Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[LGA Link N Train]

57 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

That’s no big deal. Roosevelt Island on the Northern End isn’t even THAT dense to begin with. Again, if you want to improve service on Roosevelt Island, just enhance the bus service and do some Reroutes with Queens Bus service so that it can better serve the island and call it a day.

4 hours ago, Jova42R said:

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?

 

This alignment is okay (except for the and  alignments you got going here). If we’re talking about having a Northern Blvd Line, I would do it a little differently: 

 - Stays the same. 
 - QB Local
 - rerouted via 63rd Street

 via Northern Blvd; DeKalbilize 36th Street. 
- Bypass. No Jewel Avenue Line for now.
 

Alternative: 

 goes up Northern Blvd, while still securing a Right of Way to itself. And LIRR is enhanced to allow City-Zone Fares ($2.75), and later on handle “C Division” Standards. Which @bobtehpanda has mentioned. 
 

In both of these alignments:

 - SAS 

 - Astoria

SAS Phase 3 onwards is omitted completely. 

[Jova42R]

2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

That’s no big deal. Roosevelt Island on the Northern End isn’t even THAT dense to begin with. Again, if you want to improve service on Roosevelt Island, just enhance the bus service and do some Reroutes with Queens Bus service so that it can better serve the island and call it a day.

This alignment is okay (except for the and  alignments you got going here). If we’re talking about having a Northern Blvd Line, I would do it a little differently: 

 - Stays the same. 
 - QB Local
 - rerouted via 63rd Street

 via Northern Blvd; DeKalbilize 36th Street. 
- Bypass. No Jewel Avenue Line for now.
 

Alternative: 

 goes up Northern Blvd, while still securing a Right of Way to itself. And LIRR is enhanced to allow City-Zone Fares ($2.75), and later on handle “C Division” Standards. Which @bobtehpanda has mentioned. 
 

In both of these alignments:

 - SAS 

 - Astoria

SAS Phase 3 onwards is omitted completely. 

I have slightly edited this plan, see my most recent post. Could a subway on Northern's median work, or would that be LRT?

[Theli11]

10 hours ago, Jova42R said:

I have slightly edited this plan, see my most recent post. Could a subway on Northern's median work, or would that be LRT?

Subway.

[Jova42R]

7 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Subway.

I mean could an at-grade median subway work (a la CTA Blue Line)

Thoughts on the plan?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jova42R

[engineerboy6561]

12 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

I mean could an at-grade median subway work (a la CTA Blue Line)

Thoughts on the plan?

On Northern Blvd that would never work; you can do at-grade median heavy rail when the road you're taking the median of is already grade-separated (like a highway). The blocks on Northern Blvd are typically 250-300 feet long; L trains are 480' long. If the trains stop for traffic lights they'd be blocking the intersection behind them, and looking at how much traffic crosses Northern Blvd only letting some streets cross it is a bad idea (plus at grade third rail in the middle of a busy street is an accident waiting to happen). If you wanted to do that along Horace Harding heading east from Woodhaven Blvd that would make a lot more sense because then you could just put a center platform at each of the major cross streets and be fine. For Northern Blvd you want either at-grade LRT or subway (elevated subway would be possible, but the question becomes where you put the portals on either end and how you clear both the BQE and the Hell Gate tracks).

[Jova42R]

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

On Northern Blvd that would never work; you can do at-grade median heavy rail when the road you're taking the median of is already grade-separated (like a highway). The blocks on Northern Blvd are typically 250-300 feet long; L trains are 480' long. If the trains stop for traffic lights they'd be blocking the intersection behind them, and looking at how much traffic crosses Northern Blvd only letting some streets cross it is a bad idea (plus at grade third rail in the middle of a busy street is an accident waiting to happen). If you wanted to do that along Horace Harding heading east from Woodhaven Blvd that would make a lot more sense because then you could just put a center platform at each of the major cross streets and be fine. For Northern Blvd you want either at-grade LRT or subway (elevated subway would be possible, but the question becomes where you put the portals on either end and how you clear both the BQE and the Hell Gate tracks).

