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

6 hours ago, Collin said:

I believe the (E) and (F) run 15 tph each during peak hours, so the QB express tracks already run 30 tph without CBTC.  With CBTC, it's supposed to be increased to 33.  Since the (E) is the most crowded of the QB routes, I think it should be increased to 18 tph (12 to Archer and 6 to 179th) while the (F) stays at 15.  Could WTC reasonably turn 18 tph?

WTC is a two track platform with no tail tracks. It currently struggles with the (E) but that's partially because of the nasty Canal St merge. You'd have to get the (C) out of the way to even get close to 18.

To put this in perspective, New South Ferry is also a two-track station with no tail tracks, and IIRC it was stated to have a capacity of 24TPH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

So what you’re saying is that a De-Interlined QB (even with Lengthened (M) trains and platforms along Williamsburg/Myrtle Line) is a Non-Starter? 

It's a nonstarter because the only transfer station is Roosevelt. Even today Roosevelt is already at peak standing capacity; you can't increase transfer volumes during the rush without having to start resorting to London Underground-style closing of exits and putting people in pens. Roosevelt's layout is particularly bad for wrong-direction platform changes.

The (R) definitely needs to go. But honestly, if 8th Av local and expresses are separated, the interlining would be between two track pairs, and that is honestly not the end of the world.

Share this post


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

But honestly, if 8th Av local and expresses are separated, the interlining would be between two track pairs, and that is honestly not the end of the world.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I'm not as fluent. 

Edited by Theli11
Clarifying the Clarifying Question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

I think that bobthepanda is referring to the fact that if we kept the 36St merge, it is something that is workable, not ideal, but still workable.

Are you envisioning something like this:

(E) Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53 St

(F) 179 - QBL express - 63 St

(K) Forest Hills - QBL local - 53 St

(M) Forest Hills - QBL local - 63 St

 

This would mean that there would be merges of (F)/ (E)  and (M) / (K) in the outbound direction and a merge of (F) and (M) in the inbound direction at 36 St.  But, depending on the service pattern, no other merges. 

(E) and (K) will be together along 53 and 8 Ave and both will either be 8th Ave locals that stop at WTC or 8th Ave expresses that continue through the Cranberry Tunnel.  (I prefer the latter since the QBL service has higher demand than the CPW serivce, plus if (A) and (C) are both 8thAve-CPW locals, all 8th Ave trains can serve 50 St.)  

(F) and (M) will be together along 63 and 6 Ave local all the way to Broadway-Laffayette, where the two currently split between access to Culver or the Williamsburg Bridge.  (B) and (D) will remain on the 6th Ave express, but their service pattern on CPW (whether express or local) will depend on the ervice pattern of (A) and (C) .  My preference is for (B) and (D) to both be CPW expresses and to run more (B) and (D) , as (A) and (C) will be limited due to the WTC terminal.

While I prefer a deinterlining of QBL, I think this is a good system.  It separates QBL from Broadway and can be used to eliminate every other reverse merge along the IND.

If this servce pattern were adopted, I believe that a Qboro Plaza- Q Plaza transfer would no longer be necessary as every QBL passenger can simply use the (F) or (M) if they want Broadway service and make a cross-platform transfer at 63/Lex to (Q) (and (N) if that is also routed to 2 AV/96 St).  An improved transfer from 63/Lex to 59/Lex is still necessary to provide a connection to the (4)(5)(6)  (and also the Broadway-60 St locals).

So under the above system, take (E) or (K) if your destination is along 8th Ave or 53 St or most parts of Lower Manhattan.  Use (E) or (K) with a transfer at 7 Ave if headed to CPW.   Use (F) or  (M) if headed to 6 Ave, Broadway [transfer at 63/Lex], or Lexington Ave.  If your destination is along (1)(2)(3) , it is a crapshoot, but (E) and (K) do have the connection at WTC-Park Place and possibly at Fulton Street that might be better than using (F)(M) to 14 St, especially if your destination along the (2)(3) is in Lower Manhattan or Brooklyn.  [Of course if your destination is along 7 Ave in Midtown, take any train and just walk a block from either 6 Ave or 8 Ave.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Theli11 said:

.

