Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Collin]

Subway systems in other cities don't cover the vast geographic area like in NYC, so they'd have less of a need for express service.  Like I said earlier, imagine Rockaway without full time express service on Fulton Street, or if there were no QBL express service.  I know the QBL has a problem with the overutilization of express trains and underutilization of local trains, but is the same thing true on Fulton, 4th Ave, or Eastern Parkway, the other outer borough 4 track lines that have full time express service? 

I think what causes the QBL problem is that the local stations with the highest ridership are in the 71st-Roosevelt group.  The Roosevelt-Queens Plaza group has lower ridership, so when you account for people moving over to the express at Roosevelt, people coming on at 65th Street, Northern Boulevard, 46th Street, Steinway Street, and 36th Street don't fully replace them, so when the trains go into Manhattan, the locals are not at capacity.

[bobtehpanda]

29 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I always figured it was because of the QBL effect - that express/local setups lead to underutilization of local trains and over utilization of Express trains outside CBDs.

There are two primary reasons why express/local is featured so heavily in NYC:

• Particularly in Manhattan, the core is very long and narrow. Spreading out pairs of tracks across each avenues wouldn't be very practical, because it'd basically guarantee that some lines would miss transfers with each other. Even with the current centralizing four-tracks approach you still have missed transfer opportunities (say, Broadway and 53rd)
• Subway station spacing is very tight, and keeps being tight even after you leave the city center. Expresses make up for this by not stopping as often. In most other cities, when you get out of the CBD stop-spacing becomes closer to a mile, rather than a half-mile, to split the difference.

9 minutes ago, Collin said:

Subway systems in other cities don't cover the vast geographic area like in NYC, so they'd have less of a need for express service.

This is such a typical example of New Yorkers having their head so far up their own asses. Beijing, Shanghai, Seoul, Tokyo, London, Paris, all have either populations and/or dense areas significantly larger than the five boroughs. Not a single one has built a four-track subway.

[Collin]

I don't get it.  Are you saying the way NYC built their system is worse than in other cities?  I don't agree with that at all.  I think the closer stop spacing is a good thing to an extent.  People don't have to walk as far to reach a station, and with the local/express option, you get the best of both worlds.  It can be a problem on certain lines without express service which is why I mentioned stop consolidation for the Jamaica Line. 

The prevalence of 3 and 4 track lines, and the interlined nature of the system also means that there is more redundancy to maintain service during construction and other disruptions.  If one track is down, trains are rerouted to another.  In a system with separate 2 track lines, there are no possible reroutes.  One issue shuts down the entire affected area.  That's what allows the system to operate 24/7 which is almost unheard of elsewhere.  In fact, the design of the system makes 24/7 operation easier and cheaper than closing it overnight.

The area served by the system (472 stations), and the higher capacity and flexibility achieved with 3 and 4 track lines are what I think makes the NYC Subway the best in the world, and no one else even comes close.  Are there issues with it?  Yes, and they need to be fixed, but that isn't changing my overall opinion.

[LGA Link N Train]

Hmm, the conversation is getting interesting so I’m going to jump in. 
 

To say that NYC hasn’t built a 4 Track Line in over 50 years because it’s too expensive, or the political environment thwarts any chances of building one is one thing. 

To say that NYC hasn’t built a 4 Track Line because nowhere else in the world has built one is like following some sort of follower attitude of like: “Oh, they [any other city] haven’t built a 4 Track line in 50 years/At all. Why should we?” 
 

While it is currently unrealistic to build any line with 4 Tracks at the moment, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t build any 4 track lines at all. I personally don’t agree with the idea of building a 4 Track line along Jamaica Avenue. If anything, the  should do what the IND did years back and build Phase 3 of SAS [and any other extension that could potentially be 4 tracks] in the same Manner that the IND built 6th Avenue. Start with 2 tracks and get the local stations out of the way, then come back and build the Express tracks later on. 

[CenSin]

18 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

in the same Manner that the IND built 6th Avenue. Start with 2 tracks and get the local stations out of the way, then come back and build the Express tracks later on.

Those express tracks were built at great expense because of the two-phased nature of the construction. Better to get it right the first time.

My street has had road construction going on for years. One day last year, they paved over the entire road and it looked brand new. Driving on it was no longer bumpy, and everyone on the street thought the work had finally wrapped up. Just last week, some construction guys came back and dug another pit, leaving an ugly scar right in the middle at the end of the day.

Judging by the cost of these projects, spreading work out over a long period of time is never a good solution. The answer for it—unlike COVID 19—is to sharpen the curve. Just blitz the shit and keep the bɪtʃɪŋ[IPA] down to years, not a decades spanning multiple administrations, armed conflicts, and civil wars (coming soon near you).

