Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

We already have a new tunnel. It's the lower level of 63rd.

In a more logical world without stupid inter-agency politics, we would have Crossrail type operation from Port Washington, Hempstead and Belmont feed a tunnel from Grand Central to Atlantic via Union Square and Fulton, and then branching out again to serve Far Rockaway, Long Beach and West Hempstead.

As far as I am aware, it's not like there's room for two additional tracks on the six-track portion of the Main Line west of Woodside anyways. It'd be easier to build six tracks from Woodside to Floral Park to segregate this new inner-suburban service.

It'd also provide a lot more wallop than a new subway line given that those services combined are not running anywhere near 24 or 30TPH today, and they operate 12-car trains where the cars are 85 ft.

Inter-agency politics aren’t even the reason this hasn’t happened — it’s construction costs and imagination! You’re connecting LIRR to LIRR through LIRR’s basement terminal at GCT here; nobody else need be involved.

The only question in my mind is whether this is a good use of Atlantic’s expansion potential. There are many good arguments to be made for extending that line to connect with MNR or NJT rather than looping back on itself to foster through-core travel. A train from Valley Stream to White Plains would be quite useful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
29 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Inter-agency politics aren’t even the reason this hasn’t happened — it’s construction costs and imagination! You’re connecting LIRR to LIRR through LIRR’s basement terminal at GCT here; nobody else need be involved.

The only question in my mind is whether this is a good use of Atlantic’s expansion potential. There are many good arguments to be made for extending that line to connect with MNR or NJT rather than looping back on itself to foster through-core travel. A train from Valley Stream to White Plains would be quite useful. 

Yeah, for the one boneheaded enough to constantly need to go between some random-ass part of Westchester and Five Towns...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lex said:

Yeah, for the one boneheaded enough to constantly need to go between some random-ass part of Westchester and Five Towns...

Takes a certain type of transit nerd to be interested in planning subjects but somehow unaware of the access plight of satellite job centers.

Some reading:

http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Trans-Regional-Express-T-REX.pdf#page=27

 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Inter-agency politics aren’t even the reason this hasn’t happened — it’s construction costs and imagination! You’re connecting LIRR to LIRR through LIRR’s basement terminal at GCT here; nobody else need be involved.

The only question in my mind is whether this is a good use of Atlantic’s expansion potential. There are many good arguments to be made for extending that line to connect with MNR or NJT rather than looping back on itself to foster through-core travel. A train from Valley Stream to White Plains would be quite useful. 

"Inter-agency" probably should just be replaced with "agency", and by agency politics I mean the LIRR's single-minded focus on being the Manhattan and Ronkonkoma Railroad. The Atlantic Ticket was an extremely tepid toe dip and the toe wasn't even fully wet.

Honestly, the "construction costs" canary WRT commuter rail is now dumb now that East Side Access has blown a Capital-Plan-sized hole in that. Had we known what we were getting into, we probably either wouldn't have built it at all or we would've built something else entirely. Chris Christie's main failing was that there was no plan B for ARC at the time, but ARC would've also probably similarly ballooned in cost.

Given that even MNR-LIRR relationships are fraught, and the mix of electrification systems (is the over/under running shoe on the M8s switched between the types of third rail today?), I believe the best way to do it would be to make it so that each system's regionalization is not dependent on a partner agency.

So it would probably look something like this

LIRR

  • Two-track loop from GCT to Atlantic

Metro-North/NJT

  • Hudson and Harlem
    • Two-track to Downtown
    • One branch to SIR
    • One branch to the Main Line, Bergen County Line, Pasack Valley Line, and Port Jervis service, ideally electrified to Metro-North standards (optional, dependent on NJT coordination)
  • NE Corridor through-routed to itself 
    • locals via GCT, expresses via Hell Gate continuing on to NJ

NJT

  • Two track loop from Hoboken either to Penn, or through a new tunnel via 57th St & Columbus Circle to Secaucus Junction

The general idea would be to have something similar to the Melbourne Rail system, where groups of lines are independently operating of one another, but you can make convenient connections in the central core. And given how massive of a task this would be you'd only build the components of it as need and funding permitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Yeah, for the one boneheaded enough to constantly need to go between some random-ass part of Westchester and Five Towns...

We're an interconnected region. People are commuting all types of ways; I knew people in school who were cheap enough to commute from Staten Island or New Jersey to Stony Brook. In fact, we've had reverse commuters on these very forums doing things like (Southern?) Brooklyn to Nassau.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Inter-agency politics aren’t even the reason this hasn’t happened — it’s construction costs and imagination! You’re connecting LIRR to LIRR through LIRR’s basement terminal at GCT here; nobody else need be involved.

The only question in my mind is whether this is a good use of Atlantic’s expansion potential. There are many good arguments to be made for extending that line to connect with MNR or NJT rather than looping back on itself to foster through-core travel. A train from Valley Stream to White Plains would be quite useful. 

What about PATH to Jamaica via the Atlantic branch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, R68OnBroadway said:

What about PATH to Jamaica via the Atlantic branch?

