Jump to content

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Caelestor said:

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.

This is exactly my point, though. Give HPA/LIC some investment, and they could be excellent reliever terminals for the Manhattan heavy hitters. With LIC/Astoria/North Brooklyn growing the way they are, I think that you could absolutely justify 6 tph to that area in the rushes -- especially if you add a stop with closer proximity to downtown LIC.

I also think that while ESA will make the East Side a lot more accessible than it is today, there will remain some areas on the far East side best accessed with the train-to-ferry combination. 

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

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.

I absolutely think that's a worthy use. With Archer to Laurelton and Hillside out to Francis Lewis, I think you'll easily see the sort of ridership that justifies those service levels -- and that's to say nothing of the inevitable increase in bus transfers as regional population grows. 

I also think that a subway line to PW would run up against some very real operational constraints. Off the bat, you have a long section of single track (including a rather large vidaduct in Manhasset) from Port Washington to Great Neck. In theory, you could rebuild it, but the ROW isn't all that wide, so any such effort would mean eminent domain in the Gold Coast -- no small challenge even for the more strong willed among us. This, of course, is to say nothing of the fact that such a route would be extremely long -- a PW to Lower Manhattan service would head towards the 23 mile mark, and would easily crest thirty if sent to Brooklyn, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 hours ago, RR503 said:

This is exactly my point, though. Give HPA/LIC some investment, and they could be excellent reliever terminals for the Manhattan heavy hitters. With LIC/Astoria/North Brooklyn growing the way they are, I think that you could absolutely justify 6 tph to that area in the rushes -- especially if you add a stop with closer proximity to downtown LIC.

I also think that while ESA will make the East Side a lot more accessible than it is today, there will remain some areas on the far East side best accessed with the train-to-ferry combination. 

I absolutely think that's a worthy use. With Archer to Laurelton and Hillside out to Francis Lewis, I think you'll easily see the sort of ridership that justifies those service levels -- and that's to say nothing of the inevitable increase in bus transfers as regional population grows. 

I also think that a subway line to PW would run up against some very real operational constraints. Off the bat, you have a long section of single track (including a rather large vidaduct in Manhasset) from Port Washington to Great Neck. In theory, you could rebuild it, but the ROW isn't all that wide, so any such effort would mean eminent domain in the Gold Coast -- no small challenge even for the more strong willed among us. This, of course, is to say nothing of the fact that such a route would be extremely long -- a PW to Lower Manhattan service would head towards the 23 mile mark, and would easily crest thirty if sent to Brooklyn, 

What about making the areas that are single tracked two levels of such?  That would probably be the best solution to that in more narrow areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RR503 said:

This is exactly my point, though. Give HPA/LIC some investment, and they could be excellent reliever terminals for the Manhattan heavy hitters. With LIC/Astoria/North Brooklyn growing the way they are, I think that you could absolutely justify 6 tph to that area in the rushes -- especially if you add a stop with closer proximity to downtown LIC.

I also think that while ESA will make the East Side a lot more accessible than it is today, there will remain some areas on the far East side best accessed with the train-to-ferry combination. 

I absolutely think that's a worthy use. With Archer to Laurelton and Hillside out to Francis Lewis, I think you'll easily see the sort of ridership that justifies those service levels -- and that's to say nothing of the inevitable increase in bus transfers as regional population grows. 

I also think that a subway line to PW would run up against some very real operational constraints. Off the bat, you have a long section of single track (including a rather large vidaduct in Manhasset) from Port Washington to Great Neck. In theory, you could rebuild it, but the ROW isn't all that wide, so any such effort would mean eminent domain in the Gold Coast -- no small challenge even for the more strong willed among us. This, of course, is to say nothing of the fact that such a route would be extremely long -- a PW to Lower Manhattan service would head towards the 23 mile mark, and would easily crest thirty if sent to Brooklyn, 

Who says you have to run full services all the way to PW? We don't run every (A) to Rockaway Park; you can terminate most trains at Great Neck.

