Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[LGA Link N Train]

3 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

No, don’t do that. There’s nothing to be gained; all it’ll do is delay both  and  trains because of fumigation. 

Oh....

One question though. What exactly is fumigation?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

14 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I would imagine that under this scenario all service to Concourse would just stop.

It's stupid but you could make it work.

That’s what I suggested would likely have to happen if the  were to be tied into the Concourse IND. Here would be another example of the pitfalls of reverse-branching. The tie-in to Concourse would likely be at or near the intersection of the Grand Concourse and 161st St. The 161st St  platforms are closer to River Ave, so the  would either have to have its own separate platforms at 161st or worse, not stop there at all (the MTA could just say, “Well, the  stops at 161st. Just take the  if you need to get to the !”) It would result in the busiest station on the Concourse line (as well as all of the Bronx) getting less service than the rest of the stations. That just wouldn’t make sense. It would be far more effective to “capture” the parallel Jerome Ave  line or one of the other IRT lines if that’s the only way we can have SAS service deep into the Bronx (it still wouldn’t be as effective as going straight up Third Avenue).

Edited April 1, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[officiallyliam]

1 minute ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s what I suggested would likely have to happen if the  were to be tied into the Concourse IND. Here would be another example of the pitfalls of reverse-branching. The tie-in to Concourse would likely be at or near the intersection of the Grand Concourse and 161st St. The 161st St  platforms are closer to River Ave, so the  would either have to have its own separate platforms at 161st or worse, not stop there at all (the MTA could just say, “Well, the  stops at 161st. Just take the  if you need to get to the !”) It would result in the busiest station on the Concourse line (as well as all of the Bronx) getting less service than the rest of the stations. That just wouldn’t make sense. It would be far more effective to “capture” the parallel Jerome Ave  line, if that’s the only way we can have SAS service deep into the Bronx (it still wouldn’t be as effective as going straight up Third Avenue).

If SAS must re-use an existing line to get into the Bronx, I would think that the better choices would be either White Plains Road or Pelham, since those lines are slower to begin with and would stand to benefit more from faster Second Avenue service. Other than speeding up the ride downtown, the only advantage this has is that it means one of the Lex services could be diverted to run up Third Avenue; at that point, though, we may as well send SAS up Third from the start.

[RR503]

2 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Oh....

One question though. What exactly is fumigation?

The process of clearing out trains at relay terminals to ensure no one is on board when they enter relay position. You ride QB right? It's what happens to  and  trains at 71st. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by RR503

[RR503]

9 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

If SAS must re-use an existing line to get into the Bronx, I would think that the better choices would be either White Plains Road or Pelham, since those lines are slower to begin with and would stand to benefit more from faster Second Avenue service. Other than speeding up the ride downtown, the only advantage this has is that it means one of the Lex services could be diverted to run up Third Avenue; at that point, though, we may as well send SAS up Third from the start.

The issue with sending SAS up WPR or Pelham is with service levels. Assuming we do not abandon the 125th st terminal, SAS service to the Bx will have a hard cap of 15tph. Pelham currently gets 22ish, with the potential to run up to about 28. WPR gets 24-27. So yes, you'd get larger cars on those lines, but you'd be forcing a not-insignificant frequency cut. 

[officiallyliam]

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The issue with sending SAS up WPR or Pelham is with service levels. Assuming we do not abandon the 125th st terminal, SAS service to the Bx will have a hard cap of 15tph. Pelham currently gets 22ish, with the potential to run up to about 28. WPR gets 24-27. So yes, you'd get larger cars on those lines, but you'd be forcing a not-insignificant frequency cut. 

You're right - I actually forgot about the 125th Street branch. I was just thinking about the Program for Action (and earlier) proposals to route SAS up one of the existing Bronx elevated lines.

[LGA Link N Train]

34 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The process of clearing out trains at relay terminals to ensure no one is on board when they enter relay position. You ride QB right? It's what happens to  and  trains at 71st. 

Oh, that answers my question. Thanks. At Forest hills, the crew makes sure that no one is on board the train. But sometimes there's that one dude who's sleeping in the train. 

