Caelestor

I'm referring to the current service pattern.

 

It's not like the MTA can make the stop at Broadway, since there's literally no platform there.

 

How many track is the bypass? Is it the outer 2 LIRR track? Maybe we could fit Rockaway Service on it, at rego Park.

 

The LIRR ROW used to have 6 tracks, 2 of which were for the disused Rockaway Branch. The bypass would take over those two track beds.

 

Rockaway service can be routed either onto the QBL local tracks or the bypass. I used to think all trains should run via the Bypass, but now I'm thinking maybe the extra capacity on the Bypass should be reserved for a future Northern Blvd Line. I'd imagine the would be rerouted onto the branch, and a transfer station to the Bypass could be built at Rego Park.

No I support the bypass, but I also think we need to do more in general, while this may alleviate the crowds on the QB Line, it creates a new problem on the . What Queens need right now is a new trunk line(SAS).

The solution to relieve the is the Northern Blvd line via 63 St. We are talking about building the Bypass first because it should be considerably easier to build, and it relieves the second most crowded trunk line in the system, the QBL.

 

Service changes are always a tradeoff. Astoria probably misses the , but the current arrangement on Broadway is superior. Sending the to 63 St made a lot of riders mad, but QBL got 10 additional tph in the old . Sending the via the Bypass shouldn't be nearly as drastic a change for riders.

 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

No. It was specifically designed that way to prevent the express from overcrowding. By forcing people to use the local to reach Broadway, you distribute passenger loads evenly between the  and  . It's a crowd control measure.

 

Roosevelt Ave is like 59 St on the 7 Ave Line. The predates the QBL by 10-15 years, and so only 2 equally-spaced express stops were built on the line between Queensboro Plaza and Flushing: Woodside and Junction Blvd. (Willets Point was added in the 1939 reconstruction for the World's Fair.)

 

In general, the IRT express stops shouldn't need to accommodate the IND transfers since they were the city's original subway lines and still are the most heavily ridden by most metrics. The IND lines for the most part serve as relief, with some exceptions.

 

Many on the from QBP east transfer at 74 St, or QBP for Midtown above 42 St. By shifting the fastest way to Manhattan, the from 74 St to 61 St, people in Flushing, Junction will no longer take the loca to 74 St .  ridership will decrease, while the will increase due to new transfer at 61 St, and the reduced transfer at 74 St

 

Do I think crowding on the will get worse between Junction Blvd and Woodside? Yes, because a new transfer is built. This happens whether or not the or runs via the Bypass. What I'm most concerned is fixing the QBL, because on the Flushing Line there is a relatively even distribution between the and . This is not the case at QBL, which has a ton of cross-platform transfers already that make the express trains 2 to 3x more crowded than the local trains, according to the MTA's own numbers.

 

I originally had the running via the Bypass, but after computing the math, the should be running via the Bypass to achieve as much relief as possible. If the is already SRO at Forest Hills, what good does it do to have it stop at a top 15 ridership station where riders will always attempt to crowd into packed express trains? If we expect the to have higher ridership than the , then running the on the QBL will give some spare capacity for the local riders between Forest Hills and Jackson Heights. 

 

 

On a slightly different thread, has the MTA ever considered extending either the or to 179th street? Then the could run on the express tracks beyond Forest Hills, and local trains wouldn't get so backed up because of fumingation.

 

The original post-Archer Ave plans had the staying express to Jamaica Center and 179 St, the to Forest Hills, and the to 179 St. The community demanded the current plan, because QBL riders will always take the express train over the local if given the option to do so.

QB Line has both high inner local station AND high terminal ridership. I'm afraid that by shifting the main express transfer point from 74 St(Local) to Woodside(Express Station) the Express would be double as crowded

 

Here are the local stations and their ridership rankings.

• 36 St: 322
• Steinway St: 99
• 46 St: 176
• Northern Blvd: 218
• 65 St: 342
• Jackson Heights (express): 14
• Elmhurst Ave: 111
• Grand Ave - Newtown: 73
• Woodhaven Blvd: 60
• 63 Dr - Rego Park: 88
• 67 Ave: 183

The local stations east of Jackson Heights have much higher ridership than those west. I've stated before that the QBL should have been built with a 5th peak-direction express track between Queens Plaza and Jackson Heights for local trains to prevent the mass transfers between the local and express services, but the bypass is also a nice way to add capacity on the QBL and SAS.

