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

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I’d make it 4 tracks or so to give the (G) a better Terminal. 

Does the (G) really need to go all the way to Astoria though? I'm gonna get some criticism for this, but I'd rather send the (G) to 21st (F) as a terminus, or make it a 21st line so you can have an (F) transfer. More subway service as backup to nearby lines, and also be a cheaper and more long-term alternative to BQX. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I think it's a good one. Can't say I'm completely convinced that we need to go full spanish solution given that the eastwards extension would innately reduce crowding, but better platform circulation that Main for sure. 

There is literally zero reason for us to spend our (very limited) subway expansion capital on burying a perfectly functional existing line. 

Another improvement that should be done is building a station house at one of the corners of Main Street and Roosevelt Avenue to bring the token booth and fare control arrays out of the mezzanine, improving passenger flow. There would be more staircases, and pedestrian flow would be greatly improved. Another spot that could use this is Canal Street.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

Another improvement that should be done is building a station house at one of the corners of Main Street and Roosevelt Avenue to bring the token booth and fare control arrays out of the mezzanine, improving passenger flow. There would be more staircases, and pedestrian flow would be greatly improved. Another spot that could use this is Canal Street.

More than anything, Canal needs its other Nassau platform back.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Does the (G) really need to go all the way to Astoria though? I'm gonna get some criticism for this, but I'd rather send the (G) to 21st (F) as a terminus, or make it a 21st line so you can have an (F) transfer. More subway service as backup to nearby lines, and also be a cheaper and more long-term alternative to BQX. 

I never said it had to, all I said is that the (G) needs a better terminal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/3/2019 at 1:11 PM, Union Tpke said:

These are the ones I thought of. I would add a stop at Avenue K on the Nostrand extension.

I would add (7) to Murray Hill to create a functional terminal. I need to post my station design, which has three platforms and two tracks, with one island platform for boarding and two sides for exiting. My layout would reduce delays and segregate boarding and departing passengers. The Crew room and dispatcher's office would be located on the island platform, making it much easier for them to get to their train. There would be tail tracks past the station.

 

57 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Another improvement that should be done is building a station house at one of the corners of Main Street and Roosevelt Avenue to bring the token booth and fare control arrays out of the mezzanine, improving passenger flow. There would be more staircases, and pedestrian flow would be greatly improved. Another spot that could use this is Canal Street.

These would both be a major improvement over the current (7) operations at Main Street, and the bus services upstairs. The (7) is madness pretty any time of day. So is taking any of the buses to and from the (7) due to the clogged Flushing streets and the lack of signage or maps showing exactly where the buses stop.

This new station house could help improve ADA accessibility, as there is very little room to fit elevators in the current mezzanine with fare controls also there. Move them to the new station house to free up room for elevators to and from the platforms. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, RR503 said:

More than anything, Canal needs its other Nassau platform back.

Here is my plan for Canal Street, which I think I have thoroughly gone through.

DISCLAIMER: I am sure that there are mistakes in here, and oversights. I am not an engineer, and have based this design based on the 3-D layout of the station. There might be basements, pipes, power lines, sewer lines, or other things in the way. If anyone knows of anything of the like please call me out. If there are any egregious mistakes do so as well. If anyone can think of a better way to accomplish the goals of making this station ADA-accessible while drastically reducing crowding at the station and making transfers easier, please post it. This is meant to be a discussion starter. One of the goals of this layout was to reduce the number of elevators needed. The Centre Street Passageway reduces the number of elevators on the two Nassau Street Platforms from 4 to 2. This passageway makes it easier for people needing elevators as the platforms would not be constrained with two pairs of elevators.

Here is my not so great map of the general plan. Pentagons are elevators by the way.

