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.

Caelestor

Veteran Member
  • Content count

    411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

155 Excellent

About Caelestor

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

428 profile views
  1. Caelestor

    Second Avenue Subway Discussion

    The are actually running only ~28 tph at peak, though 40 tph might be achievable with CBTC. Given that riders on QBL always transfer to the express trains at the first opportunity, extending the to 179 St may not be the most effective solution. Hence the QBL bypass proposal to reroute local riders east of Forest Hills from QB itself. On the other hand, extending the down Union Turnpike to a better terminal seems like a pretty good idea if the QBL bypass is built. Agreed on the extension. I thought we wanted to send all the bypass capacity to Forest Hills? In any case, the MTA probably needs to figure out where along the East River should new tunnels be built to support all these new lines from Queens.
  2. Caelestor

    LIRR And MNRR Random Thoughts Thread

    This blog and I absolutely agree with you on the Central Branch, but politically it's way too difficult. I also agree that Oyster Bay needs to be converted into a shuttle or light-rail system but that's more feasible to achieve. LIRR should take a page from MNR and stop underserving stations. Given how competitive the train is versus driving in NYC, frequent service is more important than speed. Every branch (except Oyster Bay and West Hempstead which should probably be demoted to shuttles) should get 30-minute off-peak service with some exceptions: Woodside, Mineola, Hicksville: All trains should stop Forest Hills / Kew Gardens: Given the QBL weekend work, 4 tph minimum would help a lot.
  3. Caelestor

    Second Avenue Subway Discussion

    FWIW the two ideal spots for new LIRR stations are Sunnyside Transfer / 39 St, universal MNR / ESA / LIRR transfer point serving the future Sunnyside yards redevelopment. Court Square / Thomson Ave, where a lot of development in LIC is and transfer point for the . The LIC terminal is too close to the waterfront but as diesel services are gradually withdrawn, the yard could be closed and redeveloped. An underground station there would be great, but unlike Hoboken it would be difficult to construct since the East River tunnels are already there. As for HBP, it is in a decent location but it could be replaced by the Court Square station so that all trains to NYP can serve LIC. As for new subway capacity in Queens, there seems to be 3 proposals floating around: QBL bypass: Does little to serve new areas, but most people agree this should be built to utilize the existing infrastructure east of Forest Hills. It's the easiest to build, and it has an underused tunnel it can access, i.e. 63 St. I personally think the corridor can support 30 tph, especially if a Union Turnpike branch is built. Northern Blvd: Serves new areas and should significantly relieve the , but by far the most expensive to build of these 3 options because it would be fully underground. It's also unclear how it would enter Manhattan. PW recapture: Extends subway service deep into Queens and simplifies LIRR operations, but also not clear how it would be connected to the existing subway system. The other (political) complication is that unlike Rockaway it leaves the city limits. Today there are 4 track pairs feeding into Harold Junction: Hells Gate, PW, and LIRR Main Line x2. Post-ESA and MNR to Penn, one pair of LIRR Main Line tracks feeds into 63 St and the other pair + HG go to Penn, so PW is the odd one out. Presumably the runs express to reduce congestion at Canal St or the run local and terminate at WTC. Alternatively if 53 St tph is increased with a new service, then there's a possiblity of curtailing the to 207 St - WTC local and running the into Fulton St.
  4. Caelestor

    Second Avenue Subway Discussion

    With its minimal ridership and service hours, LIC should be treated like a stop on the Greenport branch. While HPA has decent ridership, I think ESA will probably divert a lot of the existing ridership transferring to the since they will just get off at GCT instead. As for PW, it makes sense for the branch to be separated from the rest of the LIRR. Like the old Rockaway branch, it serve a lot of stops in NYC proper and runs through more dense neighborhoods. More importantly, it's a branch that takes away capacity from the main line between Sunnyside Junction and Jamaica. That said, the PW and QBL bypass should not be connected at Winfield Junction, since the latter is really the only ROW that can utilize the currently unused half of QBL east of FH and thus it needs all the capacity it can.
  5. Caelestor

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    Many people here overestimate the time savings of express trains and underestimate wait times. During late nights with fewer riders, stop penalties are considerably lower, roughly 30 seconds each. Were the to run local between Jackson Heights and Forest Hills, 6 Ave riders east of Forest Hills would have a trip that takes 2 minutes longer, but all those riders in between would save the transfer penalties. However, I don't think the should run local between Queensbridge and Jackson Heights because ridership at those stops is much less and the trip time penalty is longer, ~4 minutes, because the express tracks take the direct route under Northern Blvd. FWIW I would also advocate for the to stop at 14 St and 23 St because they have high ridership, but 23 St is closed right now and the will be running full-time local starting next year, so the should be reevaluated in 2020. As for deinterlining, there's no point doing so during late nights when all trains are running at 20 minute intervals.
  6. Caelestor

