Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Jova42R]

4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Why build a super expensive shuttle when you can just build a transfer station to Court Square at 11th and 44th?

That's just the old  tracks. Thoughts on the Manhattan extension?

[Collin]

6 hours ago, mrsman said:

They would be forward merges, not reverse merges.

What's the difference?

12 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This would be a Manhattan-bound service cut for the QBL. QBL is full. If deinterlining happens another service should replace the to go to Manhattan.

I don't know why you hate giving more Manhattan-bound seats to Queens riders.

I think QB should be maxed out on both the local and express.  Removing the  would certainly help clear up some merging, but I wasn't sure what would replace it, which is why I didn't mention.  Depends on whether 2nd Ave exists or not.  If all express trains go via 53rd, then local station customers would have to backtrack to Roosevelt to go there.  If all local trains go via 53rd, then everyone has to ride the local from Roosevelt to get there.  Both plans suck and would result in complaints from both local and express station customers.  I have two possible service patterns below, one with Second Avenue, and one without.  I'm also assuming that a Queens Plaza/Queensboro Plaza transfer would be added, and whatever is necessary could be done to allow the to be extended to Queens Plaza.

Without:

current service pattern

current service pattern

QB local via 63rd, then current service pattern

QB local via 53rd, 8th Avenue local, ending at WTC.

CPW would be deinterlined with all express service to 8th and all local service to 6th.  Washington Heights and Concourse would both have access to a local and express service.  and would go express in Manhattan, but temporary platforms would be installed at 50th Street to allow them to stop there.

Once Phase 3 opens:

current service pattern

current service pattern

current service pattern

QB local via 63rd, 2nd Avenue local, either ending at Houston Street or somewhere in Brooklyn if a proper connection was built.

switches back to local below 59th, and temporary platforms at 50th Street removed.

 

 

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

True. A better extension of Crosstown would be to do this:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kmwEgv9QW0uaFDWFwsGkZqlCPaRWEoIQ&usp=sharing

This would require the following service patterns:

 WTC- 8 AV LCL - 53 ST - QBL EXP - ARCHER

 MIDDLE VILLAGE - JAMAICA LCL - 6 AV LCL - 63 ST - QBL LCL - FOREST HILLS

 CONEY ISLAND - SEA BEACH LCL - 4 AV EXP - BWAY EXP - 2 AV - 96 ST

 BAY RIDGE - 4 AV LCL - BWAY LCL - ASTORIA

 CHURCH - CULVER LCL - CROSSTOWN LCL - 53 ST - WEST SIDE - 72 ST

 11 ST - COURT SQ - QUEENS PLAZA

 

So, QBL is  EXPRESS and  LOCAL. ON WEEKENDS THE  RUNS TO FOREST HILLS.

Man, you must really like making maps. 

Alright let's break down the  ,  What's going to be the local service that runs from Queens Plaza to 36 St. That's pretty much forcing a backing transfer from 36 St to Roosevelt Av, without taking the  train to West 4th for 8th Av Service. The difference from being local via 36 St and the being the local train is that there still is a transfer on the route at 7th Av-53 St, on the there is none. From a local station, you'd have to transfer to either and trains for upper Manhattan at Rockefeller Center (that's okay..), You'd have to take the 2 Avenue Transfer to get to 8th Av (or straight down to W4, then proceeding to go straight up).  (After that 42 St Transfer is built) for service between 14 St and 42 St. On Queens Blvd:  The train is now merging with the  going Queens Bound, while the is merging with the Manhattan bound. There's going to be a shit ton of traffic that trains can't handle due to the fact that it shares a track with / trains on the Manhattan Bridge. With only 8 cars can it really handle that service? 

and train I agree with. I also agree with the fact that the train is going to Manhattan, but why not just Run up Amsterdam instead of going diagonal? It's a 1 block difference, and rather than cutting through literal blocks, you can just go under the street. I do not know the geology of Amsterdam so I can't think of how construction is bad or good however. And sharing 53 St with the  isn't a good idea because of the fact that you're placing a step back on the entire point of making 53 St run by the only. The already has short cars, so you're not helping the situation that much, you might as well put the right back. It'd be better than this, because I can't think of that many people who want a transfer from 53 St to 72 St, there's already a  station right there, and there's a transfer at 59 St, AND there's the CPW station nearby. If there's high demand let me know, but I don't really see it or a reason why. If they're on 50th St already, they can just take a  . 

