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

Some ideas on how to improve transfers:

New passageways built between the following stations:

Lex 63rd (F)(Q)/Lex 59th  (4)(5)(6)(N)(R)(W) 

Junius (3) and Livonia (L) 

Bowery (J)(Z) and Grand (B)(D) 

Hoyt-Schermerhorn (A)(C)(G) and Hoyt-Fulton (2)(3) 

New stations:

A new station would be built at Broadway/Union Av to connect the (J)(M)(Z) and (G) . The station would be built in a local configuration and would have elevators and a station house (where the BP gas station is) that would go down to the (G) platforms (a la 74th Street/Roosevelt Av). Both Lorimer and Hewes Streets would be closed as a result.

A new station would be built at 104th Street/CPW to connect the (B)(C) and (2)(3); this could help reduce crowds on the (1) at 59th and get more people to use the locals on CPW. The new platform would stretch right from the end of the curve to just past Columbus Avenue and would consist of 2 side platforms connected to the lower level of the CPW station by a passageway.

Thoughts?

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Some ideas on how to improve transfers:

New passageways built between the following stations:

Lex 63rd (F)(Q)/Lex 59th  (4)(5)(6)(N)(R)(W) 

Junius (3) and Livonia (L) 

Bowery (J)(Z) and Grand (B)(D) 

Hoyt-Schermerhorn (A)(C)(G) and Hoyt-Fulton (2)(3) 

New stations:

A new station would be built at Broadway/Union Av to connect the (J)(M)(Z) and (G) . The station would be built in a local configuration and would have elevators and a station house (where the BP gas station is) that would go down to the (G) platforms (a la 74th Street/Roosevelt Av). Both Lorimer and Hewes Streets would be closed as a result.

A new station would be built at 104th Street/CPW to connect the (B)(C) and (2)(3); this could help reduce crowds on the (1) at 59th and get more people to use the locals on CPW. The new platform would stretch right from the end of the curve to just past Columbus Avenue and would consist of 2 side platforms connected to the lower level of the CPW station by a passageway.

Thoughts?

Perfect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full plan v2:

(T)(V)(W) on SAS

(T) to Bway 125

(V) to Laurelton via Bypass

(W) to LGA 

QBL and Bway de-interlined

(T) runs to Atlantic and Jamiaca/Queens Village

(V) to Brighton Beach via (B) tracks and the (B) is moved to Culver Exp

(W) to Euclid Ave via Fulton Local

(G)(L) to Northern Blvd via (G) extension and (L) up 10 Ave and then 72nd Street

(N) Bypass to RBB with (K) QBL Local

Triboro RX Staten Island to Co-Op City

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Some ideas on how to improve transfers:

New passageways built between the following stations:

Lex 63rd (F)(Q)/Lex 59th  (4)(5)(6)(N)(R)(W) 

Junius (3) and Livonia (L) 

Bowery (J)(Z) and Grand (B)(D) 

Hoyt-Schermerhorn (A)(C)(G) and Hoyt-Fulton (2)(3) 

New stations:

A new station would be built at Broadway/Union Av to connect the (J)(M)(Z) and (G) . The station would be built in a local configuration and would have elevators and a station house (where the BP gas station is) that would go down to the (G) platforms (a la 74th Street/Roosevelt Av). Both Lorimer and Hewes Streets would be closed as a result.

A new station would be built at 104th Street/CPW to connect the (B)(C) and (2)(3); this could help reduce crowds on the (1) at 59th and get more people to use the locals on CPW. The new platform would stretch right from the end of the curve to just past Columbus Avenue and would consist of 2 side platforms connected to the lower level of the CPW station by a passageway.

Thoughts?

I agree with all of these particularly Union Avenue and Bowery/Grand, which would relieve the Canal Street transfer immensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2019 at 8:25 PM, RR503 said:

You can't do that if you want to maintain capacity on all Manhattan trunks. Right now, we have six B division track pairs in Manhattan. 6 track pairs head north (CPW, SAS), and 6 to Queens (53, 60, 63). Assuming competence or some small mods to switch/platform position can restore WTC to some version of its previous 26tph glory, we have really three ways to pair tracks in Midtown to those heading out of it:

Taken as assumptions:

-6th local to 63 to QB, Bway Local to 60th to Astoria, [something on 8th] to 53 to QB, Bway express to 96th

-What happens at 36th-Queens between 8th and 6th services doesn't really matter; capacity picture in the core doesn't change. 