Personally, the main reason why I wouldn't suggest any sort of PATH (or subway) integration with the railroads, FRA not withstanding, is that LIRR trains are much larger and much longer, whereas our existing rapid-transit systems have shorter cars, so you'd either be forced to kneecap capacity or do an expensive platform extension program, if such a thing were even possible at all of the affected PATH or subway stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

"Inter-agency" probably should just be replaced with "agency", and by agency politics I mean the LIRR's single-minded focus on being the Manhattan and Ronkonkoma Railroad. The Atlantic Ticket was an extremely tepid toe dip and the toe wasn't even fully wet.

Honestly, the "construction costs" canary WRT commuter rail is now dumb now that East Side Access has blown a Capital-Plan-sized hole in that. Had we known what we were getting into, we probably either wouldn't have built it at all or we would've built something else entirely. Chris Christie's main failing was that there was no plan B for ARC at the time, but ARC would've also probably similarly ballooned in cost.

Given that even MNR-LIRR relationships are fraught, and the mix of electrification systems (is the over/under running shoe on the M8s switched between the types of third rail today?), I believe the best way to do it would be to make it so that each system's regionalization is not dependent on a partner agency.

I really don't think we need to be so beholden to interagency cooperation issues, especially when the two railroads in question are under a single organizational umbrella and are about to see large parts of their operation merged as a part of this 'Transformation Plan.' The infrastructure issues here are trivial -- underrunning to overruning on the M8 requires zero intervention from the engineer, as the train senses the type of electrification automatically -- and the bureaucratic issues boil down to the equally tractable issue of installing management teams at the two agencies who are willing to pursue interoperability and enmeshed operations. 

As for the issue of construction costs...I do not see your point? If things were cheaper to build, we would have the capacity to build more things from the various wishlists. This observation is well grounded in the history of the various expansion projects.

50 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

What about PATH to Jamaica via the Atlantic branch?

I'd personally love to see PATH be integrated into the subway proper -- one of the great failures of our time, IMO, was Path-Lex. 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Personally, the main reason why I wouldn't suggest any sort of PATH (or subway) integration with the railroads, FRA not withstanding, is that LIRR trains are much larger and much longer, whereas our existing rapid-transit systems have shorter cars, so you'd either be forced to kneecap capacity or do an expensive platform extension program, if such a thing were even possible at all of the affected PATH or subway stations.

Under this plan you would convert the Atlantic branch to PATH standards, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

I really don't think we need to be so beholden to interagency cooperation issues, especially when the two railroads in question are under a single organizational umbrella and are about to see large parts of their operation merged as a part of this 'Transformation Plan.' The infrastructure issues here are trivial -- underrunning to overruning on the M8 requires zero intervention from the engineer, as the train senses the type of electrification automatically -- and the bureaucratic issues boil down to the equally tractable issue of installing management teams at the two agencies who are willing to pursue interoperability and enmeshed operations. 

As for the issue of construction costs...I do not see your point? If things were cheaper to build, we would have the capacity to build more things from the various wishlists. This observation is well grounded in the history of the various expansion projects.

I mean to say that given what we now know, a more sensible, simple two-track rail loop probably would've cost as much as the whole of East Side Access is costing/will cost, and we really didn't have any trouble spending that money.

It seems to me the problem with ESA was that the ambition of building an eight-track terminal was too great. A two-track intermediate railway station is a slightly larger subway station. An eight-track terminal larger in volume than the Empire State Building requires much more in terms of mezzanine investment, building out ingress/egress, etc.

We also can't really build subway stations for cheap, but at least SAS actually didn't exceed its original cost estimate.

6 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Under this plan you would convert the Atlantic branch to PATH standards, not the other way around.

Which, if you read my post, would lower the Atlantic branch's capacity, hence why it's not a great idea. The LIRR is capable of hosting much longer and much larger trains than PATH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think the Broadway Line should be as follows:

(N)  Astoria-Stillwell Avenue

(Q)  Upper East Side 96-Stillwell Avenue

(R)  Forest Hill during the Day, Astoria at Night to Bay Ridge

(W) Remain as is. 

I've been taking the subway during the late night and I don't like having to wait underground between 2-3 am in the morning for a train into Queens. 

Let the (E) and (F) handle Queens Blvd during the evenings and weekends. The run smoother when going local and not bogged down by congestion. 

Edited by NY1635
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2019 at 3:28 PM, bobtehpanda said:

 

We already have a new tunnel. It's the lower level of 63rd.

In a more logical world without stupid inter-agency politics, we would have Crossrail type operation from Port Washington, Hempstead and Belmont feed a tunnel from Grand Central to Atlantic via Union Square and Fulton, and then branching out again to serve Far Rockaway, Long Beach and West Hempstead.

As far as I am aware, it's not like there's room for two additional tracks on the six-track portion of the Main Line west of Woodside anyways. It'd be easier to build six tracks from Woodside to Floral Park to segregate this new inner-suburban service.

It'd also provide a lot more wallop than a new subway line given that those services combined are not running anywhere near 24 or 30TPH today, and they operate 12-car trains where the cars are 85 ft.

