RR503 Posted March 12, 2020 Share #8701 Posted March 12, 2020 20 hours ago, Deucey said: How much congestion would it cause to run to Coney Island, and end at Kings Hwy, or run like interlined buses where turns into at either terminal and vice versa? If you want to run , you're probably best off extending the yard tracks at Church at 300', reinstalling the full complement of crossovers on the lower level, and running local to Church and express. You can do 10 -KH, 10 -CI,10 -Church and 10 -Church to keep the load on the relay op at Church to a manageable 20tph. Kings Highway can barely handle what it does today, and CI is a joke of a terminal. Just a friendly reminder to everyone that: - There is about 25tph of unused capacity in the tunnels between Manhattan and Queens today - Up to 10tph of that unused capacity is Forest Hills inefficiency, up to 15 is Astoria and the 's occupancy of space in both 60 and on QB (which can be treated as an extension of 53/63) - Some indeterminate figure (if I had to guess, 10-15tph) of that unused capacity is thanks to the extreme complexity of merge/diverge operations on Queens' services. The fixes here should be self-evident: fix your terminals, fix your service patterns. We don't need, and cannot justify, more infrastructure until you do those things. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jova42R Posted March 12, 2020 Share #8702 Posted March 12, 2020 17 hours ago, Deucey said: @Jova42R: : S 5th St abuts the Willy B, so you’d end up destroying buildings on S 4th and 3rd, along with the Willy B bus plaza to build the loop and junction to the Jamaica Line - not to mention having to install supports for the Willy B for the tunnel to get to S 5th St. That junction would look a lot like the Harlem River Drive to Triboro Bridge ramp: When so much of S Williamsburg residents take to Flatiron, making them switch to at Essex/Delancey from would crowd already crowded trains alongside trains, which would free up slots on 6th Av from no more , but would ruin QBL with being local with and - the latter of which would ruin 6th Av since it would delay local on 6th Av. If capacity weren’t an issue, and you brought back , you could run to 96th St, but that gives a service gap on QBL Express to 179th - which I would think could be tolerable for two reasons: already has two terminals so NBD, and already has lower frequencies because service requirements - but I don’t live in Queens on the so I can’t make that user-level judgment. Also, because Culver is three-track, and has to go somewhere, you have to solve where terminate without a conga line causing QBL Local style problems - since terminating it before 7th Av, it carries air after Bergen St. 17 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: Let me just say that I’m not a fan of bringing back the or . The current and services are popular and convenient and there is really no good reason to return the M to Nassau St/4th Avenue or the Q to 6th Avenue. Not unless there’s some kind of long-term work on the Manny B or the Willy B that would prevent the M from going to 6th Avenue or the Q to Broadway. And what’s going to serve the Brighton local stops if the Q is on 6th Avenue? Is the current not being discontinued? Wouldn’t it be confusing to have both and services? The service you’re proposing will be of very limited use. It’s basically the train (so why not call it the ?), but extended to 179th. And why send the to Jamaica Center? 17 hours ago, shiznit1987 said: As all 3 of you said, this would not work. I think a better idea for Crosstown-Manhattan service would be the following: 2 LINES ( and ) Rockaway Beach Local / Lower Montauk Local / Upper Crosstown Local / Williamsburg Bridge / LES Local / 1 Av Local / 63 St Crosstown / Columbus Av Local is renamed to Howard Beach (new express platforms) all stops to Aqueduct Racetrack Liberty Av (connection to Rockaway Blvd ) via Rockaway Beach Branch Atlantic Av LIRR (new station) Jamaica Av (connection to Woodhaven Blvd Myrtle Av - Forest Park Woodhaven Blvd via Lower Montauk Branch 88 St Atlas Park - 80 St Glendale - 73 St Middle Village - Metropolitan Av Fresh Pond Rd Flushing Av Maspeth Av 48 St Penny Bridge Humboldt St/Greenpoint Av Manhattan Av/Greenpoint Av Nassau Av Metropolitan Av Marcy Av via the ABANDONED TROLLEY TRACKWAY OF THE WILLY B, then via a new viaduct over Avenue C. Note: all stops after here are share with the Houston St 8 St 14 St Stuyvesant Town viaduct curves to 1 Av 26 St 34 St 42 St 48 St - UN 53 St (connection to Lex-53-51 ) 58 St 63 St-Lex Av via the tunnel, then a new crosstown tunnel under CPW, then to a new viaduct over Columbus Av 69 St 75 St 83 St 89 St 94 St 101 St 108 St 112 St/Amsterdam Av - Mount Sinai 116 St-Columbia University 122 St - Grants Tomb Culver Local* / Lower Crosstown Local /Williamsburg Bridge / LES Local / 1 Av Local / 63 St Crosstown / Columbus Av Local * all s run Culver Express Church Av all stops to Broadway Marcy Av all stops to 122 St-Grants Tomb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted March 12, 2020 Share #8703 Posted March 12, 2020 3 hours ago, RR503 said: If you want to run , you're probably best off extending the yard tracks at Church at 300', reinstalling the full complement of