Which produces the following options:

-53rd St trains run onto 8th local to WTC, with CPW express trains running to 8th express to Brooklyn and CPW local trains going to 6th express. 

-59th St is kept interlined, and the 53rd-8th Avenue junction is interlined to mirror it, with one 53-Queens service continuing to Brooklyn, and the other going to WTC.

-53rd trains run onto 8th express to Brooklyn, with CPW express feeding 6th express, and 8th local feeding CPW local. 

The TL;DR of all of this is that you can max out the current set of Queens tunnels with existing connections on both sides, and have no excess capacity. This means that a NB subway either has to feed from the (G), or needs a new tunnel from Manhattan. The latter is, of course, the long-term preferable option.

The option I bolded is the one I like best. It keeps the same familiar service patterns on the (A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F) in Queens, Manhattan and The Bronx. I’d run the (K) as the second 8th Ave express and as the replacement for the (C) in Brooklyn, because the (K) would most likely not be needed during overnight hours in Queens, just as the (C) is currently not needed during overnight hours. And you eliminate the Canal Street merge. 

21 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Hypothetical proposals

Deinterline Broadway

(N)(Q) SAS VIA Broadway express

(W) Astoria  to bay ridge on weekdays, weekends current service pattern to whitehall south ferry still local

(R) as is

Part 2

If by some Miracle Rockaway Beach Gets restored for service, (M) gets sent to a future LIE/HHE Service would a future (H) service be a problem on QB Locals be a problem for 4 stops?

Question

Where are the provisions at 179th on the (F) for a future extension to braddock?  the express tracks or local tracks? If express the (F) runs express from 179th to union turnpike

 

I think it would be. Assuming the (R) stays as is, I’m assuming there would be three QB Locals from at least Woodhaven Blvd to 36th Street. It would be a very tight fit for the (H), (M) and (R) on the local for that long of a stretch, even with CBTC. With the (M) branching off to Horace Harding at Woodhaven, followed by the (H) branching off to the Rockaways at the next stop, 63rd Drive, I feel like the problems with the (R) would get a whole lot worse with two other QB locals branching off. 

I think it would be best if a RBB subway service piggy backs onto the LIRR main line between Rego Park and LIC, so there is less merging and reverse-branching on the QBL. The more merging and reverse-branching that line has, the more delays it will have and it will be much harder for each individual QB service to run more frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I created an overall plan for the B division, which includes frequencies in trains per hour during rush hour and new routes. Only a few routes are changed, but this plan requires no new tracks or stations (the one exception is that modifications might have to be made at Jamaica Center. If no modifications can be made, some (E) will have to end at 179th Street, and some (J)(Z) will have to end at Crescent Street.)

The main changes are that the (C) and (E) are switched south of 42nd Street, a (K) is added, the (N) is moved to SAS, and the (R) is moved to Astoria.

There are also some changes in frequency. Every station should get scheduled service at least every 6 minutes during rush hour, except for (J)(Z) skip stop stations, which will get service at least every 8 minutes.

During weekends, the (B) and (K) will not run. However, the (M) will run its full route on weekends. The (C) and (M) would have frequencies of 10 tph on weekends to make up for the loss of these two lines.

If this plan were implemented, it would be best to implement it when the R211s start coming in, because some of these lines would need increases in service.

(A) - unchanged (15 tph) 

(B) - unchanged (10 tph) 

(C) - 168th Street - World Trade Center - 8th Ave Loc (10 tph) 

(D)  - unchanged (10 tph)

(E) - Jamaica Center - Euclid Avenue - QBL Exp, 8th Ave Exp, Fulton Loc (15 tph) 

(F) - unchanged (15 tph) 

(G) - unchanged (10 tph) 

(J)/(Z) - unchanged (15 tph)

(K) - Forest Hills - World Trade Center (10 tph) 

(L) - unchanged (20 tph) 

(M) - Forest Hills - Metropolitan Avenue / Middle Village via 63rd Street (10 tph)

(N) - 96th Street - Coney Island (via Sea Beach) (10 tph) 

(Q) - unchanged (10 tph) 

(R) - Astoria - Bay Ridge / 95th Street (15 tph) 

It is true that in this plan, trains at 10 tph are running with trains at 15 tph, which could cause problems. However, I decided that it was preferable to having lines run at 7.5 tph.