Is the N running on 63 St or 60 St? If it's on 63, same thing as above, if it's on 60th, then it still has that dreaded 34 St merge, which you could solve by placing it on the Broadway local. Which would also help with the 4th Av Local service, which I'm.. confused about. If you run it on the 4th Av Local, you take it away from the bridge, and you have added 12 TPH from DeKalb - Canal St, then for it to go express, you have to move it to the express tracks right after the merge. A mess in and of itself. The (N) line isn't the line to provide additional local service on weekdays, especially when you're making it as long as it is. If you wanted extra local service, you could've either, added more (W) trains to run down the line like it does during Rush Hours, or Eliminated the (W) (again) because where are you going to put it? Putting it on Astoria when it'll limit (R) travel? 

63rd and 4 Av Exp. Typo, sorry! Thoughts on my Jewel Av Line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Theli11 said:

 

Is the N running on 63 St or 60 St? If it's on 63, same thing as above, if it's on 60th, then it still has that dreaded 34 St merge, which you could solve by placing it on the Broadway local. Which would also help with the 4th Av Local service, which I'm.. confused about. If you run it on the 4th Av Local, you take it away from the bridge, and you have added 12 TPH from DeKalb - Canal St, then for it to go express, you have to move it to the express tracks right after the merge. A mess in and of itself. The (N) line isn't the line to provide additional local service on weekdays, especially when you're making it as long as it is. If you wanted extra local service, you could've either, added more (W) trains to run down the line like it does during Rush Hours, or Eliminated the (W) (again) because where are you going to put it? Putting it on Astoria when it'll limit (R) travel? 

I meant:

CONEY ISLAND - SEA BEACH LCL - 4 AV EXP - BWAY EXP - 63 ST - QBL LCL - JEWEL AV - FRESH MEADOWS

Thoughts on my Jewel Av Line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my proposal for a Whitestone Line:

  • SERVICE PATTERN
    • During the off-peak and weekends, it is:
      • 15TPH (7) to Flushing
      • 15TPH :8: to Whitestone
    • During the peak, it is:
      • 10TPH (7) to Flushing
      • 10TPH :8: to Whitestone
      • 5TPH <7> to Whitestone
      • 5TPH <7> to Flushing
    • During the late nights, it is:
      • 12TPH (7) to Flushing
      • 10TPH (S) Flushing to Whitestone (turquoise (S))
  • ROUTE
  • FLEET
    • R188s from the (7)<7>
  • STATION ALIGNMENTS
    • Flushing-Main St
      • made a 5-track station, outer 2 tracks are for :8:s and Whitestone <7>s
    • Northern Blvd
      • tunnel, 2 tracks, island platform
    • Latimer Pl
      • tunnel, 2 tracks, island platform
    • Linden Pl
      • tunnel, 2 tracks, island platform
      • ENTERS I-678 MEDIAN JUST AFTER LINDEN PL
    • 25 Av
      • median of I-678, 2 tracks, island platform
    • 20 Av
      • median of I-678, 2 tracks, island platform
    • 14 Av
      • median of I-678, 2 tracks, island platform
    • Whitestone-9 Av
      • median of I-678, 3 tracks, island platforms

Thoughts @KK 6 Ave Local @LaGuardia Link N Tra @mrsman @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason why the Q44 uses Parsons even though that's slower than the service road. No one lives on the highway, and no one is interested in walking to the highway.

Excessive stations. 25th Av doesn't need a station, and 9th Av doesn't need a station given that the area around it is extremely low density, and good luck even threading a subway through that highway interchange. Whitestone is also not a high priority for any subway extension.