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by CenSin

[Collin]

To your point, a lot of that lies in the construction methods.  There's too much emphasis on eliminating community impact and not enough on getting it done fast.  Cut and cover construction is the best method.  Not only is it cheaper and faster to construct than deep bore tunnels, but it makes the stations a lot cheaper to construct.  The number of escalators and elevators needed for a deep station adds to the cost.  If the station is built closer to street level, there might only need to be stairs, plus some elevators for ADA compliance.  It's best to take the quick and dirty approach in terms of construction methods.  It'll be inconvenient for a couple years or so with the street dug up, but at least it won't cost billions per mile and take 10 years to build.

For Second Avenue specifically, Phases 3 and 4 need to go back to the drawing board.  It's not worth the cost of building the line if there will be no track connections to other parts of the system.  If it's super deep below existing stations, then the transfers will be very inconvenient.  Hopefully there's a silver lining in Phases 1 and 2 taking so long in that Phases 3 and 4 may get looked at again.

I think Phase 3 should be initially built as a 2 track line, with the inner tracks only.  If added, the express tracks would be the outer tracks.  55th Street would need to be a 4 track station with terminal capabilities.  There should be 2 services on the south portion of the line.  One would run from 125th Street, and the other would either start at 55th Street, or run on the QBL local tracks and 63rd Street Tunnel.  The bigger question is what happens with them on the other end.  One option is to connect with the Williamsburg Bridge so that one of the services can replace the in Brooklyn.  Then the  could be reinstated and run to Church Avenue, allowing for full time  express service.  The other service I think should terminate at Grand Street with layup tracks to the south until Phase 4 is built.  Once Phase 4 is built, it could either end at Hanover Square, run either through Montague and connect with the 4th Ave local, or a new tunnel connecting to IND Court Street (Transit Museum would need to be relocated).  Vanshnookenraggen has proposed having the 2nd Ave services replace the  over the Manhattan Bridge and having them go over the Williamsburg Bridge instead.  I don't think that's the best idea because it makes transfers to 2nd Ave from the Myrtle/Jamaica Lines impossible.

 

[JeremiahC99]

1 minute ago, Collin said:

For Second Avenue specifically, Phases 3 and 4 need to go back to the drawing board.  It's not worth the cost of building the line if there will be no track connections to other parts of the system.  If it's super deep below existing stations, then the transfers will be very inconvenient.  Hopefully there's a silver lining in Phases 1 and 2 taking so long in that Phases 3 and 4 may get looked at again.

I think Phase 3 should be initially built as a 2 track line, with the inner tracks only.  If added, the express tracks would be the outer tracks.  55th Street would need to be a 4 track station with terminal capabilities.  There should be 2 services on the south portion of the line.  One would run from 125th Street, and the other would either start at 55th Street, or run on the QBL local tracks and 63rd Street Tunnel.  The bigger question is what happens with them on the other end.  One option is to connect with the Williamsburg Bridge so that one of the services can replace the in Brooklyn.  Then the  could be reinstated and run to Church Avenue, allowing for full time  express service.  The other service I think should terminate at Grand Street with layup tracks to the south until Phase 4 is built.  Once Phase 4 is built, it could either end at Hanover Square, run either through Montague and connect with the 4th Ave local, or a new tunnel connecting to IND Court Street (Transit Museum would need to be relocated).  Vanshnookenraggen has proposed having the 2nd Ave services replace the  over the Manhattan Bridge and having them go over the Williamsburg Bridge instead.  I don't think that's the best idea because it makes transfers to 2nd Ave from the Myrtle/Jamaica Lines impossible.

I agree with this. However, would it be possible to have provisions at 63rd Street for outer express tracks to the Bronx to address growing ridership there?

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, Collin said:

The number of escalators and elevators needed for a deep station adds to the cost.

It’s not just a one-time monetary cost either:

1. Money is needed to maintain the elevators and/or escalators and to operate them.
2. Deep structures require active ventilation which requires permanently allocating a portion of expensive real estate for the equipment and money to continuously operate them. They’re mostly not needed for shallow structures that are close to street level.
3. Man-miles are wasted traveling between the platforms and the street level. That translates to man-hours wasted doing something that should be totally unnecessary. Of those man-hours, some also translate to money lost if a business depends on the subway.

Edited May 11, 2020 by CenSin

[Collin]

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I agree with this. However, would it be possible to have provisions at 63rd Street for outer express tracks to the Bronx to address growing ridership there?

