Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Agreed. The V wouldn’t be a express, not without a QB bypass line. There is capacity on the local tracks, so it would have to go there, although that merge with the express  certainly would be an issue. Turning all those trains at 179 would be pretty crazy. 

Maybe it would be worth considering doing a bypass in phases and build the bypass phases in tandem with the future SAS phases. Or, would it would be worth it to finish the Roosevelt Avenue upper level platforms, lay tracks on the ramps leading to the upper level from the local tracks and have the V terminate there until the bypass is built?

Edited February 9, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[officiallyliam]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. The V wouldn’t be a express, not without a QB bypass line. There is capacity on the local tracks, so it would have to go there, although that merge with the express  certainly would be an issue. Turning all those trains at 179 would be pretty crazy. 

Maybe it would be worth considering doing a bypass in phases and build the bypass phases in tandem with the future SAS phases. Or, would it would be worth it to finish the Roosevelt Avenue upper level platforms, lay tracks on the ramps leading to the upper level from the local tracks and have the V terminate there until the bypass is built?

The bypass in phases idea is worrying to me. It means we could end up with an awkward stub-end in the middle of Queens. Example: the 63rd Street tunnel dead-ending at Queensbridge from its opening until 2001.

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

Here's the issue: 63rd has capacity. Queens Boulevard, at least in its current form, does not.

Given that the  and  both are high density lines running razor thin merge margins at high frequencies, reducing their numbers to squeeze a SAS  in on the express tracks seems unwise. So, really any pre-bypass SAS service would have to run via the local tracks -- which have track capacity, but are restricted at their terminal -- Forest Hills. The  and  run a combined 20ish tph during peak hours, leaving about 10 more tph for a SAS service. However, to use that capacity, at least two of the  or  services would have to be extended to 179th, where terminal capacity exists to host their frequencies. That said, even there, fumigation processes would have to be changed to permit one train every two minutes to enter the layups, lest dwell congestion create Forest Hills further east. Combined with the  , and the 3 peak hour s, 179 would be fumigating and turning 48 trains per hour -- more than any other terminal save for maybe Stillwell. 

This service pattern poses issues beyond just fumigation at 179. While the  would be forced to run express, shortening its route, the  (and to a lesser extent the ) would be made longer, worsening their already abysmal reliability. What's more, given that the  merge at 36th street would not be frequency matched (3:2 ratio),  trains being held to let an  pass in front would not be an uncommon occurrence, delaying the 30tph wall of local service a  would require. 

In a nutshell, while not impossible without the addition of a bypass, adding SAS service to Queens Boulevard would be one hell of an operational puzzle...

Queens B-Division in general is a hell of an operational puzzle. Had the IND built 53rd St and Cranberry with four tracks, this entire mess would've never happened, and we'd have an IND that was congested but at least operationally made sense. But that's neither here nor there.

[kosciusko]

What about axing  service on 6th avenue in order to put the  (teal) on the QB local? 

Or, switch the roles around.  are the express and  are local.

Edited February 9, 2018 by kosciusko

[bobtehpanda]

38 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

What about axing  service on 6th avenue in order to put the  (teal) on the QB local? 

Or, switch the roles around.  are the express and  are local.

Rearranging the deck chairs is not going to get you much either way. The will be overcrowded as a result.

[Dannny]

^that, and here, in this case, its best to leave Queens Boulevard the way it is. QB has OK service on good day, and having the the  go local will cause delays to the , as it will be the only express service. The one thing they could do is have the  go QB express, since they might run more  trains which would lessen up on the headway's. Crowding shouldn't be so bad on the local either.

also, isn't this supposed to be the Second Avenue Discussion?

Edited February 9, 2018 by Dannny

[T to Dyre Avenue]

50 minutes ago, Dannny said:

^that, and here, in this case, its best to leave Queens Boulevard the way it is. QB has OK service on good day, and having the the  go local will cause delays to the , as it will be the only express service. The one thing they could do is have the  go QB express, since they might run more  trains which would lessen up on the headway's. Crowding shouldn't be so bad on the local either.

also, isn't this supposed to be the Second Avenue Discussion?