 

As for the , the passenger peak is right before Queensboro Plaza, so I doubt current crowding levels worsen much.

The QBL has interesting travel patterns. For most subway lines, ridership is highest in the inner core stations, but the QBL is more like commuter rail, where the eastern terminals are the most popular due to feeder buses. Also, the numbers state explicitly that riders want the faster and more direct express stretch between Queens Plaza and Jackson Heights. Assuming the Bypass exists and the Rockaway Branch hasn't been built, service should then be allocated as follows:

 

Riders east of Forest Hills get direct express trains to all 3 IND trunk lines. The runs on the local tracks only and the stays entirely on the express tracks. The runs express during peak hours to avoid the switch during the rush and local at all other times. The logic for running the via the bypass is to further redirect ridership away from the QBL: this time from Jackson Heights, which is the current chokepoint of the line. It used to be Lexington Ave back when the ran via 53 St.

• 2 Ave: via QBL, 63 St
• 6 Ave: via Bypass, via 63 St
• 8 Ave: via QBL, 53 St

Riders between Jackson Heights and Forest Hills who transfer at the latter get direct West Side and East Side expresses, relieving Lexington Ave - 53 St and the . For UES, take the at 55 St instead of the at 63 St.

• 2 Ave: via 63 St
• 6 Ave: Transfer to the at Roosevelt Island or the at 5 Ave
• 8 Ave: via 53 St 

Local riders between Queens Plaza and Jackson Heights don't get much direct service, but they're the smallest segment anyways.

• 2 Ave: Transfer to at Lexington Ave
• 6 Ave: via 53 St
• 8 Ave: Transfer to at Queens Plaza

Riders on the can transfer to the at Jackson Heights or the at Woodside. Fewer riders would overcrowd Jackson Heights, which already doubles as a transfer station between the QBL local and express services today. Woodside would be built with a more convenient transfer, and more LIRR riders would get off here instead of the crowded Manhattan terminals.

Actually both 4Ave and Brighton riders prefer Broadway over 6ave, from my observation

 

Everyone prefers Broadway, which is my point. Why replace the with the ?

 

 

On Queens Blvd, yes.

 

Well, running the and together wouldn't be too bad then, if the MTA can find the resources to do so.

After giving this some thought, here is my idea on how to work Second Avenue to meet the growing demand:

 

 - extended to 71 Avenue on weekends

 - 96 Street to Coney Island - all times via Bridge

 - unchanged

 - route unchanged - weekdays

 - service extended to 95 Street during off-hours

 

Agreed that sending the up SAS is the simplest solution to reducing congestion on Broadway and increasing service to the UES. The Broadway Line has naturally higher demand than 6 Ave because of the transfers at Times Sq, Herald Sq, Union Sq, and Atlantic Ave, and the line isn't at true capacity because the takes up slots on both the local and express tracks. 

 

This means Broadway local service has to be reconfigured significantly. The becomes the full-time Astoria local, running every 5 minutes during middays and 4 minutes during rush hour. Since only half the trains can turn at Whitehall St, the other half will run into Brooklyn supplementing the . The ideal terminal is Bay Ridge, but if capacity there remains stuck at 10 tph, then 9th Ave would be used instead. One nice aspect of 9th Ave is that the Coney Island yard becomes directly accessible to the . I'm not too concerned about the lack of bridge service due to the presence of other lines. Weekday service remains unchanged.

 

The real problem is the weekend and late night service. The current configuration with three services feeding into Broadway actually works quite well, but is thrown out with the following the up SAS. Losing the Broadway / QBL connection is not great, since riders definitely want Broadway over 6 Ave service on the weekends. 

 

The would be 2 cars shorter than the . It’s going to have to run more trains per hour to make up for it.

 

Is the actually crowded on the weekends? I don't think 8 vs 10 cars would be a significant issue.