Because Phase 1 is already built without provisions for express tracks on the same level, express tracks would need to be in deep bore tunnels on a lower level.  86th Street and 116th Street should have express platforms.  The thing is that two services can already run on a 2 track line.  I have ideas for where to send them.  One would run on a 125th Street Crosstown Line stopping at Lexington Avenue (transfer to  connection to Metro North), Lenox Avenue (transfer to ), St Nicholas Ave (transfer to ), and Broadway (transfer to ).  The other would go into The Bronx on a new route up 3rd Avenue, Boston Road, and Crotona Avenue, eventually taking it by the Bronx Zoo and Botanical Gardens.

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

It’s not just a one-time monetary cost either:

1. Money is needed to maintain the elevators and/or escalators and to operate them.
2. Deep structures require active ventilation which requires permanently allocating a portion of expensive real estate for the equipment and money to continuously operate them. They’re mostly not needed for shallow structures that are close to street level.
3. Man-miles are wasted traveling between the platforms and the street level. That translates to man-hours wasted doing something that should be totally unnecessary. Of those man-hours, some also translate to money lost if a business depends on the subway.

Not sure I understand point 3, but clearly building unnecessarily deep stations drives up costs dramatically both for construction and operation.  I think the MTA is just too afraid of the rabid NIMBYism and lawsuits they'll start if they suggested taking the quick and dirty approach with cut and cover.  Local residents and businesses threw a bad enough hissy fit over the 14th Street busway.  Imagine if it was getting dug up for 2 or more years.  It certainly says something about the power of NIMBYism if the MTA is willing to spend billions more on super deep subway lines just to avoid it.

[R10 2952]

I'm glad people have brought this up- really and truly.  34th Street-Hudson Yards, 2nd Avenue Phase 1, and East Side Access; all deep-bore, full of astronomical cost overruns, full of mind-numbing delays, and far more complicated than they ever needed to be.  Not to mention, having to journey to/from the center of the damn earth for a train.

 

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Hmm, the conversation is getting interesting so I’m going to jump in. 
 

To say that NYC hasn’t built a 4 Track Line in over 50 years because it’s too expensive, or the political environment thwarts any chances of building one is one thing. 

To say that NYC hasn’t built a 4 Track Line because nowhere else in the world has built one is like following some sort of follower attitude of like: “Oh, they [any other city] haven’t built a 4 Track line in 50 years/At all. Why should we?” 

The point is not that nobody builds it therefore we shouldn't just because.

The point is that everyone else has decided that four tracks don't provide good money for value, and I'm inclined to agree. There are very few cases in New York today that still need a whole four track line, because you run into issues like 

• you were only able to build half a line because you wasted money on an extra pair of tracks. Where does the extra pair of tracks go? An express shuttle is pretty damn useless. 
• a four track subway is a pair of tracks used on not extending the tentacles of the system further out. Why does the Jamaica Line need four tracks while Marine Park or Queens Village are left out to dry?

[bobtehpanda]

11 minutes ago, Collin said:

I think the MTA is just too afraid of the rabid NIMBYism and lawsuits they'll start if they suggested taking the quick and dirty approach with cut and cover.

Plenty of places build deep stations without issue. The MTA is just ridiculously bad at managing projects. There is no reason why the MTA would not also f**k up cut and cover.

The Second Avenue Subway was bored but the stations were cut and cover, and the stations were the most expensive and delayed portion of the project.

[engineerboy6561]

I know I'm kind of beating this to death, but doing 3 Av/2 Av/Jamaica as a single four-track corridor kills three or four birds with one stone. In one shot you take a bite out of QBL congestion (15  tph taking 45-50 mins to downtown becomes 15-30 tph taking 25-30 minutes to downtown and 15-30 tph taking 45-50 mins to downtown; how many actual tph wind up getting allocated depends on whether the corridor branches on the south end, but if you work at any of the lower Manhattan hospitals a 2 Av/Jamaica train would be time and comfort competitive with the  to the ), take a huge load off the  (if you live southwest of Wilson Av or in Williamsburg and need the east side then a one-seat ride from a new Jamaica line would be a better deal than taking the  to the Lex and dealing with the crowding at Union Sq; you might actually get a seat your whole ride), and offer a huge relief to the Lex express (because if you're in the Bronx between the Concourse and White Plains Rd and going to basically any of the east side hospitals except Mt Sinai the new line is closer, and Bronx express service might make it faster than the  or  even to Mt Sinai or Lenox Hill. That is also the sort of megaproject that would run eleven or twelve figures by the time it's done, but it would be worth it.