[BreeddekalbL]

I probably asked this question before but to add it with a variable this time,

Once cbtc is added on the queens blvd line

You send the down the hypothetical rbb

And you send the  up a hypothetical L.I.E H.H.E branch

Would you have any room to run a service say a to forest hills to cover the loss of the along the L.I.E H.H.E subway? Or could an express be switched to local after woodhaven? 

Edited April 2, 2018 by BreeddekalbL

[kosciusko]

28 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Would you have any room to run a service say a to forest hills to cover the loss of the along the L.I.E H.H.E subway? Or could an express be switched to local after woodhaven? 

I suppose you would have room but  to FH71 is a stupid route.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

I probably asked this question before but to add it with a variable this time,

Once cbtc is added on the queens blvd line

You send the down the hypothetical rbb

And you send the  up a hypothetical L.I.E H.H.E branch

Would you have any room to run a service say a to forest hills to cover the loss of the along the L.I.E H.H.E subway? Or could an express be switched to local after woodhaven? 

Too many eggs in the basket is a bad idea. Look at how great reliability on 60th St is.

[LGA Link N Train]

8 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Would you have any room to run a service say a to forest hills to cover the loss of the along the L.I.E H.H.E subway? Or could an express be switched to local after woodhaven? 

I guess. Though I'd rather deinterline QBL and add a Jewel Avenue extension instead of LIE. As for RBB the idea could still stick or is could be a shuttle extension.

QBL Local; 179

QBL Local (Post SAS); Jewel Av 

Rockaway Extension to Roosevelt via RBB and LIRR Main line

QBL Express

(teal) QBL Express.; Jamaica Center

The can terminate at Queens Plaza with some track rearrangement

Edited April 2, 2018 by LGA Link N train

[Coney Island Av]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

I guess. Though I'd rather deinterline QBL and add a Jewel Avenue extension instead of LIE. As for RBB the idea could still stick or is could be a shuttle extension.

QBL Local; 179

QBL Local (Post SAS); Jewel Av 

Rockaway Extension to Roosevelt via RBB and LIRR Main line

QBL Express

(teal) QBL Express.; Jamaica Center

The can terminate at Queens Plaza with some track rearrangement

I do agree with at least with terminating the  at Queens Plaza. 

Also, riders at local stations east of Forest Hills won't appreciate an all-local  train as the only train stopping there. 

But why do you propose to cut the bypass entirely? De-interlining won't be enough to relieve QBL. Just make the RBB a shuttle train, but the only feasible way to bring to Manhattan is to connect it to QBL- which has been very controversial. 

This is what it should look like:

: Express via 53rd

:Local via 63rd

(turquoise): Bypass to 179 St

: to Queens Plaza

The  will be rerouted to Astoria. But there's another problem, as sending the  to 96 St won't work when the  comes into hand. But if people are proposing a lower level, we might as well just make express tracks while we're at it. This way, you could also deinterline SAS, with the  running north to the Bronx, and the  running to Broadway-125 St.

I made the  both go via 53rd because it needs express service more than 63rd. Besides, 63rd has the  to compensate. 

The  is the sole local on QBL because there's no capacity to add another Manhattan-bound service without overloading 63rd. Its TPH can be increased to 15TPH. 

Finally, I terminated the  at Queens Plaza to give a cross-platform transfer to the . Riders wanting to continue can do a cross-platform transfer. This will work because the  won't be operating on QBL, and the  will remain on the center tracks. All that needs to be installed are a few switches. This way, you can deinterline QBL while also giving riders almost the same service to Manhattan while also giving Crosstown riders a "half compensation" by turning the  at Queens Plaza. 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[LGA Link N Train]

22 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

I do agree with at least with terminating the  at Queens Plaza. 

Also, riders at local stations east of Forest Hills won't appreciate an all-local  train as the only train stopping there. 

Does anyone appreciate the to begin with. Besides, an local would only have 33 stops in total. So it's not all doom and Gloom

But why do you propose to cut the bypass entirely?

Because even though it would be beneficial, it won't realistically happen and it would require a lot of Rearrangements to the LIRR Main Line. 

De-interlining won't be enough to relieve QBL.

Or will it be? 

Just make the RBB a shuttle train, but the only feasible way to bring to Manhattan is to connect it to QBL- which has been very controversial. 

True but I'm trying to make it feed onto Roosevelt. 