 

 

Relating to the I was thinking of two options;

 

The reorganization of the has been discussed before. The current service plan dates back to 2004, when the two part-time routes along CPW and Brighton were paired together. There's an argument to be made for streamlining Dekalb Ave by having the run down Brighton and sending the down 4 Ave, but it's not happening because Brighton riders prefer Broadway service.

The second avenue line is relieving the not the .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If the SAS gets to 3 Ave - 149 St, it can relieve the as well.

What ever happened to express? Politics kill it? Or are they waiting for the culver rehab to finish...

 

Honestly, if they can (assuming they rebuild Kings Highway Interlocking and buy a few extra 211s), they should just run 2/3 of trains express in the peak direction as far as KH, and extend the with 10 cars there to add service at local stops. Then rebuild Bergen's lower level, and short turn whatever (F)s can't fit in CI at Avenue X (or even better, rebuild the crossovers at CI so all service can go there). 

 

The only hitch I see is the crossings that will have to take place at Kings Highway...

 

The express is really a proposal to build more attractive housing in the southern Culver Line. The last two decades have shown that fast and convenient subway service leads to gentrification, and the developers and politicians near Coney Island want in on it. The express service would work if the was still around, but the itself is bringing the gentrification to Bushwick instead, and so there's not enough 6 Ave capacity to accommodate the .

According to the reports found on www.straphangers.org, on the express tracks, the tph ought to be:

• AM rush - 25 - 13 trains, 12 trains
• PM rush - 24 - 14 trains, 10 trains

What it really is:

• - Only 71% of trains on time http://www.straphangers.org/statesub15/lines/4profile.pdf
• - Only 67% of trains on time http://www.straphangers.org/statesub15/lines/5profile.pdf

So I think with 70% of all express trains on time during the rush hour, I'd say the actual frequencies are probably around 17-18 tph, which is really low for a line that was supposed to have about 27 tph.

Also the actual tph may be more than my cited figure, so if there's actually a timetable for 30 tph, then the actual number of trains may only be 21 tph.

 

(Edit: Added breakdown of trains per service.)

 

According to the schedules, between 7:30 and 8:30 there are supposed to be 14 trains, 14 trains, and 21 trains passing through 125 St. I think the train could be increased to 24 tph without negatively affecting service, since the SAS now exists to take some relief off the local trains. SAS currently only helps the express trains by siphoning riders off at 86 St, preventing further delays.

I would add a stop at Sunnyside to the Bypass. Transfers would be available to Queens Plaza.

 

The original plans for the Bypass had two intermediary stops at Northern Blvd and Woodside. I'm uncertain about the status of the Northern Blvd / Queens Plaza stop since the 63 St Line was connected to the QBL where the station would have been. On the bypass itself, there's 4 potential station locations:

• Sunnyside (provisional): If the Sunnyside Yards are developed and/or the LIRR / MNR junction station is ever built, Sunnyside would serve them.
• Woodside - 61 St: Self-explanatory. Could serve as a decent terminal for the if the Bypass has to be shortened due to lack of funds.
• 51st Ave (provisional): If the Triboro RX is ever built, this stop would be the transfer to it. Might be worth building even without the Triboro RX.
• Woodhaven Blvd: Relief station for Woodhaven QBL, transfer station for the Rockaway Branch.

service would stay completely on the QBL express tracks outside of late nights. service is unchanged. service runs via the Bypass and runs local east of Forest Hills.

 

The Rockaway Branch itself should connect to both the QBL local tracks and the Bypass, with the latter being easier and faster to construct.

The preferred service would be an train from Rockaway Park via Woodside. Subsequently, Howard Beach would become more popular than Jamaica for subway riders due to the easier connection and the presence of both relatively fast Brooklyn/Downtown and Queens/Midtown service. However, it's unclear where the would run into Manhattan, so riders might have to do with a rerouted or service until that issue is cleared up.

In all seriousness, the MTA said in the FEIS for SAS that the overcrowding on the Lex is actually the biggest reason why they can't run more trains, since people cannot exit/enter in a reasonable amount of time.

 

28-30 tph are supposed to pass through 125 St during the rush. The biggest bottleneck of the line is at Grand Central, where dwell times of 45-60 seconds prevent more than 25-27 tph from passing through. Having a two-platform configuration instead of the 3-platform design at Penn Station doesn't help either.