What the hell is the point of this train? to connect the already connected Queens Crosstown? They literately have the damn 53 St to transfer into Queens. If you wanted to make this better, you could just have the go to Forest Hills, (but that's already messed up because you're adding an merge.)  or a new platform into 36 St (Don't know how that's going to be built). Honestly, the could run from Court Square to 21 Queens Bridge (new platform) then, enter Manhattan on the East Side. Or just make 21-QB the terminal (under this plan) since they'd still need 6th Av service.

[Jova42R]

23 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Man, you must really like making maps. 

Alright let's break down the  ,  What's going to be the local service that runs from Queens Plaza to 36 St. That's pretty much forcing a backing transfer from 36 St to Roosevelt Av, without taking the  train to West 4th for 8th Av Service. The difference from being local via 36 St and the being the local train is that there still is a transfer on the route at 7th Av-53 St, on the there is none. From a local station, you'd have to transfer to either and trains for upper Manhattan at Rockefeller Center (that's okay..), You'd have to take the 2 Avenue Transfer to get to 8th Av (or straight down to W4, then proceeding to go straight up).  (After that 42 St Transfer is built) for service between 14 St and 42 St. On Queens Blvd:  The train is now merging with the  going Queens Bound, while the is merging with the Manhattan bound. There's going to be a shit ton of traffic that trains can't handle due to the fact that it shares a track with / trains on the Manhattan Bridge. With only 8 cars can it really handle that service? 

and train I agree with. I also agree with the fact that the train is going to Manhattan, but why not just Run up Amsterdam instead of going diagonal? It's a 1 block difference, and rather than cutting through literal blocks, you can just go under the street. I do not know the geology of Amsterdam so I can't think of how construction is bad or good however. And sharing 53 St with the  isn't a good idea because of the fact that you're placing a step back on the entire point of making 53 St run by the only. The already has short cars, so you're not helping the situation that much, you might as well put the right back. It'd be better than this, because I can't think of that many people who want a transfer from 53 St to 72 St, there's already a  station right there, and there's a transfer at 59 St, AND there's the CPW station nearby. If there's high demand let me know, but I don't really see it or a reason why. If they're on 50th St already, they can just take a  . 

What the hell is the point of this train? to connect the already connected Queens Crosstown? They literately have the damn 53 St to transfer into Queens. If you wanted to make this better, you could just have the go to Forest Hills, (but that's already messed up because you're adding an merge.)  or a new platform into 36 St (Don't know how that's going to be built). Honestly, the could run from Court Square to 21 Queens Bridge (new platform) then, enter Manhattan on the East Side. Or just make 21-QB the terminal (under this plan) since they'd still need 6th Av service.

: ok, the  goes to Forest Hills Fulltime

With the  on the West Side, it’d go into the Empire Connection Tunnel, then to 72 St. Also, where else could you send it?

: to connect the section of the  not used. It could be a tram-train and run through East Astoria, however.

Would it be better to go under Roosevelt Island to 86th, then crosstown on 86?

 

[Theli11]

3 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

: ok, the  goes to Forest Hills Fulltime

 

Reverse on that point really quickly, I like the idea now that I'm thinking about it. It should be singled tracked ending at Queens Plaza.

 

8 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

With the  on the West Side, it’d go into the Empire Connection Tunnel, then to 72 St. Also, where else could you send it?

: to connect the section of the  not used. It could be a tram-train and run through East Astoria, however.

that's pretty much what the BQX would be. 

 

9 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Would it be better to go under Roosevelt Island to 86th, then crosstown on 86?

63 St already has tunnels under it, so you'd have to use a new one or use the existing one [ line] to connect to the 2nd Av line.

Or, you can make the  go to Broadway, make a tunnel and then cross town to 96 St - Broadway via Amsterdam with a transfer to the Central Park Locals. 

[LGA Link N Train]

I just thought of an idea since we're on the topic of Queens Blvd. 