There is also not enough width in the highway ROW to put a rail line in as well, so it would require property takings and destruction of residential properties. Given those facts and the general reality that the Whitestone has been under construction for most of my waking life, I would oppose this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Here's my proposal for a Whitestone Line:

  • SERVICE PATTERN
    • During the off-peak and weekends, it is:
      • 15TPH (7) to Flushing
      • 15TPH :8: to Whitestone
    • During the peak, it is:
      • 10TPH (7) to Flushing
      • 10TPH :8: to Whitestone
      • 5TPH <7> to Whitestone
      • 5TPH <7> to Flushing
    • During the late nights, it is:
      • 12TPH (7) to Flushing
      • 10TPH (S) Flushing to Whitestone (turquoise (S))
  • ROUTE
  • FLEET
    • R188s from the (7)<7>
  • STATION ALIGNMENTS
    • Flushing-Main St
      • made a 5-track station, outer 2 tracks are for :8:s and Whitestone <7>s
    • Northern Blvd
      • tunnel, 2 tracks, island platform
    • Latimer Pl
      • tunnel, 2 tracks, island platform
    • Linden Pl
      • tunnel, 2 tracks, island platform
      • ENTERS I-678 MEDIAN JUST AFTER LINDEN PL
    • 25 Av
      • median of I-678, 2 tracks, island platform
    • 20 Av
      • median of I-678, 2 tracks, island platform
    • 14 Av
      • median of I-678, 2 tracks, island platform
    • Whitestone-9 Av
      • median of I-678, 3 tracks, island platforms

Thoughts @KK 6 Ave Local @LaGuardia Link N Tra @mrsman @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131?

 

 

I'd have this as a light rail and then after Flushing it would continue down Main St to Jamaica.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Thoughts on my Jewel Av Line?

It's fine, but I don't like Broadway on QB in general, it just ruins Queens Blvd. if you put the (M) there, maybe. But then it has to be the only train terminating at Forest Hills for it to work without any delays coming onto the line.

 

28 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

During the peak, it is:

  • 10TPH (7) to Flushing
  • 10TPH :8: to Whitestone
  • 5TPH <7> to Whitestone
  • 5TPH <7> to Flushing

Why not just call :8: trains the <7> , that way you can just have 2 service, rather than confusing passengers on 2 different terminals. 
the (7) stays at Flushing, and the :8: goes to Whitestone. I'll have to agree that you're putting a train in the middle of a highway is a bad idea, because then you'd have to weave through it. You'd probably want a better way to get to Whitestone via a more easier street. Parsons is too small so you'd probably have to go more east. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I'd have this as a light rail and then after Flushing it would continue down Main St to Jamaica.

Good idea. as @bobtehpanda pointed out, it wouldn't be feasible to have it in the highway median.

So, I edited the map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1j9orLSQvatWLmff-bWbUMxZMxLJHlW1H&usp=sharing

  • 2 lines:
    • (X) Whitestone-College Point Local / Main St Local
    • (Y) Bayside Local / Main St Local
  • Fleet:
    • Siemens S70.

@KK 6 Ave Local thoughts on the stations?

 

 

Edited by Jova42R
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

 

 

Why not just call :8: trains the <7> , that way you can just have 2 service, rather than confusing passengers on 2 different terminals. 
the (7) stays at Flushing, and the :8: goes to Whitestone. I'll have to agree that you're putting a train in the middle of a highway is a bad idea, because then you'd have to weave through it. You'd probably want a better way to get to Whitestone via a more easier street. Parsons is too small so you'd probably have to go more east. 

see my post above (post #8911)

Edited by Jova42R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Good idea. as @bobtehpanda pointed out, it wouldn't be feasible to have it in the highway median.

So, I edited the map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1j9orLSQvatWLmff-bWbUMxZMxLJHlW1H&usp=sharing

  • 2 lines:
    • (X) Whitestone-College Point Local / Main St Local
    • (Y) Bayside Local / Main St Local
  • Fleet:
    • Siemens S70.

