Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Decking is about more than just profit. Highways quite literally rend communities, and contribute to a whole host of noise/atmospheric/light pollution issues. Beyond the issue of development, decking is just good for the areas around them. 

1

Idk, if it takes years to fund a costly deck and engineer it for each specific highway, I'd say it'd be better to leave them alone for now. People should know what community they're buying into. Van Wyck and others are good candidates, but the practice should be advanced with time to bring down costs at the very least. 

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Jewel is incontrovertibly the better route. Question is whether or not it's 2-3 billion better.

Decking is about more than just profit. Highways quite literally rend communities, and contribute to a whole host of noise/atmospheric/light pollution issues. Beyond the issue of development, decking is just good for the areas around them. 

Decking is certainly not about profit, but you and I know that there's only so much money at the bottom of the barrel. We can barely fund the Capital Plans as it is; I would rather money for decks go to ADA, or station rehab, or building out transfers.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Decking is certainly not about profit, but you and I know that there's only so much money at the bottom of the barrel. We can barely fund the Capital Plans as it is; I would rather money for decks go to ADA, or station rehab, or building out transfers.

If we're going to talk about building Transfers, then Lexington Avenue (Between 59th and 63rd Streets) is one place to start. Queens Plaza Being another one. Same can be said for ADA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Decking is certainly not about profit, but you and I know that there's only so much money at the bottom of the barrel. We can barely fund the Capital Plans as it is; I would rather money for decks go to ADA, or station rehab, or building out transfers.

That’s wholly orthogonal to my point. Of course the, well, immediate needs should go first. I’m saying that if we’re given money for an E Queens subway, the relative cheapness of an elevated structure would allow you to explore decking options, which impart a greater benefit onto the construction. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RR503 said:

That’s wholly orthogonal to my point. Of course the, well, immediate needs should go first. I’m saying that if we’re given money for an E Queens subway, the relative cheapness of an elevated structure would allow you to explore decking options, which impart a greater benefit onto the construction. 

Decks are relatively cheap because NYC builds such gold plated subways. Reasonable subway construction costs look more like $300M/km, going as low as <$100M/km, at which point $100M for three blocks of park is not cheap anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Decks are relatively cheap because NYC builds such gold plated subways. Reasonable subway construction costs look more like $300M/km, going as low as <$100M/km, at which point $100M for three blocks of park is not cheap anymore.

...and a reasonably-costed city would be able to build els for even cheaper. Unless costs change ratios, the value proposition stays the same, though the higher-hanging fruit becomes more easily reached. 

My point is this: the LIE is an inferior line to Jewel, though not by much. It would, however, be a lot cheaper to build/operate, meaning we have a good bit of capital left over to run the line further, build somewhere else, or, if we’re focusing on this specific case, make the project more transformative in undoing some of the LIE’s scarring of the areas around it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 10:13 PM, RR503 said:

We've been through this before. Provided it's done as a Bypass branch and not as a local branch, running the line along as an el is totally doable. 

The route itself, too, isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. It bisects density really well, hits Fresh Meadows, QC, etc, and can draw easily from bus corridors. Is it as good as Jewel or Union Tpk? No. But I think the cost/benefit works out. 

How would such a line fit in with your selective deinterlining plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

How would such a line fit in with your selective deinterlining plan?

You'd need new Manhattan capacity to do it. Depending on where it enters Queens (really, whether or not I can tie it into the 11th St cut to feed QB local) you'd do: 

(in the 11th St is accessible to this new tunnel case) 

8th-53-QB full express to 179 and P/A

6th-63-Bypass to LIE and 179 (via QB local east of 71) 

[new line] [new tunnel]-QB local to 71 

(in the 11th st is not accessible to this new tunnel case)

8th-53-QB local to 71

6th-63-QB full express to 179/PA

[new line] [new tunnel]-Bypass to LIE and 179 (via QB local east of 71) 

New line could be SAS, could be a 50th St crosstown, could be an (L) extension...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d prefer it to be SAS, but a 50th Street Crosstown - which could also be an extension of the (L) - would work just as well too. And we certainly can use another crosstown subway in Midtown. 

As for the eastern Queens line, I like a Jewel/73rd alignment better. If it’s going to be an extension off the Queens Blvd Line, then it’s definitely the better option because then you don’t have an issue with reducing service to the local stops east of Woodhaven Blvd/LIE, that you would if you branch off QBL at Woodhaven. If the line is its own self-contained service (like the (L)), then running elevated along LIE would certainly be worth considering.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO a better crosstown option is 57th instead of 50th, since all trains stop at a station near 57th:

  • (1)(A)(B)(C)(D) - 59th Columbus
  • (N)(Q)(R)(W) - 57th/7th
  • (F) - 57th/6th
  • (4)(5)(6) - 59th/Lex
  • (T) - 55th St

50th only intersects local stations other than 6th Avenue, and completely misses the (T).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

IMO a better crosstown option is 57th instead of 50th, since all trains stop at a station near 57th:

  • (1)(A)(B)(C)(D) - 59th Columbus
  • (N)(Q)(R)(W) - 57th/7th
  • (F) - 57th/6th
  • (4)(5)(6) - 59th/Lex
  • (T) - 55th St

50th only intersects local stations other than 6th Avenue, and completely misses the (T).