**The CBTC Technology on the Should be upgraded to allow compatibility with Mainline B Division lines such as 8th Avenue and Queens Blvd**

Trains make a Cup-Holder extension around Manhattan Up 10th Avenue and 57th Street. After 3rd Avenue-57th Street, it will go under a new tunnel into Queens and replace both the  and  Trains on Queens Blvd to Forest Hills. Service will be extended to 10 cars and will run 26 TPH. If possible, a service split could be done within the line to allow for a new service up Jewel Avenue. Atlantic Avenue would be upgraded to allow for potential Short turn runs. 

Trains will have the Express Tracks along QB to itself. WTC Terminal will be upgraded so that it can turn up to 30 TPH. Trains will run from Queens Village on Hillside Avenue and run Express into Manhattan. Alternative here is to have those trains replace the and on the Express Tracks; creating a super long route. 

 and Trains will now use the Queens Bypass. The will run 18 TPH to Jamaica-179th and Trains will run 12 TPH to Jamaica Center. Service would be extended to 10 cars. 

 

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, Jova42R said:

That's just the old  tracks. Thoughts on the Manhattan extension?

Still expensive to operate and there is already service between Court Square and Queens Plaza. Just build a physical transfer and call it a day.

[Theli11]

17 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Trains make a Cup-Holder extension around Manhattan Up 10th Avenue and 57th Street. After 3rd Avenue-57th Street, it will go under a new tunnel into Queens and replace both the  and  Trains on Queens Blvd to Forest Hills. Service will be extended to 10 cars and will run 26 TPH. If possible, a service split could be done within the line to allow for a new service up Jewel Avenue. Atlantic Avenue would be upgraded to allow for potential Short turn runs. 

Trains will have the Express Tracks along QB to itself. WTC Terminal will be upgraded so that it can turn up to 30 TPH. Trains will run from Queens Village on Hillside Avenue and run Express into Manhattan. Alternative here is to have those trains replace the and on the Express Tracks; creating a super long route. 

 and Trains will now use the Queens Bypass. The will run 18 TPH to Jamaica-179th and Trains will run 12 TPH to Jamaica Center. Service would be extended to 10 cars. 

I like this plan, I think that we could make an express train, probably name it for now. the train will be the Jewel Av line, that goes express from Canarsie to Columbus Circle (Where there should be a track to short turn if need be.) In all honesty, the should be on the bypass, but this plan still works if they update CBTC. If anything goes wrong with either or trains, train service should be the one cut, to avoid having /and trains on the same track (maximizing the capacity on both). the train would go to whatever new terminal but for now should also be on Jewel Avenue, though Jamaica-179 should be looked at in terms of a solution, where  trains go on the local, trains are the express.

[Jova42R]

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Another QBL/ relief line:

Some lines would serve as good relief lines.

Thoughts @Theli11 @Collin @Union Tpke?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zHS7VAIXr8VH-f42_ANBY4Yl0h0dg8Hm&usp=sharing

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Another QBL/ relief line:

Some lines would serve as good relief lines.

Thoughts @Theli11 @Collin @Union Tpke?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zHS7VAIXr8VH-f42_ANBY4Yl0h0dg8Hm&usp=sharing

Why not just have dedicated BRT/LRT down Northern and the Queensboro Bridge?

[Jova42R]

50 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Why not just have dedicated BRT/LRT down Northern and the Queensboro Bridge?

The Northern line would serve the area better.

Also, the TPH would be the following:

• NORTHERN LINE
  • 79 ST-31 AV: 20TPH RUSH, 15TPH NON-RUSH
  • 31 AV-LGA: 10TPH RUSH, 7.5TPH NON-RUSH
  • 31 AV-CORONA: 10TPH RUSH, 7.5TPH NON-RUSH
• MIDLINK:
  • 15TPH RUSH, 10TPH NON-RUSH
• CROSSLINK:
  • BORO HALL-ELMHURST: 15TPH
  • ELMHURST-CORONA: 7.5TPH
  • ELMHURST-CORONA:7.5TPH
• MID-QUEENS LINE
  • 20TPH RUSH, 12TPH NON-RUSH

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

Why not just have dedicated BRT/LRT down Northern and the Queensboro Bridge?