Ah ok. So maybe have Northern just be a tram with connections to 63rd (a la MUNI San Francisco):

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XYDafyiqwG22P3HyZMl-gLG2FB9_Kflv&usp=sharing

Notes:

• TPH
  • Flushing to 36th
    • Rush
      • 30TPH
    • Non-Rush/Weekends
      • 15TPH
    • Overnight
      • 10TPH
  • 36th to 57th (via 63rd)
    • Rush
      • 15TPH -  at 15TPH (with CBTC, 63rd can handle 30TPH, correct?)
    • Non-Rush/Weekends
      • 7.5TPH
    • Overnight
      • 5TPH
  • 36th to 59th (via Bridge)
    • Rush
      • 15TPH
    • Non-Rush/Weekends
      • 7.5TPH
    • Overnight
      • 5TPH
• Payment
  • $2.75, OMNY
• Fleet
  • Siemens S200, due to high-level platforms on 63rd. Select stations on Northern would have high-level platforms (Broadway, maybe 82nd, Junction, 108th, Citi Field, Flushing)

Thoughts @Union Tpke @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @LaGuardia Link N Tra @mrsman @engineerboy6561 @danig1220?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jova42R

[R32-DTrain]

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

Ah ok. So maybe have Northern just be a tram with connections to 63rd (a la MUNI San Francisco):

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XYDafyiqwG22P3HyZMl-gLG2FB9_Kflv&usp=sharing

Notes:

• TPH
  • Flushing to 36th
    • Rush
      • 30TPH
    • Non-Rush/Weekends
      • 15TPH
    • Overnight
      • 10TPH
  • 36th to 57th (via 63rd)
    • Rush
      • 15TPH -  at 15TPH (with CBTC, 63rd can handle 30TPH, correct?)
    • Non-Rush/Weekends
      • 7.5TPH
    • Overnight
      • 5TPH
  • 36th to 59th (via Bridge)
    • Rush
      • 15TPH
    • Non-Rush/Weekends
      • 7.5TPH
    • Overnight
      • 5TPH
• Payment
  • $2.75, OMNY
• Fleet
  • Siemens S200, due to high-level platforms on 63rd. Select stations on Northern would have high-level platforms (Broadway, maybe 82nd, Junction, 108th, Citi Field, Flushing)

Thoughts @Union Tpke @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @LaGuardia Link N Tra @mrsman @engineerboy6561 @danig1220?

This is a great idea, however are you sure a 15/15 split in 63rd is the best idea? Maybe a 12/18 split ( runs 18TPH). But, could the QB bridge handle 18TPH?

Also, there is NO WAY that you could have 82nd be high-level, assuming you are going off San Francisco. I've been there and 82nd would be way too small.

Maybe link this to a Whitestone or College Point Line (I think @LaGuardia Link N Tra proposed that) or a Fresh Meadows Line, but it's your proposal.

[engineerboy6561]

54 minutes ago, R32-DTrain said:

This is a great idea, however are you sure a 15/15 split in 63rd is the best idea? Maybe a 12/18 split ( runs 18TPH). But, could the QB bridge handle 18TPH?

Also, there is NO WAY that you could have 82nd be high-level, assuming you are going off San Francisco. I've been there and 82nd would be way too small.

Maybe link this to a Whitestone or College Point Line (I think @LaGuardia Link N Tra proposed that) or a Fresh Meadows Line, but it's your proposal.

This could actually work pretty well as a 12-18 split (although you'd need to add the extra tracks to make it work; your best solution would probably be running the tram tracks on the outside of the  tracks at Roosevelt Island and 21 St (the same way that the Philly tram tracks run on the outside of the MFL tracks) and then just convert the existing side platforms to island platforms so you have level boarding at the tunnels, and then drop the extra 20-30 feet to run under the  and  for 57 St and 63 St.

As far as Fresh Meadows and College Point are concerned, you'd need to tweak it a bit to make that work if you wanted it to still serve Flushing (which you probably do); you'd want to widen Seaver Way enough to give you a full two-tramlane median, make 38 Av tram-only, and then cross the river on a separate bridge, drop underground at 39 Av (with a passage connecting Main St station upper level on the  to the 39 Av/Main St station on the line). To serve College Point or Whitestone you'd need to either stay underground or make one of the small streets tram-only with no parking; there aren't really any roads approaching from the south that are wide enough to carry an at-grade tramway in the median. If you wanted to hit Fresh Meadows your best bet would be to get rid of parking on Union and tramify the Q46 (Q46 buses make all stops and retain their current terminal split, trams make all current Q46 limited stops to Springfield Blvd, then GCP, Winchester Blvd, Commonwealth Av, Little Neck Parkway, 260 St, 263 St, 270 St, Lakeville Rd, and then LIJ hospital), with the yard built right next to Jamaica Yard.

