Jump to content

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

They don't know how far. Phases 3 and 4 are still the priority over the Bronx.

They don't have to go far at all into the Bronx. For now at least, they should expand the line to 3 Av-149 St to give relief to the (2)(5), and it would contain provisions for a Third Av extension to Gun Hill Road. 

An extension to the Bronx could be done much sooner/cheaper/quicker before we'd even get to see the first (T) run to Houston, let alone Hanover Square...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
13 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

They don't have to go far at all into the Bronx. For now at least, they should expand the line to 3 Av-149 St to give relief to the (2)(5), and it would contain provisions for a Third Av extension to Gun Hill Road. 

An extension to the Bronx could be done much sooner/cheaper/quicker before we'd even get to see the first (T) run to Houston, let alone Hanover Square...

Why would you push it to Gun Hill Rd? Which is unnecessary because the D and 4 cover that area well. Fordham Plaza is a perfect terminal via 3rd Ave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

They don't have to go far at all into the Bronx. For now at least, they should expand the line to 3 Av-149 St to give relief to the (2)(5), and it would contain provisions for a Third Av extension to Gun Hill Road. 

An extension to the Bronx could be done much sooner/cheaper/quicker before we'd even get to see the first (T) run to Houston, let alone Hanover Square...

Personally I think building any projects in phases is a mistake, given that the MTA is too lazy to get ready on a new one when the old one is nearly done, and there will be considerably more political pressure for a line to be completed quickly and cheaply if it affects a large region. 

As for what to do with the Bronx extension, I would have it end at Fordham Plaza where you could transfer to the the (A) (which would be extended to replace the Bx12). If you wanted to build the line with 2 tracks but greater stop gaps, I would send it via Third, but if you wanted a four-track express/local line with more stops I would have it run via Webster north of 149th instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think phase II should just be directly up to 3rd Av-149 St or if they are hell bent on turning on 125th, build it until you reach the (B)(D) station on 125th. This way we will have a much more useful phase II

28 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Personally I think building any projects in phases is a mistake, given that the MTA is too lazy to get ready on a new one when the old one is nearly done, and there will be considerably more political pressure for a line to be completed quickly and cheaply if it affects a large region. 

SAS was scheduled into phases because they learned the lesson in the 70's. Its better to cancel two phases with completed sections of Phase I and II than to cancel the entire project when somehow they ran out of money. During the 1970's construction was began in two different sections and when the MTA ran out of money, the whole thing was deferred hence the two section in Chinatown and 100 St. Sadly we will NEVER see the whole SAS completed at the rate we are going right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

SAS was scheduled into phases because they learned the lesson in the 70's. Its better to cancel two phases with completed sections of Phase I and II than to cancel the entire project when somehow they ran out of money. During the 1970's construction was began in two different sections and when the MTA ran out of money, the whole thing was deferred hence the two section in Chinatown and 100 St. Sadly we will NEVER see the whole SAS completed at the rate we are going right now.

That's why I think we need to build phases 3 and 4, as well as a 125th crosstown, a Webster/Third line, and a SAS-to-Fulton local line all at the same time, as we can't keep on cycling through ten years of endless studies and construction... I also expect that today if the MTA goes broke, they would just cut back certain parts rather than cease construction altogether (see IND 63rd St line) or they will keep on pushing it anyways no matter how much of a money-draining boondoggle it is/can be (see ESA). 

If we did all the studies now and hired several companies to build certain segments, we could finish SAS in 15-20 years... assuming Phase 2 is done by when we start this mega-project, I could see a 125th crosstown to Broadway in 4-5 years, a Webster/Third line in 10-15, phase 3 in 15 years, and phase 4 and the connection to Fulton in 20. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

That's why I think we need to build phases 3 and 4, as well as a 125th crosstown, a Webster/Third line, and a SAS-to-Fulton local line all at the same time, as we can't keep on cycling through ten years of endless studies and construction... I also expect that today if the MTA goes broke, they would just cut back certain parts rather than cease construction altogether (see IND 63rd St line) or they will keep on pushing it anyways no matter how much of a money-draining boondoggle it is/can be (see ESA). 

