Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Veteran Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


39 Excellent

1 Follower

About vanshnookenraggen

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It doesn't matter if it's local or not. Locals aren't supposed to be for riding every-single-stop all the way. They are to distribute riders along the route which is exactly the market QueensLink is trying to serve. Even if a rider was to ride it local all the way to midtown it would still shave off 15 min. Realistically, they are going to transfer to the express. So what's the problem? You make merge issues sound like a zero-sum problem when they aren't. Yes, merge issues cause delays and reduce capacity. But the system still functions; it would just function better with these problems solved! You also make it sound all dramatic that "people are going to realize that service isn't really better" when if you ask anyone in Rockaway they'll tell you it can't get any worse. RBB works regardless of deinterlining, and it would work even better with deinterlining. All of these small issues don't disqualify the overall project.
  2. This is something you and others repeatedly bring up, but I question why you think this is the case. The is currently 18.26 miles long which ranks it 15th in overall length. The is longer at 21.84 miles and ranks 10th. So to claim they are already "too long" is... odd and incorrect. Extending the to Far Rockaway would make it 31 miles long. This would now rank 2nd overall after the to Rockaway Park at 32 miles (assuming the A is rerouted there full time). Is 31 miles too long? I think that is up for debate. Extending the would certainly make that the longest train in the system at 34.91miles. This is one of the reasons QueensLink proposes the over the . At least one sensible idea I've heard here is to reroute the along QBL and extend that instead. From Whitehall to Far Rockaway would be 25.95 miles, placing it 5th longest overall. My issue here is that the would be lacking direct yard access (although it certainly could use the Rockaway Park Yard) and the would have to be returned to Astoria (also lacking yard access). Another good reason for using the would be that the QueensLink is really only a time saver if you are coming/going to/from midtown and northern Queens. Therefore, the A will still be the dominant train to/from Lower Manhattan. It doesn't really add anything to have the serve both of these areas. The would at least swing off to Williamsburg. But the could be a better compromise. Merges are certainly an issue, but this is a separate problem entirely. I'm fully in favor of deinterlining to remove as many merges as possible. But to suggest that we can't extend the subway because of current merges is a pretty flimsy excuse. I guess we shouldn't extend 2nd Ave either since the Q merges with the N!
  3. Unrelated to this thread, but may I ask, is this really an issue? How many R riders are really taking it local all the way to Union Sq (and beyond)? Don't most of these riders transfer to an N or D (or another line) at the first chance they get? It would then suggest that the only people left ARE in fact riding to Lower Manhattan. Therefore, the J isn't really such a bad idea. I'm not saying it should be done, mind you, but just that people assume a lot of things without looking at how riders actually use the system.
  4. The only things actually on the ROW itself are parking lots. Everything else is separate and private and would no way interfere with the ROW. The section by Union Turnpike is, admitidly, close to homes. But this could be dealt with via a small box tunnel. It wouldn't cost anywhere near as much as a TBM since this is a ROW with no utilities. Shallow cut-and-cover. Heck, they even have special TBMs that would make it less disruptive.
  5. Every word of this is wrong. The price was inflated not because of construction costs but "soft costs" like contingency. Read the report itself http://thequeenslink.org/the-report/ Secondly, the ROW is ENTIRELY city owned and very little, if anything, has been encroached upon. There are a few businesses in the southern section which have month-to-month leases with the city that can be moved. And if there are any homeowners who have built garages on the land then the city is entirely within its right to kick them off. Finally, there is unused capacity on the QBL. The local tracks only run at most 20tph. The limiting factor is the Forest Hills terminal which can't turn more than that. If the RBB is built, up to an additional 10tph could run on the QBL local tracks since they wouldn't have to deal with the Forest Hills terminal. I suggest that the return to Forest Hills.