Exactly. But I could still see the as popular if it would be easily extended past Hanover Sq into Brooklyn via Montague and 4th Avenue, or maybe some kind of Sea Beach Express.

 

The long-term plan is to run the onto the Fulton St Line via Court St. The would take over all local service, and the would run express to Euclid.

19 TPH… here we come.

 

Just run both the and up SAS for 20 tph. We can worry about the in 20 years.

I'd actually expect a  to get more ridership than the  right off the bat, and especially if it goes to Brooklyn somehow. Your point about the  is duly noted.

 

Agreed on the , since current plans have the stuck within Manhattan. I firmly believe that after SAS Phase 3, the QBL Bypass should be built before Phase 4. The could probably resolve most of the present overcrowding on the by offering a third express option, this one into Midtown East.

I think you underestimate the ridership it would get going to Midtown East (especially now that it just got up zoned for supertall office buildings)

 

I think the will be popular, along with a from Queens will be popular. I think the will still have higher ridership because it directly serves Brooklyn and three top 5 ridership stations: Times Sq, Herald Sq, and Union Sq. PABT and Penn Station are also close by the stops.

That’s not going to work for the purposes of this discussion.

 

The number given in prior MTA documents is 19 TPH after the completion of phase 2. Now do the math and the as it currently runs cannot possibly fulfill such a requirement. I would say 12 TPH is a maximum it can reasonably run to Coney Island. The other 7 TPH will have to be fulfilled by a route that runs a course able to provide room for 7 TPH. Logic:

1. The local tracks are maxed out along 6 Avenue, but not the express tracks, so naturally the route will start out via 6 Avenue express.
2. Then there is the question of where to go from there. The local tracks are off limits, so that rules out both the Culver and Broadway–Brooklyn lines. The only natural course is down the Manhattan Bridge.
3. To 4 Avenue or Brighton? Brighton has no terminal capacity with the running the way it does. But further down 4 Avenue along Sea Beach and West End, trains can be turned, so it will run down 4 Avenue.
4. Turn at 59 Street, Kings Highway, 9 Avenue, or Bay Parkway? The least disruptive station to turn trains is 9 Avenue, followed by Bay Parkway since through trains can use a different track than terminating trains.

The two potential problems are the fact that 3 routes will share 6 Avenue and 4 Avenue express, and that 57 Street will be a shared station with the for just that one stop. Even at 7 TPH, I’m not sure that is a good idea.

 

The already can't fulfill the 14 tph that it was supposed to provide in Phase 1. The covers the slack because some trains have to go to the SAS due to terminal limitations at Astoria. I don't think adding more service involving switches along the 6 Ave and 63 St lines is good for operations.

 

Operationally speaking, the simplest solution is to run all trains up the SAS. This fully segregates the Broadway local and express services, improving reliability on the line. The northern terminal is already expected to be 3 tracks, so no limitations there. As for Astoria, the would become a full-time service, and effective capacity may increase since now only the has the line to itself. The issue becomes the southern terminals, as Whitehall St and Bay Ridge don't have the capacity to turn the combined 25 tph of the . In all honestly, Bay Ridge needs to be reconstructed because 10 tph is terribly low for a terminal, or otherwise the has to run some trains to and from Gravesend.  Another question to ask is how the is going to fit in, since projected service is expected to decrease to 14 tph during Phase 3 to accommodate the new service. The might get its 14 tph then, but more importantly the may be forced out from the SAS when this happens. 

 

The other alternative is that no additional trains are added in Phase 2, and trains became more crowded. This is probably the most likely scenario.

6 Ave is going to be full as more trains are added. Running 3 local services on the same track is asking for trouble.

 

It's operationally expensive to run more trains over the bridge and through Dekalb Ave. The simple solution is to send more trains onto the SAS, and add more trains between Astoria and Whitehall St. Excess trains can run to and from Gravesend instead of reversing at South Ferry.

I think we could improve terminals at several locations before extending any lines or line capacity.