Edited April 7, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Jova42R]

27 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

This could actually work pretty well as a 12-18 split (although you'd need to add the extra tracks to make it work; your best solution would probably be running the tram tracks on the outside of the  tracks at Roosevelt Island and 21 St (the same way that the Philly tram tracks run on the outside of the MFL tracks) and then just convert the existing side platforms to island platforms so you have level boarding at the tunnels, and then drop the extra 20-30 feet to run under the  and  for 57 St and 63 St.

As far as Fresh Meadows and College Point are concerned, you'd need to tweak it a bit to make that work if you wanted it to still serve Flushing (which you probably do); you'd want to widen Seaver Way enough to give you a full two-tramlane median, make 38 Av tram-only, and then cross the river on a separate bridge, drop underground at 39 Av (with a passage connecting Main St station upper level on the  to the 39 Av/Main St station on the line). To serve College Point or Whitestone you'd need to either stay underground or make one of the small streets tram-only with no parking; there aren't really any roads approaching from the south that are wide enough to carry an at-grade tramway in the median. If you wanted to hit Fresh Meadows your best bet would be to get rid of parking on Union and tramify the Q46 (Q46 buses make all stops and retain their current terminal split, trams make all current Q46 limited stops to Springfield Blvd, then GCP, Winchester Blvd, Commonwealth Av, Little Neck Parkway, 260 St, 263 St, 270 St, Lakeville Rd, and then LIJ hospital), with the yard built right next to Jamaica Yard.

I was just about to respond to @R32-DTrain that a 12/18 split would work. I think that a College Point line is best as BRT, not LRT. Fresh Meadows should be its own line.

Thoughts on which stations should be high-level (or partial-high-level)?

Also, is the Siemens S200 the best LRV for this line?

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Didn't you propose something similar than this? Thoughts on this plan?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jova42R

[LGA Link N Train]

15 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Didn't you propose something similar than this?

I think I did some time ago with an SAS extension or something. It was a while ago. Here's the picture I took of it before I deleted the map I made:

https://twitter.com/LGALinkNeems5/status/1166409018262327296/photo/1

My opinions on the Implementation of a Northern Blvd Line and a Whitestone Line in general have changed since then. 

 

[Jova42R]

3 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I think I did some time ago with an SAS extension or something. It was a while ago. Here's the picture I took of it before I deleted the map I made:

https://twitter.com/LGALinkNeems5/status/1166409018262327296/photo/1

My opinions on the Implementation of a Northern Blvd Line and a Whitestone Line in general have changed since then. 

 

Do you think that my LRT plan could work (with merges to 63rd)

Also, one unrelated thing: what bus would serve Roosevelt Island in your Queens Bus Redesign?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jova42R

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

Do you think that my LRT plan could work (with merges to 63rd)

No. I don't think running a Tram with the subway would be a good idea, let alone building a Lower Level at 57th Street. 

 

[Jova42R]

2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

No. I don't think running a Tram with the subway would be a good idea, let alone building a Lower Level at 57th Street. 

 

Why not?

For 57th, I'd be open to making it a 3-track station, if there's room.

Is without 63rd (via QB Bridge) better ?(Is the whole idea of a Northern LRT good?)

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jova42R

[bobtehpanda]

4 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Why not?

For 57th, I'd be open to making it a 3-track station, if there's room.

Is without 63rd (via QB Bridge) better ?(Is the whole idea of a Northern LRT good?)

Northern should be a subway, not an LRT. LRTs are generally garbage in NY for anything that isn't a feeder or circumferential route.

There are a couple major differences between subway cars and LRT:

• Width; Most subway trains are wider than their LRT counterparts.
• Safety; They are built to different safety standards; most notably, an LRT is a road-worthy vehicle designed to withstand impacts with cars. Subways are not, because unless you're watching The Italian Job cars don't go in subway tunnels.
• Capacity; LRT, particularly street-running LRT, has practical limits on how long a train can be. A 600 foot LRT is very capable of blocking 2+ intersections at a time. Any shorter than that and you're wasting subway capacity.
• Reliability; We already have massive reliability issues with services merging in and out in the subway system. You want to add a line subject to traffic lights in the mix?