If we did all the studies now and hired several companies to build certain segments, we could finish SAS in 15-20 years... assuming Phase 2 is done by when we start this mega-project, I could see a 125th crosstown to Broadway in 4-5 years, a Webster/Third line in 10-15, phase 3 in 15 years, and phase 4 and the connection to Fulton in 20. 

I'm afraid you overestimated the MTA in this regard. The 63rd St Line was supposed to be part of a larger program called Program for Action, ranging from LIRR to the new MTC (cancelled) (currently ESA), Springfield Bl subway (cancelled), Queens SuperExpress (cancelled), 3rd Av El Metro North RR realignment (cancelled), Nostrand Av subway (cancelled). What ended up happening was the MTA ran out of money and sections that eventually were opened (10 yrs late) are all not designed for their original purpose and were only completed because its too far in to be abandoned (see ESA today). Jamaica Center is not designed as a terminal, hence the weird switch placement and capacity problem, the 63rd St line which was to connect to Queens Bypass ended at Queensbridge a station with the most absurd terminal layout and was eventually extended to the QBL because the MTA gave up on ever completing the Queens Bypass,and was criticized by people calling it the "tunnel to nowhere" 

Now back to the SAS, I afraid the time when we could dream big and build big is over. We can not even dream big. MTA time over time shows its incompetence in completing any project on budget nor on time. I think it is best for the MTA to dream small and build small, and build it in sections, this way we won't have the weird uncompleted sections finished like the 70's. However I believe that the MTA needs to start its study of the next phase before construction is over on the previous phase, but that is too much for the MTA to handle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2018 at 2:12 PM, Caelestor said:

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:

  1. 14 tph (N)(Q), 14 tph (T) - this is the 2004 FEIS and still current plan for SAS
  2. 20 tph (N)(Q), no build south of 72 St - this was the original plan for SAS and there is a non-negligible chance of this happening
  3. 14 tph (N)(Q), 14 tph (T), 14 tph (V) - 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

I think the third scenario is doable without the QBL bypass. Referring to a plan that’s come up in the Proposals thread, if the (R) is removed from the Queens Blvd line and rerouted to Astoria, it would then be possible for the V to take its place. I’ve suggested running the (R) to Astoria and the (W) to Forest Hills. The (W), in a sense, would be a “placeholder” service until Phase 3 is built. Then, the V would replace the (W) as the primary QB local train (the (M) would remain unchanged throughout all this).

15 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I'm afraid you overestimated the MTA in this regard. The 63rd St Line was supposed to be part of a larger program called Program for Action, ranging from LIRR to the new MTC (cancelled) (currently ESA), Springfield Bl subway (cancelled), Queens SuperExpress (cancelled), 3rd Av El Metro North RR realignment (cancelled), Nostrand Av subway (cancelled). What ended up happening was the MTA ran out of money and sections that eventually were opened (10 yrs late) are all not designed for their original purpose and were only completed because its too far in to be abandoned (see ESA today). Jamaica Center is not designed as a terminal, hence the weird switch placement and capacity problem, the 63rd St line which was to connect to Queens Bypass ended at Queensbridge a station with the most absurd terminal layout and was eventually extended to the QBL because the MTA gave up on ever completing the Queens Bypass,and was criticized by people calling it the "tunnel to nowhere" 

Now back to the SAS, I afraid the time when we could dream big and build big is over. We can not even dream big. MTA time over time shows its incompetence in completing any project on budget nor on time. I think it is best for the MTA to dream small and build small, and build it in sections, this way we won't have the weird uncompleted sections finished like the 70's. However I believe that the MTA needs to start its study of the next phase before construction is over on the previous phase, but that is too much for the MTA to handle.

Today’s MTA would definitely be overwhelmed trying to build even an expansion plan a quarter as ambitious as the 1968 Program for Action. Hell, even the MTA of 1968-75 would have probably been overwhelmed with all those projects, plus an existing subway system that was showing its age, even if the City didn’t have a fiscal crisis in 1975.