  6. In a sense, yes. However the design of the interlocking at Gold St is really what causes the problems. Operators are required to stop and physically switch their tracks and this requires all trains behind them, on both lines, to stop. The interlocking itself is designed like a mini roller coaster which slows trains too. Automating this process will speed things up. Deinterlining will speed it up even more since there are no merges. In the case of 2nd Ave/63rd St the merge wouldn't be as bad as Gold St but it would still be a merge none the less. The original 2nd Ave track layout (from the 70s that is) was supposed to account for this: https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?/img/maps/2ave-tr.gif With two sets of tracks at 72nd and 57th St stations you could manage the merges just fine. 72nd was then truncated to a three-track station (which would have also worked ok) but this was cut down to the present two-track station due to costs. Luckily we still haven't built Phase 3 yet and can still design it for a better merge. One issue with the 72nd St station was that it was too wide for the avenue. Building the 55th St station (location as proposed in the official Phase 3) with two levels, ala Archer Ave, would allow for much better merge ops and keep the station envelope safely under 2nd Ave. This is an alternative I've considered and one which might make more sense. I don't love terminating 6th Ave locals at 57th St but from a service level standpoint it'd be ok. By that I mean you aren't ever going to have nor need 30tph from Culver+Myrtle so 57th St can work fine capacity wise. Lets say 2nd Ave runs through Montague and down 4th Ave. Then the N/Q can be switched to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach (B/D via Brighton). 2nd Ave becomes a nice redundant trunk for these trains if there is a problem along Broadway. Same for if there is a problem along lower 2nd Ave, those trains can just run via Broadway. It's basically the same pairing as the and today. There still is 6th Ave redundancy with my plan, just a couple more moving parts. I'd say probably the only bad part of or to QBL exp is that you are sacrificing space on the trains. s use the longer IND cars while the or use the shorter BMT cars. If we keep to the QBL local this isn't much of a problem (as the is today) but it's a net loss for the express. I'm still a fan of having the and be the QBL exp via 53rd instead but there are arguments against this. 8th Ave local trains aren't as packed out as the express trains so you don't need 30tph to WTC. This is why I have the as a rush hour only train. The local will be plenty. It's another reason why I prefer and trains be the QBL exp so that they can take advantage of the extra capacity on Fulton St. Having 4 potential terminals (Euclid, Lefferts, Rock Park and Far Rock) gives you the flexibility to terminate more trains, and you need those more trains on QBL exp over anything else. Under this plan the would be cut off from a yard so it's a non starter. I'd argue the would still run to CI via 4th Ave local and keep 2nd Ave either terminating at Broad St or short turning some trains at Whitehall and interlining 2nd Ave down to CI. Obviously the last one is the least ideal. I gotta say, for all the time I've spent thinking about 2nd Ave and subway improvements, I hadn't come up with this. It's certainly not ideal but it is practical enough to be looked at. Assuming that a 2nd Ave/61st St station is built then the connecting mezzanine between it and the Lex/63rd St station would be about 800' This is less than the transfer between 8th Ave and 7th Ave at Times Sq so it's got precedent. The question then becomes just how many people are we now forcing to walk 1,600' every day? The Achille's Heel of 2nd Ave is that it doesn't really run through the heart of the CBD in midtown; rather it skirts it to the east. There are far more jobs between 7th Ave and Madison Ave than between Madison Ave and 2nd Ave so you really do have a sizeable demand for direct 6th or 7th Ave service from both the UES and Queens. So forcing more riders to make that long transfer seems to me to be a net loss. This is why, even after proposing to deinterline most of the subway network, I still see some benefit to reverse branching up 2nd Ave and into Queens. It ain't perfect but it solves the problem in the best way we can given our network limitations. That said, one thing I'm looking at is how to design Phase 3 with the right provisions for either express tracks to the Bronx or a new tunnel to Queens. At the VERY LEAST, for multiple reasons, Phase 3 must feature four-tracks between 42nd St and 63rd St. If you've got that then you future proof yourself enough to where we can put up with reverse branching while we watch how the future demand plays out.
  7. Theoretical limit? There are other factors involved in capacity like power, acceleration, and dwell times. So maybe we can't hit 36tph. I hope NYCT plans on stress testing CBTC on QBL to see what's possible.
  8. The first point is correct but the second is wrong, and the third kinda depends. Or rather, the second is wrong if the first is true. What I mean by that is if you're through running all trains past Forest Hills to 179th then trying to regularly terminate some trains at FH is going to gum up the works. Hell, all locals already terminate there NOW *and it gums up the works. The whole point of sending locals to 179 is that you can turn them much quicker, thus more capacity. QBL local is limited by the fact that it takes 3 min for a terminating train at FH to clear the track. 179 offers more flexibility with an additional track but if an express is using that track it gets trickier. As for the third point, the poor switch location in the tunnel keeps capacity on Archer at about 12tph. So technically two lower frequency lines could use it, but most likely just one could. If you really wanted to use FH as a terminal and through station you'd want to build a new set of tracks outside the local platform. Terminating locals would use the current tracks while through runners used the outside. Is that really worth the extra few tph, idk? But to answer the overall question: each track is theoretically capable of running 30tph * 2 tracks = 60tph. The terminals at 179 (60tph) + Archer (12tph) = 72tph. Luckily with CBTC bosting track capacity to 36tph * 2 tracks = 72tph!