Building this out would be really expensive, but it would also address a pretty wide swath of the gaps in the our current subway system (all the above, plus an alternative to the  that would keep trains from getting rush-hour-in-Japan packed all the time, a  rearrangement to incrementally improve DeKalb, an  rearrangement that gets subway service to Fresh Meadows and through a chunk of Queens east of Main St that could use it, and a new connection to the far West Side combined with a lower Manhattan crosstown).

Edited May 11, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, Collin said:

I don't get it.  Are you saying the way NYC built their system is worse than in other cities?  I don't agree with that at all.  I think the closer stop spacing is a good thing to an extent.  People don't have to walk as far to reach a station, and with the local/express option, you get the best of both worlds.  It can be a problem on certain lines without express service which is why I mentioned stop consolidation for the Jamaica Line. 

The closer stop spacing is a historical anachronism from when the subway's primary competition was a horse or your own two feet. 

Realistically speaking, some neighborhoods just don't justify subway stops, and probably never will. As an example, 197 St is certainly on the way of a Hillside subway extension, and it is where one would be traditionally located on a historical stop spacing basis, but the road network and neighborhood is simply not conducive, and will likely never be conducive, to a subway extension.

6 hours ago, Collin said:

The prevalence of 3 and 4 track lines, and the interlined nature of the system also means that there is more redundancy to maintain service during construction and other disruptions.  If one track is down, trains are rerouted to another.  In a system with separate 2 track lines, there are no possible reroutes.  One issue shuts down the entire affected area.  That's what allows the system to operate 24/7 which is almost unheard of elsewhere.  In fact, the design of the system makes 24/7 operation easier and cheaper than closing it overnight.

This is a problem of the subway's design; cut and cover is actually a minus here. Track flagging rules mean that even when you are operating service on different tracks, service is slowed down for worker safety, because there is no physical separation between the tracks; and work is also slowed down since workers have to be careful around trains and live rails. There is a reason Fastrack became a thing, and if you're doing Fastrack style shutdowns then the whole point becomes moot because all four tracks are shut down anyways.

Most places in the world don't run 24/7 simply because they don't need to, and in particular they feel that running replacement night bus services at a high frequency (<= 10 minutes) is more useful than ~20min frequency on trains late night. As a counterpoint, the Copenhagen Metro is bored, and only two tracks; but they provide 24/7 operation by single-tracking with overtakes, and they alternate which bore they shut down to do maintenance work.

[bobtehpanda]

14 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I know I'm kind of beating this to death, but doing 3 Av/2 Av/Jamaica as a single four-track corridor kills three or four birds with one stone. In one shot you take a bite out of QBL congestion (15  tph taking 45-50 mins to downtown becomes 15-30 tph taking 25-30 minutes to downtown and 15-30 tph taking 45-50 mins to downtown; how many actual tph wind up getting allocated depends on whether the corridor branches on the south end, but if you work at any of the lower Manhattan hospitals a 2 Av/Jamaica train would be time and comfort competitive with the  to the ), take a huge load off the  (if you live southwest of Wilson Av or in Williamsburg and need the east side then a one-seat ride from a new Jamaica line would be a better deal than taking the  to the Lex and dealing with the crowding at Union Sq; you might actually get a seat your whole ride), and offer a huge relief to the Lex express (because if you're in the Bronx between the Concourse and White Plains Rd and going to basically any of the east side hospitals except Mt Sinai the new line is closer, and Bronx express service might make it faster than the  or  even to Mt Sinai or Lenox Hill. That is also the sort of megaproject that would run eleven or twelve figures by the time it's done, but it would be worth it.

Probably more affordable counterpart:

 Broadway express to Fordham Plaza via 2nd Upper and 3rd in the Bronx.

Manhattan Bridge to 2nd Lower, terminating at a station with a connection to Lex-53 and Lex-59. Future extension to Queens on Northern Blvd.

rerouted to Jamaica, with taking over Myrtle services and  to Jamaica. Build a third track from 121 St to Broadway Junction to allow a peak-direction express.

rerouted to Culver and becomes peak or weekday Culver Express.

This gets you most of the benefits and is easier to stage.

• 30 new TPH to the Bronx
• 30 TPH to Midtown from Jamaica, at the cost of Nassau service
• 30 TPH on Second (not continuous), but tbh for continuous East Side service the Lex was going to be hard to beat anyways
• Freeing up capacity for a real Culver Express service
• SAS actually gets usable transfers; under your plan, Jamaica is not a well connected corridor, and SAS connections are more inconvenient than their Lex counterparts. SAS via Bridge gets you really good transfers from South Brooklyn.