But the idea that the MTA can begin doing studies for either the next phase of an existing project (like SAS) or the next project before the current one is finished is something that is a realistic goal. If the MTA are unable to do that, then that’s just plain incompetence on MTA management’s part. And those incompetent managers need to dismissed and replaced with much more professional and competent people.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither Phases 3/4 of SAS nor the Queens Bypass should be built without new tunnels out of the core. Currently, we can deinterline perfectly -- 6 B div track pairs in the core, 6 leaving them to the north. SAS phase 3 adds a 7th in the core without adding an equivalent north, locking in interlining. The line either limits itself and Broadway exp. to 14tph apiece, or it limits Broadway exp. while fulfilling its potential by running on 63. That latter scheme may not sound terrible (direct Queens-East Side service), but it prevents the movement of the (M) to 63 -- which means that 8th will never be able to run full capacity as it can't run 2 services east on 53. The bypass suffers the same problem -- it's another track pair in Queens without a match heading to Manhattan, thus it adds nothing in core-bound tph. 

There are a couple things that could mitigate these issues in my opinion. First among them is giving SAS phase 3/4 their own tunnel out of the core. You could either go to the Bronx via express tracks, or Queens via 79th St -- both work, and both are quite defensible. In the latter case, SAS could provide the core-bound tph necessary for a Bypass, but again, there are other ways to use that Queens-bound capacity. 

In Queens itself, connectivity between the various trunks is necessary, along with vastly improved general coverage. Building the (G) to 21st St (F) (via Queensboro Plaza) could bind the network together at its convergence point while aiding in the diversion of intra-borough/crosstown riders away from Manhattan. In terms of improving network coverage, you have the potential of sending SAS over (or the (L)), and once you have that capacity, you can go to town. 

As for what we should cover, I'm honestly not a big fan of the Bypass. While that corridor is overloaded, it is thus largely because it's the only subway for miles around, and consequently gets killed with bus transfer riders. Instead of consolidating even more ridership into that area, we should be looking to spread it -- so examining Northern/Astoria Blvd, and improvements south of Forest Park (I'm looking at the Atlantic Branch). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

As for what we should cover, I'm honestly not a big fan of the Bypass. While that corridor is overloaded, it is thus largely because it's the only subway for miles around, and consequently gets killed with bus transfer riders. Instead of consolidating even more ridership into that area, we should be looking to spread it -- so examining Northern/Astoria Blvd, and improvements south of Forest Park (I'm looking at the Atlantic Branch). 

While this is true to some degree, it's also worth noting that most of the problems with the Queens subway network exist because of poor service east of the Van Wyck.

Ridership at Van Wyck stations and east:

  • Flushing Main St - 18,746,832
  • Briarwood-Van Wyck - 1,489,396
  • Sutphin Blvd (Hillside) - 1,338,831
  • Parsons Blvd (Hillside) - 1,998,650
  • 169 St (Hillside) - 2,629,975
  • Jamaica-179 St - 6,463,698
  • Jamaica - Van Wyck - 1,555,962
  • Sutphin/Archer - 7,457,153
  • Parsons/Archer - 11,604,228

In total, ridership at stations on or east of Van Wyck is 53,284,725 annually; more than 20% of all Queens ridership. And this is before we count east of Van Wyck ridership that transfers to buses at other locations, like the Q46 at Union Turnpike, the Q64 at Forest Hills, or the Q88 at Woodhaven Blvd.

The Bypass, IMO, would be more effective at providing more service to these outer outer-borough customers, since it would allow for most of the 60TPH to be used east of Forest Hills, which would unlock capacity going east. It would in turn unlock the ability to extend the (E) to Rosedale and the (F) to Queens Village without taking too much of a toll on existing capacity constraints. (The (7)'s capacity constraints can mostly be dealt with making the Port Washington Branch more subway-like in terms of operation and pricing.)

IMO, the Atlantic Branch isn't very useful, simply because it doesn't really go to the two biggest business districts. It does give you a transfer to Downtown in relatively short order, but we're also talking about a group of passengers that has already transferred once using bus -> subway; introducing more transfers to a secondary business district is not a great recipe for additional ridership. As far as connecting it to something else, you would at the very least have to reconstruct the approach to Atlantic, since the current height of the Atlantic Branch platforms make it virtually impossible to extend west.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Neither Phases 3/4 of SAS nor the Queens Bypass should be built without new tunnels out of the core. Currently, we can deinterline perfectly -- 6 B div track pairs in the core, 6 leaving them to the north. SAS phase 3 adds a 7th in the core without adding an equivalent north, locking in interlining. The line either limits itself and Broadway exp. to 14tph apiece, or it limits Broadway exp. while fulfilling its potential by running on 63. That latter scheme may not sound terrible (direct Queens-East Side service), but it prevents the movement of the (M) to 63 -- which means that 8th will never be able to run full capacity as it can't run 2 services east on 53. The bypass suffers the same problem -- it's another track pair in Queens without a match heading to Manhattan, thus it adds nothing in core-bound tph. 