This is what it should look like:

: Express via 53rd

But you see. 53rd is at Capacity and it's overcrowded. Making it the local tunnel can attract people to use 63rd Street 

:Local via 63rd

eh. 

(turquoise): Bypass to 179 St

ok. 

: to Queens Plaza

The  will be rerouted to Astoria. But there's another problem, as sending the  to 96 St won't work when the  comes into hand. 

You could eliminate the and make the local but then there will a part of that plan that could defeat that the purpose of deinterlining 

I made the  both go via 53rd because it needs express service more than 63rd. Besides, 63rd has the  to compensate. 

The  is the sole local on QBL because there's no capacity to add another Manhattan-bound service without overloading 63rd. Its TPH can be increased to 15TPH. 

De-interlining allows the and to be local together. 

Finally, I terminated the  at Queens Plaza to give a cross-platform transfer to the . Riders wanting to continue can do a cross-platform transfer. This will work because the  won't be operating on QBL, and the  will remain on the center tracks. All that needs to be installed are a few switches. This way, you can deinterline QBL while also giving riders almost the same service to Manhattan while also giving Crosstown riders a "half compensation" by turning the  at Queens Plaza. 

 

 

Replies are in bold

Edited April 2, 2018 by LGA Link N train

[bobtehpanda]

15 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

I guess. Though I'd rather deinterline QBL and add a Jewel Avenue extension instead of LIE. As for RBB the idea could still stick or is could be a shuttle extension.

QBL Local; 179

QBL Local (Post SAS); Jewel Av 

Rockaway Extension to Roosevelt via RBB and LIRR Main line

QBL Express

(teal) QBL Express.; Jamaica Center

The can terminate at Queens Plaza with some track rearrangement

What is the point? There is no increase in capacity on Queens Blvd. At the end of the day you still have two local services and two express services, which is what we have today. And no one will ride a local all the way from east of Forest Hills; they tried that after Archer Avenue opened and it didn't work.

The Bypass provides a hard bump in physical capacity on Queens Blvd.

[LGA Link N Train]

15 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The Bypass provides a hard bump in physical capacity on Queens Blvd.

Which brings up the Question, "How will it be built?" (If it were to get to the planning stage)  you'd need to rebuild the Sunnyside-Woodside Area so that the line wouldn't have to go underground. Then, you'd have to consider if and/or how would it have a station at Woodside, and How will the line dip underground (suppose as it dip where the RBB begins) and into Forest hills. Last but not least, you must figure out How to build the Forest Hills Lower level and how will it connect to 75 Avenue at Service grade level.

[officiallyliam]

6 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Which brings up the Question, "How will it be built?" (If it were to get to the planning stage)  you'd need to rebuild the Sunnyside-Woodside Area so that the line wouldn't have to go underground. Then, you'd have to consider if and/or how would it have a station at Woodside, and How will the line dip underground (suppose as it dip where the RBB begins) and into Forest hills. Last but not least, you must figure out How to build the Forest Hills Lower level and how will it connect to 75 Avenue at Service grade level.

The only way to have the bypass not go underground between Sunnyside and Woodside is to widen the right-of-way. That's not happening. Tunnel provisions under Sunnyside Yard were built several years ago as part of ESA; the line will use those and carry on underground as far as Woodside station.

Leaving Woodside, it would continue underground until to the point where the Port Washington branch splits. From there, it will use the former RBB trackways, on the outside of the LIRR Main line. At Whitepot Junction, where the RBB once split off, there is room to build tunnel portals for the bypass, which will run underneath the LIRR, and use Yellowstone Blvd to get to Queens Blvd near Forest Hills.

There, you have two options. The bypass station could be a lower level, or it could be constructed at the same level as the existing station. There's room on the south side of Queens Blvd for a two-track, two-platform station; alternatively, the tracks could be built on either side of the existing station, with the Manhattan-bound bypass track adjacent to the Manhattan-bound QB local, and the Jamaica-bound bypass track next to the Jamaica-bound QB local. This would save you having to tunnel under (or bisect) the layup tracks past Forest Hills, and could allow a cross-platform interchange between bypass and QB local services.

