Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Around the Horn]

6 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

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.

I could write a whole essay on "innovation". The answer is simple: just run more buses with better stop spacing and dedicated lanes

[Caelestor]

21 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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. 

So QBL bypass doesn't rely on SAS. I just think SAS should be built first, because it's guaranteed to be heavily ridden at all times of day. QBL bypass is mainly there to relieve peak-hour QBL crowds and it would have mediocre ridership during off-hours.

There shouldn't be any trains between 21 St - Queensbridge and 36 St; the purpose of the bypass is to deinterline everything and max the 53 St and 63 St tunnel capacity. So all 63 St trains run on the bypass to Forest Hills, and local to 179 St. All 53 St trains run QBL express between Queens Plaza and Jamaica Center or 179 St. The is re-extended to Forest Hills and the  can keep running via the 11 St cut, but the future of the QBL local is to run crosstown under 50 or 57 St.

I agree that the Sunnyside stop I suggested should be connected to Queens Plaza and the new LIRR station. Woodside should be an underground stop with an island platform, free transfer to the . There's a stop at 51 Ave for a future connection to the Triboro RX. Agreed on Woodhaven Blvd and Forest Hills.

[Deucey]

So is this Queens bypass envisioned to be a two-track line with stop-spacing like WMATA or most other transit systems; a three-track with a directional express service with normal NYC stop spacing, or a full four-track local/express with normal NYC stop spacing?

Because induced demand applies to most rail lines built in cities with housing shortages too - build it, make it useful, and density along the route increases ridership.

So we’ll be back at this ~10-15 years after construction completes. Question is how do you build it so it takes 30-40 years to have crush load conditions or to manage demand?

[bobtehpanda]

47 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

So QBL bypass doesn't rely on SAS. I just think SAS should be built first, because it's guaranteed to be heavily ridden at all times of day. QBL bypass is mainly there to relieve peak-hour QBL crowds and it would have mediocre ridership during off-hours.

There shouldn't be any trains between 21 St - Queensbridge and 36 St; the purpose of the bypass is to deinterline everything and max the 53 St and 63 St tunnel capacity. So all 63 St trains run on the bypass to Forest Hills, and local to 179 St. All 53 St trains run QBL express between Queens Plaza and Jamaica Center or 179 St. The is re-extended to Forest Hills and the  can keep running via the 11 St cut, but the future of the QBL local is to run crosstown under 50 or 57 St.

I agree that the Sunnyside stop I suggested should be connected to Queens Plaza and the new LIRR station. Woodside should be an underground stop with an island platform, free transfer to the . There's a stop at 51 Ave for a future connection to the Triboro RX. Agreed on Woodhaven Blvd and Forest Hills.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of a two-track subway bypass, because you need a full two new tracks from LIC to Rego Park at least, and a tunnel connection underneath the QBL. 

My C Division idea involves possibly more track construction (from Woodside to Floral Park alongside the LIRR), but most of this would be in less dense areas with lower overall property values. And it would provide a lot more capacity, given that LIRR-sized trains are a lot bigger than a subway train (600 ft vs 1020 ft).

9 minutes ago, Deucey said:

So is this Queens bypass envisioned to be a two-track line with stop-spacing like WMATA or most other transit systems; a three-track with a directional express service with normal NYC stop spacing, or a full four-track local/express with normal NYC stop spacing?

Because induced demand applies to most rail lines built in cities with housing shortages too - build it, make it useful, and density along the route increases ridership.

So we’ll be back at this ~10-15 years after construction completes. Question is how do you build it so it takes 30-40 years to have crush load conditions or to manage demand?

The plans for a QB bypass I've seen have always involved a two-track line, with stop spacing similar to the express line on QBL or even farther apart. (Personally, I think at least three intermediate stops should exist; Queens Plaza, Woodside, and Rego Park (to intercept Woodhaven bus riders).

You can't outrun induced demand, no city has ever managed that. 