There are a couple things that could mitigate these issues in my opinion. First among them is giving SAS phase 3/4 their own tunnel out of the core. You could either go to the Bronx via express tracks, or Queens via 79th St -- both work, and both are quite defensible. In the latter case, SAS could provide the core-bound tph necessary for a Bypass, but again, there are other ways to use that Queens-bound capacity. 

In Queens itself, connectivity between the various trunks is necessary, along with vastly improved general coverage. Building the (G) to 21st St (F) (via Queensboro Plaza) could bind the network together at its convergence point while aiding in the diversion of intra-borough/crosstown riders away from Manhattan. In terms of improving network coverage, you have the potential of sending SAS over (or the (L)), and once you have that capacity, you can go to town. 

As for what we should cover, I'm honestly not a big fan of the Bypass. While that corridor is overloaded, it is thus largely because it's the only subway for miles around, and consequently gets killed with bus transfer riders. Instead of consolidating even more ridership into that area, we should be looking to spread it -- so examining Northern/Astoria Blvd, and improvements south of Forest Park (I'm looking at the Atlantic Branch). 

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

  • (E)(K) 53 St / QBL express to Jamaica Center or Jamaica - 179 St
  • (F)(M) 63 St / QBL bypass to Forest Hills, QBL local to Jamaica - 179 St
  • (G)(R) 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 (T) 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 (T) 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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

While this is true to some degree, it's also worth noting that most of the problems with the Queens subway network exist because of poor service east of the Van Wyck.

Ridership at Van Wyck stations and east:

  • Flushing Main St - 18,746,832
  • Briarwood-Van Wyck - 1,489,396
  • Sutphin Blvd (Hillside) - 1,338,831
  • Parsons Blvd (Hillside) - 1,998,650
  • 169 St (Hillside) - 2,629,975
  • Jamaica-179 St - 6,463,698
  • Jamaica - Van Wyck - 1,555,962
  • Sutphin/Archer - 7,457,153
  • Parsons/Archer - 11,604,228

In total, ridership at stations on or east of Van Wyck is 53,284,725 annually; more than 20% of all Queens ridership. And this is before we count east of Van Wyck ridership that transfers to buses at other locations, like the Q46 at Union Turnpike, the Q64 at Forest Hills, or the Q88 at Woodhaven Blvd.

The Bypass, IMO, would be more effective at providing more service to these outer outer-borough customers, since it would allow for most of the 60TPH to be used east of Forest Hills, which would unlock capacity going east. It would in turn unlock the ability to extend the (E) to Rosedale and the (F) to Queens Village without taking too much of a toll on existing capacity constraints. (The (7)'s capacity constraints can mostly be dealt with making the Port Washington Branch more subway-like in terms of operation and pricing.)

IMO, the Atlantic Branch isn't very useful, simply because it doesn't really go to the two biggest business districts. It does give you a transfer to Downtown in relatively short order, but we're also talking about a group of passengers that has already transferred once using bus -> subway; introducing more transfers to a secondary business district is not a great recipe for additional ridership. As far as connecting it to something else, you would at the very least have to reconstruct the approach to Atlantic, since the current height of the Atlantic Branch platforms make it virtually impossible to extend west.

Fair points about the bypass. I was thinking that a news corridor would open up capacity on the (7) and on QB, allowing them to absorb more ridership, but I see the flip side. 

If I may argue for the Atlantic Branch (or a much-improved (J) line, with express tracks to at least Woodhaven), such corridors would be able to competitively intercept bus riders coming from the south onto QB -- not just at Jamaica, but also along Lefferts Boulevard, Woodhaven, etc. I think that's something to be looked into. 