Edited by W4ST
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New ideas:

(T)(K)(P) on SAS (K)(P) Express (T) Local.

(T) from 125 Bway to Cambria Heights/Springfield Blvd via Atlantic Ave and Archer Ave

(K)(P) replace (B)(D) in Brooklyn, (B)(D) move to Willamsburg and the (V) is restored, or the (R) becomes the sole local on QBL.

(K) service replaces the (W) in Astoria and the Astoria Line is extended to Bell Blvd/LIE. 

(P) service will run to The Rockaways via Bypass.

(E)(F) extended in Queens, (6)(7) to NJ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

New ideas:

(T)(K)(P) on SAS (K)(P) Express (T) Local.

Elaborate on the SAS express ideas further, the locals shouldn't be long rides anyways and that would be harder to operate and build. Especially if these lines branch out. 

(T) from 125 Bway to Cambria Heights/Springfield Blvd via Atlantic Ave and Archer Ave

Southeastern Queen lines would work technically, but currently at least. Costs to construct and nearby bus options are both plentiful enough to mainly discourage it. If you had to do this though, I'd go with the (E) or (J)(Z) to route instead.

(K)(P) replace (B)(D) in Brooklyn, (B)(D) move to Willamsburg and the (V) is restored, or the (R) becomes the sole local on QBL.

Cant speak much on this one, though I do want to hear how'll you'll deal with managing service and frequencies on all the lines with this, since it is a lot of padded extra runs. 

(K) service replaces the (W) in Astoria and the Astoria Line is extended to Bell Blvd/LIE. 

Why? For what reason?

(P) service will run to The Rockaways via Bypass.

I don't see much ridership and service potential for the Rockaways, even if hooks with SAS. 

(E)(F) extended in Queens, (6)(7) to NJ.

Acceptable first point, but I wouldn't send the subway to NJ until they got their political and social situations worked out alongside us. Additionally, what purpose is there to sending specifically the (6)? Haven't heard that one before...

(hopefully) Constructive responses in red

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

New ideas:

(T)(K)(P) on SAS (K)(P) Express (T) Local.

(T) from 125 Bway to Cambria Heights/Springfield Blvd via Atlantic Ave and Archer Ave

(K)(P) replace (B)(D) in Brooklyn, (B)(D) move to Willamsburg and the (V) is restored, or the (R) becomes the sole local on QBL.

(K) service replaces the (W) in Astoria and the Astoria Line is extended to Bell Blvd/LIE. 

(P) service will run to The Rockaways via Bypass.

(E)(F) extended in Queens, (6)(7) to NJ.

 

how would the 6 get to NJ from the east 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

New ideas:

(T)(K)(P) on SAS (K)(P) Express (T) Local.

Elaborate on the SAS express ideas further, the locals shouldn't be long rides anyways and that would be harder to operate and build. Especially if these lines branch out. 

(T) from 125 Bway to Cambria Heights/Springfield Blvd via Atlantic Ave and Archer Ave

Southeastern Queen lines would work technically, but currently at least. Costs to construct and nearby bus options are both plentiful enough to mainly discourage it. If you had to do this though, I'd go with the (E) or (J)(Z) to route instead.

(K)(P) replace (B)(D) in Brooklyn, (B)(D) move to Willamsburg and the (V) is restored, or the (R) becomes the sole local on QBL.

Cant speak much on this one, though I do want to hear how'll you'll deal with managing service and frequencies on all the lines with this, since it is a lot of padded extra runs. 

(K) service replaces the (W) in Astoria and the Astoria Line is extended to Bell Blvd/LIE. 

Why? For what reason?

(P) service will run to The Rockaways via Bypass.

I don't see much ridership and service potential for the Rockaways, even if hooks with SAS. 

(E)(F) extended in Queens, (6)(7) to NJ.

Acceptable first point, but I wouldn't send the subway to NJ until they got their political and social situations worked out alongside us. Additionally, what purpose is there to sending specifically the (6)? Haven't heard that one before...

So because NJ should wait until politics are solved, there should still be some way of getting to St. George, and I would probably link that to the SAS because most of the lines in in Brooklyn are at or near capacity, and Fulton is the only one really open. However putting trains except the (W) there would lower capacity. (E) will be extended to Rosedale. 