47283266331_9f72636b2d_b.jpgCanal Street Plan 1 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Levels:

L-1 Surface/Station House

L-2 Nassau/Lexington/Broadway Main Line platforms/Mezzanines A, B, and C

L-3 Bridge Platform/New Canal Street transfer passageway

L-4 Centre Street Passageway

 

New entrances:

-      North end of IRT and BMT platforms to Howard Street and Hester Street

-      South end of IRT platforms to Walker Street

New Passageways:

-      Centre Street Passageway

o  Paralleling the Nassau platforms at a level lower down and located at L-4

o  Provides access to the Downtown BMT Nassau Platform by Staircase J and Elevator J

o  Provides access to the Uptown BMT Nassau Platform by Staircase K and Elevator K

o  Provides access to the Uptown Bridge Platform by Staircase H and Elevator H

o  Provides access to the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway by Staircase I and Elevator I 

-      Canal Street Transfer Passageway

o  Between Broadway and Baxter Street, paralleling the Downtown Bridge platform, providing direct access to the BMT Main Line platforms, the IRT platforms, and to the BMT Nassau platforms via stairs or elevator down to the Centre Street Passageway

o  Includes the crossunder passageway between the BMT Main Line platforms, which will be widened.

o  Access to the Downtown BMT Main Line platform via Staircase A and Elevator A

o  Access to the Uptown BMT Main Line platform/Mezzanine A and Uptown BMT Bridge Platform via Staircase B and Elevator B

o  Direct and level access to the Downtown Bridge platform is provided.

o  Access to the Downtown IRT platform via Staircase E and Elevator E

o  Access to the Uptown IRT platform via Staircase G and Elevator E

o  Access down to the Centre Street Passageway via Staircase I and Elevator I

o  Access to the Southwest Stationhouse via Staircase N and Elevator I

Mezzanines:

A – Connects the Uptown Broadway Main Line Platform (same level) with the Uptown Bridge 

 platform with Elevator C and Staircase C at this mezzanine’s eastern end

   – Provides access to the Downtown Broadway Main Line Platform and the IRT and BMT 

Nassau Platforms via Staircase B and Elevator B to the Canal Street Transfer Passageway

B – Connects the Downtown IRT Platform (same level) with the Bridge platforms 

-      Connects to the Uptown Bridge Platform with Staircase D and Elevator D

-      Connects to the Downtown Bridge Platform and the Canal Street Transfer Passageway with Staircase E and Elevator E

C – Connects the Uptown IRT Platform (same level) with the Bridge platforms

-      Connects to the Uptown Bridge Platform with Staircase F and Elevator F

-      Connects to the Downtown Bridge Platform and the Canal Street Transfer Passageway with Staircase G and Elevator G

Stationhouses:

A –  Northeast corner of Centre Street and Canal Street

o  Elevator H provides direct access to the Uptown Nassau platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform

B –  Southwest corner of Centre Street and Canal Street

o  Elevator I provides direct access to the Downtown Nassau platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform

List of Elevators:

A – Between the Street Level, Uptown BMT Main Line platform/Mezzanine A and the Transfer Passageway

B – Between the Downtown BMT Main Line platform and the Transfer Passageway

C – Between Mezzanine A and the Uptown Bridge Platform

D – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Uptown Bridge Platform (Extension of existing elevator)

E – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway

F – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform (Extension of existing elevator)

G – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform (Front side) and Canal Street Transfer Passageway (Back side)

H – From the Centre Street Passageway to the Uptown Bridge Platform, the Uptown Nassau Platform and the Northeast Station House

I – From the Centre Street Passageway to the Downtown Bridge Platform (Front side) /Canal Street Transfer Passageway (back side), the Downtown Nassau Platform and the Southwest Station House

Staircases:

A – Between Canal Street Transfer Passageway (L–3) and the Downtown BMT Main Line Platform (L–2)

B – Between Canal Street Transfer Passageway (L–3) and Mezzanine A/Uptown BMT Main Line platform (L–2)

C – Between Mezzanine A and the Uptown Bridge Platform

D – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Uptown Bridge Platform

E – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway

F – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform

G – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway

H – From the Uptown Bridge Platform down to the Centre Street Passageway

I – From the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway down to the Centre Street Passageway