8 hours ago, Caelestor said:

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

  • (E)(K) 53 St / QBL express to Jamaica Center or Jamaica - 179 St
  • (F)(M) 63 St / QBL bypass to Forest Hills, QBL local to Jamaica - 179 St
  • (G)(R) 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.

That's a defensible service pattern, but the preservation of the (R) irks me -- maybe wrongly, but it does. One thing I like about QB deinterlining with current infrastructure is that it, given terminal improvements, allows more trains to be run up to Astoria, which will be among the fastest growing markets over the next few decades. Similarly, I feel the (G)'s throughput is best used to bind LIC, not to create a marginally useful tangential local service. Then again, you are right in assessing the need for more trains beyond FHills, so without a new tunnel, this may indeed be best...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Fair points about the bypass. I was thinking that a news corridor would open up capacity on the (7) and on QB, allowing them to absorb more ridership, but I see the flip side. 

If I may argue for the Atlantic Branch (or a much-improved (J) line, with express tracks to at least Woodhaven), such corridors would be able to competitively intercept bus riders coming from the south onto QB -- not just at Jamaica, but also along Lefferts Boulevard, Woodhaven, etc. I think that's something to be looked into. 

That's a defensible service pattern, but the preservation of the (R) irks me -- maybe wrongly, but it does. One thing I like about QB deinterlining with current infrastructure is that it, given terminal improvements, allows more trains to be run up to Astoria, which will be among the fastest growing markets over the next few decades. Similarly, I feel the (G)'s throughput is best used to bind LIC, not to create a marginally useful tangential local service. Then again, you are right in assessing the need for more trains beyond FHills, so without a new tunnel, this may indeed be best...

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 (7) 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 (E) 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 (E)(F) get overcrowded due to the (7)(M)(R) 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 (7)(E) 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 (T) 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot who it was that thought of the idea of having the (N) and (Q) run to Queens via a 72nd Lower Level, but if it's feasible then I support it. It would make sense to have it run. under Northern Blvd, then after 108th Street, the line should branch off. Maybe have the (Q) target some underserved areas (College Point-WhiteStone in mind) and the (N) could branch off to LGA or elsewhere. If (MTA) wanted it interlined, then they can have the (Q) and (T) serve upper SAS and the (N) and maybe some other line serve Northern Blvd. 

As for the QBL Bypass, It (to me) kinda feels like a bit of a waste because it is unable to connect directly to the Express tracks that are past Forest Hills, allowing the (E) and (F) to be completely local after Forest Hills to 179th and (if such a project was feasible) then it'd be VERY disruptive to build a new interlocking west of 71st Avenue station PLUS rebuild the track alignment that leads to the relay tracks. (And it would kind of Force Queens Blvd to stay interlined). Though if such a project that I outlined was feasible, then I'd be up for it. 

Oh, and for the Second Avenue Subway itself, a Bronx Extension would be useful (but like @Coney Island Av, myself, and others have said, it would be best to end it at 3rd Avenue-149th Street in the short term). Phase 3 should have express tracks (or at least a four Track segment while Phase 4 should go like this:

Grand Street: station is rebuilt to allow a cross transfer with the (B) and (D) and a walking transfer with the (J)

Cantham Square stays as is

Seaport Stays as is

Havover Square: The station platforms should be in a similar manner as Whitehall Street but with an "X" interlocking north of the station before the tracks split from 2-3. In the Mezzanine, a transfer should be made to the Wall Street Station on the (2) and (3) to provide better transfers for those who want to go to the West Side. South of Hanover, the tracks should split in a similar track format that Bedford Nostrand Has on the (G) . One set of tracks is a provision to the Fulton Local while the other set of tracks provisioned to face Staten Island, allowing the tunnels to run trains at their top speed, thus finally connecting Staten Island with the Rest of the city Though we all know that there is not enough political will to go through with this and that the (MTA) is well...... the (MTA)

Anyways, these are my thoughts on the Current discussion. 

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra
Made a few errors while typing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Does anyone know any good programs for creating NYC subway maps? Now that enmodal has been gone, I haven't found any good programs that allow me to edit any NYC subway maps to show extensions. 