Right now, PW from Penn to Great Neck all stops is 33 minutes, and to PW is 45 minutes, which is hardly a cutoff for how far you can get into Queens (in comparison, the (F) is 40 minutes from Jamaica-179 to Rockefeller Center. Service hours is more important than service miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Who says you have to run full services all the way to PW? We don't run every (A) to Rockaway Park; you can terminate most trains at Great Neck.

Right now, PW from Penn to Great Neck all stops is 33 minutes, and to PW is 45 minutes, which is hardly a cutoff for how far you can get into Queens (in comparison, the (F) is 40 minutes from Jamaica-179 to Rockefeller Center. Service hours is more important than service miles.

Terminating 12tph at Great Neck would be a nightmare. Unless you can widen the ROW to 4 tracks and squeeze relays in between the mains, you're stuck turning all those trains on a pocket track to the side of a 1 track main. 

I disagree about time vs distance, too. Right now, after merge delays and incidents, the leading cause of gapping/bunching is operator variability. With the PW's rather generous stop spacing, operators' chosen accel. profiles will have a very tangible effect on train performance -- something that will be aggravated greatly with ridership, and yes, route length. I'd also avoid using the (F) as an example of good performance. It, well, sucks. 

Regardless, you still aren't defending PW conversion properly. Why is branching the Bypass better than leaving it, extending Hillside and Archer, and leveraging HPA/LIC? That gets you more capacity and flexibility overall, if my calculations are serving me correctly. 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Who says you have to run full services all the way to PW? We don't run every (A) to Rockaway Park; you can terminate most trains at Great Neck.

Right now, PW from Penn to Great Neck all stops is 33 minutes, and to PW is 45 minutes, which is hardly a cutoff for how far you can get into Queens (in comparison, the (F) is 40 minutes from Jamaica-179 to Rockefeller Center. Service hours is more important than service miles.

That's great; the question then becomes what you do west of Harold. If you keep the two PW tracks separate from the railroad up to that point (and break any mainline connections accordingly to avoid the FRA rules) then you could pop a portal between 57 and 54 Sts, then run the new tracks under Newtown Rd to 30 Av, then 30 Av to Vernon Blvd and swing under 2 Av at 86 St to become express tracks. I agree with RR503 that running respectable subway service out that far would entail dramatically expanding Great Neck Station. The big question would be whether you could relocate the senior center or take away their basement. If you could, you could probably widen the station to four tracks, with each side platform becoming an island platform and the outer track pairs running under North and South Station Plaza, respectively. Add a crossover just west of the station and use the northern island platform to platform trains to Great Neck, with the southern one handling service to Port Washington, then continue the two outer tracks as far as the Colonial Rd overpass. Demolish the senior center and plop a 5-10 track yard where it used to be and you'd probably be OK.

That assumes we can't take land from Port Washington to Great Neck, and would result in maybe 3-5tph running through during rush with all other service being provided by a new (S) along the single track chunk of the line. If we could take the land to run double track out to Port Washington we could basically take over the existing yard infrastructure and probably turn ~25-30TPH there fairly easily. The only other thing I'd suggest at that point would be to see about four-tracking the line west of Great Neck; local trains would make all existing stops plus infills at 108 St, Junction Blvd, Broadway ((M)(R) transfer at Elmhurst Av) and Queens Blvd and new stops at 48 St ( (M)(R) transfer at 46 St), Steinway St, 31 St ((N)(W) connection) and 21 St, while express trains would serve PW, Plandome, Manhasset, Great Neck, Little Neck, Bayside, Broadway, Flushing, Mets, Woodside, 48 St, and 31 St.

Edited by engineerboy6561
Premature post, wanted to finish proposal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Terminating 12tph at Great Neck would be a nightmare. Unless you can widen the ROW to 4 tracks and squeeze relays in between the mains, you're stuck turning all those trains on a pocket track to the side of a 1 track main. 

I disagree about time vs distance, too. Right now, after merge delays and incidents, the leading cause of gapping/bunching is operator variability. With the PW's rather generous stop spacing, operators' chosen accel. profiles will have a very tangible effect on train performance -- something that will be aggravated greatly with ridership, and yes, route length. I'd also avoid using the (F) as an example of good performance. It, well, sucks. 