This is related to the Second Avenue subway because we're discussing how to fit a Queens-SAS service on Queens Blvd alongside the  and  services without impacting them too terribly. Without QB bypass tracks, or some other parallel route to the Queens Blvd IND, the only place said Queens-SAS service can go is the QB. I agree that fitting the ( V ) on the QB local is possible, but it will be a tight fit.

That's why I suggested possibly having the ( V ) terminate on the currently-unused upper level platforms at Roosevelt Ave might be an option worth considering. Because then you'd have a SAS service with a direct transfer to the other QB services plus the , which could mitigate the need for long and expensive underground passageways connecting the  and  to the . That's probably the cheapest and easiest thing to do, although it may not be the best option because there would be a merge between the  express and the ( V ) at the 63rd St Tunnel/QBL junction.

 

[Caelestor]

36 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

What about axing  service on 6th avenue in order to put the  (teal) on the QB local? 

Or, switch the roles around.  are the express and  are local.

There are 6 pairs of B-Division tracks through 42 St (Broadway, 6 Ave, 8 Ave) that feed into

• CPW (2 pairs of tracks)
• SAS (1 pair)
• 63 St (1 pair)
• 60 St (1 pair)
• 53 St (1 pair)

However, because of interlining only the 6 Ave tracks are running at full capacity through Midtown. In the short-term, Broadway can be untangled so that all the express trains run through SAS, as originally planned in the 1999 DEIS before the public demanded the full SAS. 8 Ave is impossible to untangle because there exists an imbalance between its 53 St and CPW branches at its north end, but from personal experience it's the least crowded trunk line relatively.

Long-term, SAS Phase 3 adds another pair of tracks through Midtown, but the issue is that the Broadway express tracks are linked to the upper SAS. Had the 72 St station been built with three tracks,  trains could be short-turned to allow more  trains, but since that's not an option anymore, the lower SAS will almost definitely need a second service to complement the . Hence the teal  through 63 St into Queens, which also needs another line to relieve the  .

The issue then is that 63 St, 53 St, and 60 St have 3 pairs of tracks that feed into Astoria (1 pair) and QBL (2 pairs), but the former's max capacity is half that of a typical line because of its inefficient terminal. It's not possible to cram 5 services along a 4-track corridor without reliability issues, so some new trackage is going to be needed.

Ultimately, the 1960s Program for Action presents the most efficient solution: fully separate the 63 St line from the QBL by building the bypass and connecting it to the QBL local tracks east of Forest Hills. Along with a crossover before 179 St, you could easily support

•  bypass, QBL local east of Forest Hills
•  QBL express to Jamaica Center
•  QBL express to 179 St (weekdays)
•  QBL local

QBL only needs one 15 tph local service because all the riders switch to the express trains at Jackson Heights.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

4 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

to a specific abandoned ROW that is bound to cause great controversy... (

Lol

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, Caelestor said:

There are 6 pairs of B-Division tracks through 42 St (Broadway, 6 Ave, 8 Ave) that feed into

• CPW (2 pairs of tracks)
• SAS (1 pair)
• 63 St (1 pair)
• 60 St (1 pair)
• 53 St (1 pair)

However, because of interlining only the 6 Ave tracks are running at full capacity through Midtown. In the short-term, Broadway can be untangled so that all the express trains run through SAS, as originally planned in the 1999 DEIS before the public demanded the full SAS. 8 Ave is impossible to untangle because there exists an imbalance between its 53 St and CPW branches at its north end, but from personal experience it's the least crowded trunk line relatively.

Long-term, SAS Phase 3 adds another pair of tracks through Midtown, but the issue is that the Broadway express tracks are linked to the upper SAS. Had the 72 St station been built with three tracks,  trains could be short-turned to allow more  trains, but since that's not an option anymore, the lower SAS will almost definitely need a second service to complement the . Hence the teal  through 63 St into Queens, which also needs another line to relieve the  .

The issue then is that 63 St, 53 St, and 60 St have 3 pairs of tracks that feed into Astoria (1 pair) and QBL (2 pairs), but the former's max capacity is half that of a typical line because of its inefficient terminal. It's not possible to cram 5 services along a 4-track corridor without reliability issues, so some new trackage is going to be needed.