 

www.google.com/mymaps though you'd have to do everything from scratch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

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 (7) 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 (E) 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 (E)(F) get overcrowded due to the (7)(M)(R) 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 (7)(E) 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 (T) 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.

Honestly, it wouldn't cost very much to just take the Montauk Branch tracks to Rosedale (and if you're feeling good, build a giant transport hub at Green Acres or Valley Stream similar to the MBTA hubs). The LIRR could very easily fit all of its South Shore services onto the pair of tracks via St. Albans, since everything is going to funnel into the four-track bottleneck of the Main Line anyways, and even if the Atlantic Branch was being kept that would still be six tracks going into six (as opposed to eight going into six westbound.) Most infrastructure is already built, we would just need to build a yard and convert the electrification.

Forest Hills is usually picked as the logical endpoint of a Bypass since the six track ROW exists til Rego Park, and from there Yellowstone Blvd provides a logical place to tie into the tracks underused east of Forest Hills. If you were to hook into Jackson Heights, there isn't really a way to terminate local trains there, and rerouting those trains onto Northern Blvd or something would be poor from a transfer and integrated service point.

I don't think there's very much room for capacity relief in the LIRR. The LIRR's rolling stock, for one, is not built for it, and it's all brand new so it's unlikely to be replaced any time soon. There is also not a crazy amount of yard space to increase peak hour services. And there is a lot of latent demand in Long Island, judging by the crowds on the N6, N22, etc. For me, pushing people onto the LIRR is a nonstarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Honestly, it wouldn't cost very much to just take the Montauk Branch tracks to Rosedale (and if you're feeling good, build a giant transport hub at Green Acres or Valley Stream similar to the MBTA hubs). The LIRR could very easily fit all of its South Shore services onto the pair of tracks via St. Albans, since everything is going to funnel into the four-track bottleneck of the Main Line anyways, and even if the Atlantic Branch was being kept that would still be six tracks going into six (as opposed to eight going into six westbound.) Most infrastructure is already built, we would just need to build a yard and convert the electrification.

Forest Hills is usually picked as the logical endpoint of a Bypass since the six track ROW exists til Rego Park, and from there Yellowstone Blvd provides a logical place to tie into the tracks underused east of Forest Hills. If you were to hook into Jackson Heights, there isn't really a way to terminate local trains there, and rerouting those trains onto Northern Blvd or something would be poor from a transfer and integrated service point.

I don't think there's very much room for capacity relief in the LIRR. The LIRR's rolling stock, for one, is not built for it, and it's all brand new so it's unlikely to be replaced any time soon. There is also not a crazy amount of yard space to increase peak hour services. And there is a lot of latent demand in Long Island, judging by the crowds on the N6, N22, etc. For me, pushing people onto the LIRR is a nonstarter.

I wouldn't write off regional rail so quickly. Especially with the PW branch, there is much potential for a higher frequency, higher car capacity, cheaper model to work -- something more like Overground than Amtrak. Even some of the inner Nassau lines could be served with quasi-subway type frequency, as they certainly have the densities to support it. While I agree that relying on LIRR for so much of Queens' future capacity needs is sure to cause issues, I think that there are absolutely corridors in which regional rail could work -- especially all the currently freight-only ones (Lower Montauk, Bay Ridge Branch) that can only really be unlocked with FRA rolling stock.

As for subway expansion in Queens, I forsee something akin to the following:

- Mainline SAS to a lower level of 72nd St, and then over to a Bypass via 79th St/Broadway/Woodside Ave./LIRR 

- (L) up 10th Avenue, over 86th St to Astoria Boulevard and into Flushing. 

- Archer Ave to Rosedale 

- Hillside to Francis Lewis

- PW to regional rail type service

- 3rd track on the (J) to Woodhaven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

I wouldn't write off regional rail so quickly. Especially with the PW branch, there is much potential for a higher frequency, higher car capacity, cheaper model to work -- something more like Overground than Amtrak. Even some of the inner Nassau lines could be served with quasi-subway type frequency, as they certainly have the densities to support it. While I agree that relying on LIRR for so much of Queens' future capacity needs is sure to cause issues, I think that there are absolutely corridors in which regional rail could work -- especially all the currently freight-only ones (Lower Montauk, Bay Ridge Branch) that can only really be unlocked with FRA rolling stock.