Edited May 11, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[engineerboy6561]

22 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Probably more affordable counterpart:

 Broadway express to Fordham Plaza via 2nd Upper and 3rd in the Bronx.

Manhattan Bridge to 2nd Lower, terminating at a station with a connection to Lex-53 and Lex-59. Future extension to Queens on Northern Blvd.

rerouted to Jamaica, with taking over Myrtle services and  to Jamaica. Build a third track from 121 St to Broadway Junction to allow a peak-direction express.

rerouted to Culver and becomes peak or weekday Culver Express.

This gets you most of the benefits and is easier to stage.

• 30 new TPH to the Bronx
• 30 TPH to Midtown from Jamaica, at the cost of Nassau service
• 30 TPH on Second (not continuous), but tbh for continuous East Side service the Lex was going to be hard to beat anyways
• Freeing up capacity for a real Culver Express service
• SAS actually gets usable transfers; under your plan, Jamaica is not a well connected corridor, and SAS connections are more inconvenient than their Lex counterparts. SAS via Bridge gets you really good transfers from South Brooklyn.

That's not bad; that would leave you with 

Bedford Park Blvd-Metropolitan Av via Concourse/CPW local/6 Av express/Jamaica local/Myrtle local

 205 St-Jamaica via Concourse/CPW express/6 Av express/Jamaica local (peak direction Jamaica express)

 179 St-Coney Island via QBL express/6 Av local/Culver express/McDonald local (weekday peak express from Kings Highway)

 Forest Hills-Church Av via QBL/6 Av/Culver local (weekday peak extension to Kings Highway)

 Jamaica-Broad St via Jamaica local

 Fordham Plaza-Coney Island via 3 Av/2 Av/Broadway express/4 Av express/Sea Beach

Fordham Plaza-Brighton Beach via 3 Av/2 Av/Broadway express/Brighton express

 55 St-Coney Island via 2 Av/4 Av local/New Utrecht Av

 55 St-Coney Island via 2 Av/Brighton local.

That's not bad at all; I'd still want to build all of the new stuff with provisions for express tracks (including redoing the Jamaica line as a proper four-track subway) so that when the money comes we could just four-track it all the way up. I like sending the locals via the bridge because that actually lets 2 Av benefit from Atlantic-Pacific in a way that it really needs because nothing else runs that far east in Manhattan. I'd want to eventually get continuous tph all the way up, which would give us a new service pattern (that I'd love to write up right now but don't quite have straight and need to get up for work soon), but if everything was built with provisions for four tracks then we could get your setup up and running and then add trackage incrementally.

 

[Caelestor]

Out of all the proposals on the table, the only trunk line that could be 4 tracks is 2 Ave, mainly in order to accommodate the additional capacity that would come from the Jamaica Line / 6 Ave express, Manhattan Bridge North / 2 Ave Phase 3, and the Broadway Local / Fulton St local via a new East River tunnel, and Nassau St / Bay Ridge local via Montague St tunnel takeover.  Even then, it might be better just to build a parallel line under 3 Ave to not disrupt the , when/if ridership demands it. As a potential bonus, the 3 Ave line would have just as good or even better transfers at 14 St, 42 St, 53 St, and 60/63 Sts.

Also, the ideal stop spacing for all-stop metros is ~1 km (0.6 miles), because stations can and should have entrances / exits at both ends. In NYC, this would be ~10 blocks, as seen in the IND local stop spacing. Express stations should typically be every 3 km (2 miles), equivalent to 1 in every 3rd local stop. In NYC, this would be about every 40 blocks, as seen in the IRT express stop spacing. Outside of NYC, regional rail such as Paris RER, London Crossrail, the non-local Tokyo commuter lines, typically serve as the "express lines" since the metros typically cover an area equivalent to just the length of Manhattan and the regional rail system serves as a suburban / express overlay to relieve crowds on the older metros.

[Collin]

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is a problem of the subway's design; cut and cover is actually a minus here. Track flagging rules mean that even when you are operating service on different tracks, service is slowed down for worker safety, because there is no physical separation between the tracks; and work is also slowed down since workers have to be careful around trains and live rails. There is a reason Fastrack became a thing, and if you're doing Fastrack style shutdowns then the whole point becomes moot because all four tracks are shut down anyways.

Most places in the world don't run 24/7 simply because they don't need to, and in particular they feel that running replacement night bus services at a high frequency (<= 10 minutes) is more useful than ~20min frequency on trains late night. As a counterpoint, the Copenhagen Metro is bored, and only two tracks; but they provide 24/7 operation by single-tracking with overtakes, and they alternate which bore they shut down to do maintenance work.