[Jova42R]

8 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Northern should be a subway, not an LRT. LRTs are generally garbage in NY for anything that isn't a feeder or circumferential route.

There are a couple major differences between subway cars and LRT:

• Width; Most subway trains are wider than their LRT counterparts.
• Safety; They are built to different safety standards; most notably, an LRT is a road-worthy vehicle designed to withstand impacts with cars. Subways are not, because unless you're watching The Italian Job cars don't go in subway tunnels.
• Capacity; LRT, particularly street-running LRT, has practical limits on how long a train can be. A 600 foot LRT is very capable of blocking 2+ intersections at a time. Any shorter than that and you're wasting subway capacity.
• Reliability; We already have massive reliability issues with services merging in and out in the subway system. You want to add a line subject to traffic lights in the mix?

Width: not all, the S200 has quite a bit of capacity

Safety: yes I know.

Capacity: a 400-ft-long LRT would only block 1 intersection. Cut some cross streets, and you're good.

Reliability: Ummmmmmmm, LRT priority lights? No traffic would be involved (this is a median-running one)

Also, COST! LRT is WAY CHEAPER than boring tunnels or building viaducts.

Here's my proposed layout for 57 St:

(purple is LRV, orange is , yellow is )

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jova42R

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

Width: not all, the S200 has quite a bit of capacity

Safety: yes I know.

Capacity: a 400-ft-long LRT would only block 1 intersection. Cut some cross streets, and you're good.

Reliability: Ummmmmmmm, LRT priority lights? No traffic would be involved (this is a median-running one)

Here's my proposed layout for 57 St:

(purple is LRV, orange is , yellow is )

 

That's not how the and tracks are aligned though......

Also, space is scare. Especially in Manhattan, so that middle track wouldn't be feasible either. If you wanted a Transit Line on Northern Blvd that merges with the , you're better off routing the or some SAS Line to do that. Even then, I don't think that Northen should merge with any existing lines, at the very LEAST, it could start off as a extension, forcing you to deinterline QBL. 

If you want LRT Lines. By no means is it necessary AT ALL for it to merge with a subway. Then again, the most realistic shot at a Streetcar level service in NYC so far is the BQX. Which has its many flaws.

[engineerboy6561]

34 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Northern should be a subway, not an LRT. LRTs are generally garbage in NY for anything that isn't a feeder or circumferential route.

There are a couple major differences between subway cars and LRT:

• Width; Most subway trains are wider than their LRT counterparts.
• Safety; They are built to different safety standards; most notably, an LRT is a road-worthy vehicle designed to withstand impacts with cars. Subways are not, because unless you're watching The Italian Job cars don't go in subway tunnels.
• Capacity; LRT, particularly street-running LRT, has practical limits on how long a train can be. A 600 foot LRT is very capable of blocking 2+ intersections at a time. Any shorter than that and you're wasting subway capacity.
• Reliability; We already have massive reliability issues with services merging in and out in the subway system. You want to add a line subject to traffic lights in the mix?

That's fair; my personal proposal would have been 2-4 subway tracks coming off SAS at 86 St/2 Av, going under the river, popping up out of a portal on the southern edge of Astoria Park, and then running elevated over GCP to LGA and then to Flushing (or possibly just over Astoria Blvd, with half the trains splitting off and serving LGA/College Point/Willets Pt Blvd and half taking Astoria Blvd to Northern Blvd and following Northern Blvd out to Bell Blvd. At that point you have the subway on Roosevelt and the subway on eastern Northern Bl/western Astoria Blvd; at that point you can run LRT from Flushing to Columbus Circle to fill in the gap via the bridge/medians and you'd probably come out OK in the end.