Because it's quite clear that OP is only mostly interested in drawing crayons all over the place and not things that actually work.

[Jova42R]

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Because it's quite clear that OP is only mostly interested in drawing crayons all over the place and not things that actually work.

No, it's because I think that a line through Eastern Astoria would serve that community better than the current bus lines.

[bobtehpanda]

15 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

No, it's because I think that a line through Eastern Astoria would serve that community better than the current bus lines.

Your LRTs are mostly weird Frankensteins of middling-to-poor performing bus routes that don't take people to where they need to go. Like most of the ideas you've proposed here.

Most of these wouldn't justify a dedicated bus lane let alone expensive rail infrastructure.

[engineerboy6561]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

No, it's because I think that a line through Eastern Astoria would serve that community better than the current bus lines.

If you're going to put something through eastern Astoria you'd be much better off putting something along Astoria Blvd from the airport, then putting a tunnel portal on the southern edge of Astoria Park and swinging down to connect with 2 Av at 86 St. The issue with adding LRT to NY is that you need to lay out a whole separate system and associated infrastructure. If you wanted to convert a few of the really high-ridership SBS lines to LRT it would be more reasonable; a Woodhaven Blvd LRT with the depot in the block bounded by Beach 108 S, Rockaway Fwy and Rockaway Beach Blvd, or a Fordham Rd/Pelham Pkwy LRT with the depot infrastructure inside 207 St Yard would make sense.

Even then, LRT needs to be either in a median where it's not stuck in traffic or on streets that are tram-only; as someone who's lived in Boston for almost nine years now (which has LRT running in mixed traffic), you do NOT want to do that if you can avoid. At that point your LRT options are basically constrained to boulevards that can give up 2.5-3 lanes to form a street running median, and that have sufficient bus ridership to justify the infrastructure. At that point you're basically talking Grand Concourse, Pelham Parkway/Fordham Rd, Woodhaven/Cross Bay, Main St Queens, maybe something overtop the LIE, Atlantic Av, Flatbush Av and maybe some of the avenues in Manhattan.

At that point the question becomes whether adding and maintaining the infrastructure for grade-separated and/or median-running LRT is actually an optimal solution for any of the areas in the city; it's a lot cheaper than subway infrastructure but it also becomes insufficient much more quickly than subway infrastructure. A single CAF Urbos train tops out at 327 people when it's jam packed, and so if we assume you can get 20tph through a median-running setup without bunching your system tops out at just under 6600 people per hour. A full-length IND train can fit 2200-2700 people, which means a subway line running at 20 min frequencies (the longest headways NYC subway regularly runs) has the same capacity as a jammed-to-bursting tram corridor. By contrast a bus corridor like Woodhaven Boulevard likely tops out around 20-24 bph, which (assuming you run mostly articulated buses) tops out around 2400-3000 pax per hour. Thus, the ridership window for a light rail line really extends from about 1200 pax per hour to 6000 or so (which is a fairly narrow slice of the spectrum in NY). Most of the spots in the US with LRT are places where either funding doesn't permit heavy rail, most of their busy corridors don't quite meet the usage for heavy rail, or the LRT is legacy from the streetcar days and never got dismantled. 

I don't think there are that many corridors in NYC that fit the bill of topping out at 1-3k pax per hour regardless of how much infrastructure you put on them. There are definite spots that would, but honestly most of the corridors where you could easily fit LRT would easily see peak ridership north of 7-10k pax per hour if you put a subway on them (Flatbush Av, Astoria Bl, Fordham Rd/Pelham Pkwy, etc.) and then a whole bunch of other streets that don't have the ridership potential to hit the 1k pax/hr that makes LRT a better choice than 10-15 artics an hour.

Edited April 2, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Jova42R]

3 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

If you're going to put something through eastern Astoria you'd be much better off putting something along Astoria Blvd from the airport, then putting a tunnel portal on the southern edge of Astoria Park and swinging down to connect with 2 Av at 86 St. The issue with adding LRT to NY is that you need to lay out a whole separate system and associated infrastructure. If you wanted to convert a few of the really high-ridership SBS lines to LRT it would be more reasonable; a Woodhaven Blvd LRT with the depot in the block bounded by Beach 108 S, Rockaway Fwy and Rockaway Beach Blvd, or a Fordham Rd/Pelham Pkwy LRT with the depot infrastructure inside 207 St Yard would make sense.