The annoying thing about new Midtown crosstown routes is just this. The median midtown job is a whole lot closer to 50 than it is 57, but if you’re going somewhere that isn’t Midtown, you get screwed transfer-wise...so you have to balance having transfers and having to use said transfers. I think you’re right that 57>50, but still... 

 

It’s really a shame lower SAS isn't 4 tracks. Having them even from 57-34 with relays south would allow you to run a good, high frequency Queens-East Side service in its own tunnel without having to deviate up to 86th St or thereabouts... 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I make a modest proposal: that the crew get to their trains on-time?

I was on the Manhattan-bound (F) train during the morning rush, and it was stuck behind a (G) train for 6–7 minutes at Church Avenue. The train was clearly supposed to leave as I could see the green light on at the platform, but people were still coming down the stairs and filling the train.

And if the crew isn’t waiting on the platform ready to go, the (G) should stay on the relay tracks where it is out of the way.

Edited by CenSin
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

IMO a better crosstown option is 57th instead of 50th, since all trains stop at a station near 57th:

  • (1)(A)(B)(C)(D) - 59th Columbus
  • (N)(Q)(R)(W) - 57th/7th
  • (F) - 57th/6th
  • (4)(5)(6) - 59th/Lex
  • (T) - 55th St

50th only intersects local stations other than 6th Avenue, and completely misses the (T).

 

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

The annoying thing about new Midtown crosstown routes is just this. The median midtown job is a whole lot closer to 50 than it is 57, but if you’re going somewhere that isn’t Midtown, you get screwed transfer-wise...so you have to balance having transfers and having to use said transfers. I think you’re right that 57>50, but still... 

 

It’s really a shame lower SAS isn't 4 tracks. Having them even from 57-34 with relays south would allow you to run a good, high frequency Queens-East Side service in its own tunnel without having to deviate up to 86th St or thereabouts... 

Personally, I’d be happy with this route just feeding into the SAS somewhere in the East 50s, especially if we were to have (E)(K) in the 53rd Street Tunnel and (F)(M) in 63rd. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

Personally, I’d be happy with this route just feeding into the SAS somewhere in the East 50s, especially if we were to have (E)(K) in the 53rd Street Tunnel and (F)(M) in 63rd. 

If it's possible, 58th would be a good choice because its a straight shot to Queens Plaza and it should be far enough from 55th to make a turn onto 2nd...

(this would require 55th Street station to be positioned between 52nd and 55th Streets, but that might have been the plans anyway)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

If it's possible, 58th would be a good choice because its a straight shot to Queens Plaza and it should be far enough from 55th to make a turn onto 2nd...

(this would require 55th Street station to be positioned between 52nd and 55th Streets, but that might have been the plans anyway)

Yup. 52nd to 55th

http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/chapter02.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

If it's possible, 58th would be a good choice because its a straight shot to Queens Plaza and it should be far enough from 55th to make a turn onto 2nd...

(this would require 55th Street station to be positioned between 52nd and 55th Streets, but that might have been the plans anyway)

For a Queens tunnel from the SAS, sure.  That would work very well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 5:22 PM, RR503 said:

That’s wholly orthogonal to my point. Of course the, well, immediate needs should go first. I’m saying that if we’re given money for an E Queens subway, the relative cheapness of an elevated structure would allow you to explore decking options, which impart a greater benefit onto the construction. 

What about a single bore tunnel? Similar to the way Barcelona is building its new Metro line. Wouldn’t be cheaper than an el over the LIE, but much less than the excessively expensive double bore tunnels currently built here?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 3:18 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

Personally, I’d be happy with this route just feeding into the SAS somewhere in the East 50s, especially if we were to have (E)(K) in the 53rd Street Tunnel and (F)(M) in 63rd. 

The problem is that we need all the transfers we can get, and SAS is pretty bad.

Maybe you could dual-stack two track pairs like the 63rd St tunnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that we need all the transfers we can get, and SAS is pretty bad.

Maybe you could dual-stack two track pairs like the 63rd St tunnel.

Yes. Both are needed -- Queens-East Side riders wreck Lex ops, but Queens just needs more capacity in ge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the conversation, but I posit that a Jewel Ave line should always be built before a LIE line.

  • As a QB local branch, Jewel would divert half the trains away from the congested and sup-optimal Forest Hills terminal, increasing capacity on the local tracks. LIE would presumably be a 63 St line extension which is still far off.
  • The Jewel Ave and LIE lines would stop at the same major roads and both offer good access to QC, but the catchment area of the Jewel Ave stations is much greater. LIE does have the 99 St / 108 St stop in its favor.
  • Building an LIE line necessitates a Union Turnpike line to improve access to that area, while the eastern end of Jewel / 73rd serves UT reasonably and thus the Jewel Ave line is probably more cost-effective in the long run.
On 2/3/2019 at 8:39 PM, RR503 said:

The annoying thing about new Midtown crosstown routes is just this. The median midtown job is a whole lot closer to 50 than it is 57, but if you’re going somewhere that isn’t Midtown, you get screwed transfer-wise...so you have to balance having transfers and having to use said transfers. I think you’re right that 57>50, but still... 