crossovers on the lower level, and running local to Church and express. You can do 10 -KH, 10 -CI,10 -Church and 10 -Church to keep the load on the relay op at Church to a manageable 20tph. Kings Highway can barely handle what it does today, and CI is a joke of a terminal. Just a friendly reminder to everyone that: - There is about 25tph of unused capacity in the tunnels between Manhattan and Queens today - Up to 10tph of that unused capacity is Forest Hills inefficiency, up to 15 is Astoria and the 's occupancy of space in both 60 and on QB (which can be treated as an extension of 53/63) - Some indeterminate figure (if I had to guess, 10-15tph) of that unused capacity is thanks to the extreme complexity of merge/diverge operations on Queens' services. The fixes here should be self-evident: fix your terminals, fix your service patterns. We don't need, and cannot justify, more infrastructure until you do those things. Do you know why they removed some of the crossovers on the lower level? That change has always baffled me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jova42R Posted March 12, 2020 Share #8704 Posted March 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Jova42R said: As all 3 of you said, this would not work. I think a better idea for Crosstown-Manhattan service would be the following: 2 LINES ( and ) Rockaway Beach Local / Lower Montauk Local / Upper Crosstown Local / Williamsburg Bridge / LES Local / 1 Av Local / 63 St Crosstown / Columbus Av Local is renamed to Howard Beach (new express platforms) all stops to Aqueduct Racetrack Liberty Av (connection to Rockaway Blvd ) via Rockaway Beach Branch Atlantic Av LIRR (new station) Jamaica Av (connection to Woodhaven Blvd Myrtle Av - Forest Park Woodhaven Blvd via Lower Montauk Branch 88 St Atlas Park - 80 St Glendale - 73 St Middle Village - Metropolitan Av Fresh Pond Rd Flushing Av Maspeth Av 48 St Penny Bridge Humboldt St/Greenpoint Av Manhattan Av/Greenpoint Av Nassau Av Metropolitan Av Marcy Av via the ABANDONED TROLLEY TRACKWAY OF THE WILLY B, then via a new viaduct over Avenue C. Note: all stops after here are share with the Houston St 8 St 14 St Stuyvesant Town viaduct curves to 1 Av 26 St 34 St 42 St 48 St - UN 53 St (connection to Lex-53-51 ) 58 St 63 St-Lex Av via the tunnel, then a new crosstown tunnel under CPW, then to a new viaduct over Columbus Av 69 St 75 St 83 St 89 St 94 St 101 St 108 St 112 St/Amsterdam Av - Mount Sinai 116 St-Columbia University 122 St - Grants Tomb Culver Local* / Lower Crosstown Local /Williamsburg Bridge / LES Local / 1 Av Local / 63 St Crosstown / Columbus Av Local * all s run Culver Express Church Av all stops to Broadway Marcy Av all stops to 122 St-Grants Tomb Any thoughts on this plan @Union Tpke @RR503 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucey Posted March 13, 2020 Share #8705 Posted March 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Jova42R said: via the ABANDONED TROLLEY TRACKWAY OF THE WILLY B, then via a new viaduct over Avenue C. You mean get rid of the two lanes of roadway on each side and turn it back into a rail bridge? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrsman Posted March 13, 2020 Share #8706 Posted March 13, 2020 8 hours ago, RR503 said: If you want to run , you're probably best off extending the yard tracks at Church at 300', reinstalling the full complement of crossovers on the lower level, and running local to Church and express. You can do 10 -KH, 10 -CI,10 -Church and 10 -Church to keep the load on the relay op at Church to a manageable 20tph. Kings Highway can barely handle what it does today, and CI is a joke of a terminal. Just a friendly reminder to everyone that: - There is about 25tph of unused capacity in the tunnels between Manhattan and Queens today - Up to 10tph of that unused capacity is Forest Hills inefficiency, up to 15 is Astoria and the 's occupancy of space in both 60 and on QB (which can be treated as an extension of 53/63) - Some indeterminate figure (if I had to guess, 10-15tph) of that unused capacity is thanks to the extreme complexity of merge/diverge operations on Queens' services. The fixes here should be self-evident: fix your terminals, fix your service patterns. We don't need, and cannot justify, more infrastructure until you do those things. I totally agree with this sentiment, which is why I so strongly favor de-interlining. The devil, of course, is in the details as any deinterlining plan will always be criticized for not being able to handle this or that transfer or other group appropriately. But you know, the only way to reall get the most bang for the buck in our system is to run as many trains as possible. So you may have an additional transfer in your commute-- big deal. Running more trains would be the only way to actually deal with the demand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jova42R Posted March 13, 2020 Share #8707 Posted March 13, 2020 12 hours ago, Deucey said: You mean get rid of the two lanes of roadway on each side and turn it back into a rail bridge? No I mean use the trackway above the pedestrian path. That was once used as a trolley line, correct? Another option would be to make that trackway the path, and have trains run on the pedestrian path, or via a new