway lines).

If no new East River tunnel is built, but small landside connecting tunnels are allowed, then I envision something along the following:

 and  feed the Montague tunnel, with  continuing to Bay Ridge, but  taking over the Fulton local tracks.  [Most who envision this connection do it by way of the Transit Museum and using a tunnel along Clinton St.]

A Spring Street tunnel to connect 8th Ave local trains to the Williamsburg Bridge.  This means the M will run on 8th Ave local instead of 6th Ave, allowing for all of the 6th Ave trains to use the Rutgers street tunnel.  This would allow the  trains to continue to the Culver line and the  trains (which will take the place of M along 6th Ave) becoming the Fulton express.

[Extrapolating the above further, means  and  will enter Queens along the 63rd street tunnel and M and  along the 53rd street tunnel.  Whether this is further deinterlined along Queens Blvd can be decided independently, but my preference would have M and E as the QBL locals and F and V as the QBL expresses.]

As teh Fulton line would now be served by  and ,  and  will be available for the Atlantic Express.  8th Ave express, through the Cranberry tunnel and then a new tunnel in Brooklyn.  The tunnel will be along Adams-Boreum-Atlantic to connect the High Street station with Atlantic/Flatubush and possibly a new station in between to service Downtown Brooklyn.   to service Atlantic/Flatbush - either Franklin or Nostrand (there is already a station at Nostrand, but Franklin allows a connection to   ) - ENY station (with connection to ) - Woodhaven (to connect with some future Rockaway Park service) - and then Jamaica.  Alternatively, the Atlantic line can branch with half the trains ending in Jamaica and the other half servicing and supplementing the Rockaways via Howard Beach.

 

I wouldn't overcomplicate things like you're doing now. I'd just leave current subway service as is and just extend the along the Atlantic Branch to Sutphin Blvd.

50 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

Another problem you have is the  Express crossing over to the local track for Astoria and the local  crossing over to the express track for 63 St - 76 St - Broadway - Northern Blvd, which cuts capacity on the Broadway line tremendously 

Better yet, you should only consider a Northern Boulevard subway line as its own route as I mentioned earlier. You'll undermine use of its full capacity if you choose to have it as a trunk line serving multiple routes.

13 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

 

While i think this plan is *fine* if I ignore the building portions because that's a just a flaw in most plans anyways. This is pretty much adding 4 branch lines on Broadway (2nd, Astoria, QBL, and your Northern Blvd.) It's not really changing anything and the amount of trains is limited due to  service on the Local Tracks. Now the Canarsie line being extended to Northern is something I can get behind (being the is looping via 10th Av.). As long as the  and are on separate tracks I'll be fine. But it'd be better as a two tracked line serving either service or it's own independent service.

Leave the alone. Extending it in any way, shape, or form will doom the entire line to become unreliable and serpentine like the currently is. Doesn't help the fact that the has already been overcrowded thanks to the gentrification of Bushwick and Williamsburg.

Thoughts on this?

-Expand B6 LTD service to operate 7 days a week (B6 local service would continue to operate overnight) 

-Establish a new route between Avenue J/Coney Island Av and JFK Airport by extending current B6 local short-turns at the Rockaway Parkway station to the latter, with the new route being the successor to daytime B6 local service

-Former B6 local buses that operated to Harway Av would be converted to B6 LTD buses, making local stops west of Coney Island Av

3 hours ago, Lex said:

That came about less than a year after the FRA was formed.

Any proposal using that ROW in any fashion will be affected by the regulations. If they don't try to stack it (itself an expensive endeavor), they'll either need to give the bypass a wide berth or install barriers (mentioned in the Rockaway Beach Branch study).

The more feasible way to go would be to install barriers along the breadth of the bypass. I also recently suggested building the stop at Woodside as high elevated platforms right above the existing and LIRR stations, though I'm not so sure if this is the best idea.

17 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Wait I though the original plan was to put it on one of the two LIRR trackways once used by LIRR Rockaway Beach Line. Would’ve that also triggered FRA compliance or no?

It did, but that was after the LIRR abandoned service on the Rockaway Beach Branch in 1962. Even so, that still wouldn't have triggered FRA compliance because the trackways of the bypass wouldn't be connecting to the Main Line in any way, even though they'd run parallel. Think of the layout of trackage along Sixth Avenue; the trains run adjacent to PATH between W 4 St and 34 St but neither of the two trunk lines connect with each other.

14 minutes ago, Lex said:

At this point, any LIRR ROW-based bypass is nothing more than a pipe dream, which is in no small part due to FRA regulations.

In the original 1968 plan, the QBL Bypass was to be relatively isolated from the Main Line on its own trackways. No need for FRA regulation compliance there.

36 minutes ago, mrsman said:

So let's propose something simpler with fewer changes.   PW-63rd-Bwy Express, no longer serving Astoria.  Increased service to meet Astoria's demand.  The additional  trains (above the capcaty of the City Hall curves) to terminate at City Hall.