The (6) is an uncommon but still floating idea to link to the PATH. However I don't exactly agree with it. The (J)(Z) are not preferable to extend in S/E Queens because they are slow in getting to the Financial District, (T) would be a better link. I guess the Astoria idea was used because any other way to make a Northern Queens Line would just necessitate another on the east or west. I wanted to provide SAS access for that part. The (P) can be used to Jamaica-179 or an LIE subway. The only local SAS Stations would be 34th, 23rd, Chatham, and maybe Seaport, but I'm not counting on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, W4ST said:

I created an overall plan for the B division, which includes frequencies in trains per hour during rush hour and new routes. Only a few routes are changed, but this plan requires no new tracks or stations (the one exception is that modifications might have to be made at Jamaica Center. If no modifications can be made, some (E) will have to end at 179th Street, and some (J)(Z) will have to end at Crescent Street.)

The main changes are that the (C) and (E) are switched south of 42nd Street, a (K) is added, the (N) is moved to SAS, and the (R) is moved to Astoria.

There are also some changes in frequency. Every station should get scheduled service at least every 6 minutes during rush hour, except for (J)(Z) skip stop stations, which will get service at least every 8 minutes.

During weekends, the (B) and (K) will not run. However, the (M) will run its full route on weekends. The (C) and (M) would have frequencies of 10 tph on weekends to make up for the loss of these two lines.

If this plan were implemented, it would be best to implement it when the R211s start coming in, because some of these lines would need increases in service.

(A) - unchanged (15 tph) 

(B) - unchanged (10 tph) 

(C) - 168th Street - World Trade Center - 8th Ave Loc (10 tph) 

(D)  - unchanged (10 tph)

(E) - Jamaica Center - Euclid Avenue - QBL Exp, 8th Ave Exp, Fulton Loc (15 tph) 

(F) - unchanged (15 tph) 

(G) - unchanged (10 tph) 

(J)/(Z) - unchanged (15 tph)

(K) - Forest Hills - World Trade Center (10 tph) 

(L) - unchanged (20 tph) 

(M) - Forest Hills - Metropolitan Avenue / Middle Village via 63rd Street (10 tph)

(N) - 96th Street - Coney Island (via Sea Beach) (10 tph) 

(Q) - unchanged (10 tph) 

(R) - Astoria - Bay Ridge / 95th Street (15 tph) 

It is true that in this plan, trains at 10 tph are running with trains at 15 tph, which could cause problems. However, I decided that it was preferable to having lines run at 7.5 tph.

I like it overall. The only changes I’d make are to the (E), (K) and (M). I think the (E) should stay as is, and the (K) should go to Euclid via the 8th Avenue Express and Fulton Local. Here’s why: Using your proposed service frequencies, if we run the (A)(K) express to Brooklyn and the (C)(E) local to WTC, both the express and the local get a total of 25 tph as opposed to 30 express/20 local. I’d also run the (K) on weekends too, so it can be a full replacement for the (C) in Brooklyn...while giving Fulton Local riders 10-car trains. The (M) can then remain weekdays-only past Essex (but still via 63rd as you propose).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here is how I would run Queens service:

(E) Extended to Rosedale

(F) Extended to Springfield Blvd

(T) Up Atlantic Ave super-express, then to Cambria Heights/Springfield Blvd via LIRR (this is because (J)(Z) service is slow and Jamiaca needs a fast commute to Downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan)

(P) Via SAS and Bypass to Port Washington

(7) Extended to College Point

QBL/Bway de-interlined (This takes away space from the Bypass and leaves the (N) hanging at 57th, so I would not instantly do this)

The (F) can be placed on the Bypass to Rockaway Park, converting the (M) to an express to Springfield Blvd and having the (R) become the sole 15 tph local, this would fix the QBL merges and remove the need, although it is preferable, for 4 SAS tracks in the short term (the long term will of course include these)

SIDE NOTE: The (P) at south end would run to Staten Island and the SI Mall. Just if anyone was wondering.

 

Edited by KK 6 Ave Local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be a good idea to extend congested lines ( (7) comes to mind)  to 11 cars to increase capacity in the short term? Trains can stop with the first door at the end of the platform instead of the front of the train and the last door of the 11th car could be at the end. This could be used on the number lines, (E) and (N) trains which are all above capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone already Proposed this before but ima propose it again mainly for the benefit of decongesting Flushing and Redesigning the Queens Bus Network.