22 hours ago, RR503 said:

Inter-agency politics aren’t even the reason this hasn’t happened — it’s construction costs and imagination! You’re connecting LIRR to LIRR through LIRR’s basement terminal at GCT here; nobody else need be involved.

The only question in my mind is whether this is a good use of Atlantic’s expansion potential. There are many good arguments to be made for extending that line to connect with MNR or NJT rather than looping back on itself to foster through-core travel. A train from Valley Stream to White Plains would be quite useful. 

Personally, I think both ideas would be way better than the MTA’s current half-assed service  plan. The current MTA plan will result in many LIRR riders pouring onto the (4)(5) at 42nd on top of the many Metro-North riders who already do. Both these ideas would offer a relief valve for the (4)(5)(6), one that might actually be better than SAS phases 3 and 4, which are also results of the MTA’s piss poor planning.

Really, it’s criminal just how much ESA’s construction costs exploded and how long it’s taking to get it online. In a region of the world with normal construction costs, they would have had plenty of money to build an extension via 3rd Avenue to serve Downtown and beyond for what the MTA has spent on just getting LIRR to GCT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2019 at 9:31 PM, bobtehpanda said:

I don't remember saw this, but I remember seeing someone point out that one of the downsides of de-interlining DeKalb would be that there would be less connections between Broadway and Sixth. How hard would it be to link Prince St and Broadway-Lafayette?

I imagine it ought to be easier than linking Lex/59th and Lex/63rd. The (R)(W) platforms appear to stop just short of Houston St, so it would require a much shorter passageway to link Broadway-Lafayette. Maybe some sort of platform extension would also be needed, but even that would be shorter than the platform extension they had to do to link the northbound (6) to Broadway-Lafayette.  

14 hours ago, NY1635 said:

I really think the Broadway Line should be as follows:

(N)  Astoria-Stillwell Avenue

(Q)  Upper East Side 96-Stillwell Avenue

(R)  Forest Hill during the Day, Astoria at Night to Bay Ridge

(W) Remain as is. 

I've been taking the subway during the late night and I don't like having to wait underground between 2-3 am in the morning for a train into Queens. 

Let the (E) and (F) handle Queens Blvd during the evenings and weekends. The run smoother when going local and not bogged down by congestion. 

The only difference between this plan and the current one is that you have the (R) going to Astoria during overnight hours only. All that does is duplicate the (N) in Manhattan and Queens. I don’t see how that’s really any better than the current plan. The (N) would still have to switch from express to local to get to Astoria, and that’s a big reason why there are always delays on the Broadway line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NY1635 said:

I really think the Broadway Line should be as follows:

(N)  Astoria-Stillwell Avenue

(Q)  Upper East Side 96-Stillwell Avenue

(R)  Forest Hill during the Day, Astoria at Night to Bay Ridge

(W) Remain as is. 

I've been taking the subway during the late night and I don't like having to wait underground between 2-3 am in the morning for a train into Queens. 

Let the (E) and (F) handle Queens Blvd during the evenings and weekends. The run smoother when going local and not bogged down by congestion. 

Bold: What are you talking about? You're gonna end up waiting for a train for a while during overnight hours regardless which one it is, unless you get lucky. There (R) doesn't even run on QBL during the overnight hours. 

Also, the (R) as it is on the weekend can't even handle QBL properly. What makes you think (E)s and (F)s are going to handle it any better when they have their own loads which they need to take care of as well? And they do not run smoother, because there are constant delays (due to slow speed zones on Queens Boulevard and (R) trains ahead of them) which propagate throughout both lines. They're only running this bare-bones service on weekends because of the CBTC related work. If anything, all three lines need more weekend service. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have toyed with two ideas on Broadway deinterlining.  Both options keep Queens Blvd trains off the Broadway BMT and prevent interlining between express and local Broadway trains.  Both are part of larger systemwide deinterlining plans, looking at what can be done without new construction.

Option 1 - Broadway deinterlining, partial DeKalb deinterlining, 6 Ave service to Bay Ridge

(B) to Brighton local.

(D) to 4th Ave local to Bay Ridge.

(N) 2 Ave to Broadway express to 4th Ave express to Sea Beach.

(Q) 2 Ave to Broadway express to 4th Ave express to West End.

(R) Astoria to Broadway local to Montague tunnel to Brighton express.

(W) Astoria to Broadway local to Whitehall.

Basically, this isolates the Broadway express from all interference and provides a direct link to the 4th Ave express.

6th Ave express and Broadway locals do interline, as is necessary to provide Astoria with access to the CI yard and Bay Ridge with access to the Concourse Yard.  Essentially, Gold Street is deinterlined as the 6th Ave express and Broadway express do not interfere with each other at all.  THe trains that stop at Dekalb are not deinterlined, as (R) trains are linked by switch to Brighton, (D) trains are linked by switch to the 4th Ave local, and (B) trains switch between the two sets of tracks from 6th Ave to Brighton.

