Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[R10 2952]

Backtracking to/from 71st and 63rd was something me and several people I knew used to do back in the day, basically to avoid all the hassle at Roosevelt- only ever used that station to transfer to/from the .

Perhaps the Flushing and Queens Blvd lines are just victims of their own success; sometimes I wonder how things would've turned out if the lines had been routed a bit differently- like if the Flushing el had stayed on Roosevelt/Greenpoint to Hunters Point, and if the Queens Blvd line actually stayed on Queens Blvd and Thomson Ave all the way to Court Sq....  Wishful thinking at this point, but food for thought nonetheless.

[bobtehpanda]

7 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Backtracking to/from 71st and 63rd was something me and several people I knew used to do back in the day, basically to avoid all the hassle at Roosevelt- only ever used that station to transfer to/from the .

Perhaps the Flushing and Queens Blvd lines are just victims of their own success; sometimes I wonder how things would've turned out if the lines had been routed a bit differently- like if the Flushing el had stayed on Roosevelt/Greenpoint to Hunters Point, and if the Queens Blvd line actually stayed on Queens Blvd and Thomson Ave all the way to Court Sq....  Wishful thinking at this point, but food for thought nonetheless.

To be real honest here, there are lots of diverging points here that could've made today's situation better; imagine if the Flushing Line had been built with 4 tracks, if 53rd had been built with 4 tracks, if we had made the Flushing Line BMT and the Astoria IRT, etc.

We actually had an opportunity to fix this much more recently though. The 63rd St tunnel probably shouldn't have been on 63rd St; it should've been on 57th and hooked up to QBL at Queens Plaza. That would have eliminated the backtracking problem all on its own.

Edited April 4, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[R10 2952]

10 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be real honest here, there are lots of diverging points here that could've made today's situation better; imagine if the Flushing Line had been built with 4 tracks, if 53rd had been built with 4 tracks, if we had made the Flushing Line BMT and the Astoria IRT, etc.

We actually had an opportunity to fix this much more recently though. The 63rd St tunnel probably shouldn't have been on 63rd St; it should've been on 57th and hooked up to QBL at Queens Plaza. That would have eliminated the backtracking problem all on its own.

Agreed.  63rd was the tunnel to nowhere for many years with a pretty useless terminal at 21st, and even when they did finally connect to 36th, I don't know if 21st was ever considered as a good alternative to Queens Plaza by most passengers- I tried it once years ago and it just wasn't convenient.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

We actually had an opportunity to fix this much more recently though. The 63rd St tunnel probably shouldn't have been on 63rd St; it should've been on 57th and hooked up to QBL at Queens Plaza. That would have eliminated the backtracking problem all on its own.

That would've put it directly under a hospital (now Cornell Tech). At least the existing alignment allows for a half-decent subway station for the island.

[bobtehpanda]

19 minutes ago, Lex said:

That would've put it directly under a hospital (now Cornell Tech). At least the existing alignment allows for a half-decent subway station for the island.

Hospitals coexist with rail tunnels all over the world, who gives a shit? Hospitals need transit service too, since they're generally major employers.

Edited April 4, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[Theli11]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be real honest here, there are lots of diverging points here that could've made today's situation better; imagine if the Flushing Line had been built with 4 tracks, if 53rd had been built with 4 tracks, if we had made the Flushing Line BMT and the Astoria IRT, etc.

We actually had an opportunity to fix this much more recently though. The 63rd St tunnel probably shouldn't have been on 63rd St; it should've been on 57th and hooked up to QBL at Queens Plaza. That would have eliminated the backtracking problem all on its own.

it would be an investment to connect a line across 57 St, to the Queen Bypass, stoping at Queens Plaza/Queensboro Plaza (a new transfer). [Perhaps the  train that someone else proposed earlier.

 

[bobtehpanda]

7 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

it would be an investment to connect a line across 57 St, to the Queen Bypass, stoping at Queens Plaza/Queensboro Plaza (a new transfer). [Perhaps the  train that someone else proposed earlier.

 

It would've been no more of an investment than building the line from 63 St to 21 St Queensbridge and connecting to the Queens Blvd Line at 36 St. It would've been more useful and wasted less money, since the total amount of new tunnel would've actually been smaller.