As far as co-running the LRT on  train tracks that's actually a pretty bad idea; the  needs all the capacity it can get to adequately serve Forest Hills and Jamaica, and adding that merge there (with a service that's subject to traffic lights no less) is going to create unpredictability that will probably cost the 1-3 tph. Taking core tph away from the  is just going to f**k up a bunch of things (especially since the  already has to merge with the  at QP and the  at 50 St; you may not be able to reallocate current 63 St tph to 53 St, which means taking tph away from the  is a bad idea. Also that three-track station now can only turn 9-10tph or less, and is likely to have long hang time navigating to the center track, since I don't think you'll have room for long tail tracks because you're almost on top of the 53 St corridor by the south end of 55 St.

Having a median-running LRT line running to Flushing via QBB and Northern with a grade-separated terminus in Flushing could actually work if you actually enforce the no standing rules at Columbus Circle and kept it median running for basically everything except a three-block terminal loop and the two blocks to get on and off the bridge, especially if you have Astoria Blvd/GCP trackage to the north that takes up a lot of the heavy loading to the north of the line.

Edited April 7, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Jova42R]

27 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

That's not how the and tracks are aligned though......

Also, space is scare. Especially in Manhattan, so that middle track wouldn't be feasible either. If you wanted a Transit Line on Northern Blvd that merges with the , you're better off routing the or some SAS Line to do that. Even then, I don't think that Northen should merge with any existing lines, at the very LEAST, it could start off as a extension, forcing you to deinterline QBL. 

If you want LRT Lines. By no means is it necessary AT ALL for it to merge with a subway. Then again, the most realistic shot at a Streetcar level service in NYC so far is the BQX. Which has its many flaws.

 

24 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That's fair; my personal proposal would have been 2-4 subway tracks coming off SAS at 86 St/2 Av, going under the river, popping up out of a portal on the southern edge of Astoria Park, and then running elevated over GCP to LGA and then to Flushing (or possibly just over Astoria Blvd, with half the trains splitting off and serving LGA/College Point/Willets Pt Blvd and half taking Astoria Blvd to Northern Blvd and following Northern Blvd out to Bell Blvd. At that point you have the subway on Roosevelt and the subway on eastern Northern Bl/western Astoria Blvd; at that point you can run LRT from Flushing to Columbus Circle to fill in the gap via the bridge/medians and you'd probably come out OK in the end.

As far as co-running the LRT on  train tracks that's actually a pretty bad idea; the  needs all the capacity it can get to adequately serve Forest Hills and Jamaica, and taking core tph away from the  is just going to f**k up a bunch of things (especially since the  already has to merge with the  at QP and the  at 50 St; you may not be able to reallocate current 63 St tph to 53 St, which means taking tph away from the  is a bad idea. Also that three-track station now can only turn 9-10tph or less; since I don't know if you'll have room for long tail tracks because you're almost on top of 47-50 Sts by the time you're at 57 St.

Having a median-running LRT line running to Flushing via QBB and Northern with a grade-separated terminus in Flushing could actually work if you actually enforce the no standing rules at Columbus Circle and kept it median running for basically everything except a three-block terminal loop and the two blocks to get on and off the bridge (especially if you have Astoria Blvd/GCP trackage to the north that takes up a lot of the heavy loading to the north of the line.

NEW PLAN:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XYDafyiqwG22P3HyZMl-gLG2FB9_Kflv&usp=sharing

No 63rd St. Here's the full type of ROW:

• Flushing to 114 St
  • dedicated ROW to Northern, median to Willets Point, then dedicated ROW to 114 St
• 114 St to Queens Plaza
  • median
• Along Queens Plaza
  • new bus/tram lane
• QB Bridge
  • Upper Level WB/Outer Level EB becomes tram lane
• Manhattan
  • street running to 1 Av, median of 57 St, street running on 5/6 Avs, median on 59 St, dedicated ROW on Columbus Circle.

Here's the Columbus Circle Terminal layout. Would platform 1 or 2 be better? and, would a diamond switch, loop, tail tracks, or a combination of those be best (Keep in mind - I want this to turn 20TPH MINIMUM)?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jova42R

[Theli11]

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

NEW PLAN:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XYDafyiqwG22P3HyZMl-gLG2FB9_Kflv&usp=sharing

No 63rd St. Here's the full type of ROW:

• Flushing to 114 St
  • dedicated ROW to Northern, median to Willets Point, then dedicated ROW to 114 St
• 114 St to Queens Plaza
  • median
• Along Queens Plaza
  • new bus/tram lane
• QB Bridge
  • Upper Level WB/Outer Level EB becomes tram lane
• Manhattan
  • street running to 1 Av, median of 57 St, street running on 5/6 Avs, median on 59 St, dedicated ROW on Columbus Circle.