Ultimately, the 1960s Program for Action presents the most efficient solution: fully separate the 63 St line from the QBL by building the bypass and connecting it to the QBL local tracks east of Forest Hills. Along with a crossover before 179 St, you could easily support

•  bypass, QBL local east of Forest Hills
•  QBL express to Jamaica Center
•  QBL express to 179 St (weekdays)
•  QBL local

QBL only needs one 15 tph local service because all the riders switch to the express trains at Jackson Heights.

 

I don't know about this. Currently, 7TPH each run on the and  . So you'd essentially be freezing current service levels. With Astoria's development and CBTC coming online in the next few years, you'll need more trains to Astoria. You may even get close to needing around 25-30TPH. The nice thing, though, is that you can unbundle the 60th St tubes as well, since there is now a cross-platform transfer to the Broadway Line at Lex-63. I doubt too many people are going from Broadway local stations south of Herald Square and riding through all the way to QBL local.

 

So my ideal service pattern is: 

- Astoria, 20-30TPH

- QBL local east of Forest Hills, 15 TPH

- QBL express, 15 TPH

- 63 St - QBL express, 15 TPH

SAS  - 63 St - Bypass - QBL local east of Forest Hills, 15 TPH

 

The problem is that neither the 60th St tubes or the 53 St tubes were four-tracked. So we will always have a half-train mismatch, because

63 St - two tracks

60 St - two tracks

53 St - two tracks

And on the other side:

Astoria - two tracks

Queens Blvd - four tracks

Bypass - two tracks

In fact, the bypass makes things worse, by adding an imbalanced 2 additional tracks!

 

The real origin of this problem is that the Eighth Av local stub-ends at WTC, which is an awful terminal. If the local instead connected to Fulton and you could run a full 30 TPH, you could actually fix congestion this way:

Eighth Av local => QBL local

Sixth Av local => QBL express

60th St => Astoria

 

You'd lose the ability to transfer at Queens Plaza, but IMO that isn't the biggest deal. If you tried to run services like that today you'd get super-f**ked over by WTC, though.

Edited February 10, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[KK 6 Ave Local]

Or, Disregarding what everyone said, we make light rail where are no ROW's, add free transfers to subway, use ROW's where there are, and done

(Light Rail costs a ton less of Mr. Krabs' best friends)

Obviously a certain ROW could be filled with freight or Amtrak or whatever in that case we use our creative mushy things called brains and make light rail :J

It's easier said than done but we cross that VERY damaged bridge when we get to it :V

[W4ST]

I think that to create the bypass, we will probably need a new set of tracks under the East River. One idea that I had is:

Two new tracks continue eastward from Lexington/63rd streets.

Along the SAS two tracks diverge (the far track goes above) and then slope downwards to meet the new tracks (and possibly have a connection to the current 63rd street tracks.

The new tracks then go parallel to, then under the current 63rd street tracks and have a stop either at 21st Street Queensbridge (under the current tracks), at Northern Blvd with a connection to Queens Plaza, or at both. Then they would do the bypass.

Then the  could take the new tracks, and the  could go to 125 street.

Then 53 Street could be QBL local, and 63rd street could have 4 tracks for QBL express and bypass.

There are some problems though. I don't know if the tracks could go steep enough to go up and then down between the 2nd Avenue and 63rd Street tunnels. It also introduces a bit more interlining, but I don't know how to get rid of it, because I don't think sending all Broadway lines to 125 street or the bypass would work. Just an idea though.

[W4ST]

Just to clarify, the tracks connecting 2nd avenue and 63rd street would go between the existing tracks and the planned new tracks going to the bypass.

[officiallyliam]

20 hours ago, W4ST said:

I think that to create the bypass, we will probably need a new set of tracks under the East River. One idea that I had is:

Two new tracks continue eastward from Lexington/63rd streets.

Along the SAS two tracks diverge (the far track goes above) and then slope downwards to meet the new tracks (and possibly have a connection to the current 63rd street tracks.

The new tracks then go parallel to, then under the current 63rd street tracks and have a stop either at 21st Street Queensbridge (under the current tracks), at Northern Blvd with a connection to Queens Plaza, or at both. Then they would do the bypass.

Then the  could take the new tracks, and the  could go to 125 street.

Then 53 Street could be QBL local, and 63rd street could have 4 tracks for QBL express and bypass.