Even then, LRT needs to be either in a median where it's not stuck in traffic or on streets that are tram-only; as someone who's lived in Boston for almost nine years now (which has LRT running in mixed traffic), you do NOT want to do that if you can avoid. At that point your LRT options are basically constrained to boulevards that can give up 2.5-3 lanes to form a street running median, and that have sufficient bus ridership to justify the infrastructure. At that point you're basically talking Grand Concourse, Pelham Parkway/Fordham Rd, Woodhaven/Cross Bay, Main St Queens, maybe something overtop the LIE, Atlantic Av, Flatbush Av and maybe some of the avenues in Manhattan.

At that point the question becomes whether adding and maintaining the infrastructure for grade-separated and/or median-running LRT is actually an optimal solution for any of the areas in the city; it's a lot cheaper than subway infrastructure but it also becomes insufficient much more quickly than subway infrastructure. A single CAF Urbos train tops out at 327 people when it's jam packed, and so if we assume you can get 20tph through a median-running setup without bunching your system tops out at just under 6600 people per hour. A full-length IND train can fit 2200-2700 people, which means a subway line running at 20 min frequencies (the longest headways NYC subway regularly runs) has the same capacity as a jammed-to-bursting tram corridor. By contrast a bus corridor like Woodhaven Boulevard likely tops out around 20-24 bph, which (assuming you run mostly articulated buses) tops out around 2400-3000 pax per hour. Thus, the ridership window for a light rail line really extends from about 1200 pax per hour to 6000 or so (which is a fairly narrow slice of the spectrum in NY). Most of the spots in the US with LRT are places where either funding doesn't permit heavy rail, most of their busy corridors don't quite meet the usage for heavy rail, or the LRT is legacy from the streetcar days and never got dismantled. 

I don't think there are that many corridors in NYC that fit the bill of topping out at 1-3k pax per hour regardless of how much infrastructure you put on them. There are definite spots that would, but honestly most of the corridors where you could easily fit LRT would easily see peak ridership north of 7-10k pax per hour if you put a subway on them (Flatbush Av, Astoria Bl, Fordham Rd/Pelham Pkwy, etc.) and then a whole bunch of other streets that don't have the ridership potential to hit the 1k pax/hr that makes LRT a better choice than 10-15 artics an hour.

Taking your advice, I decided to make a citywide map with only 4 lines:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kD-DhS5RsZVFOBw8jLX5y9uhQrFwsNhb&usp=sharing

Thoughts on the best fleet? I know the Greenpoint Link has to run a battery tram (of which I think the Urbos 3 is the best), but any ideas on the fleet for the other lines?

[Theli11]

31 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Taking your advice, I decided to make a citywide map with only 4 lines:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kD-DhS5RsZVFOBw8jLX5y9uhQrFwsNhb&usp=sharing

Thoughts on the best fleet? I know the Greenpoint Link has to run a battery tram (of which I think the Urbos 3 is the best), but any ideas on the fleet for the other lines?

Mate this is becoming a little repetitive, and most of your lines can be served by a shuttle. I think like 20% of your proposals actually have SUBWAYS in it. And the rest were really weird Light Rail lines, or something that doesn't make sense or much use, OR something that can just be served by a train or already has trains around it. I wouldn't have a real issue with this, but it does derail the conversation, and it gets rather annoying. 

Also a tramway? to Greenpoint? They have the  to Queens with tons of transfers and the train. I don't know anyone who needs that, but when it comes from you i'm not really surprised.

[Jova42R]

14 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Mate this is becoming a little repetitive, and most of your lines can be served by a shuttle. I think like 20% of your proposals actually have SUBWAYS in it. And the rest were really weird Light Rail lines, or something that doesn't make sense or much use, OR something that can just be served by a train or already has trains around it. I wouldn't have a real issue with this, but it does derail the conversation, and it gets rather annoying. 

Also a tramway? to Greenpoint? They have the  to Queens with tons of transfers and the train. I don't know anyone who needs that, but when it comes from you i'm not really surprised.