One side benefit of this routing is that every south Brooklyn BMT station has a direct link to the Manhattan Bridge on at least one train.  Brighton express service to De Kalb, Downtown Brooklyn, and Lower Manhattan. West End/Sea Beach customers have direct access to the Broadway express, can cross-platform to the 6th Ave express at Barclay's, and can reach Lower Manhattan by double cross platform transfer (to (D) at Barclay's and to (R) at DeKalb).  Bay Ridge customers have direct access to 6th Ave express, can transfer to the Broadway express at any 4th Ave express station, and can transfer to (R) to Lower Manhattan at DeKalb.  Brighton customers have direct access to 6th Ave express and can transfer to the (R) at any Brighton express station for Lower Manhattan.  Brighton customers do not have direct access to the Broadway express, but can reach the area from City Hall to Union Square by transferring to the (6) at Broadway-Laffayette.  As is always true, for most of Midtown (23rd - 57th) most 6th Ave stations are about an avenue away from a Broadway station and vice versa.

Option 2 - Broadway deinterlining, full DeKalb deinterlining, J/Z service to Bay Ridge

(B) to Brighton express.

(D) to Brighton local.

(N) 2 Ave to Broadway express to 4th Ave express to Sea Beach.

(Q) 2 Ave to Broadway express to 4th Ave express to West End.

(R) Astoria to Broadway local to 4th Ave local to West End.

(W) Astoria to Broadway local to Whitehall.

(J)(Z) Jamaica Center to Nassau Street to Montague tunnel to 4th Ave local to Bay Ridge.

Here, (B)(D)(N)(Q) are fully deinterlined through all the DeKalb area switches.  (R)(J)(Z) connect the Montague tunnel to the 4th Ave local.  Reminiscent of the old M service to Brooklyn that existed prior to (M) to 6th Ave, one set of local 4th Ave trains i.e. (R) will go to West End and one set of local 4th Ave trains (J)(Z) will go to Bay Ridge.This necessarily means some level of interlining at the 4th Ave/36 St junction between the movements of (N)(Q)(R)(J)(Z) , but similar to what existed when the brown M train ran.  Some trains won't interfere with each other necessarily, like (N) and (J)(Z), but it does require a careful merge.  Of the two trains on the West End branch, I imagine the (Q) to be a real express, starting at Bay Pkwy and only making stops at 62nd, 9th Ave, 36 St, Barclay's, Canal, and Union Square before hitting Herald Square.  (OBvisouly, south of 36th only in the rush hour direction.) The (R) train will service all stations on the West End line, all the way to CI.

All Brighton and Sea Beach stations have direct access to the Manhattan Bridge.   4th Ave local stations and West End local stations would require a transfer to an express for access to the Manhattan Bridge. 

West End (Q) /Sea Beach (N) customers have direct access to the Broadway express, can cross-platform to   (R)(J)(Z) at Barclay's for Lower Manhattan, and can reach the 6th Ave express by double cross platform transfer (to (R)(J)(Z) at Barclay's and to (B)(D) at DeKalb).

Brighton customers have direct access to 6th Ave express and can transfer to the (R)(J)(Z)  at DeKalb for Lower Manhattan.  Brighton customers do not have direct access to the Broadway express, but can reach the area from City Hall to Union Square by transferring to the (6) at Broadway-Laffayette.  As is always true, for most of Midtown (23rd - 57th) most 6th Ave stations are about an avenue away from a Broadway station and vice versa.

West End local customers on the (R) will liklely transfer to the (Q) at earliest opportunity.  For those that don't, they can directly access Lower Manhattan, transfer to the Broadway express at any West End and 4th Ave express station, and transfer to (B)(D) for 6th Ave service at DeKalb.

Bay Ridge customers on the (J)(Z) will liklely transfer to the (N) at earliest opportunity.  For those that don't, they can directly access Lower Manhattan, transfer to the Broadway express at any 4th Ave express station, and transfer to (B)(D) for 6th Ave service at DeKalb.

Under this plan, there is access to BOTH sides of Lower Manhattan, Church Ave along (R) or Nassau Street along (J)(Z) , but admittedly the two lines are generally pretty close throughout the financial district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the MTA could get costs under control:

• Run the (G) under Northern Blvd all the way to 223rd St/Cross Island Pkwy in Bayside. Its new Brooklyn terminus would be Atlantic Terminal. 

• Penn Station - LaGuardia line, follow the (E) from Penn to Northern/Broadway, continue along the new Northern Blvd line (with the new (G)) before...

   A) Branching off at I-278 and running north to the Grand Central Pkwy and turning east under the GCP to LaGuardia, either terminating there or continuing on to Flushing or Rikers/Bronx.

   B) Branching off of the new Northern Blvd line at Junction Blvd and continuing north to LaGuardia and either terminating there or continuing on to Rikers/Bronx.

• Extension of the Archer Ave line south under Merrick Blvd all the way to Springfield Blvd.

• Q44-ish subway line - new line originating at Jamaica Center (or Springfield Blvd on the new Merrick Blvd line), splitting with what’s currently the (E) at Main Street and running all the way to the new Northern Blvd line in Flushing, meandering under Northern Blvd west to College Point Blvd, running under College Point Blvd before turning under College Place to White Plains Road in the Bronx, continues under White Plains Road to Fordham Road where it turns west under Fordham Road, terminating at 207th St with the (A).