Here's the Columbus Circle Terminal layout. Would platform 1 or 2 be better? and, would a diamond switch, loop, tail tracks, or a combination of those be best (Keep in mind - I want this to turn 20TPH MINIMUM)?

No, because you'd still have traffic messed up. 5th and 6th Avenues are already heavy with traffic, and placing a median on 59 or 57 St is a bad idea. Because you'd have buses messed up also. LRT shouldn't even be in Manhattan, especially midtown where damn near all trains run with exception of which all have transfer to another midtown train since the go into Manhattan, and the goes to Long Island City. So what's the point of this? With this plan alone, you've messed up Columbus Circle, i.e. 8th, Broadway, and 59th St. Not only that, you've messed up 5th and 6th Avenue, along with 57 St. because where would the space be? Manhattan doesn't need a LRT. 

[Jova42R]

7 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

No, because you'd still have traffic messed up. 5th and 6th Avenues are already heavy with traffic, and placing a median on 59 or 57 St is a bad idea. Because you'd have buses messed up also. LRT shouldn't even be in Manhattan, especially midtown where damn near all trains run with exception of which all have transfer to another midtown train since the go into Manhattan, and the goes to Long Island City. So what's the point of this? With this plan alone, you've messed up Columbus Circle, i.e. 8th, Broadway, and 59th St. Not only that, you've messed up 5th and 6th Avenue, along with 57 St. because where would the space be? Manhattan doesn't need a LRT. 

Ummmmm, this would cross the QB Bridge, and having a BRT has been proposed before. It'd only be on 5/6 for 2 blocks, and why is a median now a "bad" idea? It's a great idea! It's the closest thing you can get to a dedicated ROW in this packed city. As @engineerboy6561 @bobtehpanda @Union Tpke and @LaGuardia Link N Tra all said, you need to minimize street running. That's what I'm trying to do here without having to end it on the east side (which would mean riders would most likely transfer to the  in Queens, and it'd be empty after Queens Plaza.

Also, Columbus Circle is super wide. convert the inner (or outer) lane in to a tram lane, and voila, you have a terminal. What I was asking is is it better to have a 2-track terminal on 59th.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jova42R
typo

[Theli11]

4 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Ummmmm, this would cross the QB Bridge, and having a BRT has been proposed before. It'd only be on 5/6 for 2 blocks, and why is a median now a "bad" idea? It's a great idea! It's the closest thing you can get to a dedicated ROW in this packed city. As @engineerboy6561 @bobtehpanda @Union Tpke and @LaGuardia Link N Tra all said, you need to minimize street running. That's what I'm trying to do here without having to end it on the east side (which would mean riders would most likely transfer to the  in Queens, and it'd be empty after Queens Plaza.

Also, Columbus Circle is super wide. convert the inner (or outer) lane in to a tram lane, and voila, you have a terminal. What I was asking is is it better to have a 2-track terminal on 59th.

Allow me to clarify, riders from Queens Plaza/Long Island City have both  trains that go to 53 St - 7th Av, 5th Av, and Lexington Av. Riders also have the train at 57 St - 6th Av. They also have the   train to 59 St - Lexington, 60 St - 5th Av, and 57 St - 7th Av. There's no need for a tram to go to and from a place with existing ways to get both to and from said place. It's useless, and would still construct traffic on Columbus Circle, because putting it on the outer would restrict the lanes going to Columbus Circle, and going on the inner restricts lanes going within Columbus Circle. Trying to put a median on an already crowded street with a butt ton of traffic (like 5th and 6th) will most definitely not work, because now you've screwed over cars and buses that want to get to places along 5th and 6th Avenues. Columbus made be super wide, but 5th and 6th don't have that much space. You'd still be cutting off in between blocks like 58th St, from traiffic between 5th and 6th Avenues, which may not be a lot to you, but to people who regularly use those blocks to.. i don't know.. go to businesses, or home? You'd also be screwing them over. All because you're trying to create an unneeded alternative to a subway line that doesn't need it. A median on Northern Blvd is more favored because you're not obstructing traffic that isn't already there. Also, Northern Blvd is apart of a highway, And I don't even want a damn BRT to run over there, at least not above a subway running on Northern Blvd, because that's just an extra transportation service that could've just been a subway. 

