New Queens Subway line to relieve congestion on the IND QBL on hitlist for councilman Leroy Comrie

[Q10 Airport]

Good points. Can I throw this in? The terminals at Parsons/Archer were not designed to be terminals and was not built with the intentions of those stations to serve as terminal stations but protocol local stops leading to two new lines via LIRR ROWs. Hence the capacity at beyond max as you pointed out. According to 1968 MTA plans as part of the Queens Super Express plan, those tunnels were supposed to be extended to two different LIRR branches to serve SouthEast Queens. But the MTA scrapped the plans midway through construction, but the spurs are still there.

 

I think your assessment on the 6th Ave line is correct. As far as CBTC is concerned, it would definitely be better then nothing. Much better then the proposals for the installation of reverse signalling on the QBL in the 70's which will do much more harm then good.

 

You have a good point about the Jamaica Center terminal, but until you do something to increase track capacity (newer signals), just extending the  will only make capacity problems worse.

[AndrewJC]

Thanks for the heads up. I thought I saw on SubChat or here that was going to be same system as Flushing. I guess if testing goes well with the Thales system, maybe they'll stick with it. At one point, they probably should settle on a common system for parts and money reasons.

 

The Siemens Canarsie system and the Thales Flushing system will be unique. There will be one uniform standard for the rest of the subway, which both Siemens and Thales (and any other vendor that demonstrates interoperability - that's the point of the Culver test track) will be eligible to bid on. I believe that uniform standard is being developed right now.

 

QBL CBTC award is still several years off. Most of the interlockings in Queens aren't even ready yet.

 

Locking the entire subway system to a single vendor is bad practice. At best, that vendor can jack up prices for support, knowing that the MTA is trapped. At worst, the vendor goes out of business and doesn't leave anyone behind to support the system.

 

But I think bobtehpanda's throughput predictions are very optimistic.

[bobtehpanda]

The Siemens Canarsie system and the Thales Flushing system will be unique. There will be one uniform standard for the rest of the subway, which both Siemens and Thales (and any other vendor that demonstrates interoperability - that's the point of the Culver test track) will be eligible to bid on. I believe that uniform standard is being developed right now.

 

QBL CBTC award is still several years off. Most of the interlockings in Queens aren't even ready yet.

 

Locking the entire subway system to a single vendor is bad practice. At best, that vendor can jack up prices for support, knowing that the MTA is trapped. At worst, the vendor goes out of business and doesn't leave anyone behind to support the system.

 

But I think bobtehpanda's throughput predictions are very optimistic.

 

I said they were theoretical capacities. 40-48 TPH has only been achieved on completely standalone lines (which the MTA is certainly not). It'd probably be less given the capacity of the switches, but probably only by 1-2 TPH. (Note: the Lexington Av Line can theoretically run 30TPH, but only runs 24TPH on the express tracks due to excessive dwell times at stations. So something like that could occur on the QBL.)

 

Are Thales and Siemens' systems compatible?

[North Shore Line]

For the whole SE Queens issue, I would take a page out of London's "Overground" book and have the MTA Subways take over control of all city zone LIRR stations as well as the SE Queens line. New subway cars built to LIRR specs would cover Penn Station and Brooklyn to Valley Stream-ish. Long Island Railroad trains would no longer serve Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, Atlantic Terminal, Nostrand, ENY, St Albans, Laurelton, Rosedale Valley Stream. Two new rapid transit lines would serve Atlantic Terminal to Jamaica or Valley Stream and Penn Station to Valley Stream.

 

London has recently completed a few projects that involved the London Overground (NYC's LIRR equivalent), taking over London Underground subway lines, namely the East London Line.

[bobtehpanda]

For the whole SE Queens issue, I would take a page out of London's "Overground" book and have the MTA Subways take over control of all city zone LIRR stations as well as the SE Queens line. New subway cars built to LIRR specs would cover Penn Station and Brooklyn to Valley Stream-ish. Long Island Railroad trains would no longer serve Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, Atlantic Terminal, Nostrand, ENY, St Albans, Laurelton, Rosedale Valley Stream. Two new rapid transit lines would serve Atlantic Terminal to Jamaica or Valley Stream and Penn Station to Valley Stream.