• Extension of the (F) under Hillside Ave to Little Neck Pkwy.

• PATH and SIR fully connected/integrated into the subway system. (R) for Richmond County, (H) for Hudson County (or Hoboken), and (E) for Essex County (Newark). Extension of the new (R) to Perth Amboy.

• New Staten Island line under either Victory Blvd or Forest Ave, turning south under Richmond Ave, comes above ground by the Staten Island Mall while still continuing south along Richmond Ave to the Eltingville Transit Center (now a train station), heads southwest along the median of the Korean War Veteran Pkwy where it meets again with the (R) at the Huguenot Station, also terminates at Perth Amboy.

• Bring the new (E) south to Elizabeth, terminating alongside a third Staten Island line that spurs off of the new Staten Island line running from Forest Ave or Victory Blvd/I-278 and over the Arthur Kill Vertical Lift Bridge. This one isn’t as realistic as the others, the Arthur Kill Vertical Lift Bridge is limited to a few operations per day, a bus line between Staten Island and Elizabeth is probably the best option.

• Not really subway related, but I’d extend AirTrain LGA from Willets Point to Jamaica Station.

Edited by Infamous85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Infamous85 said:

If the MTA could get costs under control:

• Run the (G) under Northern Blvd all the way to 223rd St/Cross Island Pkwy in Bayside. Its new Brooklyn terminus would be Atlantic Terminal. 

This ain't gonna be useful to anybody. People want connections to Manhattan, and they'll storm off the G the first chance they get. Also how would it be connected to Atlantic? And why cut it back from Church? That extension gave the G a kick in the pants when it came to ridership.

• Penn Station - LaGuardia line, follow the (E) from Penn to Northern/Broadway, continue along the new Northern Blvd line (with the new (G)) before...

   A) Branching off at I-278 and running north to the Grand Central Pkwy and turning east under the GCP to LaGuardia, either terminating there or continuing on to Flushing or Rikers/Bronx.

   B) Branching off of the new Northern Blvd line at Junction Blvd and continuing north to LaGuardia and either terminating there or continuing on to Rikers/Bronx.

Who is this supposed to serve? And there's no space on 53rd St for more trains.

• Extension of the Archer Ave line south under Merrick Blvd all the way to Springfield Blvd.

• Q44-ish subway line - new line originating at Jamaica Center (or Springfield Blvd on the new Merrick Blvd line), splitting with what’s currently the (E) at Main Street and running all the way to the new Northern Blvd line in Flushing, meandering under Northern Blvd west to College Point Blvd, running under College Point Blvd before turning under College Place to White Plains Road in the Bronx, continues under White Plains Road to Fordham Road where it turns west under Fordham Road, terminating at 207th St with the (A).

I really don't think this needs to tail the WPR line to Fordham. It'd probably be better off turning west after Parkchester to travel under E 177 and E Tremont.

• Extension of the (F) under Hillside Ave to Little Neck Pkwy.

Why so far east? Who's it gonna serve, the one CVS and that Pizza Hut they're demolishing? Bring it to Springfield and call it a day.

• Not really subway related, but I’d extend AirTrain LGA from Willets Point to Jamaica Station.

Who would this benefit? And why also do this in addition to your Q44 line? Even with construction costs under control, we could afford one or the other and not both, and an AirTrain extension is weaker given that Willets Point is not a high-demand destination and you'd be running it through Corona Park, which has zero residents and jobs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This ain't gonna be useful to anybody. People want connections to Manhattan, and they'll storm off the G the first chance they get. Also how would it be connected to Atlantic? And why cut it back from Church? That extension gave the G a kick in the pants when it came to ridership.

Why wouldn’t expanded subway service in Queens be useful? I think Northern Blvd would make a good east-west corridor, even if it isn’t served by the (G), but my reasoning was that the (G) ends at Court Square, it can stand to go a bit further. But you’re right, more people will be traveling to Manhattan than Brooklyn.

Who is this supposed to serve? And there's no space on 53rd St for more trains.

It’d connect LaGuardia with Manhattan and the subway system, wouldn’t that be a good thing? I mean you could extend the loud outdoor (N)(W) to LaGuardia, I was trying to avoid that. And as far as space, make more space. CBTC, deinterlining, or shift something around some other way. Or send the (M) (or the (R)) to LaGuardia instead of down Queens Boulevard.

Why so far east? Who's it gonna serve, the one CVS and that Pizza Hut they're demolishing? Bring it to Springfield and call it a day.



We need expansion to help reduce the reliance on cars. Once upon a time we had lines running out over farmland, it helped induce demand, Queens by itself is the 4th most populated city in the U.S., Brooklyn is the 3rd, the demand for expansion into subway deserts (most of Queens) is there. I mean, financially, Springfield Blvd would obviously make more sense, but I don’t see a Little Neck Pkwy extension being entirely useless. Quite a few lines also approach city limits.

Who would this benefit? And why also do this in addition to your Q44 line? Even with construction costs under control, we could afford one or the other and not both, and an AirTrain extension is weaker given that Willets Point is not a high-demand destination and you'd be running it through Corona Park, which has zero residents and jobs.

