Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[bobtehpanda]

7 hours ago, Armandito said:

IIRC, a few people in one of my FB groups have even suggested rebuilding the abandoned Bayside Yard and adding extra service on the PW Branch instead of building a new subway line along Northern. I'm not very enthusiastic about this plan because of the different fare structure on the LIRR.

That's a perfectly fine idea.

The fare structure on the LIRR is entirely political. If the politics of the situation was truly very stupid, it would still be much cheaper for the city to either purchase the Port Washington Branch outright, or to come to some sort of agreement where the city paid the difference, than it would be to build a new subway line. With OMNY there are (quiet) rumblings about how, theoretically, you could transition into a proof-of-payment system, which would eliminate the need for conductors that are the main reason that the LIRR costs so much money.

Yes, it is a commuter railroad; however it is also by far the most expensive railroad in the country because of insane labor costs. When you have rich Long Islanders complaining about how expensive LIRR tickets have gotten there is a serious structural problem with the running costs. And even the LIRR is aware of the problem; hence the introduction of Atlantic Ticket in Southeastern Queens, which by all indications has been revenue positive despite the cuts in fares.

More importantly, on the face of it it's a better idea than the  , because there is scope to increase services on the PW (with East Side Access alone, services will double because the current plan is to have one train to GCT for every train going to Penn), and the LIRR has room to increase capacity on the trainsets themselves.

Edited October 29, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, nerdynel said:

Greetings all!

I see my NYTIP series has gained some traction here, so allow me to clarify some things.

For the CPW de-interlining, I envision all routes using full-length trains. I have since revised that proposal to have A/B on Inwood and C/D on Concourse to avoid "rocking the boat" too much with regard to yard access.

Having two full-time services on Concourse is intentional and designed to encourage ridership. Before the Rona, I used to joke that the most frequent service on Concourse was the taxi because taxis came more often than buses or trains!

Also, bear in mind NYTIP is a long-term improvement strategy. De-interlining certain corridors is just Step 1 of that strategy. I know some say we shouldn't think of such plans in light of the Rona knocking out transit ridership and potential doomsday cuts that make 2010 seem like a dream in comparison; however, I disagree. I think this is the best time, because we effectively have a blank slate in some ways. There will likely be a permanent shift in travel patterns owing to telework, for one, and how MTA recovers will depend on their ability to adapt, IMO.

Criticisms of cost are definitely fair, but also remember that the supposedly broke state somehow has money to widen highways, and the supposedly broke city keeps subsidizing empty boats - both to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. My plans may not be perfect, but I think we can all agree on the need to Save Transit and convince city and state leaders to get their priorities in order. Thanks for reading and commenting!

Welcome, Nel! Glad you came on here to post about NYTIP. I read it a long while ago (well before the rona invaded our lives!) and I found that some of the proposals you put forth were worth a strong look. But we all know how strongly MTA management are wedded to “We’ve always done it this way!”

Yes, and it’s kind of sad how the supposedly broke state somehow continues to push for now over-$2 billion LGA AirTrain, while telling the MTA and other state agencies to tighten their belts and that layoffs aren’t out of the question.

With that said, I don’t disagree with looking at deinterlining for some corridors in the system (not all, though). But really, it’s best to consider it if the plans are to increase subway line frequency. Unless we get that $12 billion bailout from Uncle Sam (which isn’t looking very likely for at least the rest of this year), we are looking at a reduction in service frequency. Pat Foye and Company are throwing 40-50 percent out there. For a while on here, there were posters weighing in on which services to cut and which services to reroute in place of the cut services. I stayed out of that discussion because the MTA said was “40 percent cuts” relating to the subways and buses. They didn’t target any specific subway or bus routes. They still haven’t, although I read on the Second Avenue Sagas Twitter feed that they are going to come up with two preliminary plans - one with the $12 billion and one without - next month. So, stay tuned. 

18 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be fair, there's not a lot there other than houses

To more directly answer the question:

Eastern Queens today, especially Bayside, is full of middle to upper-middle class families that wanted the suburban dream (yard, quiet streets, good schools) without having to move to the suburbs or Staten Island, and still be a short drive from relatively dense areas (namely, Flushing.) That, or empty nesters who moved to Queens 50 years ago for the same reasons.

While there is a massive generational shift among racial lines (namely, White to Asian), and newer residents are more supportive of denser development, what they mean by denser development is generally something ~5 stories, at most 8-10 stories. Nothing crazy, and still has to fit in with the whole bougie suburb vibe. If you tell these people you are going to dig up their nice quiet street for a subway line, they will sue and start harassing their electeds faster than you can put up posters saying where the public meetings are. 