Sorry, but I think that all of these lines serve UNDERSERVED areas with limited connections to Manhattan.

What do you mean by a shuttle?

[engineerboy6561]

38 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Sorry, but I think that all of these lines serve UNDERSERVED areas with limited connections to Manhattan.

What do you mean by a shuttle?

Looking at this, you can basically cover the Flatbush Av half of the Midwood line with a  extension (which would do it significantly better because higher pax volume capability), and Kings Highway is too narrow to comfortably host a tram past Avenue P. For the SE Queens line 164, Francis Lewis above Jamaica Av and Union Turnpike are wide enough to do this, but I don't see there being the demand. Cutting north out of Jamaica to cut across on Union Turnpike and then drop down isn't going to get you through ridership from Jamaica; the Q36/43LTD to the Q77 is more direct and will see higher patronage. You might get some traffic to the college from Jamaica but the Q25LTD is going to be faster and more direct. You're better off just extending the  along Hillside and the  along Merrick, then beefing up Q77 service from there. Your BronxLink isn't terrible but if you were going to do that just run it to Inwood and integrate the yard into 207 St, and your Greenpoint connection duplicates the  and would get massively bogged down in traffic on 57 St. There are better non-LRT ways to do basically all of this.

Edited April 3, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Theli11]

6 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Looking at this, you can basically cover the Flatbush Av half of the Midwood line with a  extension (which would do it significantly better because higher pax volume capability), and Kings Highway is too narrow to comfortably host a tram past Avenue P. For the SE Queens line 164, Francis Lewis above Jamaica Av and Union Turnpike are wide enough to do this, but I don't see there being the demand. Cutting north out of Jamaica to cut across on Union Turnpike and then drop down isn't going to get you through ridership from Jamaica; the Q36/43LTD to the Q77 is more direct and will see higher patronage. You might get some traffic to the college from Jamaica but the Q25LTD is going to be faster and more direct. You're better off just extending the  along Hillside and the  along Merrick, then beefing up Q77 service from there. Your BronxLink isn't terrible but if you were going to do that just run it to Inwood and integrate the yard into 207 St, and your Greenpoint connection duplicates the . There are better non-LRT ways to do basically all of this.

Also, the bronx link can be served with a train that goes down Fordham, on Allerton or Pelham Parkway, to Either Co-Op or Pelham Bay Park, which can easily be a train, or train, or just an extention off Concourse . NYC doesn't need a light rail line when it has subway services that can do the job.  

[LGA Link N Train]

38 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Sorry, but I think that all of these lines serve UNDERSERVED areas with limited connections to Manhattan.

These underserved areas that you speak of are mostly industrial areas with few people living in said areas (with the  exception of North/Southeast Queens, Flatbush and whatever is happening in the Bronx). Therefore, bus service better serves the needs of the people living in those underserved areas. 

Also, no disrespect but I will also bandwagon onto the fact that the way you post some of your proposals at random derail the conversation at hand, and its kinda getting annoying. Personally the only areas that I think would benefit from a LRT/Streetcar would be Main Street, Fordham/Pelham Bay, and Red Hook. 

Before I forget. I saw you map with the relief streetcar on it. Why not have it run on Northern Blvd between Sunnyside and Main Street instead of the lineup that you proposed? And wouldn't it make sense for that line to follow the current Q32 route in Manhattan as opposed to sending it uptown? 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to the discussion at hand, with De-interlining Queens and whatnot, I noticed how many people on the Forums seems to have conflicting views as to how it should go with our existing infrastructure. While I'm personally on the side of doing 8th-53-QB Local/6th-63-QB Express. I did think of an extension that would help resolve this debate, which I will quote here:

On 4/1/2020 at 6:07 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I just thought of an idea since we're on the topic of Queens Blvd. 

**The CBTC Technology on the Should be upgraded to allow compatibility with Mainline B Division lines such as 8th Avenue and Queens Blvd**

Trains make a Cup-Holder extension around Manhattan Up 10th Avenue and 57th Street. After 3rd Avenue-57th Street, it will go under a new tunnel into Queens and replace both the  and  Trains on Queens Blvd to Forest Hills. Service will be extended to 10 cars and will run 26 TPH. If possible, a service split could be done within the line to allow for a new service up Jewel Avenue. Atlantic Avenue would be upgraded to allow for potential Short turn runs. 