structure on top of the line. s and s theoretically could run Siemens Avenio trams - they would use battery along the , catenary at all other times. Thoughts on that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 13, 2020 Share #8708 Posted March 13, 2020 14 hours ago, mrsman said: I totally agree with this sentiment, which is why I so strongly favor de-interlining. The devil, of course, is in the details as any deinterlining plan will always be criticized for not being able to handle this or that transfer or other group appropriately. But you know, the only way to reall get the most bang for the buck in our system is to run as many trains as possible. So you may have an additional transfer in your commute-- big deal. Running more trains would be the only way to actually deal with the demand. It certainly would have advantages for QBL, but with only one express station between Continental and Queens Plaza, won’t there be more backtracking to Roosevelt? That station has narrow platforms and already a sizable amount of riders transferring from the local to the express plus riders coming off the . Can that station really afford any more transfers? Even if Woodhaven is converted into an express station like it was designed to, wouldn’t there still be backtracking from the local stops west of Roosevelt? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 13, 2020 Share #8709 Posted March 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: It certainly would have advantages for QBL, but with only one express station between Continental and Queens Plaza, won’t there be more backtracking to Roosevelt? That station has narrow platforms and already a sizable amount of riders transferring from the local to the express plus riders coming off the . Can that station really afford any more transfers? Even if Woodhaven is converted into an express station like it was designed to, wouldn’t there still be backtracking from the local stops west of Roosevelt? In general people do not backtrack to express stations. People hate transfers, and a wrong-direction change at an express station is among the worst types (you have to get out, crossover, and come back down). The idea is to force people to pick between a local or 53rd, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonologue Posted March 13, 2020 Share #8710 Posted March 13, 2020 3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: The idea is to force people to pick between a local or 53rd, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Wouldn't you want to make people pick between an express or 53rd? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 14, 2020 Share #8711 Posted March 14, 2020 1 hour ago, EvilMonologue said: Wouldn't you want to make people pick between an express or 53rd? Yup, a typo. Too late to edit that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonologue Posted March 14, 2020 Share #8712 Posted March 14, 2020 22 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: Yup, a typo. Too late to edit that. Ah ok 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrsman Posted March 15, 2020 Share #8713 Posted March 15, 2020 On 3/13/2020 at 3:21 PM, bobtehpanda said: In general people do not backtrack to express stations. People hate transfers, and a wrong-direction change at an express station is among the worst types (you have to get out, crossover, and come back down). The idea is to force people to pick between a local or 53rd, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Right. If you are west of Roosevelt, I would assume that the trains that serve your station are QBL locals to 53rd street tunnel as all the expresses will go to 63rd. You will have access to Q Plaza (and hopefully some transfer made to allow for those who need to access Qboro Plaza and the Broadway locals), your train will then continue to Court Square and then Lex. Yes, the transfer at 53/Lex is a terrible one, but it is doable. If you don't like it, you can use Qboro Plaza-Broadway local transfer to connect to Lex locals and expresses. Then, the 53rd street trains will continue as 8th Ave trains (probably expresses in a fully deinterlined plan). A transfer to 6th Ave trains will exist at 53/7Ave. and/or West 4th A transfer to all Broadways and 7th Avenue trains will exist at Port Authority-Times Square. So for Queens travelers, I do recommend a de-interlining, but it will come with improved transfers at key locations: Q Plaza - Qboro Plaza (this has been discussed elsewhere on these forums and yes may be difficult but it could encourage a walking transfer of some sort) 63/Lex - 59/Lex (this one is so obvious a walking tansfer is already provided - basically it will allow QBL express- 6 Ave a transfer to Lex locals and expresses, it also will necessarily connect to Astoria-Broadway locals and 2 Ave-Broadway expresses, I believe that part of the construction of the SAS should be used to further untangle this potential transfer to as many as 5 separate train services, depending upon final configuration of the SAS service pattern) 42nd Street. This is already planned and in construction. By connecting Bryant Park to Times Square, you have a free transfer (albeit with some walking) between every local and express along the "7", the shuttle, 8th Ave, 7th Ave, Broadway, and 6th ave. Basically every Manhattan train will connect here except Lexington trains, Nassau Street trains, the "L", and whatever trains run down 2nd Ave for SAS phase 3. With these measures, I believe a deinterlining will work for all the Queens lines. My idea is with the current system to have QBL express-63-6th Ave local; QBL local - 53 - 8th Ave express; Astoria - 60 - Broadway local. No intermixing. People will transfer to different lines by walking using existing transfers and the three transfers outlined above. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 15, 2020 Share #8714 Posted March 15, 2020 2 hours ago, mrsman said: With these measures, I believe a deinterlining will work for all the Queens lines. My idea is with the current system to have QBL express-63-6th Ave local; QBL local - 53 - 8th Ave express; Astoria - 60 - Broadway local. No intermixing. People will transfer to different lines by walking using existing transfers and the three transfers outlined above. This is good, though you also need to deinterline 8th Av, which gets you deinterlining CPW as well, so this looks like CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP QBL EXP - 63 - 6 AV LCL 96 - BWY EXP ASTORIA - BWY LCL Which neatly sorts out the B Division's northern half. Personally, I think that most of the current subway's systems resiliency problems stem from the northern half, and southern deinterlining is unnecessary. I think we agree, but disagree on what happens with Second Avenue, should it ever get built. Because SAS has no northern outlet, I would rather have a new south-of-Midtown trunk line be extension of the LIRR from GCT to Atlantic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 15, 2020 Share #8715 Posted March 15, 2020 If only... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted March 15, 2020 Share #8716 Posted March 15, 2020 1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said: If only... You should update your website. I would love to see further posts on your proposals there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK 6 Ave Local Posted March 15, 2020 Share #8717 Posted March 15, 2020 24 minutes ago, Union Tpke said: You should update your website. I would love to see further posts on your proposals there. What is his website? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted March 15, 2020 Share #8718 Posted March 15, 2020 1 minute ago, KK 6 Ave Local said: What is his website? https://queenstransit.wordpress.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 16, 2020 Share #8719 Posted March 16, 2020 (edited) On 3/15/2020 at 2:01 PM, bobtehpanda said: This is good, though you also need to deinterline 8th Av, which gets you deinterlining CPW as well, so this looks like CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP QBL EXP - 63 - 6 AV LCL 96 - BWY EXP ASTORIA - BWY LCL Which neatly sorts out the B Division's northern half. Personally, I think that most of the current subway's systems resiliency problems stem from the northern half, and southern deinterlining is unnecessary. I think we agree, but disagree on what happens with Second Avenue, should it ever get built. Because SAS has no northern outlet, I would rather have a new south-of-Midtown trunk line be extension of the LIRR from GCT to Atlantic. Interesting. I’ve long felt that many of the system’s problems were coming from the southern end, as well as Queens Blvd. Though perhaps if the north-of-Midtown B-Division lines are neatly sorted out, it would help with problems on the southern of each route. And I do like the idea of extending the LIRR south of Grand Central to Atlantic. Edited March 16, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted March 17, 2020 Share #8720 Posted March 17, 2020 On 3/15/2020 at 2:06 PM, bobtehpanda said: If only... This looks really cool and I like these alternatives more than what’s currently being planned (sans the LIRR reactivation of RBB), but I’m confused on a few things since this isn’t (nor does it look like it’s meant to be) geographically accurate. -If the Triboro RX were to Swing Under LGA, how would it go underground for that. - How would the Triboro RX terminate at Yankee Stadium? Would it have to be below the and or is there already infrastructure in place for a potential terminal at 161? - Is the Light Green portion of the map between Fordham and Jamaica some Light Rail/Streetcar conversion of the Q44+? - I’m assuming that the LIRR would continue down Park Avenue, Bowery, Water Street then swing over to Atlantic Avenue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 17, 2020 Share #8721 Posted March 17, 2020 1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said: -If the Triboro RX were to Swing Under LGA, how would it go underground for that. - How would the Triboro RX terminate at Yankee Stadium? Would it have to be below the and or is there already infrastructure in place for a potential terminal at 161? - Is the Light Green portion of the map between Fordham and Jamaica some Light Rail/Streetcar conversion of the Q44+? - I’m assuming that the LIRR would continue down Park Avenue, Bowery, Water Street then swing over to Atlantic Avenue. Transition from RX ROW to follow 287. Underground