 

London has recently completed a few projects that involved the London Overground (NYC's LIRR equivalent), taking over London Underground subway lines, namely the East London Line.

 

Any sort of Overground system would also require taking the inner lines (Port Washington, Hempstead/West Hempstead, Far Rockaway, Long Beach(maybe)) since LIRR in its current state would not be able to shift back to a two-track setup. There's also no reasonable place to turn trains around the city limits (Belmont not withstanding, but Belmont is also a low platform station that is extremely hard to access)

[qjtransitmaster]

I don't think it's really more like a rail fetish though w/ this guy.... The one thing that is apparent though is that he has a highway fetish.... He likes buses, but he wants to make them rail-like (a la, his SPEED argument)..... If he had a rail fetish, he would do way more of his posting in the subway/rail section(s) than in the bus section(s) of the forum..... I don't know how many (local) bus routes he's proposed on this forum that involve some diversion onto a highway, creating HOV lanes out of the thin blue sky to support his never ending crap.... His aim seems to be taking cars off highways & placing motorists onto bus routes he draws up (and any other current route that utilizes a "highway segment"), moreso than rails.....

) 

Whatever type of a fetish it is though, it's long gotten annoying with him.....

they rely on other plans in nyc most of the highway buses are new routes with very few diverging onto a highway to connect areas that aren't linked well at all. Or streamlining some express bus. one of the lines are better off with dollar vans to be honest. Some were reroutes of select runs to speed up travel to upper manhattan from parts of queens meaning select Q17 runs to LGA to get fresh meadows people to upper manhattan via M60 bus. Q97 was inspired by the MTA suggesting a jamacia to LGA bus but to the rather than where the is. In manhattan only one local bus would diverge to highway but due to current conditions it will be difficult to pull off it reduces travel time to GWB from parts of manhattan the doesn't reach.  In the bronx it only involved one line the Bx27 but it had the side effect of upgrading local bus service to riverdale and offering those in the upper part a more direct service to norwood. The other is replacing bx18 but doesn't really use highways it is more like a B103 type route but it will mostly be like S79 in structure meant to link parts of central bronx to eastern queens backed up the other JFK line. Which tied into the B22 proposal alan rosen made which affects other buses. Unlike my other proposals that fully merge routes together on other sides I will detail that to anyone who understands NJ or MD. My NICE plan is decentralization. ALL of them have this as a fetish I don't have an absolute rail or highway fetish I have a DECENTRALIZATION FETISH all of them have that one thing in common even if the approaches are different for each region.

[bobtehpanda]

they rely on other plans in nyc most of the highway buses are new routes with very few diverging onto a highway to connect areas that aren't linked well at all. Or streamlining some express bus. one of the lines are better off with dollar vans to be honest. Some were reroutes of select runs to speed up travel to upper manhattan from parts of queens meaning select Q17 runs to LGA to get fresh meadows people to upper manhattan via M60 bus. Q97 was inspired by the MTA suggesting a jamacia to LGA bus but to the rather than where the is. In manhattan only one local bus would diverge to highway but due to current conditions it will be difficult to pull off it reduces travel time to GWB from parts of manhattan the doesn't reach.  In the bronx it only involved one line the Bx27 but it had the side effect of upgrading local bus service to riverdale and offering those in the upper part a more direct service to norwood. The other is replacing bx18 but doesn't really use highways it is more like a B103 type route but it will mostly be like S79 in structure meant to link parts of central bronx to eastern queens backed up the other JFK line. Which tied into the B22 proposal alan rosen made which affects other buses. Unlike my other proposals that fully merge routes together on other sides I will detail that to anyone who understands NJ or MD. My NICE plan is decentralization. ALL of them have this as a fetish I don't have an absolute rail or highway fetish I have a DECENTRALIZATION FETISH all of them have that one thing in common even if the approaches are different for each region.

 

You go on and on about decentralization, but the fact of the matter is that all the boroughs save Staten Island already have a decentralized network of grid routes, at least internally. The bus networks in these boroughs have two objectives - feed commuters into the subway, and allow people to get within the majority of their borough within two transfers. The networks already work reasonably well.