@KK 6 Ave Local thoughts on the stations?

 

 

I like this idea. North parts of Queens could be well served with light rail. Only a short (7) extension and Astoria - LIE line would really be needed for heavy rail at this point in time and that can just be an (N)(W) / (R)(W) extension.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I like this idea. North parts of Queens could be well served with light rail. Only a short (7) extension and Astoria - LIE line would really be needed for heavy rail at this point in time and that can just be an (N)(W) / (R)(W) extension.

Thanks! Would Fresh Meadows be better served by light rail as well? Maybe instead of a Forest Hills-Fresh Meadows (N) line, there could be a Flushing-Fresh Meadows line. I think that we can provide 20TPH on the Jamaica-Flushing portion, and 10TPH on each branch w/o Fresh Meadows. With Fresh Meadows, 24TPH on the mainline, of which 12TPH each to Whitestone and Bayside, and 12TPH each to Fresh Meadows and Jamaica. Thoughts?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Thanks! Would Fresh Meadows be better served by light rail as well? Maybe instead of a Forest Hills-Fresh Meadows (N) line, there could be a Flushing-Fresh Meadows line. I think that we can provide 20TPH on the Jamaica-Flushing portion, and 10TPH on each branch w/o Fresh Meadows. With Fresh Meadows, 24TPH on the mainline, of which 12TPH each to Whitestone and Bayside, and 12TPH each to Fresh Meadows and Jamaica. Thoughts?

 

1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I like this idea. North parts of Queens could be well served with light rail. Only a short (7) extension and Astoria - LIE line would really be needed for heavy rail at this point in time and that can just be an (N)(W) / (R)(W) extension.

I like the Fresh Meadows line. I think that a 15TPH on Whitestone/Bayside and 15TPH on Fresh Meadows/Jamaica and 30TPH on the mainline from Queens College to Jamaica. Could this work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Good idea. as @bobtehpanda pointed out, it wouldn't be feasible to have it in the highway median.

So, I edited the map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1j9orLSQvatWLmff-bWbUMxZMxLJHlW1H&usp=sharing

  • 2 lines:
    • (X) Whitestone-College Point Local / Main St Local
    • (Y) Bayside Local / Main St Local
  • Fleet:
    • Siemens S70.

@KK 6 Ave Local thoughts on the stations?

 

 

Why does the (Y) do that weird jog up north? Density is higher south of Northern Blvd than north of it; look how busy the Q27 is compared to the Q16. 

2019 average weekday ridership (east-west buses, north to south order)

  • Q16 - 3.9k
  • Q28 - 8.9k
  • Q13 - 7.4k
  • Q12 - 10.1k Northern Blvd
  • Q27 - 23k
  • Q88 - 10.9k
  • Q46 - 20k
  • Q43 - 13.4k

Coupled with population density, the next extensions in Queens are pretty obvious:

  • (7) to Broadway LIRR, with one stop replacing Murray Hill LIRR station
    • alternatively, using city fares on the Port Washington branch
  • (F) to Springfield/Hillside
  • (E) to Springfield via Locust Manor branch of the LIRR
    • alternatively, using city fares on the combined Long Beach/Far Rock/West Hempstead branches and moving all Babylon trains to the St. Albans branch

Phase II, if the first phase gets built, would probably look like

  •  QBL local (M)(R) extension via Jewel and 73rd to 188th
  • Astoria Blvd/Main St line

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Why does the (Y) do that weird jog up north? Density is higher south of Northern Blvd than north of it; look how busy the Q27 is compared to the Q16. 