With a cut and cover design, it's possible to build 4 track lines for not that much more than 2 track lines.  Not saying that everything needs to be 4 tracks, but it can't be ruled out for major trunk lines.  You keep bringing up this point about how the extra track pair built with a 4 track line is that much track that won't be built elsewhere.  That may be true, but the ride time and availability of express service must be considered.  Extending the current Jamaica Line would make zero sense because it's too slow.  Even an upgraded line with stop consolidation and removal of the sharp curves between Cypress Hills and Crescent Street would be too long.  An extension on Hillside Avenue however would be much better because the trains would go express after Forest Hills if not 179th Street.

As for the flagging issue, why not build physical barriers between the tracks so that adjacent tracks can still operate at normal speed?  We act as if these regulations are hard set and can never be changed, but I think they should be looked at periodically to see if there are better ways to do things that still keep workers safe but allow for fewer service disruptions.  While single tracking with timed overtakes is definitely a viable option on 2 track lines, but can only be done with 20 minute headways.  Many areas in the subway run 10 minute headways overnight where there are two services running on the same track (pretty much every Manhattan trunk line)

[bobtehpanda]

37 minutes ago, Collin said:

Extending the current Jamaica Line would make zero sense because it's too slow.  Even an upgraded line with stop consolidation and removal of the sharp curves between Cypress Hills and Crescent Street would be too long.  An extension on Hillside Avenue however would be much better because the trains would go express after Forest Hills if not 179th Street.

Extending the current Jamaica Line makes zero sense, period. It's an indirect trip for Midtown, and Downtown/Williamsburg demand is not high enough to make room for it.

Better to spend money on and extensions out of Jamaica.

[engineerboy6561]

49 minutes ago, Collin said:

With a cut and cover design, it's possible to build 4 track lines for not that much more than 2 track lines.  Not saying that everything needs to be 4 tracks, but it can't be ruled out for major trunk lines.  You keep bringing up this point about how the extra track pair built with a 4 track line is that much track that won't be built elsewhere.  That may be true, but the ride time and availability of express service must be considered.  Extending the current Jamaica Line would make zero sense because it's too slow.  Even an upgraded line with stop consolidation and removal of the sharp curves between Cypress Hills and Crescent Street would be too long.  An extension on Hillside Avenue however would be much better because the trains would go express after Forest Hills if not 179th Street.

As for the flagging issue, why not build physical barriers between the tracks so that adjacent tracks can still operate at normal speed?  We act as if these regulations are hard set and can never be changed, but I think they should be looked at periodically to see if there are better ways to do things that still keep workers safe but allow for fewer service disruptions.  While single tracking with timed overtakes is definitely a viable option on 2 track lines, but can only be done with 20 minute headways.  Many areas in the subway run 10 minute headways overnight where there are two services running on the same track (pretty much every Manhattan trunk line)

Exactly; a four-track Jamaica line would offer service from Jamaica to Broadway-Nassau in the 25-30 minute range and Jamaica to Midtown runtimes in the 40-45 minute range. At that point an extension would let you do things like Merrick and Springfield to 59th St in about an hour (which if you feed some of the 6 Av services onto the new trunk becomes pretty reasonable). QBL's already fairly near capacity and you can't really push more than 30 express TPH through it (nor are you going to be able to without building another track pair, which isn't a bad idea but if we're going to be shelling out for extra track pairs I'd much prefer to have something coming into the bottom of Manhattan so that you can assemble continuous UES/UWS-Midtown-Downtown service on a single corridor; that would also take a large load off the  train coming into Manhattan (especially if you reverse branch the Jamaica trunk to carry a mix of 2 Av and 6 Av services; that would basically turn LES-2 Av into a second West Fourth St and let east side people take the 2 Av line (or the 6 Av line one stop to Broadway-Lafayette for the ) and west side people take the 6 Av line (with the option of getting the 8 Av line at West 4th St if need be).

Edited May 11, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[bobtehpanda]

45 minutes ago, Collin said:

As for the flagging issue, why not build physical barriers between the tracks so that adjacent tracks can still operate at normal speed?  We act as if these regulations are hard set and can never be changed, but I think they should be looked at periodically to see if there are better ways to do things that still keep workers safe but allow for fewer service disruptions.  While single tracking with timed overtakes is definitely a viable option on 2 track lines, but can only be done with 20 minute headways.  Many areas in the subway run 10 minute headways overnight where there are two services running on the same track (pretty much every Manhattan trunk line)

Major issue: evacuations become significantly more difficult the moment you throw up walls.