 

What you want to do is draw lines on a map. You say, "Oh, let's link the central Bronx to Eastern Queens!" That's a hell of a lot different than a Jamaica-LGA route. There are already very heavy utilized routes in the Central Bronx and in Eastern Queens, but there's not enough demand between these places. That's why routes like the Q31 and Q36 to Little Neck only run on weekdays - there's not enough demand. If you create a new route serving all low-density areas and linking them to an extremely poor anchor with intermittent demand like say, an airport or a casino, you're going to have a poorly utilized route. You can't fit a square into a circle.

[m7zanr160s]

Then transfer to the n20 or some other NICE bus that goes to Francis Lewis Blvd.

 

No way! What's that going to do? If I lived in Nassau county I probably would be thinking about an extension. Nah, scratch that, I would. The bus (q85) is slow, period. They should be used mostly for short distances, crosstown service, and long distances in the subs (suburbs). I honestly don't want to spend more than 15 min. riding a bus. Especially, when I know that that subway extension was in the plans.

[qjtransitmaster]

You go on and on about decentralization, but the fact of the matter is that all the boroughs save Staten Island already have a decentralized network of grid routes, at least internally. The bus networks in these boroughs have two objectives - feed commuters into the subway, and allow people to get within the majority of their borough within two transfers. The networks already work reasonably well.

 

What you want to do is draw lines on a map. You say, "Oh, let's link the central Bronx to Eastern Queens!" That's a hell of a lot different than a Jamaica-LGA route. There are already very heavy utilized routes in the Central Bronx and in Eastern Queens, but there's not enough demand between these places. That's why routes like the Q31 and Q36 to Little Neck only run on weekdays - there's not enough demand. If you create a new route serving all low-density areas and linking them to an extremely poor anchor with intermittent demand like say, an airport or a casino, you're going to have a poorly utilized route. You can't fit a square into a circle.

I mean for trips greater than 10 miles. Obj FYI that route can make up for density by the sheer amount of different routes it connects to look closer there is more to it than just the areas look beyond that and you will see what I am talking about. Fyi no queens line except one whose DH uses this shall extend over highway. One was based on MTA reasoning.

[bobtehpanda]

I mean for trips greater than 10 miles. Obj FYI that route can make up for density by the sheer amount of different routes it connects to look closer there is more to it than just the areas look beyond that and you will see what I am talking about. Fyi no queens line except one whose DH uses this shall extend over highway. One was based on MTA reasoning.

 

You keep talking about this "plan", but I've yet to see you actually produce an image of your comprehensive network (because I don't think it exists.)

 

When you decide to make a map illustrating your stuff and a 66 page report, then you can talk about your fantasy network plans. You can walk the walk, but can you talk the talk?

[Culver]

You keep talking about this "plan", but I've yet to see you actually produce an image of your comprehensive network (because I don't think it exists.)

 

When you decide to make a map illustrating your stuff and a 66 page report, then you can talk about your fantasy network plans. You can walk the walk, but can you talk the talk?

The plan is mostly just picking two random spots far apart and then seeing what highways the buses can take to get them, with no regard for demographics and potential ridership, or stops, or cost. Nassau to Bronx routes are all the rage, you know.

[qjtransitmaster]

You keep talking about this "plan", but I've yet to see you actually produce an image of your comprehensive network (because I don't think it exists.)

When you decide to make a map illustrating your stuff and a 66 page report, then you can talk about your fantasy network plans. You can walk the walk, but can you talk the talk?

I see you have a point I will make a NYC Google map soon how you make your maps exactly?

[realizm]

So what does this all this talk have to do with the original topic of the thread? I could have sworn that this was about the problems of the IND QBL and political proposals for gravy points.

 

Edify me.

[bobtehpanda]

So what does this all this talk have to do with the original topic of the thread? I could have sworn that this was about the problems of the IND QBL and political proposals for gravy points.

 

Edify me.

 

It was originally proposals for more subway lines, and then it somehow descended into something involving either the LIRR and/or the express buses.

 

In a nutshell, the usual.

[realizm]

yeah because I am lost with the numerous topics hitting me at once since i last posted a week ago

[Culver]

Just reactivate the Rockaway ROW already. I mean hell, the tunnel at 63rd turning out to the ROW is already built enough to get away from the IND QB, so you need minimal tunneling to connect it to the Rockaway.