[Jova42R]

@LaGuardia Link N Tra I made a map of QBL and Bypass with Northern and Jewel extensions:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eynA2rbdA60DFYg5Ieo_1K8CRx-eAFVM&usp=sharing

The service patterns would be:

•  CANARSIE- 14 ST - 10 AV - 57 ST - BYPASS - JEWEL
•  WTC - 8 AV - 53 ST - QBL EXP - JAMAICA
•  CONEY ISLAND - CULVER - 6 AV - 63 ST - QBL EXP - JAMAICA
•  METROPOLITAN - MYRTLE - 6 AV - 53 ST - QBL LCL - NORTHERN
•  CONEY ISLAND - SEA BEACH - 4 AV - BWAY - 60 ST - QBL LCL - FOREST HILLS

TPH would be:

•  30TPH RUSH 15TPH NON-RUSH
•  15TPH RUSH 10TPH NON-RUSH
•  15TPH RUSH 10TPH NON-RUSH
•  10TPH ALL TIMES
•  20TPH RUSH 10TPH NON-RUSH

Overnight, the service patterns would be:

•  SAME AS DAYTIME
•  LOCAL ON QBL
•  SAME AS DAYTIME
•  MYRTLE SHUTTLE
•  RUNS TO ASTORIA
•  QUEENS PLAZA TO FLUSHING

On weekends:

•  SAME AS WEEKDAY
•  SAME AS WEEKDAY
•  SAME AS WEEKDAY
•  96TH TO METROPOLITAN
•  SAME AS WEEKDAY
•  QUEENS PLAZA TO FLUSHING

Thoughts @Union Tpke @mrsman @Around the Horn?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

14 hours 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.

 to 10-car is a must if you run the  local and the  express on QB. It’s not if you run the  local and the  express. Though it’s certainly cheaper than a new tunnel.

13 hours ago, mrsman said:

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.

 

We’ll be lucky to get 10-car  platforms between Essex and Metro within the next 30 years, after what we’ve been going through within the last 30 days. This is why I raise concerns over making only 8th Ave services as the QB local and 6th Ave services as the only expresses. Reverse that and I think it would still work.

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

 CANARSIE- 14 ST - 10 AV - 57 ST - BYPASS - JEWEL

This one is.. fine I guess, assuming it goes through Forest Hills onto Jewel Avenue, or merging in QBL.

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

•  WTC - 8 AV - 53 ST - QBL EXP - JAMAICA
•  CONEY ISLAND - CULVER - 6 AV - 63 ST - QBL EXP - JAMAICA
•  METROPOLITAN - MYRTLE - 6 AV - 53 ST - QBL LCL - NORTHERN
•  CONEY ISLAND - SEA BEACH - 4 AV - BWAY - 60 ST - QBL LCL - FOREST HILLS

QBL would pretty much feel like the same route, except the fact that  trains is off the line. You still have Broadway Services on QBL, and it still does no good because 60th St is the same. You still improved Forest Hills, but now people on local trains (if they are [still] on the train after Roosevelt Av) have to transfer at Queens Plaza, for service. And vice versa for QBL local service past Northern Blvd. If we want Northern Blvd Service, we should use trains from Court Sq, onto Northern Blvd, stopping at Broadway - Northern Blvd, and going up the route that you had on the map. But with your plan you're not doing much but makig an 8-car train go somewhere, where people would most likely flock to as an alternative to the  .

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Overnight, the service patterns would be:

On weekends:

•  96TH TO METROPOLITAN
•  QUEENS PLAZA TO FLUSHING

You should just run the to Flushing, under this plan I think an train wouldn't even be able to terminate at Queens Plaza, and any other place would be too far, because the only other feasible nearby terminal would be.. the , and that would be hard trying to terminate a and train there, so you might as well just merge them, instead of having the  train go to 96 St, because by the time this happens, trains to 96 St wouldn't be happening as much or at all anymore.

 

 

[Jova42R]

9 hours ago, Theli11 said:

This one is.. fine I guess, assuming it goes through Forest Hills onto Jewel Avenue, or merging in QBL.