Modern fire code regulations require emergency walkways at train height so that people don't evacuate into tracks. Throwing up walls separating some tracks from these would almost absolutely require the addition of these walkways for each track rather than one on each side of a large tunnel.

[bobtehpanda]

2 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Exactly; a four-track Jamaica line would offer service from Jamaica to Broadway-Nassau in the 25-30 minute range and Jamaica to Midtown runtimes in the 40-45 minute range. At that point an extension would let you do things like Merrick and Springfield to 59th St in about an hour (which if you feed some of the 6 Av services onto the new trunk becomes pretty reasonable). QBL's already fairly near capacity and you can't really push more than 30 express TPH through it (nor are you going to be able to without building another track pair, which isn't a bad idea but if we're going to be shelling out for extra track pairs I'd much prefer to have something coming into the bottom of Manhattan so that you can assemble continuous UES/UWS-Midtown-Downtown service on a single corridor; that would also take a large load off the  train coming into Manhattan (especially if you reverse branch the Jamaica trunk to carry a mix of 2 Av and 6 Av services; that would basically turn LES-2 Av into a second West Fourth St and let east side people take the 2 Av line (or the 6 Av line one stop to Broadway-Lafayette for the  and west side people take the 6 Av line (with the option of getting the 8 Av line at West 4th St if need be).

Preferred option for this: why are we building massively redundant infrastructure when we have existing underutilized infrastructure that could be used for the same purpose?

Build a tunnel between ESA and Atlantic, extend all LIRR platforms to 12-car LIRR lengths, and operate a London Underground/Crossrail type regional metro service, and boom you've got 24TPH of 1050-ft long trains barreling through Queens and Brooklyn. 

[Jova42R]

On 5/9/2020 at 10:23 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

Re: your first sentence. Doesn’t the  travel in the West Bronx too ? Am I missing something ? Just curious. Carry on.

It does not serve the University Av Corridor, which is where my proposed tram goes.

@engineerboy6561 @Collin @Mnrr6131, or @WillF40PH would know better than me, but would it be better to extend the line up Goulden Av (the ROW of the aqueduct) to a terminus by Bainbridge Hospital, or is the current proposed terminus at VA Hospital better?

Also, y'all may know this better than me: South of Tremont Av, is there room for a tram in the median or not?

[Jova42R]

10 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

 this 

I like your plan, but I can't access the map! Can you try copy-pasting the link?

[JeremiahC99]

32 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Exactly; a four-track Jamaica line would offer service from Jamaica to Broadway-Nassau in the 25-30 minute range and Jamaica to Midtown runtimes in the 40-45 minute range. At that point an extension would let you do things like Merrick and Springfield to 59th St in about an hour (which if you feed some of the 6 Av services onto the new trunk becomes pretty reasonable). QBL's already fairly near capacity and you can't really push more than 30 express TPH through it (nor are you going to be able to without building another track pair, which isn't a bad idea but if we're going to be shelling out for extra track pairs I'd much prefer to have something coming into the bottom of Manhattan so that you can assemble continuous UES/UWS-Midtown-Downtown service on a single corridor; that would also take a large load off the  train coming into Manhattan (especially if you reverse branch the Jamaica trunk to carry a mix of 2 Av and 6 Av services; that would basically turn LES-2 Av into a second West Fourth St and let east side people take the 2 Av line (or the 6 Av line one stop to Broadway-Lafayette for the ) and west side people take the 6 Av line (with the option of getting the 8 Av line at West 4th St if need be).

Honestly, if those IND engineers were smart, a new Jamaica Avenue subway should've been the FIRST thing they should've built east of Broadway Junction. Since its a straight shot along Fulton and Jamaica, compared to meandering on the Lower East Side, it would've saved 20 minutes between Jamaica and Lower Manhattan rather that trying to compete with the IRT New Lots Line. Hell, for all I care, if they wanted to give the IRT a run for its money, they could've had the Broadway El go through the Fulton Line to Lefferts Blvd, allowing for faster service between East New York and Midtown (with the transfer to the  at Delancey Street for Midtown, aas well as today's  along the Broadway Line). I don't even know why they didn't do this when it essentially kills multiple birds in one stone?

That is just my take on it.

11 hours ago, Collin said:

Because Phase 1 is already built without provisions for express tracks on the same level, express tracks would need to be in deep bore tunnels on a lower level.  86th Street and 116th Street should have express platforms.  The thing is that two services can already run on a 2 track line.  I have ideas for where to send them.  One would run on a 125th Street Crosstown Line stopping at Lexington Avenue (transfer to  connection to Metro North), Lenox Avenue (transfer to ), St Nicholas Ave (transfer to ), and Broadway (transfer to ).  The other would go into The Bronx on a new route up 3rd Avenue, Boston Road, and Crotona Avenue, eventually taking it by the Bronx Zoo and Botanical Gardens.