As for subway expansion in Queens, I forsee something akin to the following:

- Mainline SAS to a lower level of 72nd St, and then over to a Bypass via 79th St/Broadway/Woodside Ave./LIRR 

- (L) up 10th Avenue, over 86th St to Astoria Boulevard and into Flushing. 

- Archer Ave to Rosedale 

- Hillside to Francis Lewis

- PW to regional rail type service

- 3rd track on the (J) to Woodhaven

With all future plans into account, the main bottleneck is still Manhattan travel. You have four pairs of tracks (Hell Gate, Main Line, PW) going into three (Penn and ESA), which is why I prefer capturing the PW and tying it in with a Bypass line as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

With all future plans into account, the main bottleneck is still Manhattan travel. You have four pairs of tracks (Hell Gate, Main Line, PW) going into three (Penn and ESA), which is why I prefer capturing the PW and tying it in with a Bypass line as well.

I mean if we're talking *all* future plans, I believe 2 new East River tunnels are at least under study along with all the other stuff... Moreover, you've forgotten about HPA/LIC, which, despite their low current usage, are honestly pretty solid terminals if you're looking for North Brooklyn/LIC/East Side (yes, even with ESA). If the LIRR could use that old freight spur ROW to link the LIRR main into the north side of Sunnyside, then you could add a stop at the foot of Queens Boulevard, affording you easy (possibly underground) connections to Queens Plaza. 

I also don't see how tying the PW into the Bypass is any better than tying it into the LIRR, capacity wise. Assuming we get another East River tunnel for the Bypass, you're still forcing it to share with trains from QB proper, or compressing 2 track pairs into 1 Bypass/tunnel. I'd rather let PW riders keep the more direct route into Midtown and spend the Bypass capacity elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

I mean if we're talking *all* future plans, I believe 2 new East River tunnels are at least under study along with all the other stuff... Moreover, you've forgotten about HPA/LIC, which, despite their low current usage, are honestly pretty solid terminals if you're looking for North Brooklyn/LIC/East Side (yes, even with ESA). If the LIRR could use that old freight spur ROW to link the LIRR main into the north side of Sunnyside, then you could add a stop at the foot of Queens Boulevard, affording you easy (possibly underground) connections to Queens Plaza. 

I also don't see how tying the PW into the Bypass is any better than tying it into the LIRR, capacity wise. Assuming we get another East River tunnel for the Bypass, you're still forcing it to share with trains from QB proper, or compressing 2 track pairs into 1 Bypass/tunnel. I'd rather let PW riders keep the more direct route into Midtown and spend the Bypass capacity elsewhere. 

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 (7) 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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

I mean if we're talking *all* future plans, I believe 2 new East River tunnels are at least under study along with all the other stuff... Moreover, you've forgotten about HPA/LIC, which, despite their low current usage, are honestly pretty solid terminals if you're looking for North Brooklyn/LIC/East Side (yes, even with ESA). If the LIRR could use that old freight spur ROW to link the LIRR main into the north side of Sunnyside, then you could add a stop at the foot of Queens Boulevard, affording you easy (possibly underground) connections to Queens Plaza. 

I also don't see how tying the PW into the Bypass is any better than tying it into the LIRR, capacity wise. Assuming we get another East River tunnel for the Bypass, you're still forcing it to share with trains from QB proper, or compressing 2 track pairs into 1 Bypass/tunnel. I'd rather let PW riders keep the more direct route into Midtown and spend the Bypass capacity elsewhere. 

Realistically speaking, I don't see full utilization of 30TPH for QB Bypass to FH alone. That would nearly double total TPH into the Jamaica area, which is a bit overkill, and there's a lack of suitable terminals (and by suitable, I also mean a lack of terminals where running such a heavy service would be warranted.) Hence the PW capture suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

With all future plans into account, the main bottleneck is still Manhattan travel. You have four pairs of tracks (Hell Gate, Main Line, PW) going into three (Penn and ESA), which is why I prefer capturing the PW and tying it in with a Bypass line as well.

There will be heavy branching and less reliable service with PW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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