[engineerboy6561]

50 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Ummmmm, this would cross the QB Bridge, and having a BRT has been proposed before. It'd only be on 5/6 for 2 blocks, and why is a median now a "bad" idea? It's a great idea! It's the closest thing you can get to a dedicated ROW in this packed city. As @engineerboy6561 @bobtehpanda @Union Tpke and @LaGuardia Link N Tra all said, you need to minimize street running. That's what I'm trying to do here without having to end it on the east side (which would mean riders would most likely transfer to the  in Queens, and it'd be empty after Queens Plaza.

Also, Columbus Circle is super wide. convert the inner (or outer) lane in to a tram lane, and voila, you have a terminal. What I was asking is is it better to have a 2-track terminal on 59th.

Columbus Circle isn't quite wide enough to do that; you'd be better off making your turning loop 57th St -> 8 Av -> 58 St -> Broadway and not really have much in the way of layover space there; you'd screw with 57 St to do that, and honestly the best way to get to the bridge would be to elevate the median between 3 Av and 2 Av, then running over 2 Av and dropping onto the center two lanes of the lower level of the QBB. That would wind up entailing a 3% grade, which might be a bit much, but would also avoid f**king over any of the avenues.

Edited April 7, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Northern should be a subway, not an LRT. LRTs are generally garbage in NY for anything that isn't a feeder or circumferential route.

There are a couple major differences between subway cars and LRT:

• Width; Most subway trains are wider than their LRT counterparts.
• Safety; They are built to different safety standards; most notably, an LRT is a road-worthy vehicle designed to withstand impacts with cars. Subways are not, because unless you're watching The Italian Job cars don't go in subway tunnels.
• Capacity; LRT, particularly street-running LRT, has practical limits on how long a train can be. A 600 foot LRT is very capable of blocking 2+ intersections at a time. Any shorter than that and you're wasting subway capacity.
• Reliability; We already have massive reliability issues with services merging in and out in the subway system. You want to add a line subject to traffic lights in the mix?

There’s always the Honolulu solution, although the cars would be as narrow as AirTrain or the DLR, and the viaduct would be as wide as a subway El - and since even with the median and the intersection design Northern Blvd isn’t wide enough to use a single central pylon to support three tracks, a subway would still be better.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Width: not all, the S200 has quite a bit of capacity

Safety: yes I know.

Capacity: a 400-ft-long LRT would only block 1 intersection. Cut some cross streets, and you're good.

Reliability: Ummmmmmmm, LRT priority lights? No traffic would be involved (this is a median-running one)

Also, COST! LRT is WAY CHEAPER than boring tunnels or building viaducts.

• Capacity has to do with width, yes, but the main concern is that a standard LRT car would not be able to fit on the same platforms as a subway car. It's the same reason why A Division cars do not run on the B Division in passenger service. The cars fit, but the platform gap is far too wide, which violates ADA and is also dangerous for regular people who can fall in the gap.
• You can't just ignore safety
• And a 400 ft-long subway train would be a capacity reduction on the subway, so why connect it to subway infrastructure where it takes up valuable space?
• Cars still cross median LRTs at cross-streets. Car crashes with median LRTs disrupting service are not uncommon. Traffic priority lights do not guarantee green lights.

Cheap comes at a cost. There is a wild difference between buying a Lexus and a beat-up Chevy from a used car lot.

Also, if all you're gonna do is stick your thumbs in your ear whenever someone provides criticism, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

Edited April 7, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[bobtehpanda]

Just now, Deucey said:

There’s always the Honolulu solution, although the cars would be as narrow as AirTrain or the DLR, and the viaduct would be as wide as a subway El - and since even with the median and the intersection design Northern Blvd isn’t wide enough to use a single central pylon to support three tracks, a subway would still be better.

Aside from Honolulu being totally unable to manage a rail construction project, I don't actually mind this, but I think it would be more appropriate on lines that were circumferential than radial since forcing transfers is always unpleasant.

You can technically build an automated metro of any size, so the width isn't a real issue.