[LGA Link N Train]

11 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

[Perhaps the  train that someone else proposed earlier

It was I who proposed sending the  up 10th Avenue and 57th Street to Queens Plaza, and then I had it go Local to Forest Hills with a Jewel Avenue Branch, booting the  and  to the bypass while the  would have 8th-53rd-QB Express to itself.

Edited April 4, 2020 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[Lex]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Hospitals coexist with rail tunnels all over the world, who gives a shit? Hospitals need transit service too, since they're generally major employers.

With the tunnels running directly underneath?

[Caelestor]

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

It seems I'm fighting a losing battle here on convincing folks that interlining 36 St is a bad idea, but I'll make one last pass at it. 

As a data scientist, you've convinced me against interlining 36 St. I was surprised to see that officially, the  is only 3 minutes faster than the at rush hour, so increasing service and reducing delays along 8 Ave / 53 St should theoretically keep riders' total travel time unchanged.

That said, I think sending all express trains via 63 St won't really shift ridership from QBL express to local that much, since many riders will just stay on the 6 Ave / 63 St trains (and Broadway via the transfer at Lex Ave / 63 St) because the line is already in walking distance of the 8 Ave / 53 St trains. I could also see transfer volumes at Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave increasing even more as  riders switch over to the  for Court Sq and Lex Ave / 53 St, so Woodhaven Blvd should be converted to an express stop.

On that note, the only way to truly solve QBL's overcrowding is to build another line. The 63 St to QBL merge has always been very inefficient since it was never supposed to happen. The  needs to be taken off QBL and put on the bypass line. With less tunneling and fewer stations (Northern Blvd / Sunnyside, Woodside, 51 Ave,  Woodhaven Blvd, Forest Hills lower-level), the QBL bypass is the most cost-efficient subway expansion in Queens and should be built after modified SAS phase 3 is complete.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Lex said:

With the tunnels running directly underneath?

This is a distinction without a difference.

In Tokyo literally search the word "hospital" and you immediately pull up dozens with rail lines adjacent, underneath, at the front door, etc.

In any case, I don't know how much of a concern there would even be:

• Goldwater Hospital's description as a "hospital" is a little generous - it was mostly a nursing and chronic care facility. It wouldn't have surgeries, MRIs, or anything else that would be significantly affected by vibration or EM interference.
• The 63 St line and a 57 St line would have similar construction methods. One notable thing about Roosevelt Island station is that it is extremely deep, since on either side there is a river crossing that has to stay navigable. It is 100 feet deep, and at that depth it is well within the bedrock, not really affecting things above it.

[LGA Link N Train]

46 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

On that note, the only way to truly solve QBL's overcrowding is to build another line. The 63 St to QBL merge has always been very inefficient since it was never supposed to happen. The  needs to be taken off QBL and put on the bypass line. With less tunneling and fewer stations (Northern Blvd / Sunnyside, Woodside, 51 Ave,  Woodhaven Blvd, Forest Hills lower-level), the QBL bypass is the most cost-efficient subway expansion in Queens and should be built after modified SAS phase 3 is complete.

If that's the case, couldn't we do a Queens Bypass without adding SAS into the mix? The following arrangement with our current system would be the following:

All Service can be booted to the Queens Bypass and continue Local to 179th at 18 or 20 TPH. 

Service can be bumped to 63rd Street and serve QB Local from there at 8 TPH, this would enforce a merge between the and , but this should have Minimal Impact. 

Service can remain the same with 10 TPH, until a 57th Street Line or some new Queens-Manhattan Link is built. 

Service (assuming you de-interline CPW with the EXP-LCL Arrangement) can be doubled to run 30 TPH, becoming a pure Express Service with branches at Jamaica-179th (18 TPH) and Jamaica Center (12 TPH). I think this arrangement for the would better warrant a Hillside Extension to Queens Village.