2019 average weekday ridership (east-west buses, north to south order)

  • Q16 - 3.9k
  • Q28 - 8.9k
  • Q13 - 7.4k
  • Q12 - 10.1k Northern Blvd
  • Q27 - 23k
  • Q88 - 10.9k
  • Q46 - 20k
  • Q43 - 13.4k

Coupled with population density, the next extensions in Queens are pretty obvious:

  • (7) to Broadway LIRR, with one stop replacing Murray Hill LIRR station
    • alternatively, using city fares on the Port Washington branch
  • (F) to Springfield/Hillside
  • (E) to Springfield via Locust Manor branch of the LIRR
    • alternatively, using city fares on the combined Long Beach/Far Rock/West Hempstead branches and moving all Babylon trains to the St. Albans branch

Phase II, if the first phase gets built, would probably look like

  •  QBL local (M)(R) extension via Jewel and 73rd to 188th
  • Astoria Blvd/Main St line

 

Felt it was better to serve that area, I'll change the map

That's my (N) Jewel Av Line (See above)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

That's my (N) Jewel Av Line (See above)

Didn't that run on the LIE for a couple of stops? Personally I wouldn't run any train station atop of a highway. Maybe right next to it like the (6)<6> does? It can go down Jewel, and end at 73 Av - 188 St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the (7) should have infill stations added at 10th Avenue as was originally planned, and at 2nd Avenue as part of Phase 3.  That would eliminate the need build an extremely long underground passage to Grand Central that customers won't like anyways.  The proposed transfer would be longer than going between Times Square and Port Authority Bus Terminal.  This would also allow the (7) to function better as a crosstown line.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Didn't that run on the LIE for a couple of stops? Personally I wouldn't run any train station atop of a highway. Maybe right next to it like the (6)<6> does? It can go down Jewel, and end at 73 Av - 188 St.

Yes, it'd be a tunnel under the LIE, a viaduct would recieve mass opposition

22 minutes ago, Collin said:

I think the (7) should have infill stations added at 10th Avenue as was originally planned, and at 2nd Avenue as part of Phase 3.  That would eliminate the need build an extremely long underground passage to Grand Central that customers won't like anyways.  The proposed transfer would be longer than going between Times Square and Port Authority Bus Terminal.  This would also allow the (7) to function better as a crosstown line.

I fully agree! Maybe also extend it to 26th St (at the end of the tail tracks)?

Edited by Jova42R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Yes, it'd be a tunnel under the LIE, a viaduct would recieve mass opposition

Couldn't you just stay on Jewel Avenue and cut out the extra turning

 

7 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

I fully agree! Maybe also extend it to 26th St (at the end of the tail tracks)

You might as well end it at 23 St, or 10th Av - 14 St with an L extension. 

Edited by Theli11
extra quote that wasn't need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Theli11 said:
 

1. Couldn't you just stay on Jewel Avenue and cut out the extra turning

 

2. You might as well end it at 23 St, or 10th Av - 14 St with an L extension. 

  1. Yes, but then no direct Queens College service
  2. That would require boring tunnels which is super expensive. Better to just have a passageway to 23 St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:
  • Yes, but then no direct Queens College service
  • That would require boring tunnels which is super expensive. Better to just have a passageway to 23 St.

Kissena Blvd isn't enough to be near Queens College. It's at most a 3 minute walk. You don't even need it to be IN the college, it should be next to it. And on Kissena/Jewel it's pretty darn close.

I guess 26 St would be suffice.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Kissena Blvd isn't enough to be near Queens College. It's at most a 3 minute walk. You don't even need it to be IN the college, it should be next to it. And on Kissena/Jewel it's pretty darn close.

True!!

18 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

I guess 26 St would be suffice.

In all truth, a 11-car platform would have its northern entrance on 27th, and southern on 25th, so 2 blocks to 23rd is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure a Jewel Ave line, or further branching off QB would be a good idea.  It just reduces the number of trains that can go to the existing terminals and increases the number of merges.  I think the city should explore the possibility of light rail in heavily trafficked corridors in the outer boroughs that aren't served by subway.  They can achieve far higher capacity and speed compared to an SBS route, but can be built for a lot cheaper than a subway, even if partially underground.  

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.