For this and other reasons (namely, developable areas, convenient bus access and turnaround areas) you pretty much have to stick to transportation corridors that are already noisy, so that would be the Port Washington branch, Northern Blvd, the LIE, Hillside, the LIRR Main Line, and any other big radial streets coming out of Jamaica.

(Also last I checked, in the rough vicinity of PW and Northern, busiest buses are Q27, Q12/13, and Q28, in that order, which would also suggest a southerly alignment.)

I’ve long favored Northern, LIE or Hillside for this very reason. Given the insane car/truck traffic on Northern and Hillside, I’d welcome a subway extension down either one with open arms. There’s nothing quiet or bougie about either corridor or the LIE, unlike say Crocheron Ave/32nd Ave/Corp. Kennedy St, which is the Q28 route. And Crocheron is quite narrow on top of being residential where it splits off from Northern, so I there’s good reason not to dig a subway tunnel there. Still, I would like to start with increasing service on the PW and see where it goes from there. Subway is better for a more southerly alignment. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[nerdynel]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Welcome, Nel! Glad you came on here to post about NYTIP. I read it a long while ago (well before the rona invaded our lives!) and I found that some of the proposals you put forth were worth a strong look. But we all know how strongly MTA management are wedded to “We’ve always done it this way!”

Yes, and it’s kind of sad how the supposedly broke state somehow continues to push for now over-$2 billion LGA AirTrain, while telling the MTA and other state agencies to tighten their belts and that layoffs aren’t out of the question.

With that said, I don’t disagree with looking at deinterlining for some corridors in the system (not all, though). But really, it’s best to consider it if the plans are to increase subway line frequency. Unless we get that $12 billion bailout from Uncle Sam (which isn’t looking very likely for at least the rest of this year), we are looking at a reduction in service frequency. Pat Foye and Company are throwing 40-50 percent out there. For a while on here, there were posters weighing in on which services to cut and which services to reroute in place of the cut services. I stayed out of that discussion because the MTA said was “40 percent cuts” relating to the subways and buses. They didn’t target any specific subway or bus routes. They still haven’t, although I read on the Second Avenue Sagas Twitter feed that they are going to come up with two preliminary plans - one with the $12 billion and one without - next month. So, stay tuned. 

I’ve long favored Northern, LIE or Hillside for this very reason. Given the insane car/truck traffic on Northern and Hillside, I’d welcome a subway extension down either one with open arms. There’s nothing quiet or bougie about either corridor or the LIE, unlike say Crocheron Ave/32nd Ave/Corp. Kennedy St, which is the Q28 route. And Crocheron is quite narrow on top of being residential where it splits off from Northern, so I there’s good reason not to dig a subway tunnel there. Still, I would like to start with increasing service on the PW and see where it goes from there. Subway is better for a more southerly alignment. 

Thanks for the warm welcome, T! Indeed, resistance to change is likely one of the biggest obstacles to any de-interlining plan (or any other plan requiring some major change, for that matter). And how I could I forget the money pit known as the Backwards AirTrain?!

Yes, the 40% cuts (which have yet to be fully defined) are a major cause for concern. If any of those cuts come to pass, transit ridership would remain depressed for years to come. I don't like speculating about cuts - I'd much rather not see cuts at all. That said, I will also wait to see what MTA's plans are.

I am not confident that MTA will get its bailout, as much as I'd like to see it.

[Deucey]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Yes, and it’s kind of sad how the supposedly broke state somehow continues to push for now over-$2 billion LGA AirTrain, while telling the MTA and other state agencies to tighten their belts and that layoffs aren’t out of the question.

It's simple, really. New Jerseyans are paying for AirTrain LGA's construction whenever they come to NYC. Then NYers will pay for maintenance and salaries whenever they mess up and fly out of LGA.

So it doesn't cost NYS anything.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

It's simple, really. New Jerseyans are paying for AirTrain LGA's construction whenever they come to NYC. Then NYers will pay for maintenance and salaries whenever they mess up and fly out of LGA.

So it doesn't cost NYS anything.

Yeah, Port Authority money is pretty much authoritatively its "own thing."

The more I think about it, the more I think it'd be nice to consolidate the tri state area's myriad transportation departments and transit agencies into a monolith similar to LA Metro, with total control over toll-setting on roads.