  9. Yes but there is a caveat here: Queens Blvd needs 10 cars @ 75' where the BMT side of things can only handle 10 cars at 60'. Upgrading the BMT to 660' would be expensive and unnecessary. With this in mind I much prefer the V to be a QBL local instead. Under this design the would have to be local as well. Alternatively the V could use 75' cars and terminate at the proposed Chatham Sq-Chambers St station which would have to be designed with either a third track or lower level. I'm a fan of at least a third track here *anyway* so it's not an outrageous plan. While we can argue for days which service would be best as the local or express, I think that the 41 Av/NB infill station at least offers enough transfer flexibility to render that argument less important.
  10. Once I get going I can't stop I got to thinking if the last plan could be made better and I came up with this. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle are the same as they are now and the connects to the Montague Tunnel while the runs via a new tunnel to Fulton St. I have the :V: no longer branching in Brooklyn but instead has the option of terminating at Chambers St or continuing as the West End peak express. What I like about this plan is there are even fewer moving parts, less interlining AND now Brighton Beach Line riders have at least one place to now transfer to 2nd Ave where as before they couldn't. The trade off is that now Myrtle riders lose a 2nd Ave connection. However it might be possible to have a new mezzanine connection between Grand St and Bowery stations so that at least Jamaica Line riders could have a connection to 2nd Ave. Myrtle riders will have to have a 3 seat ride... or just take the L instead? The reason for the switch, or the switch in the first place, is that the famous Atlantic Ave provisions south of Whitehall station in the Montague Tunnel are in a tricky location from a construction point of view. This nifty schematic shows how the tunnels from Broadway and Broad St merge underwater. In the drawing to the right you can see the provisions in checked lines at the bottom left. The issue is that these provisions are sandwiched in between the two South Ferry Terminal buildings (old and new). I bring this up because it creates expensive technical difficulties. Engineers today want to build tunnels as easy as possible. This is why the current "design" of Phase 4 of 2nd Ave has a tunnel up to 100' below lower Manhattan so to simply avoid all off this above. The issue is that these proposed DEEP stations end up costing $1b or so. The whole point of rerouting 2nd Ave down Nassau St is to avoid all of this cost. But doing this eats up all the space in the Montague Tunnel, space which will conflict with the . The nice thing is that you still don't immediately need a new tunnel. But when you do it gets tricky. If you built the new tunnel off the Montague provisions you'd have to shut down Slip 3 at South Ferry and that miiiight be a problem. So the alternative is that a new tunnel connects to Broad St instead. As you can see there is nothing there so cordoning off the area for a cofferdam dam is simpler. But this forces all 2nd Ave trains to use Fulton St. Not the end of the world but having the run down 4th Ave gives the borough better balance in terms of Manhattan service. via 4th Ave allows transfers to every other downtown Brooklyn service ( - the of course ) where as the via Fulton gives riders fewer options to transfer. An added bonus here is that you can build new switches at Grand St and give the B/D a redundant connection to Brooklyn, one which they lack now. The reverse problem is true on the Brooklyn side: a tunnel off of Broad St then has to snake around the existing tunnels to reach Court St station on the Fulton Line where as a tunnel off of the Montague provisions has a more space to run straight into Court St. So, as I see it, the Montague provisions offer an overall better connection but have a tricky construction job at Whitehall. But you know, this is so far off in the future maybe we will have a new South Ferry building at that point and the whole issue will be moot.
  11. This could all work well for Brooklyn. But Queens has serious demand to Midtown East. This plan wouldn't even allow for a transfer to 2nd Ave unless it was run up 3rd Ave (which isn't the worst idea). Alternatively Phase 3 of 2nd Ave, at least between 63rd and 42nd, could (*should*) have 4 tracks. That way you can connect to 63rd St Tunnel first and then when you want to expand/deinterline you can thread a new tunnel into 2nd Ave south of 63rd St. North of there... do whatever? No clear, easy solutions here.