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    Presumably Broadway is the busiest trunk line at night, so it's possible a full-time + full-time over the Bridge could be implemented in the future. Then the could stay express overnights, as I strongly advocate for most high-ridership non-elevated stations to have 10 minute headways at night.
  7. Caelestor

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    Should the run local east of Jackson Heights on late nights? The would be slower by 2 minutes but the busy local stations in that stretch get double the service and transfer penalties are reduced.
  8. Caelestor

    Second Avenue Subway Discussion

    I see QBL having four sections: The slow and mediocre-ridership section between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Ave, with half the stations next to train tracks and freeways The high-ridership section between Roosevelt Ave and Forest Hills, with good mixed-use development The low ridership section between Roosevelt Ave and Jamaica - 179 St with unusually high bus ridership at Union Turnpike and the terminal The high-ridership Archer Ave branch with the LIRR / Airtrain and Jamaica Center transfers The unusually high ridership on that last section is a symptom of how bad LIRR service and fares are. People east of Jamaica and similarly the in Flushing are willing to put up with a twice-as-slow train ride because the subway at least runs frequently. Aside from extending the into Southeastern Queens and giving it a proper terminal, running the LIRR at 15-minute all day headways, especially in conjunction with ESA to GCT, would be the cheapest solution to solving overcrowding at Jamaica Center and Flushing - Main St. That said, QBL doesn't really need a bypass to Forest Hills, but rather a bypass to Jackson Heights. Crowding is heavy on all tracks east of Roosevelt Ave but arguably manageable, especially with improved LIRR service. The get overcrowded due to the transfers - turns out that riders are willing to board an overcrowded train to save 4 minutes from their commute. If half the local trains were rerouted into new peak-service express tracks under Northern Blvd between 36 St and 65 St, riders might be less inclined to transfer. I will concede that the Forest Hills bypass is far more straightforward to construct and a much more future-proof way of building an additional line through Queens. On another note, ESA to GCT in theory is an express subway line's worth of capacity to/from Queens and can serve as a relief line for the trains. While nobody trusts the LIRR management to actually do sensible things such as implement 15-minute all day service on the PW branch, the infrastructure to do so will be in place. Back to SAS, ESA is also why the shouldn't be running into Queens: the subway shouldn't build too many lines parallel to the LIRR, which itself should be treated as an express subway system in the vein of other major transit systems around the world.
  9. Caelestor

    Second Avenue Subway Discussion

    To be fair, the QBL bypass was always meant to be an extension of the existing 63 St line, linking up with the local QBL tracks at Forest Hills. Were the bypass to be built and all optimal deinterlining in Manhattan were to be implemented, the service plan would be something like 53 St / QBL express to Jamaica Center or Jamaica - 179 St 63 St / QBL bypass to Forest Hills, QBL local to Jamaica - 179 St QBL local to Forest Hills which would be IMO a significant improvement over today's service. The underserved tracks are the QBL local tracks west of Forest Hills, but Queens Plaza - Roosevelt Ave is a not a very high ridership section and everyone east of Jackson Heights gets off the local trains and transfers to the express trains, which is the primary reason for the QBL's bottleneck there. As for the lower SAS, I agree that it needs to be treated as its own core section. From a geographical perspective, the should be the only service on the full SAS from the Bronx to lower Manhattan / Brooklyn. (As an aside, my fantasy diagrams have the 125 St branch running into Queens as part of the Triboro RX with a transfer at 116 St / 2 Ave and the Broadway express tracks moved to new platforms at 72 St. The latter can be extended east of Flushing via 79 St, Broadway, and Northern Blvd or a LIRR PW branch takeover. I don't claim to know how construction would be feasible.)
  10. Caelestor