In a perfect world we could have both, I think AirTrain LGA to Willets Point is quite dumb and little more than a pet project for Cuomo, however a connection to Jamaica would open it up to a much much larger passenger base, making the project (which is being built) more worthwhile. People traveling to LGA via the AirTrain from Jamaica and people traveling to LGA via the NorthernBlvd/LGA subway would mainly be coming from different directions.

LGA is just too centrally located within NYC to not have a subway connection, it’s just asinine that this isn’t a thing already in existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mrsman said:

I have toyed with two ideas on Broadway deinterlining.  Both options keep Queens Blvd trains off the Broadway BMT and prevent interlining between express and local Broadway trains.  Both are part of larger systemwide deinterlining plans, looking at what can be done without new construction.

Option 1 - Broadway deinterlining, partial DeKalb deinterlining, 6 Ave service to Bay Ridge

(B) to Brighton local.

(D) to 4th Ave local to Bay Ridge.

(N) 2 Ave to Broadway express to 4th Ave express to Sea Beach.

(Q) 2 Ave to Broadway express to 4th Ave express to West End.

(R) Astoria to Broadway local to Montague tunnel to Brighton express.

(W) Astoria to Broadway local to Whitehall.

Basically, this isolates the Broadway express from all interference and provides a direct link to the 4th Ave express.

6th Ave express and Broadway locals do interline, as is necessary to provide Astoria with access to the CI yard and Bay Ridge with access to the Concourse Yard.  Essentially, Gold Street is deinterlined as the 6th Ave express and Broadway express do not interfere with each other at all.  THe trains that stop at Dekalb are not deinterlined, as (R) trains are linked by switch to Brighton, (D) trains are linked by switch to the 4th Ave local, and (B) trains switch between the two sets of tracks from 6th Ave to Brighton.

One side benefit of this routing is that every south Brooklyn BMT station has a direct link to the Manhattan Bridge on at least one train.  Brighton express service to De Kalb, Downtown Brooklyn, and Lower Manhattan. West End/Sea Beach customers have direct access to the Broadway express, can cross-platform to the 6th Ave express at Barclay's, and can reach Lower Manhattan by double cross platform transfer (to (D) at Barclay's and to (R) at DeKalb).  Bay Ridge customers have direct access to 6th Ave express, can transfer to the Broadway express at any 4th Ave express station, and can transfer to (R) to Lower Manhattan at DeKalb.  Brighton customers have direct access to 6th Ave express and can transfer to the (R) at any Brighton express station for Lower Manhattan.  Brighton customers do not have direct access to the Broadway express, but can reach the area from City Hall to Union Square by transferring to the (6) at Broadway-Laffayette.  As is always true, for most of Midtown (23rd - 57th) most 6th Ave stations are about an avenue away from a Broadway station and vice versa.

Option 2 - Broadway deinterlining, full DeKalb deinterlining, J/Z service to Bay Ridge

(B) to Brighton express.

(D) to Brighton local.

(N) 2 Ave to Broadway express to 4th Ave express to Sea Beach.

(Q) 2 Ave to Broadway express to 4th Ave express to West End.

(R) Astoria to Broadway local to 4th Ave local to West End.

(W) Astoria to Broadway local to Whitehall.

(J)(Z) Jamaica Center to Nassau Street to Montague tunnel to 4th Ave local to Bay Ridge.

Here, (B)(D)(N)(Q) are fully deinterlined through all the DeKalb area switches.  (R)(J)(Z) connect the Montague tunnel to the 4th Ave local.  Reminiscent of the old M service to Brooklyn that existed prior to (M) to 6th Ave, one set of local 4th Ave trains i.e. (R) will go to West End and one set of local 4th Ave trains (J)(Z) will go to Bay Ridge.This necessarily means some level of interlining at the 4th Ave/36 St junction between the movements of (N)(Q)(R)(J)(Z) , but similar to what existed when the brown M train ran.  Some trains won't interfere with each other necessarily, like (N) and (J)(Z), but it does require a careful merge.  Of the two trains on the West End branch, I imagine the (Q) to be a real express, starting at Bay Pkwy and only making stops at 62nd, 9th Ave, 36 St, Barclay's, Canal, and Union Square before hitting Herald Square.  (OBvisouly, south of 36th only in the rush hour direction.) The (R) train will service all stations on the West End line, all the way to CI.

All Brighton and Sea Beach stations have direct access to the Manhattan Bridge.   4th Ave local stations and West End local stations would require a transfer to an express for access to the Manhattan Bridge. 

West End (Q) /Sea Beach (N) customers have direct access to the Broadway express, can cross-platform to   (R)(J)(Z) at Barclay's for Lower Manhattan, and can reach the 6th Ave express by double cross platform transfer (to (R)(J)(Z) at Barclay's and to (B)(D) at DeKalb).

Brighton customers have direct access to 6th Ave express and can transfer to the (R)(J)(Z)  at DeKalb for Lower Manhattan.  Brighton customers do not have direct access to the Broadway express, but can reach the area from City Hall to Union Square by transferring to the (6) at Broadway-Laffayette.  As is always true, for most of Midtown (23rd - 57th) most 6th Ave stations are about an avenue away from a Broadway station and vice versa.