J – Between the Centre Street Passageway and the Downtown Nassau Platform

K – Between the Centre Street Passageway and the Uptown Nassau Platform

L – Between the Uptown Nassau Platform and the Northeast Station House

M – Between the Downtown Nassau Platform and the Southwest Station House

N – Between the Canal Street Transfer Passageway and the Southwest Station House

 

Remove:

-      Staircase between the Downtown Bridge platform and Mezzanine A; access to Broadway entrances and Main Line platforms preserved via elevator and stairs to Mezzanine A closer to Broadway

 

Other improvements:

-      Double width of Bridge platforms

-      Reopen closed entrances

 

Sources:

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/canal-street-station-3d4c5ff5942242e0babe21e9e7d8d85d

https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2018-04/Canal St (N)(Q) web.pdf

07+Canal+Street+Image.jpg?format=1000w

 

Edited by Union Tpke
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RR503 said:

I think it's a good one. Can't say I'm completely convinced that we need to go full spanish solution given that the eastwards extension would innately reduce crowding, but better platform circulation that Main for sure. 

There is literally zero reason for us to spend our (very limited) subway expansion capital on burying a perfectly functional existing line. 

I'm saying won't they have to underpin it due to it passing various east west lines? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I quite like the idea for Canal Street @Union Tpke (I'm not going to quote it all because the post is huge lol) 

I had a similar idea for ADA accessible mezzanines that I never got around to writing down or mapping out, but your's is clearly more thought out.

This is actually a quite similar approach to the way that TfL has upgraded key stations in Central London (https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/bond-street?intcmp=1231). Did you use that as inspiration or is that just a coincidence?

Edited by Around the Horn

Share this post


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

I quite like the idea for Canal Street @Union Tpke (I'm not going to quote it all because the post is huge lol) 

I had a similar idea for ADA accessible mezzanines that I never got around to writing down or mapping out, but your's is clearly more thought out.

This is actually a quite similar approach to the way that TfL has upgraded key stations in Central London (https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/bond-street?intcmp=1231). Did you use that as inspiration or is that just a coincidence?

Thanks. I know some of what TfL has done, but this is just a coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Union Tpke the above looks very good. Did you consider decking over one or both of the Nassau 'express' tracks for that passageway, or to create some sort of platform-mezzanine? Would save you the work of underpinning the entire complex for L-4. 

 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RR503 said:

@Union Tpke the above looks very good. Did you consider decking over one or both of the Nassau 'express' tracks for that passageway, or to create some sort of platform-mezzanine? Would save you the work of underpinning the entire complex for L-4. 

 

@RR503 By decking over, do you mean paving over the tracks? Wouldn't that require paving over both of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

Closing the Lorimer and Hewes street stations on the (J) and (M) to consolidate it into a broadway station with a transfer to the (G) where the (J)(M) and (Z) will stop, also reconstruct the express track at Marcy so it can be a through track and reconstruct it as an express station 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 By decking over, do you mean paving over the tracks? Wouldn't that require paving over both of them?

That would be one extra-wide platform at Canal St for the (J)(Z) (plus any potential new service that operates through there). And it might facilitate building another, ADA-compliant exit at the north end of the platform. 

33 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Proposal

Closing the Lorimer and Hewes street stations on the (J) and (M) to consolidate it into a broadway station with a transfer to the (G) where the (J)(M) and (Z) will stop, also reconstruct the express track at Marcy so it can be a through track and reconstruct it as an express station 

I wonder if it may be possible to “relocate” the Hewes St station so that it’s closer to Broadway, which would then facilitate a transfer between the (G) and the (J)(M). Then relocate Marcy a little further to the west, closer to the bus station, with either a dual-island setup or a Manhattan-bound island/Queens-bound side platform setup.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2019 at 6:03 PM, Union Tpke said:

Here is my plan for Canal Street, which I think I have thoroughly gone through.