I personally wouldn't do that; the spare capacity on 63rd could be better utilized for a bypass along the Main Line ROW between Sunnyside Yard and Forest Hills-71 Av, which could also spare room for a subway line along the LIE to Fresh Meadows (as I outlined here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18jFWx4hiotMYgqkD5i3yJtylRH_0EBa3&cid=mp&cv=50pJvT5O5ys.en.). This could also pave the way for a new SAS service from the Financial District to Queens.

Should the PW Branch ever be converted to subway use, it would be better off as its own service than as a trunk line serving multiple routes or an existing one. A tunnel extension under 50th Street would certainly be ideal for a potential subway route along the PW Branch.

22 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That would be an interesting idea; the alternative would be to slap a flying junction on the   express tracks where the LIRR tracks cross Queens Blvd, then bring the  up on the outer two tracks between 51 Av and 57 Av (then raise the  up once you get past the spot where the Rockaway branch breaks off).

My plan closely mimics the original 1968 proposal from the Program for Action, in case you didn't know. Similar but with a few modifications.

15 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I mean, that's possible, but the question comes down to what tracks you want to use where. The LIRR mainline is currently six tracks to Woodside, two of which are dedicated to PW branch service. You could disconnect those two from the PW branch and extend them down QBL as subway tracks if you so chose; I'm just not sure that's a good idea. I'd also rather see a four-track Jamaica corridor and additional corridor service down Northern Blvd and/or Astoria Blvd than jump straight to six-tracking QBL at the moment; it's not a bad idea to create a QBL bypass but I don't really want to see all those eggs in the  and 's basket.

There are two unused trackways located on the outermost sides of the LIRR Main Line; these were abandoned since the Rockaway Beach Branch closed down in 1962. The segment west of the junction with PW could be built as an el, with the Woodside station being built above the existing and LIRR platforms. For the LIE Line, the tracks would go outdoors via a portal near Lefrak City and also become an el, more or less in the style of AirTrain JFK along the Van Wyck (it would be depressed along the segments where the highway rises above ground; these would be the sections passing Flushing Meadows-Corona Park and around Utopia Pkwy).

5 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Setting up the PW line that way with additional stops at Junction Blvd and Broadway basically creates a bidirectional express and an extension for Flushing, with your only costs being the two new stations plus the passage from Elmhurst Av  to the new stop at Broadway and a fleet of Americanized Class 345s. If you want to get really clever just branch it off from the LIRR just before Sunnyside and tie it to the 63 St tunnel; route the  through the new tunnel, and use existing rolling stock on the line to provide service to NE Queens while freeing 2 Av up to operate as a separate trunk line.

@engineerboy6561 My plan calls for the LIRR right-of-way along Sunnyside to be used for a bypass parallel to the QBL between Queensbridge and Forest Hills, which would be used by trains; the existing QBL express tracks would be used by and trains via 8 and 2 Avs, respectively. Woodhaven Blvd would be converted to an express station with provisions for subway service along the LIE to 188 St, to be served by trains on weekdays and trains during other times. 63 Dr and 67 Av would only be served by trains during the day, but this would be compensated by the addition of Woodhaven as a new express stop. How does this sound?

9 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Hudson River bridge, tunnel, PATH train and bus trips dropped like a rock earlier this year, as did flights out of the airports. And the PA still can afford this? Wow...

Neither would I. Either that, or the PA’s got a whole orchard of money trees growing at their main offices. Nearly $4 billion for the giant mall that looks like something out of a 60s or 70s sci-fi movie. 

You’ve got two 2nd Ave services going via the 63rd St Tunnel. In addition to the ?

No, just one SAS service. My plan calls for the LIE Line to follow this service pattern:

Weekdays: to 188 St via 53 St/QB Local, to 179 St via 63 St/QB Express, skipping 75 Av, Briarwood, Sutphin Blvd, and 169 St

Late nights and weekends: replaces to 188 St; no service to 179 St

If the QBL Bypass and LIE Line were already on the books: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18jFWx4hiotMYgqkD5i3yJtylRH_0EBa3&ll=40.71225279709198%2C-74.02131743453633&z=11

On 10/28/2020 at 2:46 PM, Theli11 said:

Yes, but I'd think that the  or train with  on Astoria would be a better candidate for the Super Express rather than the SAS. It would be better than the  since it will have less connections on Second Av. than the Broadway Line which runs through the center of Manhattan. 

Made a revised proposal with the serving the LIE Line:

The service patterns would be as follows:

rerouted via QBL Bypass at all times

rerouted from 71 Av to 188 St on weekdays; late night and weekend service unchanged

New subway line operates from Hanover Sq at all times, making express stops in Queens. Weekdays to 179 St (making express stops east of 71 Av); other times to 188 St to replace trains.

and service remains unchanged

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be fair, there's not a lot there other than houses

To more directly answer the question:

Eastern Queens today, especially Bayside, is full of middle to upper-middle class families that wanted the suburban dream (yard, quiet streets, good schools) without having to move to the suburbs or Staten Island, and still be a short drive from relatively dense areas (namely, Flushing.) That, or empty nesters who moved to Queens 50 years ago for the same reasons.