 

Some suggestions:

• 95 St - make some storage tracks south of the station
• Jamaica Ctr - build double crossovers on both levels east of the station and relocate the switches on both levels to just west of the station
• Pelham Bay Pk - make some storage tracks north of the station
• 8 Av - make some storage tracks west of the station
• E 105 St - build an extra platform on the east side track, for trains that are terminating/originating from Canarsie Yard, and build a new switch from the two mainline tracks to that third track just north of the station
• Coney Island - relocate the switches to just east of the station
• 205 St - more storage tracks east of the station?

Flatbush Av , Astoria Blvd , and 207 St could be improved later. Also, storage tracks east of Queensbridge can be built to store eastbound short-turning trains and possibly provide provisions for a Queens Bypass later.

 

I know this'll probably not happen (especially the idea with Pelham Bay Pk storage tracks and the E 105 St platform) but we need to get these off the table before any real extensions can be proposed.

 

Agreed on 95 St, which is the main impediment for reliable service. There needs to be tail tracks to store trains so that departures are reliable.

 

Jamaica Center - Instead of expensive underground construction, better off extending the onto the LIRR row as planned, at least to a new terminal at Linden Road. The don't justify further construction at current service levels.

 

Pelham Bay Park - Might as well extend the to Co-op City while we're at it.

 

14 St / 8 Av - It might be more cost-effective to extend the to 41 St and build the infill stop on the .

 

Can't comment on the others.

If say the Astoria Line were extended to the Bronx, what do you propose to serve Queens? The Parkchester–Astoria alignment does not serve the Bronx–Queens market much better than going through Manhattan. The Astoria Line’s capacity would be more impactful serving the subway-less areas of northern Queens and connecting them to Long Island City and Manhattan where there is actually demand now and well into the future.

 

The problem with an Astoria Line extension into the Bronx is the expensive bridge that would have to be built and the low expected ridership for the cost, since most riders don't want Astoria or LIC. There's not even a connection to the QBL at Queensboro Plaza to get riders into eastern Queens.

 

The only logical extension of the line is to Laguardia, which itself has its problems due to 1) NIMBYs and 2) the route wouldn't be a straight line from Midtown.

I don't think and could take more people, unfortunately. Otherwise it is a good idea.

Maybe that's also the reason why LGA AirTrain is not connecting to Astoria line??

 

The idea is that with a new terminal, the would run 5 additional tph for a 33 percent capacity. 

Trains on the do not run an average of 3 minutes apart; they're scheduled to run 15 TPH, exactly half of QBL's 30TPH capacity. And I say this as someone who used to take the everyday.

 

In theory, the should be running every 4 minutes along with the which runs at the same headways. The issue is that for various reasons trains get delayed and/or bunched together all the time, so gaps are more like every 2 or 8 minutes on bad days, and trains get overcrowded. (Speaking from personal experience.)

 

On that note, the 63 St tunnel is only running at 50 percent capacity at best, and the plan should be to add a new service through the tunnel once capacity on SAS Phase 3 and QBL / QBL bypass is available.

trying to think outside the box...maybe not a SAS crosstown. Instead, it could be a crosstown connected to the Bronx directly?

 

The Bronx branches need to run into Midtown, i.e. connect to the SAS, to actually reduce overcrowding on the IRT lines.

So would you build the 125th Street crosstown over a Bruckner Expressway line?

 

Well, the two serve very different purposes. If money wasn't an issue, the SAS would feed into the only two branches the Bronx really need, the Park Ave and Throggs Neck lines, and the 125 St crosstown would be part of the Triboro RX.

 

If I was forced to pick only one, 125 St Crosstown wins out because it's the shorter and cheaper extension with probably higher ridership per mile.

For me a Park Avenue subway is a given. It is about where the other 15 TPH will go.

 

Agreed on the Park Ave subway, stopping at 3 Ave - 138 St, 3 Ave - 149 St, Melrose Ave - 161 St, Park Ave - 148 St, Claremont Pkwy, Tremont, 180 St, and Fordham Plaza. The line then turns east onto Pelham Pkwy and stops at Crotona Ave, White Plains Rd , Williamsbridge Road , Eastchester Road, and Co-op City. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, the other 15 tph should turn left onto 125 St and run to Broadway.

 

The question is, which branch gets built first.