DISCLAIMER: I am sure that there are mistakes in here, and oversights. I am not an engineer, and have based this design based on the 3-D layout of the station. There might be basements, pipes, power lines, sewer lines, or other things in the way. If anyone knows of anything of the like please call me out. If there are any egregious mistakes do so as well. If anyone can think of a better way to accomplish the goals of making this station ADA-accessible while drastically reducing crowding at the station and making transfers easier, please post it. This is meant to be a discussion starter. One of the goals of this layout was to reduce the number of elevators needed. The Centre Street Passageway reduces the number of elevators on the two Nassau Street Platforms from 4 to 2. This passageway makes it easier for people needing elevators as the platforms would not be constrained with two pairs of elevators.

Here is my not so great map of the general plan. Pentagons are elevators by the way.

47283266331_9f72636b2d_b.jpgCanal Street Plan 1 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Levels:

L-1 Surface/Station House

L-2 Nassau/Lexington/Broadway Main Line platforms/Mezzanines A, B, and C

L-3 Bridge Platform/New Canal Street transfer passageway

L-4 Centre Street Passageway

 

New entrances:

-      North end of IRT and BMT platforms to Howard Street and Hester Street

-      South end of IRT platforms to Walker Street

New Passageways:

-      Centre Street Passageway

o  Paralleling the Nassau platforms at a level lower down and located at L-4

o  Provides access to the Downtown BMT Nassau Platform by Staircase J and Elevator J

o  Provides access to the Uptown BMT Nassau Platform by Staircase K and Elevator K

o  Provides access to the Uptown Bridge Platform by Staircase H and Elevator H

o  Provides access to the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway by Staircase I and Elevator I 

-      Canal Street Transfer Passageway

o  Between Broadway and Baxter Street, paralleling the Downtown Bridge platform, providing direct access to the BMT Main Line platforms, the IRT platforms, and to the BMT Nassau platforms via stairs or elevator down to the Centre Street Passageway

o  Includes the crossunder passageway between the BMT Main Line platforms, which will be widened.

o  Access to the Downtown BMT Main Line platform via Staircase A and Elevator A

o  Access to the Uptown BMT Main Line platform/Mezzanine A and Uptown BMT Bridge Platform via Staircase B and Elevator B

o  Direct and level access to the Downtown Bridge platform is provided.

o  Access to the Downtown IRT platform via Staircase E and Elevator E

o  Access to the Uptown IRT platform via Staircase G and Elevator E

o  Access down to the Centre Street Passageway via Staircase I and Elevator I

o  Access to the Southwest Stationhouse via Staircase N and Elevator I

Mezzanines:

A – Connects the Uptown Broadway Main Line Platform (same level) with the Uptown Bridge 

 platform with Elevator C and Staircase C at this mezzanine’s eastern end

   – Provides access to the Downtown Broadway Main Line Platform and the IRT and BMT 

Nassau Platforms via Staircase B and Elevator B to the Canal Street Transfer Passageway

B – Connects the Downtown IRT Platform (same level) with the Bridge platforms 

-      Connects to the Uptown Bridge Platform with Staircase D and Elevator D

-      Connects to the Downtown Bridge Platform and the Canal Street Transfer Passageway with Staircase E and Elevator E

C – Connects the Uptown IRT Platform (same level) with the Bridge platforms

-      Connects to the Uptown Bridge Platform with Staircase F and Elevator F

-      Connects to the Downtown Bridge Platform and the Canal Street Transfer Passageway with Staircase G and Elevator G

Stationhouses:

A –  Northeast corner of Centre Street and Canal Street

o  Elevator H provides direct access to the Uptown Nassau platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform

B –  Southwest corner of Centre Street and Canal Street

o  Elevator I provides direct access to the Downtown Nassau platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform

List of Elevators:

A – Between the Street Level, Uptown BMT Main Line platform/Mezzanine A and the Transfer Passageway

B – Between the Downtown BMT Main Line platform and the Transfer Passageway

C – Between Mezzanine A and the Uptown Bridge Platform

D – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Uptown Bridge Platform (Extension of existing elevator)

E – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway

F – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform (Extension of existing elevator)

G – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform (Front side) and Canal Street Transfer Passageway (Back side)

H – From the Centre Street Passageway to the Uptown Bridge Platform, the Uptown Nassau Platform and the Northeast Station House