Trains will have the Express Tracks along QB to itself. WTC Terminal will be upgraded so that it can turn up to 30 TPH. Trains will run from Queens Village on Hillside Avenue and run Express into Manhattan. Alternative here is to have those trains replace the and on the Express Tracks; creating a super long route. 

 and Trains will now use the Queens Bypass. The will run 18 TPH to Jamaica-179th and Trains will run 12 TPH to Jamaica Center. Service would be extended to 10 cars. 

 While I didn't mention it, the alternative to a Queens bypass  service would be to send either of them (or both) up Northern Blvd. (Though that would create a bottleneck which is what my plan focused on reducing as much as possible)

 

10 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I like this plan, I think that we could make an express train, probably name it for now. the train will be the Jewel Av line, that goes express from Canarsie to Columbus Circle (Where there should be a track to short turn if need be.) In all honesty, the should be on the bypass, but this plan still works if they update CBTC. If anything goes wrong with either or trains, train service should be the one cut, to avoid having /and trains on the same track (maximizing the capacity on both). the train would go to whatever new terminal but for now should also be on Jewel Avenue, though Jamaica-179 should be looked at in terms of a solution, where  trains go on the local, trains are the express.

Personally, I wouldn't go out and about building express tracks along the Canarsie Line as there is no space to do so. My Canarsie-"Manhattan Cup"-QBL-Jewel Avenue line is dubbed as the "", mainly because a rollsign existed (for the R110B) featuring a Grey- bullet. If a short-turn Terminal needed to be created along this Extension that I'm proposing, I'd choose 42nd Street-10th Avenue to be the main candidate because a transfer could potentially be built with the  there. 

[Theli11]

5 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Personally, I wouldn't go out and about building express tracks along the Canarsie Line as there is no space to do so. My Canarsie-"Manhattan Cup"-QBL-Jewel Avenue line is dubbed as the "", mainly because a rollsign existed (for the R110B) featuring a Grey- bullet. If a short-turn Terminal needed to be created along this Extension that I'm proposing, I'd choose 42nd Street-10th Avenue to be the main candidate because a transfer could potentially be built with the  there. 

Someone had a map that I saw a while ago, but it had Express  trains [which would be the you're talking about], and it ran under the line, but ran under other streets where the geography was wocky, and trains couldn't go down. if we extended an  train short turn at 57 St - 8th Av, it would also make a transfer with Broadway at 7th Av and 7th-Broadway at Columbus Circle (since it's 2 blocks up). that can serve as a terminal. If we were to double stack the train, then trains would be treated as a separate route, and would share the same track from whatever short turn it is (after the station), to Jewel Av where it would split.

[LGA Link N Train]

Just now, Theli11 said:

Someone had a map that I saw a while ago, but it had Express  trains [which would be the you're talking about], and it ran under the line, but ran under other streets where the geography was wocky, and trains couldn't go down. if we extended an  train short turn at 57 St - 8th Av, it would also make a transfer with Broadway at 7th Av and 7th-Broadway at Columbus Circle (since it's 2 blocks up). that can serve as a terminal. If we were to double stack the train, then trains would be treated as a separate route, and would share the same track from whatever short turn it is (after the station), to Jewel Av where it would split.

Alright, I see where you're going with this. Here's a map I made in correlation to my proposal:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19Jnq2x1JojRdkSn2efIeKIqvyXmscYn6&usp=sharing

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/31/2020 at 8:04 PM, RR503 said:

Deinterlining CPW is an extremely worthy policy objective in and of itself. 59 St is a terrible merge -- so bad, in fact, that the entire IND is scheduled backwards from it. 

I will agree 59th is a terrible merge, but I didn’t know the entire IND is scheduled backwards from it. 

On 4/1/2020 at 8:46 AM, mrsman said:

I totally agree with this.  I really don't see a down side to deinterlining CPW, so long as both Washington Heights and Concourse trains each have access to both express and local trains.