As for Bypass Stops, I'd do it a little bit different from your arrangement, I'd personally choose Sunnyside to be my first stop as part of the plan that the City and Amtrak have planned, then Woodside for the connection with the . (I'm unsure on how there would even be space, or if space can even be made to accommodate a stop at Woodside). Rego Park (near Woodhaven Blvd). Last but not least, Forest Hills with a new lower level. I think that's 3 new stops total with 1 Station Expansion. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 4/3/2020 at 12:20 AM, mrsman said:

Just to clarify, are you proposing the following:

 Forest Hills - QBL local -53 - 8 Ave express - Fulton local to Euclid

 Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53 - 8 Ave express - Fulton express to Lefferts or Rockaways

 168th St-  CPW local - 8 Ave local - WTC

 207/Inwood - CPW express - 6 Ave express

 Concourse (all stops) - CPW express - 6 Ave express

 Concourse express - CPW express - 6 Ave express

 179th - QBL express - 63 - 6 Ave local - Culver line

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 63 - 6 Ave local - Willy Br - Myrtle Ave

 

This seems to work, so long as  has enough capacity to be the sole line to service the CPW local and that 6 Ave express would have to be divided into three services to service  and  .  [It should, especially considering that the CPW locals are not as crowded as  since CPW runs alongside the park.  Plus, I have nothing against splitting the express 3 ways as I have a proposal out there to split the QBL express three ways to equally serve Jamaica Center, 179 locals, and 179 express.]

I understand the difficulties of deinterling QBL, so that all stations would have access to both 8th Ave and 6th Ave service, but I'm concerned that without deinterlining there won't be enough capacity to handle the demand of QBL.  QBL is really a tough call, but I concede that even without deinterlining, QBL service is bound to improve by divorcing QBL from the Broadway BMT.

 

Pretty much, this is the service plan I was thinking of, though I’d extend the  to 207 overnight to replace the . The  would, in essence, be an offshoot of the , same as the  and  are of their parent services. But it would run in both directions, so that it can provide peak direction express service both on Concourse and West End (since peak is the opposite direction on West End from Concourse).

20 hours ago, RR503 said:

This effectively limits 8th local and 6th local to a _combined_ 30tph. Have the decency to give the  its own trunk!

It seems I'm fighting a losing battle here on convincing folks that interlining 36 St is a bad idea, but I'll make one last pass at it. 

As I mentioned upthread, 59 St -- whose merge configuration is exactly the same as 36 -- is a bad merge. It is, in fact, a _very_ bad merge. It causes a massive amount of runtime variability on the routes that pass through it, and is in fact so limiting of B division performance that the entire division is scheduled backwards from it. 

 

 

The merge performs badly not because it's cursed with slow switch speeds or poor signalling, but because of its design and its position on the routes that transit it. 59 St is what I like to call a 'conflicting merge,' where a merge delay can ripple backwards through the pipeline and cause a delay on a different service (think: ). Here, this effect is especially pernicious because a  delaying a  or vice versa can further complicate things by messing up the merge of the second service -- if a  is delayed by an  and delays a  behind it, that  may end up delaying (or being delayed by) a . Worsening its impact is the fact that it's positioned immediately before a high-dwell station, meaning delays from a merge get followed by a nice dose of NYCT close-in fixed block ops, which are...bad. Finally, the merge in both the north and southbound directions is downstream of at least one other merge, making consistent operation through it that much more difficult. 

36 St would be all of this, but worse. While there isn't a high dwell station to aggravate things, switches at 36 are slower and train volume is higher. With _current_ throughputs (before you up service levels, which sorta is the whole point of this exercise) Jackson Heights (closest measure point with all services passing through) sees 4tph more trains (in both peaks) than 59 St does in the AM. 

 

Given that merge delays are proportional to throughput (see chart below of  runtimes through a day), you've got a problem. I am _extremely_ skeptical that you'd be able to hold the PM peak railroad together through 36 St, what with the lines having passed through merges and a bunch of high-dwell Midtown stops on their routes to 36. I think as throughputs went towards 50 or 60tph, you'd end up with trains stacking up through 63 St and into Queens Plaza, which really just...isn't a way to run the trains.

 

 

This operational logic alone should be enough to convince folks that this may not be the wisest of ideas. In case you don't feel this way, let's talk about O/D. Sure, QB local loses direct 6th local access, and QB express gets cut off from 53/8. But express riders can easily transfer at Jackson Heights to recapture that O/D, and local riders can get the  at 7-53 for 6th; neither of those losses should be dealbreakers. The O/D argument that _should_ give pause is that interlined 36 St would mean there is zero incentive to stay on the local past Roosevelt (or Woodhaven, if that gets built out). On the ? Take the . On the ? Take the . That would likely make the Queens Boulevard dwell time issue -- which already produces peak hour runtime increases as pronounced as this:

 

...to say nothing of the fact that it'd further reduce the efficiency of the Queens subway network by reducing loads on the one part of said network that has significant room for growth: QB local. 