[Armandito]

On 10/28/2020 at 2:46 PM, Theli11 said:

Yes, but I'd think that the  or train with  on Astoria would be a better candidate for the Super Express rather than the SAS. It would be better than the  since it will have less connections on Second Av. than the Broadway Line which runs through the center of Manhattan. 

Made a revised proposal with the serving the LIE Line:

The service patterns would be as follows:

rerouted via QBL Bypass at all times

rerouted from 71 Av to 188 St on weekdays; late night and weekend service unchanged

New subway line operates from Hanover Sq at all times, making express stops in Queens. Weekdays to 179 St (making express stops east of 71 Av); other times to 188 St to replace trains.

and service remains unchanged

[Deucey]

22 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Yeah, Port Authority money is pretty much authoritatively its "own thing."

The more I think about it, the more I think it'd be nice to consolidate the tri state area's myriad transportation departments and transit agencies into a monolith similar to LA Metro, with total control over toll-setting on roads.

Sure  and  together would make more sense and likely would truly mitigate car trips by integrating trans-Hudson bus trips, but PA would never stand for losing its autonomy or guaranteed money from extortionate tolls.

I wonder where that toll money and port fees actually go.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

Sure  and  together would make more sense and likely would truly mitigate car trips by integrating trans-Hudson bus trips, but PA would never stand for losing its autonomy or guaranteed money from extortionate tolls.

I wonder where that toll money and port fees actually go.

In the previous decade we spent billions of dollars on WTC-related things.

In the current decade I think we're spending, what, $8B on LGA and $13B on JFK rebuilds? The rebuilds are pretty substantial, what with all the new terminals and such. This is not too crazy, the second Beijing airport cost $17B, BER in Germany will cost $6.5B by the time all is said and done, and Heathrow is only building a third runway that will cost 16B GBP. And the previous 3 are all new construction, not building in place.

Edited October 31, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[R10 2952]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

Sure  and  together would make more sense and likely would truly mitigate car trips by integrating trans-Hudson bus trips, but PA would never stand for losing its autonomy or guaranteed money from extortionate tolls.

And on a larger scale, the whole dual federal-and-state system we have in this country doesn't help; a paranoid, 18th-century reaction to English monarchy that has long outlived its usefulness.  Here we have all these agencies whereas a country like France just has one SNCF and calls it a damn day.

 

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

I wonder where that toll money and port fees actually go.

Been asking that question myself about all tax revenue the municipal, state and federal government been raking in for as long as I remember. 😆

Aside from stupid stuff like the WTC real estate misadventures or tax breaks to big corporations, wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it simply gets "creatively accounted" or straight up disappeared/pocketed/embezzled by the powers that be.

Edited October 31, 2020 by R10 2952

[Armandito]

If the QBL Bypass and LIE Line were already on the books: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18jFWx4hiotMYgqkD5i3yJtylRH_0EBa3&ll=40.71225279709198%2C-74.02131743453633&z=11

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/29/2020 at 11:39 PM, Deucey said:

It's simple, really. New Jerseyans are paying for AirTrain LGA's construction whenever they come to NYC. Then NYers will pay for maintenance and salaries whenever they mess up and fly out of LGA.

So it doesn't cost NYS anything.

On 10/30/2020 at 12:52 AM, bobtehpanda said:

Yeah, Port Authority money is pretty much authoritatively its "own thing."

The more I think about it, the more I think it'd be nice to consolidate the tri state area's myriad transportation departments and transit agencies into a monolith similar to LA Metro, with total control over toll-setting on roads.

Hudson River bridge, tunnel, PATH train and bus trips dropped like a rock earlier this year, as did flights out of the airports. And the PA still can afford this? Wow...

On 10/31/2020 at 2:29 AM, R10 2952 said:

And on a larger scale, the whole dual federal-and-state system we have in this country doesn't help; a paranoid, 18th-century reaction to English monarchy that has long outlived its usefulness.  Here we have all these agencies whereas a country like France just has one SNCF and calls it a damn day.

 

Been asking that question myself about all tax revenue the municipal, state and federal government been raking in for as long as I remember. 😆

Aside from stupid stuff like the WTC real estate misadventures or tax breaks to big corporations, wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it simply gets "creatively accounted" or straight up disappeared/pocketed/embezzled by the powers that be.

Neither would I. Either that, or the PA’s got a whole orchard of money trees growing at their main offices. Nearly $4 billion for the giant mall that looks like something out of a 60s or 70s sci-fi movie. 

On 10/31/2020 at 9:34 AM, Armandito said:

If the QBL Bypass and LIE Line were already on the books: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18jFWx4hiotMYgqkD5i3yJtylRH_0EBa3&ll=40.71225279709198%2C-74.02131743453633&z=11

 

You’ve got two 2nd Ave services going via the 63rd St Tunnel. In addition to the ?