A number of years ago, the service pattern was  to Washington Heights and  to Concourse, each side having one express and one local, each side having one 8th Ave train and one 6th Ave train, Washington Heights having their express train run to 8th Ave and Concourse having their express train run to 6th Ave.  If you are coming from way north, you are staying on whatever express train you are on and you will transfer at 59th if you need to.  It's a cross-platform transfer so it's not so hard.  If you board at 145th or 125th, you do have the option of waiting for either  or  and not transferring at 59th.  Similarly, if you board at a local stop south of 125th, you also have the option of waiting for the  or  and not transferring at 59th.  

I propose a deinterlining by keeping the old pattern of the previous paragraph, except that all 8th Ave trains run local on CPW and all 6th Ave trains run express on CPW.By deinterlining 59th, for passengers that board north of 145th, you won't really change the net number of people transferring at 59th, some people will need to transfer just as they always have, some people will now avoid the transfer, and some people will have a new transfer (likely balanced out by the number of people who no longer need to transfer).  Operationally, I prefer running  as the CPW locals so that there is a direct connection to 50th st station, but the same arguments would also apply if  were the express and  were the locals.

Yes, the passengers boarding at 145th, 125th, and the CPW local stops south of 125th may now be forced to transfer.  To the extent that express customers want 8th Ave or local customers want 6th Ave, those customers will now be forced to transfer at 59th.  But this is a station that was designed to be a major transferring point and it is a cross-platform transfer.  (And yes, we also have all the transfers to and from the  .)  Additionally, it is possible that modern trains could make use of the center platform to alleviate crowding for those whose origin and destination is at 59th and aren't there just to transfer.

As with all deinterlining proposals, the trade-off is a new transfer for the ability to run more trains.  Less waiting, less crowding is far more beneficial in my opinion than the hassle of one additional transfer.  At 59th, it is simply a cross-platform transfer and very doable.

Yes, if CPW were to be deinterlined, I would prefer for the locals to go to 8th Ave and the expresses to 6th. But if so, then I’d consider the possibility of an “8th Avenue flip.” This would call for the  to be the CPW/8th Ave Local between 168th and WTC (extended to 207th late nights) and the  and  to be the 8th Avenue Express trains to both Brooklyn and Queens (QBL). The  would keep the same route in Brooklyn, while the  would replace the  to the Rockaways and Lefferts. The  would replace the  as the express to/from 207 and the  would become a dual  /  service on Concourse during rush hours similar to the  /  and  /  operations.

See, I think you can get away with fully deinterlining CPW, because you don’t have a major transfer point with another subway line in the middle of the line and a diverging route before the final transfer point. This is in strong contrast to QBL, which has both (transfer to  in the middle of the line and the  diverging into the 63rd St Tunnel before Queens Plaza). With that in mind, that’s why I don’t really think you can get away with fully deinterlining QBL and why you’ll need both an 8th and a 6th service on the QB local. And unless the MTA are willing to make the investment in lengthening the original  line station platforms for 10-car trains (which certainly won’t be happening in the foreseeable future now), I don’t really think you can get away with running the  express on QBL to Jamaica Center or 179th.

Edited April 3, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Around the Horn]

7 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Why not just have dedicated BRT/LRT down Northern and the Queensboro Bridge?

I'll second this...

Northern Blvd is wide enough for a busway or tramway running down the center if you remove the parking and use the center three lanes.

The 14th Street busway has already shown that high frequency articulated vehicles with dedicated rights of way attract more ridership. Doing the same on Northern Blvd seems like a no brainer to me. BRT or LRT from Flushing to Columbus Circle (like the DOT had planned previously) would do quite well.

12 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If a short-turn Terminal needed to be created along this Extension that I'm proposing, I'd choose 42nd Street-10th Avenue to be the main candidate because a transfer could potentially be built with the  there. 

Realistically, peak load point from Brooklyn on a hypothetical train extension would probably be 34th Street-Hudson Yards, assuming full build out and occupancy of the developments at Hudson Yards and Manhattan West, so a three track two platform station (like North Greenwich on the Jubilee line) there would do the trick. If we're aiming for 30 TPH on the line I would have at a minimum 20 TPH to 72nd Street/10 TPH to Hudson Yards, given how high density the Upper West Side is.