Regardless, you still aren't defending PW conversion properly. Why is branching the Bypass better than leaving it, extending Hillside and Archer, and leveraging HPA/LIC? That gets you more capacity and flexibility overall, if my calculations are serving me correctly. 

How would you fully utilize all that capacity through Jamaica? Today there is no terminal in an outer borough that turns anywhere near a full 30TPH local and has express services as well.

HPA/LIC leads us to the familiar pitfalls of the (G) being the only QBL local or the Fulton Local terminating at Court St. At the end of the day, people want to go under the river. The (7) has some capacity because of CBTC and QBP being the peak load point, but I would expect that situation to drastically change with the continual massive densification of LIC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

How would you fully utilize all that capacity through Jamaica? Today there is no terminal in an outer borough that turns anywhere near a full 30TPH local and has express services as well.

HPA/LIC leads us to the familiar pitfalls of the (G) being the only QBL local or the Fulton Local terminating at Court St. At the end of the day, people want to go under the river. The (7) has some capacity because of CBTC and QBP being the peak load point, but I would expect that situation to drastically change with the continual massive densification of LIC. 

If you mean how in terms of terminal capacity, you could in theory run most — if not all — service to 179. But of course, that’s a terrible idea. As I’ve said, you’d recapture LIRR to Laurelton (or Valley Stream) build a proper terminal there, and then do 30tph that way and 30tph to 179. 

This is the thing, though. LIC is quickly becoming a destination in its own right, what with all the office construction there. I don’t think I need to remind you that most job growth in NYC over the last few decades has been in the outer boroughs, and LI commuter patterns reflect that. Add into this a greater potential for reverse commutation post-third track, and I think you have a strong case for some incremental improvements. 

North Brooklyn, too, cannot be discounted — it will never be a major office hub, but it sure can pull its weight in terms of cultural attractions. Moreover, as peak ridership stagnates, that off peak/leisure ridership is becoming increasingly important to cater to, so I really don’t think we can make these areas less accessible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2018 at 8:23 PM, 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). 

Can the 8th Ave Local tracks run two services now? WTC currently seems to have enough difficulty turning just the (E) as it is.

As for the (G), I’ve always favored extending it north into LIC (maybe even Astoria, but on a parallel route to the (N)(W)), as a way to connect to all of the lines that converge there. I feel that between that and revived passenger rail on the Lower Montauk Branch, LIC transit options would be significantly improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Can the 8th Ave Local tracks run two services now? WTC currently seems to have enough difficulty turning just the (E) as it is.

As for the (G), I’ve always favored extending it north into LIC (maybe even Astoria, but on a parallel route to the (N)(W)), as a way to connect to all of the lines that converge there. I feel that between that and revived passenger rail on the Lower Montauk Branch, LIC transit options would be significantly improved.

I’ve heard 18-20 tph be thrown around as WTC’s capacity. Post 8th CBTC, that should be more like 24-26. Especially if you deinterline and send 8th local to CPW local, that should be more than adequate. 

Absolutely with you on the (G). @officiallyliam made a map a while back showing the route that the (G) would take through LIC to hit all those stops, and he had it continuing to Astoria. If only I could find it... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Can the 8th Ave Local tracks run two services now? WTC currently seems to have enough difficulty turning just the (E) as it is.

As for the (G), I’ve always favored extending it north into LIC (maybe even Astoria, but on a parallel route to the (N)(W)), as a way to connect to all of the lines that converge there. I feel that between that and revived passenger rail on the Lower Montauk Branch, LIC transit options would be significantly improved.

If I may make an addition to my earlier post (was typing in a hurry), I think the Lower Montauk Branch actually presents some really interesting opportunities both for Queens and the LIRR. If you reactivated the Montauk Cutoff, you could plop a replacement for the current HPA station down in Yard A at the beginning of the Queens Boulevard bridge over Sunnyside. That puts you within a 5 minute walk of the (7)(E)(M)(N)(R)(W) trains. Add in our (G) extension, and that gets included too. This, of course, also finally brings LIRR to the core of LIC, while also finally giving central Queens the rail service it needs. 