(7) Train: One Stop extension to Murray Hill-149th Street. 

The station will be an Island Platform with an Interlocking just before the station itself. The Middle track in Flushing will now be used as a Short turn Track, but will connect to the 2 outer tracks (Tracks 1 and 2 if I’m not mistaken) after leaving Main Street. 

There will be 2 Stairways and Elevators to connect to the Mezzanine Level. Then 4-8 exits on each end of the Station. At least 2 Stairways and One Elevators. 

(If I could draw it out to show all of you then I would) 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Someone already Proposed this before but ima propose it again mainly for the benefit of decongesting Flushing and Redesigning the Queens Bus Network.

(7) Train: One Stop extension to Murray Hill-149th Street. 

The station will be an Island Platform with an Interlocking just before the station itself. The Middle track in Flushing will now be used as a Short turn Track, but will connect to the 2 outer tracks (Tracks 1 and 2 if I’m not mistaken) after leaving Main Street. 

There will be 2 Stairways and Elevators to connect to the Mezzanine Level. Then 4-8 exits on each end of the Station. At least 2 Stairways and One Elevators. 

(If I could draw it out to show all of you then I would) 

Any thoughts?

If the goal is to reduce bus traffic in Flushing, forget it.

Share this post


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

I like it overall. The only changes I’d make are to the (E), (K) and (M). I think the (E) should stay as is, and the (K) should go to Euclid via the 8th Avenue Express and Fulton Local. Here’s why: Using your proposed service frequencies, if we run the (A)(K) express to Brooklyn and the (C)(E) local to WTC, both the express and the local get a total of 25 tph as opposed to 30 express/20 local. I’d also run the (K) on weekends too, so it can be a full replacement for the (C) in Brooklyn...while giving Fulton Local riders 10-car trains. The (M) can then remain weekdays-only past Essex (but still via 63rd as you propose).

I like that. I had gotten this recommendation another time too, because the (K) is shorter than the (E) on its northern end. I think I will change my plan to add that.

My one concern with weekends is that, if the (K) ran instead of the (M), there would be 4 weekend lines on 8th Avenue, and only 2 weekends lines on 6th Avenue. In that case, I would have the (B) run on weekends instead of the (C), and switch the northern terminals of the (B) and (C).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 7:46 PM, W4ST said:

I created an overall plan for the B division, which includes frequencies in trains per hour during rush hour and new routes. Only a few routes are changed, but this plan requires no new tracks or stations (the one exception is that modifications might have to be made at Jamaica Center. If no modifications can be made, some (E) will have to end at 179th Street, and some (J)(Z) will have to end at Crescent Street.)

The main changes are that the (C) and (E) are switched south of 42nd Street, a (K) is added, the (N) is moved to SAS, and the (R) is moved to Astoria.

There are also some changes in frequency. Every station should get scheduled service at least every 6 minutes during rush hour, except for (J)(Z) skip stop stations, which will get service at least every 8 minutes.

During weekends, the (B) and (K) will not run. However, the (M) will run its full route on weekends. The (C) and (M) would have frequencies of 10 tph on weekends to make up for the loss of these two lines.

If this plan were implemented, it would be best to implement it when the R211s start coming in, because some of these lines would need increases in service.

(A) - unchanged (15 tph) 

(B) - unchanged (10 tph) 

(C) - 168th Street - World Trade Center - 8th Ave Loc (10 tph) 

(D)  - unchanged (10 tph)

(E) - Jamaica Center - Euclid Avenue - QBL Exp, 8th Ave Exp, Fulton Loc (15 tph) 

(F) - unchanged (15 tph) 

(G) - unchanged (10 tph) 

(J)/(Z) - unchanged (15 tph)

(K) - Forest Hills - World Trade Center (10 tph) 

(L) - unchanged (20 tph) 

(M) - Forest Hills - Metropolitan Avenue / Middle Village via 63rd Street (10 tph)

(N) - 96th Street - Coney Island (via Sea Beach) (10 tph) 

(Q) - unchanged (10 tph) 

(R) - Astoria - Bay Ridge / 95th Street (15 tph) 

It is true that in this plan, trains at 10 tph are running with trains at 15 tph, which could cause problems. However, I decided that it was preferable to having lines run at 7.5 tph.