[realizm]

Just reactivate the Rockaway ROW already. I mean hell, the tunnel at 63rd turning out to the ROW is already built enough to get away from the IND QB, so you need minimal tunneling to connect it to the Rockaway.

 

Bingo.

[qjtransitmaster]

Just reactivate the Rockaway ROW already. I mean hell, the tunnel at 63rd turning out to the ROW is already built enough to get away from the IND QB, so you need minimal tunneling to connect it to the Rockaway.

fine I guess there are no other options.

[Q10 Airport]

So what does this all this talk have to do with the original topic of the thread? I could have sworn that this was about the problems of the IND QBL and political proposals for gravy points.

 

Edify me.

 

Pretty much. As I said a week ago, his proposals are irrelevant because he has zero control over the system.

[Grand Concourse]

Politicians complaining about something.... nothing new.

[itmaybeokay]

Just reactivate the Rockaway ROW already. I mean hell, the tunnel at 63rd turning out to the ROW is already built enough to get away from the IND QB, so you need minimal tunneling to connect it to the Rockaway.

 

Or, for probably even less money just build a terminal station right on that spur. The biggest hurdle to QBL traffic on the local tracks is the turning capacity of Forest Hills.

 

Build a stub terminal on the existing stub and extend the . More local service, More capacity - and the capability to later connect to the Rockaway ROW. 

 

With CBTC you could even start some express trains from there, but right now you're not going to be able to shoehorn any more service onto the line. The biggest problem with QBL is the local headways. Since the express tracks have 2 terminals, you end up having way more express trains coming through than locals. This results in uneven loading and crowded platforms. 

 

Sure, the from Queens to Brooklyn might not see as much traffic between Queens Plaza and Court Square - but pretty much everyone between forest hills and Jackson Heights is going to get on an express train anyway, so they don't care what local they get onto. You might even see some relief on Manhattan lines, because passengers past Jackson Heights currently headed to downtown brooklyn will currently just take the F the whole way - faster and easier than the long E-G transfer. Give them another option and they might just use it. 

[Culver]

Or, for probably even less money just build a terminal station right on that spur. The biggest hurdle to QBL traffic on the local tracks is the turning capacity of Forest Hills.

 

Build a stub terminal on the existing stub and extend the . More local service, More capacity - and the capability to later connect to the Rockaway ROW. 

 

With CBTC you could even start some express trains from there, but right now you're not going to be able to shoehorn any more service onto the line. The biggest problem with QBL is the local headways. Since the express tracks have 2 terminals, you end up having way more express trains coming through than locals. This results in uneven loading and crowded platforms. 

 

Sure, the from Queens to Brooklyn might not see as much traffic between Queens Plaza and Court Square - but pretty much everyone between forest hills and Jackson Heights is going to get on an express train anyway, so they don't care what local they get onto. You might even see some relief on Manhattan lines, because passengers past Jackson Heights currently headed to downtown brooklyn will currently just take the F the whole way - faster and easier than the long E-G transfer. Give them another option and they might just use it. 

My idea goes with the assumption that whenever said extension is done, CBTC is up and running on the IND QB.

[bobtehpanda]

Just reactivate the Rockaway ROW already. I mean hell, the tunnel at 63rd turning out to the ROW is already built enough to get away from the IND QB, so you need minimal tunneling to connect it to the Rockaway.

 

There's no demand for it.

 

Honestly, I believe they should relieve forest hills by building an extension from the local tracks to Jewel and 164th, to bustitute the 64. Per-mile, that's one of the best ridership lines in the borough.

[Grand Concourse]

Queens could use another north south line. Wouldn't such a line help take off the ridership on lines like the Q52/53?

[bobtehpanda]

Queens could use another north south line. Wouldn't such a line help take off the ridership on lines like the Q52/53?

 

The Q11, Q21, Q52, and Q53 have 26337 daily riders. Over a 4.3 mile distance (Woodhaven & Queens Blvd to Woodhaven and Rockaway Blvd), that would carry approximately 6K riders per mile, which is great if you terminate the route at Rockaway Blvd.

 

Personally, I'd prioritize a subway line through Eastern Queens, but I'm biased.