On a different note, I think I've articulated my objections to the PW recapture quite terribly. My apologies for that. I think my qualm is less "Jamaica needs 60tph" and more "if we can serve PW adequately with regional rail service, why spend subway capacity there?" I'd much rather see capacity not needed in Jamaica head out the LIE or Jewel Ave or Union Turnpike. That doesn't cause unnecessary capacital redundancies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RR503 said:

If you mean how in terms of terminal capacity, you could in theory run most — if not all — service to 179. But of course, that’s a terrible idea. As I’ve said, you’d recapture LIRR to Laurelton (or Valley Stream) build a proper terminal there, and then do 30tph that way and 30tph to 179. 

This is the thing, though. LIC is quickly becoming a destination in its own right, what with all the office construction there. I don’t think I need to remind you that most job growth in NYC over the last few decades has been in the outer boroughs, and LI commuter patterns reflect that. Add into this a greater potential for reverse commutation post-third track, and I think you have a strong case for some incremental improvements. 

North Brooklyn, too, cannot be discounted — it will never be a major office hub, but it sure can pull its weight in terms of cultural attractions. Moreover, as peak ridership stagnates, that off peak/leisure ridership is becoming increasingly important to cater to, so I really don’t think we can make these areas less accessible.  

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 (7)(G).

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 (7), 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. 
46 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Can the 8th Ave Local tracks run two services now? WTC currently seems to have enough difficulty turning just the (E) as it is.

As for the (G), I’ve always favored extending it north into LIC (maybe even Astoria, but on a parallel route to the (N)(W)), as a way to connect to all of the lines that converge there. I feel that between that and revived passenger rail on the Lower Montauk Branch, LIC transit options would be significantly improved.

Presumably the (C) runs express to reduce congestion at Canal St or the (A)(C) run local and terminate at WTC. Alternatively if 53 St tph is increased with a new (K) service, then there's a possiblity of curtailing the (A)(C) to 207 St - WTC local and running the (E)(K) into Fulton St. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

If I may make an addition to my earlier post (was typing in a hurry), I think the Lower Montauk Branch actually presents some really interesting opportunities both for Queens and the LIRR. If you reactivated the Montauk Cutoff, you could plop a replacement for the current HPA station down in Yard A at the beginning of the Queens Boulevard bridge over Sunnyside. That puts you within a 5 minute walk of the (7)(E)(M)(N)(R)(W) trains. Add in our (G) extension, and that gets included too. This, of course, also finally brings LIRR to the core of LIC, while also finally giving central Queens the rail service it needs. 

On a different note, I think I've articulated my objections to the PW recapture quite terribly. My apologies for that. I think my qualm is less "Jamaica needs 60tph" and more "if we can serve PW adequately with regional rail service, why spend subway capacity there?" I'd much rather see capacity not needed in Jamaica head out the LIE or Jewel Ave or Union Turnpike. That doesn't cause unnecessary capacital redundancies. 

The thing that would be interesting to see is which of those corridors would make the most sense for a buildout, and how they'd be served. The LIE east of Woodhaven would be the cheapest because you could build it out as an el, but then the question becomes what you connect it to so that you can maintain decent service and a high throughput out that far. If you run it all the way out to Little Neck that's 8.5 miles (compared to 5.6 out to 179 St), which means you'd need local and express service for it to be viable. You could just split the QBL trunk in two, but that still leaves everyone packed onto QBL.

I'm personally more of a fan of Astoria/Northern, with a swing north for the airport. You could basically build 2 Av express tracks that turn east above 86 St, then run them along the GCP to the intersection with Northern Blvd, then along Northern to Douglaston Pkwy or Little Neck Pkwy. I'd prefer to build it with four tracks so that people from Bell Blvd and east get a fast ride into the city, but that's probably not strictly necessary. Built well (1800' curve radii) you could probably push operating speeds to 60-65mph, making express trains dramatically better than the PW branch (similar time to Midtown, much higher frequency). Done that way you could use the (N)(Q) as the local services and have 2 Av express trains making the runs out from Douglaston/Little Neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the short term, what Queens needs the most is an improved Astoria terminal. That line is growing rapidly, and will face only more challenges as CBTC increases (7) transfer flows. With the terminal capable of 30tph, then you could deinterline, and pick up 15tph for free. The B division Queens service pattern would look like this:

- (F)(M) via 63 and QB exp/local, respectively. 