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Which brings up the Question, "How will it be built?" (If it were to get to the planning stage)  you'd need to rebuild the Sunnyside-Woodside Area so that the line wouldn't have to go underground. Then, you'd have to consider if and/or how would it have a station at Woodside, and How will the line dip underground (suppose as it dip where the RBB begins) and into Forest hills. Last but not least, you must figure out How to build the Forest Hills Lower level and how will it connect to 75 Avenue at Service grade level.

This is, of course, assuming the Port Washington Branch stays where it is. I'd argue that there is a case to capture the Port Washington Branch, in which case you now have two tracks from Sunnyside to Woodside.

[officiallyliam]

11 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is, of course, assuming the Port Washington Branch stays where it is. I'd argue that there is a case to capture the Port Washington Branch, in which case you now have two tracks from Sunnyside to Woodside.

I've thought about the idea of subway service on the PW Branch. It would certainly work as a relief to the line (with infill stops in Elmhurst and Corona, of course) and serves dense areas of Queens which are far from subway lines. You'd also get the added benefit of freed up capacity along the LIRR to provide more service on the Main Line. Apparently, though, a similar proposal got shot down by residents of Nassau who didn't want the subway in their area; there'd also likely be a need to grade-separate the Little Neck Parkway crossing. Other than that, the branch would be well suited to subway service.

Under this plan, would one or both Broadway express services run all the way out to PW, or could we have perhaps the to PW and the via the bypass, as an example? It's certainly an idea worth exploring.

[R68OnBroadway]

58 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

I've thought about the idea of subway service on the PW Branch. It would certainly work as a relief to the line (with infill stops in Elmhurst and Corona, of course) and serves dense areas of Queens which are far from subway lines. You'd also get the added benefit of freed up capacity along the LIRR to provide more service on the Main Line. Apparently, though, a similar proposal got shot down by residents of Nassau who didn't want the subway in their area; there'd also likely be a need to grade-separate the Little Neck Parkway crossing. Other than that, the branch would be well suited to subway service.

Under this plan, would one or both Broadway express services run all the way out to PW, or could we have perhaps the to PW and the via the bypass, as an example? It's certainly an idea worth exploring.

Imo all lower-use branches within the city (Atlantic, PW, etc.) should be converted for subway use to allow for in the case of PW, better subway service to Eastern Queens and for Atlantic more capacity for trains to Penn and LI.

[officiallyliam]

4 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Imo all lower-use branches within the city (Atlantic, PW, etc.) should be converted for subway use to allow for in the case of PW, better subway service to Eastern Queens and for Atlantic more capacity for trains to Penn and LI.

PW being converted to subway I agree with.

Atlantic should be connected to stub-end terminals on the other side of the Hudson via Lower Manhattan, with trains running through to the Erie lines (Main/Bergen/Pascack Valley). This could either run to Hoboken Terminal, or to Secaucus via Newport, the Harsimus Stem embankment, and the Bergen Arches. The East River tunnel could be constructed simultaneously with an SAS tunnel to Brooklyn, in a similar track layout to 63rd Street (subway on top, regional rail on the lower level).

Obviously, though, that's a long-term idea and in the short-term the Atlantic Branch should have some kind of subway service on it. Free transfers to other subway lines, headways no longer than 10-12 minutes, and a reopening of the Woodhaven stop should be considered. As for rolling stock, the MTA could simply get a couple extra sets of R211S cars (the ones for SIRT) to use on this service. This can coincide with the opening of ESA, at which point the Atlantic branch would otherwise become an LIRR shuttle.

[LGA Link N Train]

I remember seeing a Proposal to use the Atlantic Branch for AirTrain JFK. 

[Coney Island Av]

Capturing the PW branch would be useful, I get where you're going, but it's long term. It would be good as it's the only LIRR branch that doesn't serve Jamaica. I remember @Union Tpke's to reroute the  to the PW branch using a short elevated connection at Queensboro, and the  would be increased to 15 TPH. I would rather extend the  to Bayside though. But this might be infeasible because 1) the line is single-tracked east of Great Neck, and 2) the grade crossing at Little Neck Pkwy would need to be reworked. The ROW would have to be widened, and local residents will shoot it down. 

I would also agree with capturing the Atlantic Branch, but it should have SAS service. However, I would only capture the segment east of Broadway Junction, as the section between Atlantic/ENY would be too close to the . The East New York, Nostrand Av, and Atlantic Terminal stations would all close, however Nostrand could be preserved as a new home for the Transit Museum if the Atlantic branch was captured. Woodhaven will be reactivated. 