I really don't suggest this course of action. 

I get it. Believe me, I do. I don’t like the 36th St merge either. There’s already delays at 36th with the current service, and we can’t blame it on the  because that service straight-rails through that junction. But it’s a merge the MTA stuck the line with back in the 1990s when they made the decision to connect the 63rd St tunnel into the QB line in between 36th St and Queens Plaza. It was either connect to QBL or keep 63rd as “the subway to nowhere,” and continuing to terminate it at 21st St-Queensbridge. They weren’t interested in doing the bypass line and, like you said, there is untapped capacity on the local tracks that can be harnessed before building parallel bypass tracks. It would have been far better to have  been able to make the connection south of Queens Plaza. But given how far north of QP, the 21st St station was, they couldn’t connect it south of QP, so they connected it north. And 36th St wasn’t designed to be easily converted to an express station, so this is what we’re working with. At least CPW doesn’t have an express diverging between 72nd and 59th, so there’s less of a problem if CPW is deinterlined.

[Union Tpke]

21 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yeah, of course they don’t want to. But we aren’t getting new Manhattan<>Queens tunnels anytime soon, and the only way you can extract more capacity from Queens boulevard is by getting more people to ride locals west of Roosevelt, sooooo...

As anyone who rides QB can tell you, the incentives to stay on the local today are mighty weak. Ever been to Roosevelt during the AM rush? Wall of lining the express, that grows whenever a local pulls in.

@RR503 The only reason I would ever ride QB local is if my feet hurt a lot and I am exhausted, and even then, I am party to taking the  or bailing for the express at Queens Plaza or Roosevelt. We really need to market deinterlining in Queens as adding a whole new tunnel's worth of capacity for only modifying service patterns with minor capital investments. We could compare the cost of building new tunnels vs. Lex 59/63 transfer + Astoria improvements + M to 10 car, and there is no contest.

[mrsman]

52 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 The only reason I would ever ride QB local is if my feet hurt a lot and I am exhausted, and even then, I am party to taking the  or bailing for the express at Queens Plaza or Roosevelt. We really need to market deinterlining in Queens as adding a whole new tunnel's worth of capacity for only modifying service patterns with minor capital investments. We could compare the cost of building new tunnels vs. Lex 59/63 transfer + Astoria improvements + M to 10 car, and there is no contest.

Right.  This is so true.  This is the whole reason to advocate for deinterlining:  more trains, less crowding.  Can be done within budget constraints.  realistic.  Achievable in the short term.  fewer merging delays. fewer cascading delays. etc.

Basically, for the cost of possibly adding in one additional transfer in people's commutes or walking the extra distance of about an avenue we can achieve a significant service improvement.  Yes, fewer people will have one seat rides, but that's OK.

While I love people's extesion ideas that are posted here, I realize that most will not even be considered seriously by MTA for at least 30 years.  If we want improvements soon, we have to rearrange the existing service better.  Small improvements like adding switches and creating new transfers could make deinterlining really achievable.

 

[Jova42R]

If we're talking about improving transit on Roosevelt Island, I'd propose the following:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sUYGIUN8SSc9CVfU1tl88DeRU4mC9z8m&usp=sharing

An underground trolleybus line.

The line would be underground between 31 St and Roosevelt Island on the LGA Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the North Manhattan Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the South Manhattan Branch, and the entire Queens Plaza branch.

Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XT60 (would this warrant enough ridership for a 60' bus? Would it be better to have a XT40 or XT35?)

Ideally, 30 BPH on the core line, 15 BPH on each branch.

The service patterns would be:

• 79 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - QUEENS PLAZA
• 34 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - LGA

Long Island City and Octagon would be transfer points with island platforms.

Thoughts @Union Tpke @Caelestor @Lex @LaGuardia Link N Tra?

 

[Union Tpke]

29 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

If we're talking about improving transit on Roosevelt Island, I'd propose the following:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sUYGIUN8SSc9CVfU1tl88DeRU4mC9z8m&usp=sharing

An underground trolleybus line.

The line would be underground between 31 St and Roosevelt Island on the LGA Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the North Manhattan Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the South Manhattan Branch, and the entire Queens Plaza branch.

Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XT60 (would this warrant enough ridership for a 60' bus? Would it be better to have a XT40 or XT35?)

Ideally, 30 BPH on the core line, 15 BPH on each branch.