- (E)(K) via 53 and QB exp/local, respectively. 

- (R)(W) via 60th to Astoria. 

That's 80-90tph total, or a whole lot more than the 62 we run today. 

Medium term, you're pretty much stuck until you get another tunnel from Manhattan. In theory, you could send (F)(M) via Bypass and run the (G) via local, but barring some massive growth in Brooklyn/Queens employment, that's gonna suffer the same problems that it did the first time. Without a new tunnel, the only thing I can really think of is swinging the Astoria line over to LGA and then across into Flushing. At 30tph, you could run peak-direction express service on the Astoria el, but I still don't know how wise of an investment that would be, and how many people that would actually end up benefiting. 

Long term, I really see two major prongs of attack in Queens: a SAS-Bypass line (with plenty of branching opportunities) and a line across the Astoria Boulevard corridor. The former is relatively easy to conceptualize, but the latter can be done in many ways. The foamer in me wants to see an Astoria line built out from the (L) going up 10th and over 86th, but that's, well, a large ask. An extension of the Astoria line may be more realistic. 

In terms of the railroad, I disagree with those advocating for the recapture of PW. The Hell Gate line -- even with MNR coming down -- will never fill more than half a tunnel's worth of capacity. The PW can take the other half and be sated -- I don't think the PW needs an entire tunnel to itself, and I don't see it needing that much anytime in the near future. Then, you have the 4 LIRR main tracks, 2 of which go to GCT and 2 of which go to Penn. Done. (As a side note, if you're really interested in improving Manhattan-LI capacity, you really should be looking at through-running at Penn or a large-scale platform/track reconfiguration to allow for higher capacity ops -- that will gain you infinitely more than removing PW from the picture.)

Where I see the real capacity crunch is at Jamaica. There, you have eight tracks (4 south shore, 4 ML) feeding into 6. While I don't think the Lower Montauk corridor could ever absorb a full track pair's worth of LIRR, I think that adding that additional track pair in play, thus having a route through central Queens to Downtown LIC is a worthy investment. I say this not only from a redundancy perspective, but also because LIC is, well, important.

With the LIRR waking up to reverse commutation, increasing access to areas in NYC with high residential density is paramount to the railroad's efficacy. Moreover, LIC is also a relatively major office hub, and the service of that needs to be addressed properly. Most folks I know who commute from LI to LIC either walk the mile to HPA or take the (7) to Woodside. Given that most LIRR trains pass a few feet from downtown LIC, I find that a tad ridiculous. Finally, I think the subway connections offered in LIC are extremely valuable. Not everyone wants to deal with Penn or GCT, and there will always be people whose destinations are best served via subway transfer. There again LIC wins -- while also providing a completely isolated secondary route to those connections in the event of a disruption.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

The thing that would be interesting to see is which of those corridors would make the most sense for a buildout, and how they'd be served. The LIE east of Woodhaven would be the cheapest because you could build it out as an el, but then the question becomes what you connect it to so that you can maintain decent service and a high throughput out that far. If you run it all the way out to Little Neck that's 8.5 miles (compared to 5.6 out to 179 St), which means you'd need local and express service for it to be viable. You could just split the QBL trunk in two, but that still leaves everyone packed onto QBL.

I'm personally more of a fan of Astoria/Northern, with a swing north for the airport. You could basically build 2 Av express tracks that turn east above 86 St, then run them along the GCP to the intersection with Northern Blvd, then along Northern to Douglaston Pkwy or Little Neck Pkwy. I'd prefer to build it with four tracks so that people from Bell Blvd and east get a fast ride into the city, but that's probably not strictly necessary. Built well (1800' curve radii) you could probably push operating speeds to 60-65mph, making express trains dramatically better than the PW branch (similar time to Midtown, much higher frequency). Done that way you could use the (N)(Q) as the local services and have 2 Av express trains making the runs out from Douglaston/Little Neck.

I actually think LIE would be very difficult; the interchanges (Woodhaven/QBL, GCP, Clearview, Cross Island) are all pretty gnarly, there's not a lot of room in the ROW for an el, and on top of that there are pretty drastic changes in elevation along the route with constant switching between overpasses and underpasses.