But the most important ROW to capture is the LIRR ROW (between Jamaica and Rosedale). It should be used for an  extension to Laurelton, since SE Queens is very underserved. It would also provide a one-seat ride to Manhattan, since current LIRR service stub-ends at Atlantic Terminal. It allows for the  to have a more efficient terminal, and also a new yard to be built. 

[LGA Link N Train]

19 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

But the most important ROW to capture is the LIRR ROW (between Jamaica and Rosedale). It should be used for an  extension to Laurelton, since SE Queens is very underserved. It would also provide a one-seat ride to Manhattan, since current LIRR service stub-ends at Atlantic Terminal. It allows for the  to have a more efficient terminal, and also a new yard to be built. 

Hence why the 1968 Program for Action was my favorite expansion plan. There's so much about it that makes it one of the best expansion plan (course it has its downsides) but it was still a great plan regardless. 

As for PW. It technically justifies that we wouldn't have to build a subway on Northern Blvd (I never fully agreed with that route anyways, it's better off suited as a BRT route). 

The Atlantic Branch I have mixed feelings about. Fulton is next door, is it really worth converting for subway use?

Edited April 4, 2018 by LGA Link N train

[officiallyliam]

14 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

I remember seeing a Proposal to use the Atlantic Branch for AirTrain JFK. 

Yes, this was the plan in the late 90s before the current termini of Jamaica and Howard Beach were finalized. That could work today, as Atlantic Terminal is would offer people more subway options to get to the airport than the current AirTrain does, but until fares for that service are in parity with the subway and bus, the Atlantic Branch should be a subway line. Even with a transfer at Jamaica, it will still improve accessibility to JFK from Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn, as well as from northern Brooklyn via the and a transfer at East New York.

14 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

I would rather extend the  to Bayside though. But this might be infeasible because 1) the line is single-tracked east of Great Neck, and 2) the grade crossing at Little Neck Pkwy would need to be reworked. The ROW would have to be widened, and local residents will shoot it down. 

The advantage to the PW Branch is that it's already there; extending the requires tunneling under narrow Roosevelt Avenue and reworking the inside of Main Street station. Not to mention, the line is already carrying tons of people from points west of Flushing. A subway line on the PW Branch will take people coming from points east of Flushing off of the .

It's not community opposition that would shoot down double-tracking, though - it's physical constraints. The viaduct at Manhasset is wide enough for one track only, and a new one would have to be built in order to add a second track. However, I'm not sure this is a dealbreaker. The single track is only at the lesser-used stations east of Great Neck. If a turnaround point was built at Bayside, the PW subway could probably support 12-15 tph to Bayside, 10-12 to Great Neck, and 4-6 to Port Washington, since the terminal there isn't single-track.

21 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

I would also agree with capturing the Atlantic Branch, but it should have SAS service. However, I would only capture the segment east of Broadway Junction, as the section between Atlantic/ENY would be too close to the . The East New York, Nostrand Av, and Atlantic Terminal stations would all close, however Nostrand could be preserved as a new home for the Transit Museum if the Atlantic branch was captured. Woodhaven will be reactivated. 

No, SAS should go to the Fulton local. Atlantic should either be a London Overground-style service, or a regional rail through line eventually. Nostrand couldn't house the museum either; it's elevated and the cars have to be shielded from the elements. It would also be inconveniently connected to the main line subway.

 

[officiallyliam]

9 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

As for PW. It technically justifies that we wouldn't have to build a subway on Northern Blvd (I never fully agreed with that route anyways, it's better off suited as a BRT route). 

It doesn't justify that at all, actually. The PW Branch and Northern Blvd are two different corridors, and Northern Blvd would do a lot more to help out residents of northern Corona and East Elmhurst who are far away from the subway line.

12 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

I never fully agreed with that route anyways, it's better off suited as a BRT route

That's only true if we're willing to give a BRT or LRT service on Northern Blvd its own right-of-way. That means going beyond the improvements that are usually part of SAS; it'll mean giving up more of the current road space. I, for one, don't have an issue with that. But considering the backlash that the MTA/DOT usually face for the installation of a simple offset bus lane, I don't think it'll work.