I – From the Centre Street Passageway to the Downtown Bridge Platform (Front side) /Canal Street Transfer Passageway (back side), the Downtown Nassau Platform and the Southwest Station House

Staircases:

A – Between Canal Street Transfer Passageway (L–3) and the Downtown BMT Main Line Platform (L–2)

B – Between Canal Street Transfer Passageway (L–3) and Mezzanine A/Uptown BMT Main Line platform (L–2)

C – Between Mezzanine A and the Uptown Bridge Platform

D – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Uptown Bridge Platform

E – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway

F – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform

G – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway

H – From the Uptown Bridge Platform down to the Centre Street Passageway

I – From the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway down to the Centre Street Passageway

J – Between the Centre Street Passageway and the Downtown Nassau Platform

K – Between the Centre Street Passageway and the Uptown Nassau Platform

L – Between the Uptown Nassau Platform and the Northeast Station House

M – Between the Downtown Nassau Platform and the Southwest Station House

N – Between the Canal Street Transfer Passageway and the Southwest Station House

 

Remove:

-      Staircase between the Downtown Bridge platform and Mezzanine A; access to Broadway entrances and Main Line platforms preserved via elevator and stairs to Mezzanine A closer to Broadway

 

Other improvements:

-      Double width of Bridge platforms

-      Reopen closed entrances

 

Sources:

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/canal-street-station-3d4c5ff5942242e0babe21e9e7d8d85d

https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2018-04/Canal St (N)(Q) web.pdf

07+Canal+Street+Image.jpg?format=1000w

 

Extensive and very much needed at Canal Street.  The (MTA) was likely very shortsighted in closing what used to be the uptown platform on the Nassau Line at Canal Street and Bowery (which likely would also need to be reopened for this to work).  and probably should be reopened, especially if eventually you have the SAS put through Nassau in addition to the planned route.  

MAJOR work needs to be done there especially given what has been well noted about ALL of the platforms there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had an idea for a new, short extension of a line to improve terminal capacity:

The (B) would be extended one stop south of its current terminus to Ocean Parkway. To account for this, new switches would be added from the layup tracks to the center tracks followed by a diamond crossover.

Not exactly sure how much more tph could be gained, but I would say it makes sense to do this as without the limitation of the curve at Brighton, the (B) could get a bump in frequency and ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As far as Canal Street goes, I'd really like a free in-system transfer between the (A)(C)(E) and (1). That would be a smaller and less disruptive project, at least. I do like the proposal, though.

Edited by Porter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Porter said:

As far as Canal Street goes, I'd really like a free in-system transfer between the (A)(C)(E) and (1). That would be a smaller and less disruptive project, at least. I do like the proposal, though.

Is it really needed? The (1) and (A)(C)(E) overlap their entire length, never being more than a block apart, and if you really want that transfer it's available at Park Pl (2)(3) or Times Square.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2019 at 9:06 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

This makes sense; honestly, when the El starts to need renovation on the (7)<7> we should really just replace it with a four-track subway out to at least Bell Blvd

Where would you shove an additional track? The el basically touches building walls as it is.

On 3/3/2019 at 10:11 AM, Union Tpke said:

These are the ones I thought of. I would add a stop at Avenue K on the Nostrand extension.

I would add (7) to Murray Hill to create a functional terminal. I need to post my station design, which has three platforms and two tracks, with one island platform for boarding and two sides for exiting. My layout would reduce delays and segregate boarding and departing passengers. The Crew room and dispatcher's office would be located on the island platform, making it much easier for them to get to their train. There would be tail tracks past the station.

I think Broadway LIRR would be a better, slightly longer extension. Murray Hill is a quiet neighborhood and doesn't save much time over just going into Flushing itself (in fact, the Q15/A serves both); Broadway LIRR would provide more of a time savings, and its position at 162nd, Crocheron, and Northern means that there are lots of options for terminating buses.

Share this post


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

Where would you shove an additional track? The el basically touches building walls as it is.