To me, the transformative things would be, in no particular order:

  • (7) to Bayside (probably via Northern)
  • Hillside express to Springfield
  • (E) to Laurelton or Valley Stream
  • QBL local to 188/73rd via 73rd
  • 86 St/Astoria/Parsons to Flushing and Jamaica

The first three alone would put pretty much every square inch of Queens a fifteen minute bus ride from a subway station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I actually think LIE would be very difficult; the interchanges (Woodhaven/QBL, GCP, Clearview, Cross Island) are all pretty gnarly, there's not a lot of room in the ROW for an el, and on top of that there are pretty drastic changes in elevation along the route with constant switching between overpasses and underpasses.

To me, the transformative things would be, in no particular order:

  • (7) to Bayside (probably via Northern)
  • Hillside express to Springfield
  • (E) to Laurelton or Valley Stream
  • QBL local to 188/73rd via 73rd
  • 86 St/Astoria/Parsons to Flushing and Jamaica

The first three alone would put pretty much every square inch of Queens a fifteen minute bus ride from a subway station.

(7) to Bayside would be great, but I don't know if there's enough room on the (7) to support that. Peak direction (7) service is already running 40 tph and those trains are packed. While a decent chunk of the Flushing passengers are probably coming from points east on the buses, if you get much densification on the line or many new passengers who switch from cars the (7) is going to be just as bad as the Lex going forward, which means we'll really need a relief for it. 

I strongly agree about Hillside express service to Springfield Blvd and suggest extending the (M) and (R) to at least 179th, and reconfiguring the Briarwood junction to the same style as the CPW junction just below 59 St so the (E) can stay express and not foul local trains at 75 Av or Union Turnpike. Sending the (E) to Valley Stream on the old Rockaway line would be great as well, assuming infill stops on 109 Av, Linden Blvd/Brewer Blvd, and Baisley Blvd, with (E) trains taking over the stops at Locust Manor, Laurelton, Rosedale, and Valley Stream; we'd just need to reconfigure the Valley Stream interlocking so that the LIRR Far Rockaway tracks connect to the northern two tracks, and then all LIRR service can come down through St. Albans.

 

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I actually think LIE would be very difficult; the interchanges (Woodhaven/QBL, GCP, Clearview, Cross Island) are all pretty gnarly, there's not a lot of room in the ROW for an el, and on top of that there are pretty drastic changes in elevation along the route with constant switching between overpasses and underpasses.

I think the most difficult one would actually be the one you didn't mention -- the Van Wyck. All those others are relatively simple bi-level interchanges that can be dealt with in the same vein as AirTrain -- ie build the El over it. Van Wyck is a tri-level interchange that would require our line to go 50+ feet above the ground -- not impossible by any stretch, but no small feat either.

Beyond that, I think the LIE is actually a good route. The fact that it permits el construction dramatically lowers necessary investment, and the line could quite easily be connected to a Bypass where the LIE and LIRR intersect. The elevation changes are there, yes, but I again don't think they're as bad as you make them out to be. From QB to the GCP, it's overpass world. From there onwards -- with the exception of Utopia Parkway -- the ROW is sunken. Of course, from a 'hitting existing centers of business' perspective, it isn't nearly as effective as a Jewel/73 Aves or Union Turnpike line, but that's a trade I'm willing to make -- the LIE is by no means isolated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

(7) to Bayside would be great, but I don't know if there's enough room on the (7) to support that. Peak direction (7) service is already running 40 tph and those trains are packed. While a decent chunk of the Flushing passengers are probably coming from points east on the buses, if you get much densification on the line or many new passengers who switch from cars the (7) is going to be just as bad as the Lex going forward, which means we'll really need a relief for it. 

I strongly agree about Hillside express service to Springfield Blvd and suggest extending the (M) and (R) to at least 179th, and reconfiguring the Briarwood junction to the same style as the CPW junction just below 59 St so the (E) can stay express and not foul local trains at 75 Av or Union Turnpike. Sending the (E) to Valley Stream on the old Rockaway line would be great as well, assuming infill stops on 109 Av, Linden Blvd/Brewer Blvd, and Baisley Blvd, with (E) trains taking over the stops at Locust Manor, Laurelton, Rosedale, and Valley Stream; we'd just need to reconfigure the Valley Stream interlocking so that the LIRR Far Rockaway tracks connect to the northern two tracks, and then all LIRR service can come down through St. Albans.