As time goes on, I become less and less of a fan of interlining at 50th/59th Streets and 36th-Queens. Merges, even in well operated systems cause delays, require even more stringent dwell control, force the scheduling of delay in some places, and should really should be minimized if transfer losses can be mitigated simply. Running QB local-8th local-WTC or QB local-8th exp-Brooklyn (as well as the corresponding service patterns on the 8th-CPW and 6th-CPW links) would kill merges there, would actually increase effective capacity to/from Queens (locals would get better use given the 53 connection), and would make it a whole lot easier to work out scheduling. 

Another thing I'd stress is the importance of running matched frequencies. A little tidbit often missed in discussions on interlining and related issues is the fact that uneven frequencies force the scheduling of gaps and holds, which are, well, bad for service. Running every interlined route at 15tph peak would really help to streamline operations, as merges would be 1:1, holds would be unnecessary, and train arrivals that much more predictable. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

Wait would it be even possible to run trains on the Queens Bypass because of how it would affect LIRR service like ESA?

The Bypass would be built in currently unoccupied space along the LIRR row, formerly used by the Rockaway branch. In the initial proposal, the line had no stations, but nowadays there'd probably be stops at Woodside, Woodhaven Blvd, and possibly Sunnyside Yards.

ESA is just going to use the existing 4 main line + 2 PW tracks, which will split into 4 tracks to NYPenn + 2 tracks to GCT. Traffic is planned to be split 50/50, which opens up a lot of capacity into Penn, even after Amtrak is accounted for. Hence the reason for MNR Penn Station Access, though logistically it probably makes more sense to extend NJT NEC trains to Stamford instead.

Edited by Caelestor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea for how SAS service should run with express tracks: The (T)(P) would run Local and the (H) (Y) Would run Express. The (T) and (H) start uptown, the (T) starts at Broadway-125 St with the express (N). The (H) would start at Fordham Road with the Local (Q). The (P) and (Y) would start in Queens on a Northern Blvd subway to Bell Blvd or Clearview Expy. The (T) and (P) would run to Fulton Street with the (T) ending at Lefferts and the (P) at Lefferts, while the (H)(Y) replacing the (B)(D) in Brooklyn so they can be rerouted to Williamsburg, Jamaica, and Ridgewood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Queens Bypass (really, anything in Queens) should not be built until Queens gets more Manhattan-bound capacity. We have balance today with existing tracks and tunnels -- to add more onto that is irresponsible, given existing ridership needs.

Generally, it's hard to plan capacity-focused expansions in this city. Adopting a 30tph/track baseline capacity assumption, our existing Manhattan-bound infrastructure is at only 62% capacity, which makes it exceedingly difficult to see where we need more capacity rather than more service. Trying to expand coverage is easier for obvious reasons, but again, extensions will always feed something, which returns us to the issue of core throughput. 

There's also a level on which, given all that capacity, what we need to be planning is not so much transit but development. NYC is *way* behind the demand curve on upzoning, which gives us a unique opportunity to induce housing demand in areas with subway capacity to spare -- provided we get our heads far enough out of our a$$es to realize that building more housing is a good idea. Breaking the cycle by which development is piled onto areas that are already capacity critical (think about the Williamsburgs of the world) would be a massive win for the system and the city, and is definitely something to consider here. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Queens Bypass (really, anything in Queens) should not be built until Queens gets more Manhattan-bound capacity. We have balance today with existing tracks and tunnels -- to add more onto that is irresponsible, given existing ridership needs.

Generally, it's hard to plan capacity-focused expansions in this city. Adopting a 30tph/track baseline capacity assumption, our existing Manhattan-bound infrastructure is at only 62% capacity, which makes it exceedingly difficult to see where we need more capacity rather than more service. Trying to expand coverage is easier for obvious reasons, but again, extensions will always feed something, which returns us to the issue of core throughput. 

There's also a level on which, given all that capacity, what we need to be planning is not so much transit but development. NYC is *way* behind the demand curve on upzoning, which gives us a unique opportunity to induce housing demand in areas with subway capacity to spare -- provided we get our heads far enough out of our a$$es to realize that building more housing is a good idea. Breaking the cycle by which development is piled onto areas that are already capacity critical (think about the Williamsburgs of the world) would be a massive win for the system and the city, and is definitely something to consider here. 