I think Broadway LIRR would be a better, slightly longer extension. Murray Hill is a quiet neighborhood and doesn't save much time over just going into Flushing itself (in fact, the Q15/A serves both); Broadway LIRR would provide more of a time savings, and its position at 162nd, Crocheron, and Northern means that there are lots of options for terminating buses.

Do you think leading the line further east makes more sense over College Point/Whitestone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Do you think leading the line further east makes more sense over College Point/Whitestone?

Absolutely.

A couple of points:

  • Whitestone is low density; we shouldn't be building subway service over there at all; College Point is an isolated medium clump of density, the Northern Blvd/PW corridor is much denser
  • College Point is already a 15-25 minute bus ride to the subway, which isn't terrible at all
  • It is incredibly awkward to serve both Flushing and College Point using the (7), and the density of College Point is not strong enough to where I'd suggest diverting half or a third of trains there
  • Hugging the shoreline will not interface well with the bus network, while a Northern Blvd line will have a 15-20 minute bus catchment area covering Whitestone, College Point, and Queens as far south as Hillside
  • College Point is not on the way to anything dense unless you're tunneling to Castle Hill/Soundview, which is well outside the scope of any 100 year plan

In my ideal world, future extensions in Queens should be planned so that no section of Queens is more than a 15 minute bus ride from the train so that all of Queens can be upzoned. This basically requires Northern Blvd, Hillside, and SE Queens. College Point makes more sense sitting on a second cross-borough line replicating the Q44.

Density map for reference:

new%2520york%25202010.png

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Absolutely.

A couple of points:

  • Whitestone is low density; we shouldn't be building subway service over there at all; College Point is an isolated medium clump of density, the Northern Blvd/PW corridor is much denser
  • College Point is already a 15-25 minute bus ride to the subway, which isn't terrible at all
  • It is incredibly awkward to serve both Flushing and College Point using the (7), and the density of College Point is not strong enough to where I'd suggest diverting half or a third of trains there
  • Hugging the shoreline will not interface well with the bus network, while a Northern Blvd line will have a 15-20 minute bus catchment area covering Whitestone, College Point, and Queens as far south as Hillside
  • College Point is not on the way to anything dense unless you're tunneling to Castle Hill/Soundview, which is well outside the scope of any 100 year plan

In my ideal world, future extensions in Queens should be planned so that no section of Queens is more than a 15 minute bus ride from the train so that all of Queens can be upzoned. This basically requires Northern Blvd, Hillside, and SE Queens. College Point makes more sense sitting on a second cross-borough line replicating the Q44.

Density map for reference:

new%2520york%25202010.png

I am still weary of spending hypothetical capital dollars on an extension paralleling the Port Washington Branch, which should have at least 18 TPH (through-run with the NJT NEC).

Edited by Union Tpke

Share this post


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

I am still weary of spending hypothetical capital dollars on an extension paralleling the Port Washington Branch, which should have at least 18 TPH (through-run with the NJT NEC).

If you want Northern Queens to look as dense as the existing (7) in Corona and Elmhurst, the PW will not cut it. In fact, if you were to cut the PW to a $2.75 fare overnight, I don't think it would be able to handle the crowding even with a hypothetical 24TPH max for mainline rail. And this is before we considering turning the entire swath of Queens between Northern and Hillside into a medium-high density area. We would not call the 7 paralleling the PW in Corona wasteful; we would not consider the Queens Blvd Line next to the LIRR Main Line wasteful. But somehow a Northern Blvd extension is?

Not to pull a Wallyhorse, but it is undeniable that the Asians who live along the PW and Northern Blvd are far more pro-growth and pro-density than the rich white homeowners who populate Whitestone and Malba. You will never get those areas to densify. In fact, judging by the various fights over Flushing Airport, you may not even get College Point to densify.