 

The (7)<7> 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 (M)(R) 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 (M)(R) down Union Turnpike to a better terminal seems like a pretty good idea if the QBL bypass is built.

Agreed on the (E) extension.

36 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I think the most difficult one would actually be the one you didn't mention -- the Van Wyck. All those others are relatively simple bi-level interchanges that can be dealt with in the same vein as AirTrain -- ie build the El over it. Van Wyck is a tri-level interchange that would require our line to go 50+ feet above the ground -- not impossible by any stretch, but no small feat either.

Beyond that, I think the LIE is actually a good route. The fact that it permits el construction dramatically lowers necessary investment, and the line could quite easily be connected to a Bypass where the LIE and LIRR intersect. The elevation changes are there, yes, but I again don't think they're as bad as you make them out to be. From QB to the GCP, it's overpass world. From there onwards -- with the exception of Utopia Parkway -- the ROW is sunken. Of course, from a 'hitting existing centers of business' perspective, it isn't nearly as effective as a Jewel/73 Aves or Union Turnpike line, but that's a trade I'm willing to make -- the LIE is by no means isolated. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

(7) to Bayside would be great, but I don't know if there's enough room on the (7) to support that. Peak direction (7) service is already running 40 tph and those trains are packed. While a decent chunk of the Flushing passengers are probably coming from points east on the buses, if you get much densification on the line or many new passengers who switch from cars the (7) is going to be just as bad as the Lex going forward, which means we'll really need a relief for it. 

I strongly agree about Hillside express service to Springfield Blvd and suggest extending the (M) and (R) to at least 179th, and reconfiguring the Briarwood junction to the same style as the CPW junction just below 59 St so the (E) can stay express and not foul local trains at 75 Av or Union Turnpike. Sending the (E) to Valley Stream on the old Rockaway line would be great as well, assuming infill stops on 109 Av, Linden Blvd/Brewer Blvd, and Baisley Blvd, with (E) trains taking over the stops at Locust Manor, Laurelton, Rosedale, and Valley Stream; we'd just need to reconfigure the Valley Stream interlocking so that the LIRR Far Rockaway tracks connect to the northern two tracks, and then all LIRR service can come down through St. Albans.

 

This is why I also proposed an L-86-Astoria line for relief. (Second best choice would be running the PW-subway style to a location in Manhattan.)

vtwH8zk.png

 

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I think the most difficult one would actually be the one you didn't mention -- the Van Wyck. All those others are relatively simple bi-level interchanges that can be dealt with in the same vein as AirTrain -- ie build the El over it. Van Wyck is a tri-level interchange that would require our line to go 50+ feet above the ground -- not impossible by any stretch, but no small feat either.

Beyond that, I think the LIE is actually a good route. The fact that it permits el construction dramatically lowers necessary investment, and the line could quite easily be connected to a Bypass where the LIE and LIRR intersect. The elevation changes are there, yes, but I again don't think they're as bad as you make them out to be. From QB to the GCP, it's overpass world. From there onwards -- with the exception of Utopia Parkway -- the ROW is sunken. Of course, from a 'hitting existing centers of business' perspective, it isn't nearly as effective as a Jewel/73 Aves or Union Turnpike line, but that's a trade I'm willing to make -- the LIE is by no means isolated. 

To permit El construction, you have to have somewhere to bring the El aboveground. Where would you even do that? There's not enough room for an elevated structure to gain height enough to be elevated over the LIE and the pedestrian bridges and overpasses throughout the route. And the ROW is very constrained; the median shoulder is barely two feet wide, if that.