There are some problems though. I don't know if the tracks could go steep enough to go up and then down between the 2nd Avenue and 63rd Street tunnels. It also introduces a bit more interlining, but I don't know how to get rid of it, because I don't think sending all Broadway lines to 125 street or the bypass would work. Just an idea though.

The Bypass should have its own East River tunnel in order to minimize reverse branching, but it doesn't need to be this complicated. It could simply be a branch of off SAS at 38th Street (following the LIRR right-of-way through Long Island City) or at 50th Street (following 45th Road through Court Square, then into the LIRR). This tunnel could also facilitate future northern branches off of SAS, such as Northern Blvd, without overloading either 63rd Street or the northern portion of SAS.

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

a branch of off SAS at 38th Street (following the LIRR right-of-way through Long Island City) or at 50th Street (following 45th Road through Court Square, then into the LIRR). This tunnel could also facilitate future northern branches off of SAS,

That's not a bad idea TBH. I was thinking that it can replace Hunts Point and. Long Island City on the (LIRR) after LIC. It could take the Hunts Point tracks from the LIRR. Then from there Having its own Right of way along with new tracks coming from 63 St to create a new trunk line along Northern Blvd. Queens Plaza tunnels  (though I don't think this is feasible) can be rearranged for the to take the local tracks and for the to terminate in the middle tracks. This would be done to promote DE interlining

[officiallyliam]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

That's not a bad idea TBH. I was thinking that it can replace Hunts Point and. Long Island City on the (LIRR) after LIC. It could take the Hunts Point tracks from the LIRR. Then from there Having its own Right of way along with new tracks coming from 63 St to create a new trunk line along Northern Blvd. Queens Plaza tunnels  (though I don't think this is feasible) can be rearranged for the to take the local tracks and for the to terminate in the middle tracks. This would be done to promote DE interlining

You could use the LIRR tracks between Long Island City and Hunters Point, if we accept then that diesel service will be relegated to shuttles on the outer ends of the island. I don't think that would be bad, as it would allow for more frequent and reliable electric service, perhaps one day meeting the MTA's 1968 goal of a rapid transit-style service on the LIRR. That being said, the line will have to go back underground between Sunnyside Yard and Woodside, where there is no space for a new subway line within the existing right-of-way.

63rd Street doesn't need to be added to the mix here. If the goal is de-interlining, as you say, then the bypass and Northern Blvd should feed only in to the new tunnel, 63rd Street only the Queens Blvd express, and 53rd Street only the Queens Blvd local. The point of building a new tunnel to serve the bypass and Northern Blvd is to create new lines into Queens that are in no way dependent on the existing overcrowded system, and to increase service frequency on the lower half of SAS, which as planned will only get half the service that the line north of 63rd gets.

[RR503]

I'm not following the logic here. A new tunnel just for Bypass trains would be nice and all, but where's the need? We have 15tph capacity on SAS to work with (the takes the other 15), or exactly the capacity to Queens that 63rd provides. Yes, you're adding a merge to the , but really, does that constraint that can be eased operationally necessitate the construction of another under-river tube? Unless you can link it to excess track cap on another trunk (Broadway, for example), I really don't see the need. 

[W4ST]

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm not following the logic here. A new tunnel just for Bypass trains would be nice and all, but where's the need? We have 15tph capacity on SAS to work with (the takes the other 15), or exactly the capacity to Queens that 63rd provides. Yes, you're adding a merge to the , but really, does that constraint that can be eased operationally necessitate the construction of another under-river tube? Unless you can link it to excess track cap on another trunk (Broadway, for example), I really don't see the need. 

It is true that with just using the SAS, the tunnels we have now would be enough. However, I think that connecting the bypass to another trunk (or both) via new tracks would be preferable, because it would allow us to maximize the TPH on the bypass.

[LGA Link N Train]

TBH I am not a fan of the Queens Bypass but I see why we need it. I think something needs to be done with Roosevelt Avenue first

[RR503]

1 hour ago, W4ST said:

It is true that with just using the SAS, the tunnels we have now would be enough. However, I think that connecting the bypass to another trunk (or both) via new tracks would be preferable, because it would allow us to maximize the TPH on the bypass.