QBL would pretty much feel like the same route, except the fact that  trains is off the line. You still have Broadway Services on QBL, and it still does no good because 60th St is the same. You still improved Forest Hills, but now people on local trains (if they are [still] on the train after Roosevelt Av) have to transfer at Queens Plaza, for service. And vice versa for QBL local service past Northern Blvd. If we want Northern Blvd Service, we should use trains from Court Sq, onto Northern Blvd, stopping at Broadway - Northern Blvd, and going up the route that you had on the map. But with your plan you're not doing much but makig an 8-car train go somewhere, where people would most likely flock to as an alternative to the  .

You should just run the to Flushing, under this plan I think an train wouldn't even be able to terminate at Queens Plaza, and any other place would be too far, because the only other feasible nearby terminal would be.. the , and that would be hard trying to terminate a and train there, so you might as well just merge them, instead of having the  train go to 96 St, because by the time this happens, trains to 96 St wouldn't be happening as much or at all anymore.

 

 

I meant to have the  via Bypass, the  to Flushing, and the  to Forest Hills. Possibly a new switch could be built for the  to run on the existing express tracks via Northern, which would allow for a SAS service on QBL local:

•  CHURCH - CULVER - CROSSTOWN - QBL LCL - FOREST HILLS
•  METROPOLITAN - MYRTLE - 6 AV - 53 ST -  NORTHERN - FLUSHING
•  CONEY ISLAND - SEA BEACH - 4 AV - BWAY - 60 ST - BYPASS - FOREST HILLS
•  CANARSIE- 14 ST - 10 AV - 57 ST - BYPASS - JEWEL
•  WTC - 8 AV - 53 ST - QBL EXP - JAMAICA
•  CONEY ISLAND - CULVER - 6 AV - 63 ST - QBL EXP - JAMAICA
•  HANOVER - 2 AV - 57 ST - QBL LCL - FOREST HILLS

So, QBL would be:

•  EXPRESS
•  LOCAL

Bypass:

•  LOCAL

Northern:

•  LOCAL

Jewel:

•  LOCAL

 

Is this Better?

 

[EvilMonologue]

There's really a couple conversations going on at once here huh

[LGA Link N Train]

21 minutes ago, EvilMonologue said:

There's really a couple conversations going on at once here huh

I don’t even know to be honest.

[Jova42R]

Here's a new Roosevelt Island map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eGpllsmIuNCUPr9dvW08bN1PqVuZzkv3&usp=sharing

Runs CAF Urbos 3, as there are no catenaries on the island or the QB Bridge

Service patterns:

• FLUSHING - NORTHERN - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - 78 ST BRIDGE* - YORK - 57TH - COLUMBUS CIRCLE
• FLUSHING - NORTHERN - QB BRIDGE** - 57TH - COLUMBUS CIRCLE
• ROOSEVELT ISLAND - 78 ST BRIDGE* - 79TH - PARK AV - 96TH - BROADWAY
• ROOSEVELT ISLAND - 78 ST BRIDGE* - 79TH - RIVERSIDE

*new tram and road bridge between UES and Roosevelt Island

**Outer Roadway EB and Upper Roadway WB is converted to a tramway, no catenary

Click on the lines in map for TPH information

Thoughts @Union Tpke @Theli11 @Collin @Caelestor @LaGuardia Link N Tra @EvilMonologue?

Edited April 6, 2020 by Jova42R

[Union Tpke]

46 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Here's a new Roosevelt Island map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eGpllsmIuNCUPr9dvW08bN1PqVuZzkv3&usp=sharing

Runs CAF Urbos 3, as there are no catenaries on the island or the QB Bridge

Service patterns:

• FLUSHING - NORTHERN - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - 78 ST BRIDGE* - YORK - 57TH - COLUMBUS CIRCLE
• FLUSHING - NORTHERN - QB BRIDGE** - 57TH - COLUMBUS CIRCLE
• ROOSEVELT ISLAND - 78 ST BRIDGE* - 79TH - PARK AV - 96TH - BROADWAY
• ROOSEVELT ISLAND - 78 ST BRIDGE* - 79TH - RIVERSIDE

*new tram and road bridge between UES and Roosevelt Island

**Outer Roadway EB and Upper Roadway WB is converted to a tramway, no catenary

Click on the lines in map for TPH information

Thoughts @Union Tpke @Theli11 @Collin @Caelestor @LaGuardia Link N Tra @EvilMonologue?