The other reason I'm not a huge fan of a LIRR alignment is because unlike RBB or 73rd, where splits of local service would either not happen or be very close to the terminal, the construction of an LIE line would split the Queens Blvd local pretty early, and just dump people onto overcrowded platforms at Roosevelt. Unless you're describing another line entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is why I also proposed an L-86-Astoria line for relief. (Second best choice would be running the PW-subway style to a location in Manhattan.)

vtwH8zk.png

 

That's an interesting idea but it would make the (L) really long and somewhat unwieldy; the stop spacing between 31 St and 82 St is also farther than I'm a fan of. I'm going to post a counterproposal later tonight or tomorrow.

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Caelestor said:

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.

I think rerouting capacity away from Jamaica is much more defensible if it isn't just replacing extant capacity elsewhere. 

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

To permit El construction, you have to have somewhere to bring the El aboveground. Where would you even do that? There's not enough room for an elevated structure to gain height enough to be elevated over the LIE and the pedestrian bridges and overpasses throughout the route. And the ROW is very constrained; the median shoulder is barely two feet wide, if that.

The other reason I'm not a huge fan of a LIRR alignment is because unlike RBB or 73rd, where splits of local service would either not happen or be very close to the terminal, the construction of an LIE line would split the Queens Blvd local pretty early, and just dump people onto overcrowded platforms at Roosevelt. Unless you're describing another line entirely.

My apologies for being unclear -- this would branch off from the Bypass where LIRR crosses 495 and head east from there. It would stop at an upper level of Woodhaven boulevard, but for the exact reasons you mention, I don't think you could have a track connection. 

As for 73rd, if you wanted to save some money, you could probably use the Jamaica Yard leads to get you off the corridor itself. That also keeps the connection with expresses and bypass trains at 71st. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the bypass should just feed into the QBL local tracks east of Forest Hills. It would reduce costs and would eliminate a merge. 

Sending any line up the LIE isn't really that beneficial because it would have to be deep-bored and construction would be costly. Plus, the LIE doesn't really have a lot of housing near it. The surrounding area is mostly park/cemetery. I would rather prefer extensions of the (N)(W) along the Kissena Park Corridor, (7) to Bayside, and/or a Union Turnpike Line. As for Jewel/73rd, I've never been a fan of it because it would be circuitous, and its catchment area can easily be covered by the extensions above. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That's an interesting idea but it would make the (L) really long and somewhat unwieldy; the stop spacing between 31 St and 82 St is also farther than I'm a fan of. I'm going to post a counterproposal later tonight or tomorrow.

For your first concern, the proposal kind of reminds me of the (E) when it used to go all the way to Rockaway Park, length definitely is a concern.

The stop spacing between 31st and 82nd kind of makes sense since their is a parkway along the line, and I highly doubt the ridership along the area of the line would warrant an extra station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That's an interesting idea but it would make the (L) really long and somewhat unwieldy; the stop spacing between 31 St and 82 St is also farther than I'm a fan of. I'm going to post a counterproposal later tonight or tomorrow.

Stops are money, and I honestly do not believe that Steinway merits a stop. It also conveniently avoids any station construction within the actual Grand Central corridor itself.

The (L) would still be a line operating on its own, and it would be no longer than, say, the (F)  or (D) .  

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Also, the bypass should just feed into the QBL local tracks east of Forest Hills. It would reduce costs and would eliminate a merge. 

Sending any line up the LIE isn't really that beneficial because it would have to be deep-bored and construction would be costly. Plus, the LIE doesn't really have a lot of housing near it. The surrounding area is mostly park/cemetery. I would rather prefer extensions of the (N)(W) along the Kissena Park Corridor, (7) to Bayside, and/or a Union Turnpike Line. As for Jewel/73rd, I've never been a fan of it because it would be circuitous, and its catchment area can easily be covered by the extensions above. 

I explained above how LIE could be elevated -- a fact which, in my opinion, makes it infinitely more attractive for cost reasons. 

So I took a few minutes to look at the merits of all these proposals being thrown around from a density perspective, and made a map. I apologize for the lack of labeling -- I trust you all know what's what.

XIBO7P7.png

If I may make a plug for the LIE, the route hits significant density before the park, and does a decent job after -- though, I concede, not as good as 73rd. 

Kissena skirts most areas of density, it seems. This, when combined with the complexities of park-based routings, makes it unattractive to me, but I can see how a similar line would be able to pull bus riders out from Flushing. 

Edited by RR503
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.