The only trunk easily connectable to a Bypass is Broadway. You could probably jury-rig some sort of connection between the express tracks using the stubs north of 57, SAS, and the new tunnels if you really tried. Otherwise much better just to go with the 63rd connection. 

15 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

TBH I am not a fan of the Queens Bypass but I see why we need it. I think something needs to be done with Roosevelt Avenue first

Nothing can be done with Roosevelt unless a bypass is built. A majority of Queens subway ridership will pass through that stop in some way by merit of the way the infrastructure exists today. The only way to change that is with new infrastructure. 

[bobtehpanda]

12 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

The Bypass should have its own East River tunnel in order to minimize reverse branching, but it doesn't need to be this complicated. It could simply be a branch of off SAS at 38th Street (following the LIRR right-of-way through Long Island City) or at 50th Street (following 45th Road through Court Square, then into the LIRR). This tunnel could also facilitate future northern branches off of SAS, such as Northern Blvd, without overloading either 63rd Street or the northern portion of SAS.

Personally, I would like it if they constructed a new 72 St lower level, and then a tunnel across the East River to 35th Avenue with stops at 21 St, 31 St, and Steinway St.

[W4ST]

Another idea I thought of for this connection is this:

A new tunnel connecting the SAS to the QBL local is built at around 50th Street, run by the turquoise  .

The 53rd Street tunnel would be used to run all QBL express trains, using the  , which would then run express in Manhattan and go onto Fulton Street in Brooklyn. The  would run local for this, and the  would run express on CPW.

63rd Street would be connected to the bypass using the  .

With this the QBL local would be run at 15 tph but the QBL express and QBL bypass could both near 30 tph.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Personally, I would like it if they constructed a new 72 St lower level, and then a tunnel across the East River to 35th Avenue with stops at 21 St, 31 St, and Steinway St.

If they built a 72 Street Lower Level. It would be possible to run and trains together and would create a good short turn spot for trains. 

 

36 minutes ago, W4ST said:

The 53rd Street tunnel would be used to run all QBL express trains, using the  , which would then run express in Manhattan and go onto Fulton Street in Brooklyn. The  would run local for this, and the  would run express on CPW

I see you have a Different method of Deinterlining

[Wallyhorse]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Personally, I would like it if they constructed a new 72 St lower level, and then a tunnel across the East River to 35th Avenue with stops at 21 St, 31 St, and Steinway St.

This is what I would do, with such a line after 72nd Street making a stop at 79th Street-York/1st Avenues and then going through a new 79th Street tunnel that would then run to the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue and from there somehow run with the QB line or via another newly created line.

[officiallyliam]

20 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Personally, I would like it if they constructed a new 72 St lower level, and then a tunnel across the East River to 35th Avenue with stops at 21 St, 31 St, and Steinway St.

This option also works, since it would absorb the excess capacity from the Broadway express. Ideally, 72nd could be rebuilt to be like 63rd and Lex to allow a cross-platform transfer between the Broadway to Queens and the Second Avenue line, but I understand this would be quite the engineering feat to accomplish, considering the layout of existing tracks.

7 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

This is what I would do, with such a line after 72nd Street making a stop at 79th Street-York/1st Avenues and then going through a new 79th Street tunnel that would then run to the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue and from there somehow run with the QB line or via another newly created line.

The 79th Street tunnel idea is fine, but it should go either to Northern Blvd or to the bypass. There's no need to try to route it into upper Roosevelt; not to mention this wouldn't be physically possible. You'd have to tear out the mezzanine above the IND platforms, as the upper level platforms stub-end at the eastern end of the mezzanine. Additionally, you would have to cut-and-cover underneath Queens Blvd to get there, underpinning the Flushing IRT in the process.

10 hours ago, W4ST said:

The 53rd Street tunnel would be used to run all QBL express trains, using the  , which would then run express in Manhattan and go onto Fulton Street in Brooklyn. The  would run local for this, and the  would run express on CPW.

If the is simply rerouted to the Eighth Avenue express, the could cover Eighth Avenue local, 53rd, and the QB local to 179th on its own. This setup could probably get you about 20-24 tph on the local; sending the   and via 63rd to the QB express would get you 30+ tph (with CBTC). As for the bypass, it really should go through its own tunnel, but that requires extensive construction.

Sending the all through Cranberry would be operational suicide.