A new bridge is not needed from Roosevelt Island. You have the  and the Tram. Also, think about where you would put the bridge. The main problem is how are you going to have enough space to make the approach long enough to be high enough for boats to pass under? You are going to have to take the entire island up and destroy a lot of expensive property on the Upper East Side, and will likely require a complete reconfiguration of the FDR Drive. Please, I am begging you, think through what you are proposing if you want your ideas to be taken seriously.

[Jova42R]

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

A new bridge is not needed from Roosevelt Island. You have the  and the Tram. Also, think about where you would put the bridge. The main problem is how are you going to have enough space to make the approach long enough to be high enough for boats to pass under? You are going to have to take the entire island up and destroy a lot of expensive property on the Upper East Side, and will likely require a complete reconfiguration of the FDR Drive. Please, I am begging you, think through what you are proposing if you want your ideas to be taken seriously.

It would be a moveable bridge. And, as I said before, THE  DOES NOT SERVE NORTHERN ROOSEVELT ISLAND!!!!!! This would provide much needed transit relief to the northernmost part of the island, and provide better North Queens service

[bobtehpanda]

5 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

It would be a moveable bridge. And, as I said before, THE  DOES NOT SERVE NORTHERN ROOSEVELT ISLAND!!!!!! This would provide much needed transit relief to the northernmost part of the island, and provide better North Queens service

Oh boo hoo someone has to walk 15-20 minutes or spend five minutes on a free bus to get to the subway.

Roosevelt Island is very well served compared to lots of the city.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

There's really a couple conversations going on at once here huh

One person having a conversation with themselves and everyone else.

[Theli11]

2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

•  CHURCH - CULVER - CROSSTOWN - QBL LCL - FOREST HILLS

A to Forest Hills is usually bad, and won't get much ridership, it should just be a new route.

2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

•  CONEY ISLAND - SEA BEACH - 4 AV - BWAY - 60 ST - BYPASS - FOREST HILLS
•  CANARSIE- 14 ST - 10 AV - 57 ST - BYPASS - JEWEL

This one just completely messes up the train because you're running both and train on the same track, you could run either or train local/express, and make both trains go to Jewel Av instead of just the  . But at least give the some dignity and put it on a track by itself. It works best when it's self-contained, like the  . 

 

2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

•  HANOVER - 2 AV - 57 ST - QBL LCL - FOREST HILLS

I think now you've screwed up the and train service. 

With all of the ways to rearrange how you're rearranging service, I would do this:
 

• Church - Culver - Crosstown - Northern Blvd (after Queens Plaza) 
•  Canarsie - 14 St - 10 Av - 57 ST - Bypass Local - Jewel
• CI - Sea Beach - 4 Av - Broadway - 60 St -Bypass Express
•  Bay Ridge - 4 Av - Broadway - 60 St - Astoria - Ditmars Blvd
•  WTC - 8 Av - 53 St - QBL Local 
•  Same Route as Current Day
•  Metropolitan - Myrtle - Jamaica - 6 Av - 53 St - QBL Local
• train should go on the QBL Express via 63 St.

[Jova42R]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Oh boo hoo someone has to walk 15-20 minutes or spend five minutes on a free bus to get to the subway.

Roosevelt Island is very well served compared to lots of the city.

What about people going to Northern Manhattan (UWS, specifically)?