It should also be worth noting that Northern Blvd is not exactly the same corridor as PW. PW has several shortcomings; some stations, notably Auburndale, are sited extremely awkwardly for a good bus+rail interface, especially if you want to terminate buses. Little Neck has a grade crossing that is basically impossible to close, since it's the only way in and out and there are houses right up against both sides of the street. And you'd almost certainly need to expand the overground stations at Great Neck or Bayside to turn all those trains. Northern is much better for bus+rail; Northern is also better for relieving the Q27 to the south, which is extremely overcrowded and cannot handle more buses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

If you want Northern Queens to look as dense as the existing (7) in Corona and Elmhurst, the PW will not cut it. In fact, if you were to cut the PW to a $2.75 fare overnight, I don't think it would be able to handle the crowding even with a hypothetical 24TPH max for mainline rail. And this is before we considering turning the entire swath of Queens between Northern and Hillside into a medium-high density area. We would not call the 7 paralleling the PW in Corona wasteful; we would not consider the Queens Blvd Line next to the LIRR Main Line wasteful. But somehow a Northern Blvd extension is?

Assuming 125% seated capacity, 8 car trains and 24tph, you get about 25k riders per hour on the PW. Given that the PW isn’t the beginning of anything longer (which is, by the way, what differentiates it from the LIRR Main and the inner part of the PW) that should be plenty — and you could easily have more standees. Conversely, the (7)<7> already operates at 85-90% capacity, leaving little room for growth without some radical change to loading patterns or capacity. To be sure, I don’t think that a NB extension is a bad idea, I just don’t think it’s necessarily a priority — especially not until we have a means of dealing with crowding on the (7)’s inner segment. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Assuming 125% seated capacity, 8 car trains and 24tph, you get about 25k riders per hour on the PW. Given that the PW isn’t the beginning of anything longer (which is, by the way, what differentiates it from the LIRR Main and the inner part of the PW) that should be plenty — and you could easily have more standees. Conversely, the (7)<7> already operates at 85-90% capacity, leaving little room for growth without some radical change to loading patterns or capacity. To be sure, I don’t think that a NB extension is a bad idea, I just don’t think it’s necessarily a priority — especially not until we have a means of dealing with crowding on the (7)’s inner segment. 

My personal preference is the (7) , not just purely from a capacity standpoint. It is also the transfer opportunities available. 

The (7) has many scattered transfer points with other subway lines - Times Square, 5th Av, Grand Central, Court Square, QBP, and Jackson Heights. The PW has two of four on any given train (Penn, GCT, Hunterspoint, and Woodside) - and two of those are only with the (7) itself!

I assumed that if we were talking about Whitestone vs Northern that we were operating under the assumption that western (7) capacity was fixed. I actually think the PW would be great as a (7) reliever, since the ROW tracks the Q58, the slowest and one of the most frequent of all the Queens buses. But I don't think it does a very good job of being the sole line into Northeastern Queens.

Share this post


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

My personal preference is the (7) , not just purely from a capacity standpoint. It is also the transfer opportunities available. 

The (7) has many scattered transfer points with other subway lines - Times Square, 5th Av, Grand Central, Court Square, QBP, and Jackson Heights. The PW has two of four on any given train (Penn, GCT, Hunterspoint, and Woodside) - and two of those are only with the (7) itself!

I assumed that if we were talking about Whitestone vs Northern that we were operating under the assumption that western (7) capacity was fixed. I actually think the PW would be great as a (7) reliever, since the ROW tracks the Q58, the slowest and one of the most frequent of all the Queens buses. But I don't think it does a very good job of being the sole line into Northeastern Queens.

It’d be pretty easy to provide a QB-PW xfer in Elmhurst, but that’s beside the point.

The objection I lodge against putting extension/upzoning loads on the (7) is capacital. There’s already plenty of growth/upzoning along the rest of the line; dunno if it’s wise to add more fuel to the fire without providing relief. In a perfect world, you’d be able to harness transfers to provide said relief, but 74/QB is already shot and by the time you hit QBP you’re beyond the peak load point so 🤷‍♂️ (related ish: if you want to do development along the (7) in LIC you should really be increasing (N)(W) service, as (7) capacity through, say, HPA is inversely proportionate to the number of people you can entice off at QBP). The way I see it, PW provides capacity for the now/short term, regional rail solutions in the medium term, (7) reliever line and (7) extension in the long term.

  • Upvote 1

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.