The service patterns would be:

• 79 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - QUEENS PLAZA
• 34 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - LGA

Long Island City and Octagon would be transfer points with island platforms.

Thoughts @Union Tpke @Caelestor @Lex @LaGuardia Link N Tra?

 

There is absolutely no need whatsoever to improve transit on Roosevelt Island. They have a subway station. The only improvement I can think of is additional entrance capacity to the subway station, but that is only a concern for events. We shouldn't be looking to solve problems that do not exist.

[Jova42R]

7 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

There is absolutely no need whatsoever to improve transit on Roosevelt Island. They have a subway station. The only improvement I can think of is additional entrance capacity to the subway station, but that is only a concern for events. We shouldn't be looking to solve problems that do not exist.

The walk from the Octagon to the  is almost 25 min. The walk from Southpoint Park to the  is 15 min at a brisk pace. Roosevelt Island NEEDS a cross-island BRT or subway, and this is the best option.

And the Q102 is NOT SUFFICIENT! It doesn't stop going towards Queens north of Motorgate, and going from Queens, it loops up to the Lighthouse. Also, it runs only every 20-30 mins. (Maybe a Q102 split could work WITH INCREASED SERVICE LEVELS, though - Maybe an extension to Manhattan?)

Edited April 5, 2020 by Jova42R

[Union Tpke]

25 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

The walk from the Octagon to the  is almost 25 min. The walk from Southpoint Park to the  is 15 min at a brisk pace. Roosevelt Island NEEDS a cross-island BRT or subway, and this is the best option.

And the Q102 is NOT SUFFICIENT! It doesn't stop going towards Queens north of Motorgate, and going from Queens, it loops up to the Lighthouse. Also, it runs only every 20-30 mins. (Maybe a Q102 split could work WITH INCREASED SERVICE LEVELS, though - Maybe an extension to Manhattan?)

There are other areas with much more pressing needs than Roosevelt Island. If you need to improve N-S transit, improve bus service.

[Jova42R]

Just now, Union Tpke said:

There are other areas with much more pressing needs than Roosevelt Island. If you need to improve N-S transit, improve bus service.

This is a bus...

[LGA Link N Train]

25 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

The walk from the Octagon to the  is almost 25 min. The walk from Southpoint Park to the  is 15 min at a brisk pace. Roosevelt Island NEEDS a cross-island BRT or subway, and this is the best option.

And the Q102 is NOT SUFFICIENT! It doesn't stop going towards Queens north of Motorgate, and going from Queens, it loops up to the Lighthouse. Also, it runs only every 20-30 mins. (Maybe a Q102 split could work WITH INCREASED SERVICE LEVELS, though - Maybe an extension to Manhattan?)

I mean.... If you wanted to improve Transit on Roosevelt Island, they have their own bus service. In addition, if you don’t think that the current bus routes are sufficient enough, why not work on a bus redesign as opposed to coming up with so many Light Rail and Streetcar lines? 

[Union Tpke]

Just now, Jova42R said:

This is a bus...

An underground one, which is ridiculous, since cars are restricted on the island.

[Around the Horn]

10 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

And the Q102 is NOT SUFFICIENT! It doesn't stop going towards Queens north of Motorgate, and going from Queens, it loops up to the Lighthouse. Also, it runs only every 20-30 mins. (Maybe a Q102 split could work WITH INCREASED SERVICE LEVELS, though - Maybe an extension to Manhattan?)

So improve the Q102 instead of waste billions of dollars on an underground bus line...

"Yes, everyone wants “creative” solutions in transit.  But too often, “I want a creative solution!” means “You need to change the facts of math and geometry to suit my interests!”

 

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

This is a bus...

My apologies for the double post but not EVERY area in the city needs rail service. 
 

... wait, I misunderstood, but still.

Edited April 5, 2020 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[Union Tpke]

Just now, Around the Horn said:

So improve the Q102 instead of waste billions of dollars on an underground bus line...

"Yes, everyone wants “creative” solutions in transit.  But too often, “I want a creative solution!” means “You need to change the facts of math and geometry to suit my interests!”

 

Yeah, to me, creative solutions and out of the box solutions are always gimmicks to bring attention to politicians (like Cuomo) to make them seem on top of things when what really needs to be done is to take off the shelf solutions (done in other transit systems, or in our own past) and put them in place. Not as sexy, but much more effective.