While I agree with an express station at 116th Street, I believe that the best spots for the express stations should be at 72nd Street and at 96th Street instead of 86th Street. While 86th Street has shifted a lot of riders from the 86th Street station on the Lexington Avenue Line, the 72nd Street has been the busiest station on the line. For 96th Street, does serve as the border of the Upper West Side and East Harlem, and the station does get considerable ridership there from both neighborhoods. Plus it serves Metropolitan Hospital.

8 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Out of all the proposals on the table, the only trunk line that could be 4 tracks is 2 Ave, mainly in order to accommodate the additional capacity that would come from the Jamaica Line / 6 Ave express, Manhattan Bridge North / 2 Ave Phase 3, and the Broadway Local / Fulton St local via a new East River tunnel, and Nassau St / Bay Ridge local via Montague St tunnel takeover.  Even then, it might be better just to build a parallel line under 3 Ave to not disrupt the , when/if ridership demands it. As a potential bonus, the 3 Ave line would have just as good or even better transfers at 14 St, 42 St, 53 St, and 60/63 Sts.

Also, the ideal stop spacing for all-stop metros is ~1 km (0.6 miles), because stations can and should have entrances / exits at both ends. In NYC, this would be ~10 blocks, as seen in the IND local stop spacing. Express stations should typically be every 3 km (2 miles), equivalent to 1 in every 3rd local stop. In NYC, this would be about every 40 blocks, as seen in the IRT express stop spacing. Outside of NYC, regional rail such as Paris RER, London Crossrail, the non-local Tokyo commuter lines, typically serve as the "express lines" since the metros typically cover an area equivalent to just the length of Manhattan and the regional rail system serves as a suburban / express overlay to relieve crowds on the older metros.

 

13 hours ago, Collin said:

To your point, a lot of that lies in the construction methods.  There's too much emphasis on eliminating community impact and not enough on getting it done fast.  Cut and cover construction is the best method.  Not only is it cheaper and faster to construct than deep bore tunnels, but it makes the stations a lot cheaper to construct.  The number of escalators and elevators needed for a deep station adds to the cost.  If the station is built closer to street level, there might only need to be stairs, plus some elevators for ADA compliance.  It's best to take the quick and dirty approach in terms of construction methods.  It'll be inconvenient for a couple years or so with the street dug up, but at least it won't cost billions per mile and take 10 years to build.

For Second Avenue specifically, Phases 3 and 4 need to go back to the drawing board.  It's not worth the cost of building the line if there will be no track connections to other parts of the system.  If it's super deep below existing stations, then the transfers will be very inconvenient.  Hopefully there's a silver lining in Phases 1 and 2 taking so long in that Phases 3 and 4 may get looked at again.

I think Phase 3 should be initially built as a 2 track line, with the inner tracks only.  If added, the express tracks would be the outer tracks.  55th Street would need to be a 4 track station with terminal capabilities.  There should be 2 services on the south portion of the line.  One would run from 125th Street, and the other would either start at 55th Street, or run on the QBL local tracks and 63rd Street Tunnel.  The bigger question is what happens with them on the other end.  One option is to connect with the Williamsburg Bridge so that one of the services can replace the in Brooklyn.  Then the  could be reinstated and run to Church Avenue, allowing for full time  express service.  The other service I think should terminate at Grand Street with layup tracks to the south until Phase 4 is built.  Once Phase 4 is built, it could either end at Hanover Square, run either through Montague and connect with the 4th Ave local, or a new tunnel connecting to IND Court Street (Transit Museum would need to be relocated).  Vanshnookenraggen has proposed having the 2nd Ave services replace the  over the Manhattan Bridge and having them go over the Williamsburg Bridge instead.  I don't think that's the best idea because it makes transfers to 2nd Ave from the Myrtle/Jamaica Lines impossible.

 

Any 4-track 2nd Avenue Subway should have provisions for a new 2-track tunnel to Queens. Somewhere down the road, capacity of all Manhattan-Queens Tunnels will be maxed out with no room for expansion. I personally am not a firm believer of SAS trains using the 63rd Street Tunnel since capacity in the 63rd Street tunnel can be better utilized to restructure existing service without building any new tunnels. More specifically, all 6th Avenue trains on 63rd Street, all Broadway trains on 60th Street, and all 8th Avenue trains on 53rd Street.