While there is a massive generational shift among racial lines (namely, White to Asian), and newer residents are more supportive of denser development, what they mean by denser development is generally something ~5 stories, at most 8-10 stories. Nothing crazy, and still has to fit in with the whole bougie suburb vibe. If you tell these people you are going to dig up their nice quiet street for a subway line, they will sue and start harassing their electeds faster than you can put up posters saying where the public meetings are. 

For this and other reasons (namely, developable areas, convenient bus access and turnaround areas) you pretty much have to stick to transportation corridors that are already noisy, so that would be the Port Washington branch, Northern Blvd, the LIE, Hillside, the LIRR Main Line, and any other big radial streets coming out of Jamaica.

(Also last I checked, in the rough vicinity of PW and Northern, busiest buses are Q27, Q12/13, and Q28, in that order, which would also suggest a southerly alignment.)

IIRC, a few people in one of my FB groups have even suggested rebuilding the abandoned Bayside Yard and adding extra service on the PW Branch instead of building a new subway line along Northern. I'm not very enthusiastic about this plan because of the different fare structure on the LIRR.

Which of the Bayside alignments would work best for my proposal: straight along Northern Boulevard or via Crocheron and 35th Avenues?

Thoughts?

 Second Avenue Local/Queens Boulevard Super Express: Hanover Square to Fresh Meadows (all times) or 179 St (all times except nights)

*Woodhaven Blvd converted to express stop

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

No? It was still the H&M Railroad in its day. And the City paid the entire costs of constructing the Sixth Avenue IND.

Wikipedia says this about the H&M's "contribution":

So not only did the H&M not do anything, the city had to compensate them, because they disrupted an active train line that would otherwise be taking paying customers.

That's unfortunate.

On the other hand, had a Northern Boulevard subway been built at the time the other IND lines opened (during the Depression), it would've been a completely different story.

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

To add onto this, the Steinway tubes were originally built for streetcars, so they have probably been shaved back to the extent possible.

I think this bears repeating, but the western portion of this (e.g. west of Northern Blvd  is simply not constructible. The last time the subway tried building around/under active rail lines it bankrupted the IND.

Didn't the PANYNJ assist with part of the construction of the Sixth Avenue Line?

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

Expensive, especially since it's going UNDER 36th and the QB Express. I don't want it to have express service if it's going to be spaced out as it usually is. Three tracks is good if there's no express service.. 4 tracks for express service. You don't need it if the stops are going to be spaced out like it is currently.

Just for reference:

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

 

If we are going to do three tracks, why not go the extra mile and do 4 tracks?

Because that would require interlining to some extent, and the general trend in recent years is for two-track lines with stations spaced further apart. As you can see in my route map here (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1xxOviuFLs1P8LiFK-DurKk2yPp54nKbV&ll=40.76156963855868%2C-73.88143614999998&z=10), my proposal has fewer stops between LIC and Flushing than the train. While not the fastest way to get to Manhattan, fewer stops and CBTC treatment would pay off accordingly.

(Note that the stops at 36 St and Queens Plaza would be built underneath the existing platforms along the QBL.)

11 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Beneficial for who? I think it's better that it's better as it is now. Both and trains run perfectly fine because they're isolated lines (isolated as in they share minimal trackage with other lines). I think it'll cost MORE getting them converted for benefits that might not even exist. This goes for any other conversions of IRT to B-Division. It'll cost more than you'll get out of it.

 

Which is why I designed my Northern Boulevard subway line ( train) to be its own route instead of a trunk line serving multiple services. You get to maximize route capacity and there's much less propensity for delays due to the lack of interlining.

(Needless to say, I got rid of the third track in the latest revision of my proposal and settled for just two tracks like the SAS.)

9 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Before we talk about building new lines, let's make sure the underwater tunnels aren't under capacity - namely 63 St and Rutgers. Regarding Rutgers, the Williamsburg Bridge connection to 6 Ave is of the same vein, and it should probably be deactivated if the city / MTA moves forward its development plans around the  stations.

I don't think that's an option at all. The in its current form is too popular to route back to Nassau Street and Ridgewood commuters would be livid if this were to happen. They want Midtown, not downtown service--especially when taking into account how much ridership trends on Myrtle have changed over the past decades or so. We should leave the Williamsburg connection alone and focus on building that transfer at Bowery.

23 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

crosstown elimination on Queens Boulevard was definitely snuck in through the back door, and was effective long before it was official (the official reason being that the only did this on weekends, when most GOs were)

trains used to be the West Side express. I can't imagine revoking that was popular in its day.

The 63 St and replacement with the was also not popular.

The part was mostly justified as it has been already been unpopular with QBL riders before getting the boot.

For the part, it probably had to do with switch reconfiguration at 96th. That's just my inference though.

For the part, it would've been better if the made the sacrifice by building the QBL bypass instead of connecting it to an already congested subway artery. Now everyone seems to agree that the should be axed from the QBL for good...

And let's not forget that conductors had to literally advertise the in announcements because it was so underutilized, not to mention the natural human instinct of automatically associating express trains with faster service even if there's little or no time saved compared to the local.