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    The already can't handle SAS by itself, seeing as and trains are being rerouted to 96 St. Adding trains to 96 St during the shutdown will actually reach the 14 tph FEIS target, but long-term the (or whatever the second Broadway express service is) has to be rerouted to 96 St / 125 St. The only obstacle to rerouting the is Astoria service on the weekends. Looking at the track diagrams, Broadway has access to 3 northern branches (SAS, Astoria, and QBL) and access to 4 southern branches (Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End, and Brighton). 6 Ave has access to 3 northern branches (8 Ave/Concourse, 63 St, and 53 St), and access to 5 southern branches (Culver, Jamaica/Myrtle Ave, Sea Beach, West End, and Brighton). So the question is how to juggle the services so that each branch is adequately served at all times. Late night and weekend service currently make a lot of sense. West End, Culver, Sea Beach, Brighton, and Bay Ridge all have their own trains - the . Jamaica/Myrtle is served by the transfer to the at Delancey St, and as the shortest branch, the is cut to Whitehall St late nights. 8 Ave/Concourse, 63 St, Astoria, and SAS are served by the , with 53 St being served by the transfer at 53 St - 7 Ave, and the Broadway / QBL connection served by the . On weekdays though, both Broadway and 6 Ave need 4 services each, or 2 per pair of tracks. The current 6 Ave arrangement makes sense, as the doubles service on the busiest BMT branch and the can't run into Park Slope with the in the way. Most importantly, the and never merge with each other. On the other hand, Broadway confusingly has less service than 6 Ave, due to the local/express merge at 34 St. Eliminating that merge adds 8 tph with no expensive construction, though that means the will need a new northern terminal, at least during rush hour. The other issue is the additional trains to Astoria, as Whitehall St can't turn the extra trains - if the MTA is right and Bay Ridge can't turn more than 10 tph, the solution is probably a rush-hour extension of trains to 86 St . Now if even more capacity is needed on Broadway and/or 6 Ave, then deinterlining can be considered. As Broadway is the busier trunk, especially on weekends, it needs two express lines via the Bridge, implying that the run down 4 Ave and the run along Brighton. Unlike say Rogers Junction, there's a few issues: Awkward transfer at Atlantic Ave: probably the most concerning issue since the station's already high transfer volume will increase further. Headway mismatch: Currently the stops served by the get 8 minute headways, though in all honesty no line should have more than 8 minute headways during the day. Messing with the status quo: In 2004, the could have gone to the West End and the could have returned to Brighton, but the MTA approved the existing service routes based on rider demands. I previously posted that the MTA can change service patterns whenever they want, but it's still something to consider. My personal opinion is that DeKalb won't be deinterlined, but Broadway will be, with 125 St/96 St - CI via Bridge, Sea Beach 125 St/96 St - CI via Bridge, Brighton Astoria - Bay Ridge Forest Hills - Whitehall St (all times except late night)
  11. Here's the key info from the document: AM peak 14 tph NB (up from 9), 14 tph SB (up from 9, 12 tph QBL) local 10 tph (down from 12) - I wouldn't be surprised to see the cancelled 10 tph NB, 8 tph SB (down from 10) The is unaffected, minus 2 fewer trains from Forest Hills. Of the 5 additional tph per direction, only 3 from Forest Hills are accounted for. Assuming 1 additional NB train to QBL, presumably the excess are running to / from 96 St, since the is going there on weekends IIRC and the short turn would reduce the necessary fleet requirement. PM peak 14 tph SB (up from 8), 14 tph NB (up from 😎 local 10 tph 10 tph SB, 10 tph NB It's reasonable to assume that 2 additional tph will run to/from Forest Hills, with the remaining 4 tph going to/from 96 St.
  12. Caelestor

    Second Avenue Subway Discussion

    The wye is a waste of money because it doesn't go where the riders want to, i.e. UES / Bronx / Queens. Post Phase 2 I see one of the following happen: 14 tph , 14 tph - this is the 2004 FEIS and still current plan for SAS 20 tph , no build south of 72 St - this was the original plan for SAS and there is a non-negligible chance of this happening 14 tph , 14 tph , 14 tph - basically option 1 but a new service from SAS to Queens via 63 St is introduced, but this requires additional capacity from the QBL bypass
  13. Instead of sending trains to 96 St, send them to Astoria and reroute more trains to 96 St.
  14. Caelestor

    LIRR And MNRR Random Thoughts Thread

    I recently looked at the LIRR ridership report and PJ is actually the highest ridership branch, so the whole branch probably should be electrified after the Main Line third track is built.
  15. Caelestor

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    Presumably, the all run SAS / Broadway express / Brighton, with the being the weekday part-time express route. The become full-time routes serving Upper 8 Ave / 6 Ave express / 4 Ave express + associated branches. As for SAS Phase 2, there is no need to increase service. A lot of people here think that the should run up SAS, leaving the to serve Astoria. This way SAS gets 20 tph peak hours and 13.5 tph middays. Deinterlining DeKalb Ave isn't as effective as with the IRT lines because there is no universal cross-platform transfer at DeKalb Ave, and running more trains may not be worth the increased congestion at Atlantic Ave. DeKalb was already reconstructed once at the cost of the Myrtle Ave station, and 24 tph (up from 20) per pair of track without deinterlining is totally doable, as seen in London. Given current population trends, it's arguably more important to focus on Rogers Junction + Nostrand Ave + Utica Ave and running more trains through the busier IRT lines.

×

Important Information

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