[Jova42R]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Here's a new Roosevelt Island map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eGpllsmIuNCUPr9dvW08bN1PqVuZzkv3&usp=sharing

Runs CAF Urbos 3, as there are no catenaries on the island or the QB Bridge

Service patterns:

• FLUSHING - NORTHERN - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - 78 ST BRIDGE* - YORK - 57TH - COLUMBUS CIRCLE
• FLUSHING - NORTHERN - QB BRIDGE** - 57TH - COLUMBUS CIRCLE
• ROOSEVELT ISLAND - 78 ST BRIDGE* - 79TH - PARK AV - 96TH - BROADWAY
• ROOSEVELT ISLAND - 78 ST BRIDGE* - 79TH - RIVERSIDE

*new tram and road bridge between UES and Roosevelt Island

**Outer Roadway EB and Upper Roadway WB is converted to a tramway, no catenary

Click on the lines in map for TPH information

Thoughts @Union Tpke @Theli11 @Collin @Caelestor @LaGuardia Link N Tra @EvilMonologue?

 

23 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

A new bridge is not needed from Roosevelt Island. You have the  and the Tram. Also, think about where you would put the bridge. The main problem is how are you going to have enough space to make the approach long enough to be high enough for boats to pass under? You are going to have to take the entire island up and destroy a lot of expensive property on the Upper East Side, and will likely require a complete reconfiguration of the FDR Drive. Please, I am begging you, think through what you are proposing if you want your ideas to be taken seriously.

I added stations to the map.

[P3F]

15 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

What about people going to Northern Manhattan (UWS, specifically)?

 to 47th & 50th Streets, then the uptown  to wherever is desired. Transfer from the  to the  at 59th Street if you need Broadway.

[Jova42R]

23 minutes ago, P3F said:

 to 47th & 50th Streets, then the uptown  to wherever is desired. Transfer from the  to the  at 59th Street if you need Broadway.

On weekends (or if you are going to Bway), that's a 3-train commute. This would be direct. 

[bobtehpanda]

44 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

What about people going to Northern Manhattan (UWS, specifically)?

Change to the at Rockefeller Center.

[bobtehpanda]

6 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

On weekends (or if you are going to Bway), that's a 3-train commute. This would be direct. 

A 3-train commute is the least of transit problems in this city that need to be solved, when there are lots of people with no subway access at all.

[Theli11]

8 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

It would be a moveable bridge. And, as I said before, THE  DOES NOT SERVE NORTHERN ROOSEVELT ISLAND!!!!!! This would provide much needed transit relief to the northernmost part of the island, and provide better North Queens service

Dude, there's buses that can serve Northern Roosevelt Island, 

 

2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

What about people going to Northern Manhattan (UWS, specifically)?

If they want to go to Northern Manhattan, they have the train that transfers to the trains at 47-50 St, to go to 59 St - Columbus Circle. By the time a moveable bridge is happening, there's already going to be a train going to 125 St, where they can transfer to 125th St buses. Just because there isn't a one seat ride going somewhere doesn't mean we have to force one. Either way, there's a lot of places that aren't served by trains that need to be. 

[Jova42R]

47 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

 

• Church - Culver - Crosstown - Northern Blvd (after Queens Plaza) 
•  Canarsie - 14 St - 10 Av - 57 ST - Bypass Local - Jewel
• CI - Sea Beach - 4 Av - Broadway - 60 St -Bypass Express
•  Bay Ridge - 4 Av - Broadway - 60 St - Astoria - Ditmars Blvd
•  WTC - 8 Av - 53 St - QBL Local 
•  Same Route as Current Day
•  Metropolitan - Myrtle - Jamaica - 6 Av - 53 St - QBL Local
• train should go on the QBL Express via 63 St.

• : Good!
• : Bypass is 2 tracks
• : Bypass is 2 tracks, terminates at Richmond Hill (see map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UQJMce8TJE5AynwKww5GWRL657_Fuspl&usp=sharing)
• : Good!
• : QBL express
• : Good!
• : Good!
• : Good, but QBL Local.

Thoughts?

[Jova42R]

@Theli11 @bobtehpanda @Union Tpke @P3F:

You are right. My Roosevelt Island proposals are crazy. It would better be served by a modified Q102, and a ferry service to E 90 St. Thank you for your opinions, though.