Additionally, it should mostly come from SAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

Exactly.

Also, the Queens Blvd Bypass should distinguish itself from the Queens Blvd EXPRESS without operating along the LIRR ROW with different features.

1. The Bypass line should be built into 2nd Avenue Subway via a new tunnel, which would accommodate the (H) line from Rockaway Park.

2. On the Jamaica end, the Bypass line should have an in station transfer to the (E) at Jamaica - Van Wyck before separating and having an alignment along the Van Wyck Expressway to Rockaway Blvd - where it will terminate (Bypass line will not connect with AIRTRAIN-JFK).

3. Along the Queens Blvd corridor, it is to travel below the Queens Blvd line with stations at Kew Gardens - Union Tpke (transfer to (E)(F) and (R) trains) and Woodhaven Blvd (transfer to (H) (M) and (R) trains), then non-stop to Queens Plaza (transfer to (E)(M) and (R) trains) before entering Manhattan via a new tunnel.

Disagree with a good bit of what's here.

The bypass concept only works because of the presence of those two extra trackways along the LIRR; if it weren't for the ease of building in them, we'd be better off relieving QB by hitting demand centers that feed the corridor rather than duplicating the corridor itself. Even with their presence, there's certainly an argument to be made that we shouldn't build in them, one to which I don't subscribe, but one that is present and justifiable nonetheless.

At any rate, using the bypass for the RBB is a pretty objectively poor idea. The Rockaways already have the potential for good core-bound service via the Fulton corridor with the extension of the (C) to Lefferts or the construction of a Whitehall-Hoyt Schermerhorn tunnel, whereas the entirety of Eastern Queens has only the QB corridor to serve its future subway needs. There's certainly a crosstown market to be had on the RBB, but I've yet to see an analysis that demonstrates it is of a size that warrants (expensive) subway construction, and that the provision of a subway on that corridor won't significantly affect QB's ability to provide capacity to those as of yet unserved areas of Queens. 

I do not understand your other two proposals, either. Sending a subway down the Van Wyck is frankly a waste of precious capacity, given that such a line would miss Jamaica itself and would duplicate an existing service (AirTrain, to which stops could easily be added). If you want to serve that area of Queens better, why don't we try buying/adding stops to AirTrain? Or developing a LRT/BRT network for the area? 

To the bypass proposal, running it under QB is a waste given the presence of space along LIRR/the difficulty of underpinning existing subways. I also fail to see the reasoning behind extending the (R) beyond Forest Hills (literally zero benefit, especially given the ease of tying the bypass into the local tracks beyond Forest Hills). 

As for what I think we should do to Queens, efforts must begin with leveraging existing capacity to the greatest extent possible. That means reforming terminal ops at Forest Hills, rebuilding the Astoria terminal, building a 63-59 passage, reworking the Williamsburg Bridge, grade separating Myrtle, and deinterlining. When the dust settles, we'd end up with:

- (F)(M) via QB express, 63, 6th local to Parsons/179

- (E)(K) via QB local, 53, 8th (local or express; both have their merits) to Forest Hills

- (R) via Broadway local, 60th to Astoria

- (M), run at 15tph, to Metropolitan

- (J), also run at 15tph, to Jamaica, with half of all trains running express from Marcy to Broadway Junction and the other half full local (skip stop would be eliminated). 

- All (A) trains to Far Rockaway, save from some rush hour trips from Lefferts/Rock Park

- (C) extended to Lefferts

In the medium term, a Whitehall-Fulton local tunnel really should be looked at. As proposals go, it's a really simple way of solving the Lefferts/Rockaways issue while providing better O/D opportunities and capacity on the Fulton corridor itself. 

After that, we plan true expansions. Lower SAS is the most immediate means of providing more capacity to Queens and needs to be reworked anyway, so we'd start there. Assuming we're keeping SAS at 2 tracks, we'd need to maintain connectivity with upper SAS, so you'd run it either to a 72 lower level or over onto 3rd where it could hit Lex-63, and then to Queens. There, it could become the Bypass, which you could branch to send 15tph to the LIE or some other East-Central Queens corridor, and 15tph via QB local from Forest Hills to the east. 

And after that, it's anyone's guess. (L) via 10th/Northern? (L) via 10th/Astoria Boulevard? 50th St Crosstown to NJ? 

 

  • Upvote 3

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.