West End local customers on the (R) will liklely transfer to the (Q) at earliest opportunity.  For those that don't, they can directly access Lower Manhattan, transfer to the Broadway express at any West End and 4th Ave express station, and transfer to (B)(D) for 6th Ave service at DeKalb.

Bay Ridge customers on the (J)(Z) will liklely transfer to the (N) at earliest opportunity.  For those that don't, they can directly access Lower Manhattan, transfer to the Broadway express at any 4th Ave express station, and transfer to (B)(D) for 6th Ave service at DeKalb.

Under this plan, there is access to BOTH sides of Lower Manhattan, Church Ave along (R) or Nassau Street along (J)(Z) , but admittedly the two lines are generally pretty close throughout the financial district.

Hi @mrsman, welcome to the forums. There’s definitely been a lot of discussion on here about deinterlining many of the subway’s choke points, which you might find interesting. No question DeKalb is one of those choke points. It would be great to be able to run more trains through there, especially if we can actually get SAS Phase 2 up and running. Because it’s going to take a lot more than just the current (Q) service - plus the few Sea Beach Q’s and that one (R) train that turns back south as a Q - to serve it. 

I do have some concerns about deinterlining DeKalb. I’ll get to those in a moment. Let me say that my preference for DeKalb is to run the (B) via Sea Beach (with expanded service hours of course) and the (N) via the Brighton express tracks, extend the (J) part time to Bay Ridge and leave the other lines as is. This is because I’ve seen it said in many places that Brighton riders have a much stronger preference for Broadway over 6th Avenue and vice versa for Southwest Brooklyn (Sea Beach/West End). 

For Option 1, I’m not really sure about rerouting the R via Brighton express or West End. Because the R runs via the Montague Tunnel, putting it on either of those lines will make for a much less popular service than the current B via Brighton and D via West End are. At one time, Brighton had the M and before that, the QJ. However Brighton hasn’t had a direct lower Manhattan service since 1986. The reason being that there’s no real demand for one. You’d be reintroducing a merge between bridge and tunnel services between DeKalb and Atlantic, which may negate the time savings achieved by deinterlining Gold Street. For Option 2, by having both the Q and R serve West End, you’d be reintroducing the merge between local and express services at 36th St, the same one the D and M had until 2010. But you’d also be introducing a merge between peak direction express Q and local R service at 9th Ave. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Manhattan-bound R riders see a Q pull into 62nd St on the middle track and stampede onto that Q. 

But the biggest thing to keep in mind with deinterlining, is the amount of people that would now have to transfer to get where they need to go. If it’s determined that the sheer number of people having to transfer at the Atlantic-Barclays complex would overwhelm the stairways and passageways between the Brighton’s Atlantic platform and the 4th Avenue’s Pacific platform, then it’s not worth doing. And at the very least, we need a much better way to dispatch trains through Gold Street. The repeated stopping of B, D, N and Q trains between DeKalb and the bridge is not helping at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

De-interlining plan for Queens:

(C) runs express south of 50th via new switches (late night (A) service still stops at 23rd and Spring)

(E) same as today

(F) same as today

(K) Forest Hills-WTC via QBL local, 53rd and 8th local (weekdays only except late nights)

(M) via 63rd (runs to Forest Hills all times except late nights)

(N) 96th/125th-CI via Broadway express and then normal routing

(Q) same as today

(R) Astoria-Bay Ridge

(W) eliminated or preserved for the few short turns

(J)(Z) skip stop eliminated; (Z) express service runs express between Marcy and Broadway Junction in the peak direction

Some new extensions:

Some extensions/other changes to improve service:

(7) to 162nd-Northern (one intermediate express stop at 149th-Murray Hill)

(F) to Springfield Blvd (2 tracks; cut and cover down middle of Hillside) with stops at 188th, 196th, Francis Lewis, 212th and Springfield)

(J)(Z) one stop extension to Merrick-168th

QBP-QP passage

Lex 63rd-Lex 59th passage

 

 

 

Edited by R68OnBroadway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Hi @mrsman, welcome to the forums. There’s definitely been a lot of discussion on here about deinterlining many of the subway’s choke points, which you might find interesting. No question DeKalb is one of those choke points. It would be great to be able to run more trains through there, especially if we can actually get SAS Phase 2 up and running. Because it’s going to take a lot more than just the current (Q) service - plus the few Sea Beach Q’s and that one (R) train that turns back south as a Q - to serve it. 

I do have some concerns about deinterlining DeKalb. I’ll get to those in a moment. Let me say that my preference for DeKalb is to run the (B) via Sea Beach (with expanded service hours of course) and the (N) via the Brighton express tracks, extend the (J) part time to Bay Ridge and leave the other lines as is. This is because I’ve seen it said in many places that Brighton riders have a much stronger preference for Broadway over 6th Avenue and vice versa for Southwest Brooklyn (Sea Beach/West End). 