somewhere, most likely taking the Home Depot property. Terminate east of the existing station complex, most likely. Subway, but 5 cars. Right now I'd imagine Third (I believe this is where East Side Access is) > Bowery > Madison > Gold > Pearl > river > Atlantic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jova42R Posted March 17, 2020 Share #8722 Posted March 17, 2020 On 3/15/2020 at 2:06 PM, bobtehpanda said: If only... A few questions: Why not have the TriboroRX go via the GC Pkwy Median, then over the RFK Bridge, and have that be the 125th crosstown One 2nd Av service (most likely the ) would run local on this segment - to Bronx Why not have Lower Montauk connect to SAS, then go crosstown near 60th? The Jamaica-Bronx Line, IMO, should also connect with inwood (maybe a rush hour via express track, then to this line?) TriboroRX should have a branch to Astoria (maybe make this the 125th crosstown?) Thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrsman Posted March 17, 2020 Share #8723 Posted March 17, 2020 On 3/15/2020 at 2:01 PM, bobtehpanda said: This is good, though you also need to deinterline 8th Av, which gets you deinterlining CPW as well, so this looks like CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP QBL EXP - 63 - 6 AV LCL 96 - BWY EXP ASTORIA - BWY LCL Which neatly sorts out the B Division's northern half. Personally, I think that most of the current subway's systems resiliency problems stem from the northern half, and southern deinterlining is unnecessary. I think we agree, but disagree on what happens with Second Avenue, should it ever get built. Because SAS has no northern outlet, I would rather have a new south-of-Midtown trunk line be extension of the LIRR from GCT to Atlantic. Yes. My plan for deinterlining the current system is basically the above, if ignoring new construction on 2 Ave. After thinking about it multiple times, this does seem to be the best way to handle the northern part of the system. My post dealt with Queens, as it would be necessary to have the improved transfers in my post to function well - particularly improved transfers to Lex and Q Plaza - Qboro Plaza. CPW could function fine without new transfers. Yes, there will be a lot of transferring at Columbus Circle, but there already is a lot of transferring at Columbus Circle, and the station is built for it. Also, in my plan, both Concourse and Inwood branches would each have a 6 Av express and an 8 Av local. It is not a pure deinterlining, but given the way the tracks are laid out at 145th, such a configuration would work well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 17, 2020 Share #8724 Posted March 17, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Jova42R said: A few questions: Why not have the TriboroRX go via the GC Pkwy Median, then over the RFK Bridge, and have that be the 125th crosstown One 2nd Av service (most likely the ) would run local on this segment - to Bronx Why not have Lower Montauk connect to SAS, then go crosstown near 60th? The Jamaica-Bronx Line, IMO, should also connect with inwood (maybe a rush hour via express track, then to this line?) TriboroRX should have a branch to Astoria (maybe make this the 125th crosstown?) Thoughts? Hell Gate Bridge is busy. Too busy for two new dedicated railway tracks, so I don't like routing it there. Don't like any usage of Lower Montauk because no one really lives there, a lot of the land next to it is permanently not developable (parks or cemeteries), and we have better things to spend money on. The Bronx lines end where they do to avoid having to ask hard questions about Manhattan and the Bronx waterfront's crazy ridges and elevation changes in this area. Don't care much for extending 125th east through an island that has no travel demand to speak of. Edited March 17, 2020 by bobtehpanda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted March 17, 2020 Share #8725 Posted March 17, 2020 12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: Transition from RX ROW to follow 287. Underground somewhere, most likely taking the Home Depot property. Seems like an interesting idea. I don’t really see much traffic going to the Home Depot in that section of Queens anyways. I could be completely wrong though. Terminate east of the existing station complex, most likely. Subway, but 5 cars. Between Flushing and Union Turnpike, I could see it happening, but wouldn’t the foundations of the Whitestone Bridge have to be rebuilt in order to handle the weight of subway service? Between Union Turnpike and Jamaica seems like a tough obstacle because of sprawled homes and the and in the way. I’m also assuming that a new yard would have to be built somewhere, maybe in College Point. Right now I'd imagine Third (I believe this is where East Side Access is) > Bowery > Madison > Gold > Pearl > river > Atlantic. Other Replies are in bold. Correction. East Side Access is being built below the Metro North along Park Avenue judging by the renderings in the official site and this rendering that I found attached to a Second Avenue Sagas article: http://web.mta.info/capital/esa_alt.html http://secondavenuesagas.com/2012/04/30/a-look-at-the-east-side-access-escalators/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.