  12. I mean on the Jamaica Line is still a good idea. But even with the capacity improvements you get with deinterlining and CBTC the Jamaica Line isn't going to be able to handle and trains; I think turning the J into basically a shuttle isn't the best plan even with a redesigned Essex St station. And since this plan would cut off all of the Jamaica/Myrtle Lines from a 2nd Ave transfer you'd really have to prove that such a switch would have overwhelming benefits. With this newer plan at least you've got direct east side service and transfers to 6th Ave service.
  13. Looking at my old work, pre-deinterlining, is hard to stomach. The whole thing now seems far to over thought. @RR503 have gone back and forth on what to do with 2nd Ave now that the lack of express tracks has cemented it firmly into an interlined system. I drew up this map which is based off the deinterlined plan (which now becomes a REinterlined plan!) I think this is how you can build 2nd Ave into the network by doing the least amount of interlined damage and least amount of new construction. Broadway Express trains get cut back to 57th St as they once did. Instead of reworking all of Chrystie St (which, lets be honest, will be a huge pain) 2nd Ave will branch with one track continuing south along the current trajectory (Grand St and south) and one connecting to the Williamsburg Bridge tracks used by the . The swings down Park Row and links up with the Nassau St Subway but will require a new tunnel between Broad St and Court St (NYTM) to connect to IND Fulton. In the old plan I figured you could just hack the new connection into the Montague Tunnel but with a deinterlined plan you don't have the extra capacity anymore and I'm not so sure the grades of such a connection would really work. The nice thing with this plan is that if we don't need/can't afford a new tunnel then Broad St is a fine terminal for the time being. Instead of the up 2nd Ave the , taking over from the M today, will reroute up there. On the Brooklyn end of things the takes over Culver Local while the goes full express. No plan is going to be perfect but I fell like this plan at least keeps the interline merges to an acceptable level. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle aren't going to see any deinterlining in the bigger plan so this just keeps shuffles the cards, so to speak. We could just send the back to Chambers St and have the second 2nd Ave service go to Euclid, though I'm not really a fan of that. Queens Blvd gets reinterlined but that basically has to happen unless there is a brand new trunk line built. Having a direct east side train will do wonders for delays on the Lex from transfers so maybe it's worth the trade off? What to do with the Broadway Express is open to whatever future needs look like. I've drawn in a couple ideas, a new tunnel to Queens for a Northern Blvd Line or Super-express, and even an express line under Central Park to take over the 6 (why not!)
  14. I figure I should jump in and defend some of my choices. First off, the argument that the E shouldn't be extended to Fulton and Rockaway is moot because from Jamaica to Far Rock is slightly shorter than the current A from 207 to Far Rock. If you want to make the argument that the line would still be too long, I fell you but within the scope of this project (ie no big expansion) there really isn't more you can do. You argue that there is a correlation between East NY and Harlem but in none of my census research have I found anything to support this. I'm sure there are a few people who do make this commute but not so many that a direct OSR makes all the difference. Just because the demographics are the same doesn't mean the job markets are. What I do find is that many work close to home or in the major CBDs (downtown Brooklyn, lower Manhattan, midtown Manhattan, and Jamaica). Similarly, West Harlem and Washington Heights riders primarily work close to home (Columbia or New York-Presbyterian) or in midtown with a smaller percentage in lower Manhattan. So for uptown, the express makes the most sense. If you really have to get downtown, switch at W 4th St. It won't add any more time. One thing that I have come around on is Queens Blvd. In my post I presented the as the local via 63rd St and express via 53rd. Many people have pointed out that this strands some riders. My main concern with swapping the services is that the M runs with shorter trains due to the platforms on the Jamaica and Myrtle Lines. I do propose extending these but as a separate project. Should the Myrtle platforms be extended first then I would be happy with express and I think it would be a better alternative. Additionally, I've looked at extending the up to Queens Plaza and beyond. The Twitter thread is here: The long short of it is that because of the location of the existing 63rd St Tunnel connection, any track extension or station expansion that would host a terminal for the would require complex engineering and most likely expensive land taking (not just the land but we are talking about heavy concrete warehouses). This isn't to say that extending the isn't feasible (all the alternatives I presented are) but that they would all be very expensive and probably not worth the cost simply to have the terminate north of Queens Plaza. However, if this was part of a larger Northern Blvd Subway extension the costs may be justified. My solution was to simply add an infill station on the 63rd St Tunnel at 41st Ave right before the tunnel connects with QBL. Early plans for the super-express had a station here and given the growth of LIC I think an infill station would make sense. This way all riders can change no matter the local or express service.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.