For Option 1, I’m not really sure about rerouting the R via Brighton express or West End. Because the R runs via the Montague Tunnel, putting it on either of those lines will make for a much less popular service than the current B via Brighton and D via West End are. At one time, Brighton had the M and before that, the QJ. However Brighton hasn’t had a direct lower Manhattan service since 1986. The reason being that there’s no real demand for one. You’d be reintroducing a merge between bridge and tunnel services between DeKalb and Atlantic, which may negate the time savings achieved by deinterlining Gold Street. For Option 2, by having both the Q and R serve West End, you’d be reintroducing the merge between local and express services at 36th St, the same one the D and M had until 2010. But you’d also be introducing a merge between peak direction express Q and local R service at 9th Ave. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Manhattan-bound R riders see a Q pull into 62nd St on the middle track and stampede onto that Q. 

But the biggest thing to keep in mind with deinterlining, is the amount of people that would now have to transfer to get where they need to go. If it’s determined that the sheer number of people having to transfer at the Atlantic-Barclays complex would overwhelm the stairways and passageways between the Brighton’s Atlantic platform and the 4th Avenue’s Pacific platform, then it’s not worth doing. And at the very least, we need a much better way to dispatch trains through Gold Street. The repeated stopping of B, D, N and Q trains between DeKalb and the bridge is not helping at all. 

Thank you for the kind words, T to Dyre.  If I'm understanding you correctly, your preference is (B) to Sea Beach, (D) to West End, (N) 2nd Ave to Brighton express, and (Q) 2nd Ave to Brighton local.  A de-interlining of DeKalb, just in the reverse of my Option 2 suggestion with a 6th Ave - 4th Ave exp and Broadway exp - Brighton.  That should be fine.

As far as the local trains go, I believe you're suggesting (W) from Astoria to Whitehall, (R) from Forest HIlls to Bay Ridge, and (J) from Jamaica to Bay Ridge.  If that's the case, the qn is whether this is enough service for Astoria?  Is it OK to still bring QB trains onto the Broadway BMT?  Can Bay Ridge turn back two lines worth of trains, (R) and (J) ?  Would the above work better with the elimination of (R), increasing (W) service (limited to the turning capacity of Whitehall) and increasing (J) service to better serve Bay Ridge?

FIguring out what to do with the local trains is the hardest aspect of DeKalb deinterlining.  Ideally, we'd just route all (R) trains from Astoria to Bay RIdge and be done, but without  a proper yard we have to think out of the box.  

I'm glad that you acknowledge the main problem of the N shifting from local to express.  That should simply not be done.  Broadway should have two locals and two expresses and the two should not intermingle.

I had done a thorough analysis of the DeKalb problem at reddit: 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I do have some concerns about deinterlining DeKalb. I’ll get to those in a moment. Let me say that my preference for DeKalb is to run the (B) via Sea Beach (with expanded service hours of course) and the (N) via the Brighton express tracks, extend the (J) part time to Bay Ridge and leave the other lines as is. This is because I’ve seen it said in many places that Brighton riders have a much stronger preference for Broadway over 6th Avenue and vice versa for Southwest Brooklyn (Sea Beach/West End). 

With you up to the (J) extension. I totally agree that Bay Ridge needs more service, but unless we can demonstrate that (J) would, say, reduce (4)(5) crowding significantly, I'd prefer a conflict-eliminating (W) extension rather than a conflict-creating (J)

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

FIguring out what to do with the local trains is the hardest aspect of DeKalb deinterlining.  Ideally, we'd just route all (R) trains from Astoria to Bay RIdge and be done, but without  a proper yard we have to think out of the box.  

One interesting suggestion I've seen is using the switch provisions south of 36th to route express trains to Bay Ridge, with all locals to West End. You'd get rid of 4th Express-Bridge service to West End, but would make up for the loss in massively increased service frequencies and a simpler, less geometrically fraught merge at 36 St. This'd also provide you with the frequency required to do some sort of West End express from 9th to Bay Parkway, provided you work out the scheduling and switch issues there (don't want another Parkchester!). 

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

Is it OK to still bring QB trains onto the Broadway BMT? 

I personally prioritize getting rid of operations through the 11 St cut out of proportion to that track's service impact because getting rid of it allows you to unlock the full potential of 63, and thus increase capacity to Queens by ~15tph. Would keep that proposal. 

8 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

(C) runs express south of 50th via new switches (late night (A) service still stops at 23rd and Spring)

(E) same as today

(F) same as today

(K) Forest Hills-WTC via QBL local, 53rd and 8th local (weekdays only except late nights)

(M) via 63rd (runs to Forest Hills all times except late nights)

Perhaps the point here is minimum impact, but I'd _strongly_ caution you against not deinterlining 59/creating a 59-esque situation at 36 St. 59 is undoubtedly among the hardest merges in the system to operate -- so much so that it's the point from which the entire IND is scheduled. 36 St, which would essentially be 59 St but with a lot more trains, would promise to be an ops disaster if 59 is any guide. Given that CPW can be done with a max addition of a cross platform xfer, and that doing a 59 pattern in Queens also likely would add to express loads given destination parity btwn expresses and locals, I really think a 53/63 exp/local pairing is the way to go.

Link to comment
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.