 

It’s really a shame lower SAS isn't 4 tracks. Having them even from 57-34 with relays south would allow you to run a good, high frequency Queens-East Side service in its own tunnel without having to deviate up to 86th St or thereabouts... 

I actually think a Midtown crosstown route should be prioritized as a relief line for 53 St, and thus 50 St is the better option because it's in the middle of everything. Not to say 57 St is bad because of all the transfers, but here's a comparison between the two lines with potential stops:

  • 2 Ave / 3 Ave (double-ended station): Both 50 St and 57 St are going to require a tunnel to connect to the 52-55 St SAS station.
  • 3 Ave / Lex Ave: Both have good access to the (6). Slight advantage to 59 St because of the (4)(5) but I don't know if we want to overload the Lex Ave express services even more.
  • 5 Ave / 6 Ave: 50 St has a definite advantage over 57 St because of Rockefeller Center and its express stations.
  • 7 Ave / 8 Ave: While the 3 north/south lines all stop along 50 St and 57 St, the latter is better because of the Columbus Circle and 57 St / 7 Ave express stops.

So overall, I don't think 50 St is much worse than 57 St transfer-wise. Then again, I think transfers to the (1)(6)(R)(W) are adequate enough because of how busy every stop in Manhattan is, so YMMV. 

As for lower SAS, it needs to be reevaluated. If we're going to build such a long new tunnel, we should be getting 24+ tph out of it. Current SAS Phase 1 and Phase 2 offers that if / when the Bway express trains are permanently routed to SAS, but there will be nothing left for the 2-track tunnel south of 72 St. Honestly, the proposal of building lower SAS up from the Grand St / Delancey St area has a lot of merit because it punts the issue of how to link up lower SAS with the Queens and UES lines, while adding direct Brooklyn service to SAS which isn't currently available under any SAS plan.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are definitely some good reasons to favor a Jewel/73rd subway extension. Though I imagine we’d have to have Woodhaven Blvd (or 63rd or maybe 67th) converted to an express station, so that the amount of riders a Jewel line would take on won’t overwhelm Roosevelt Avenue’s narrow platforms. That’s assuming it is a branch off the QB local tracks. If it runs entirely on a separate alignment through Queens, then that would be moot.

As for the Midtown crosstown at 50th, I feel like that would only be necessary if we exhaust the underused capacity on 53rd. 53rd runs under capacity because both the (E) and (M) are constrained by merges with other lines,  namely the (C) and (F) for the (E) and the (F), (J), (Z) and (R) for the (M). We’ve previously discussed some ways to work around that, such as rerouting the (R) off QBL (replaced by a (K)) and not having both the (C) and (E) run local on 8th Avenue (either run (A)(C) local or (E)(K) local).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Though I imagine we’d have to have Woodhaven Blvd (or 63rd or maybe 67th) converted to an express station, so that the amount of riders a Jewel line would take on won’t overwhelm Roosevelt Avenue’s narrow platforms.

Woodhaven Boulevard would be the easiest to renovate, since the IND built the station to probably be converted into an express station later on originally for the proposed Rockaway Beach Branch.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAS could get a second line to Queens, given that current plans call for a spur to the 63rd Street (F) line toward 21st Street - Queensbridge. From there the line can continue as an elevated structure above the LIRR between Sunnyside Yards and the Forest Hills - 71st Avenue (E)(F)(M)(R) station where it connects to the local tracks along the Queens Boulevard corridor. This new line would be a turquoise (V) supplementing the (T) south of 55th Street, operating local east of that station to 179th Street, operating express to 21st Street via the 61st Street - Woodside (7) station, and then making all (T) stops to Hanover Square after Lexington Avenue - 63rd Street (F)(Q) station. It would operate at all times except late nights.

To accommodate this new service, the (E) would run express east of 71st Avenue at all times except late nights when it operates local in Queens. (F) service along this segment toward 179th Street would remain unchanged.

However, I also have to admit that such a plan would first require that Jamaica Yard be expanded as overcrowding has forced the storage of trains on the express tracks east of 71st Avenue during late nights and weekends.

Edited by lara8710

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting tidbit pulled from another thread:

Quote

The only plans I had in there that fell apart was the order of new RTS buses, and a subway under Utica Av that stretched from Kings Plaza to LaGuardia.

@East New York, I have no idea if you're at liberty to say, but what would such a thing have looked like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of a 50th St Crosstown: 

The (7) should be relocated to a two-level two track/island platform tunnel under 50th st which would give it 4 tracks. The line would turn up 1st Ave then cross the river @ 59th st. The north side of QBP will be rebuilt and two express tracks will be build on top of the existing el. After 111st, the line will follow the current Corona Yard approaches and stop at a new Willets Pt station overtop the current Shea LIRR. The line then follows the LIRR into Flushing with a two level terminus overtop the Flushing LIRR stop. 

The current (7) alignment through LIC and 42nd st will be given to the Astoria line to become it's own self contained line called the (8). 

Share this post


Link to post
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.