[Deucey]

1 minute ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Hudson River bridge, tunnel, PATH train and bus trips dropped like a rock earlier this year, as did flights out of the airports. And the PA still can afford this? Wow...

They didn't write a check - they bonded TF out of the thing.

And when the new normal comes around, they're still gonna need a solution to getting fewer cabs inside LGA clogging traffic on the approach roads.

[Armandito]

9 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Hudson River bridge, tunnel, PATH train and bus trips dropped like a rock earlier this year, as did flights out of the airports. And the PA still can afford this? Wow...

Neither would I. Either that, or the PA’s got a whole orchard of money trees growing at their main offices. Nearly $4 billion for the giant mall that looks like something out of a 60s or 70s sci-fi movie. 

You’ve got two 2nd Ave services going via the 63rd St Tunnel. In addition to the ?

No, just one SAS service. My plan calls for the LIE Line to follow this service pattern:

Weekdays: to 188 St via 53 St/QB Local, to 179 St via 63 St/QB Express, skipping 75 Av, Briarwood, Sutphin Blvd, and 169 St

Late nights and weekends: replaces to 188 St; no service to 179 St

[mrsman]

On 10/29/2020 at 5:03 PM, bobtehpanda said:

That's a perfectly fine idea.

The fare structure on the LIRR is entirely political. If the politics of the situation was truly very stupid, it would still be much cheaper for the city to either purchase the Port Washington Branch outright, or to come to some sort of agreement where the city paid the difference, than it would be to build a new subway line. With OMNY there are (quiet) rumblings about how, theoretically, you could transition into a proof-of-payment system, which would eliminate the need for conductors that are the main reason that the LIRR costs so much money.

Yes, it is a commuter railroad; however it is also by far the most expensive railroad in the country because of insane labor costs. When you have rich Long Islanders complaining about how expensive LIRR tickets have gotten there is a serious structural problem with the running costs. And even the LIRR is aware of the problem; hence the introduction of Atlantic Ticket in Southeastern Queens, which by all indications has been revenue positive despite the cuts in fares.

More importantly, on the face of it it's a better idea than the  , because there is scope to increase services on the PW (with East Side Access alone, services will double because the current plan is to have one train to GCT for every train going to Penn), and the LIRR has room to increase capacity on the trainsets themselves.

I would love to see the Port Washington line be operated, both in frequency and in fare policy, more like a rapid transit service.  A handful of expresses at premium fare should operate to serve teh Nassau County stations and then skip all stops (aside from Bayside, Flushing, and Woodside) before reaching GCT or Penn.  The majority of trains on the line can operate from Great Neck, stopping at all stations on a frequent basis (every 5 minutes during rush hour, 10 minutes off-peak, and 20 minutes overnight)

I hate the idea of spending money unnecessarily.  There already is a good corridor that services trains, just underutilized.  

 

[Lex]

9 minutes ago, mrsman said:

I would love to see the Port Washington line be operated, both in frequency and in fare policy, more like a rapid transit service.  A handful of expresses at premium fare should operate to serve teh Nassau County stations and then skip all stops (aside from Bayside, Flushing, and Woodside) before reaching GCT or Penn.  The majority of trains on the line can operate from Great Neck, stopping at all stations on a frequent basis (every 5 minutes during rush hour, 10 minutes off-peak, and 20 minutes overnight)

I hate the idea of spending money unnecessarily.  There already is a good corridor that services trains, just underutilized.  

 

If the plan is to have express trains on the Port Washington Branch and 6-12 tph total, forget it.

[engineerboy6561]

3 hours ago, Lex said:

If the plan is to have express trains on the Port Washington Branch and 6-12 tph total, forget it.

If you wanted to do that you'd need a third track at least to enable express trains to pass locals; Norristown HSL in Philly makes that work but they only have room to run 6-8 tph or so that way max. Their schedule shows the express leaving five minutes before the local and arriving nine minutes after the previous one, and 6tph total service (with an effective headway of 15-20 minutes on either end because of the spacing between trains required to run the service that way). You could possibly push the headways a bit tighter, but you couldn't really have smaller gaps between the locals than what PW already has (which is 20-25 minutes between locals and 20-25 minutes between expresses). I really think you're better off either converting the entire PW branch to all-stops subway operation and add infill stations at Queens Blvd and Junction Blvd, or just biting the bullet and building a separate subway corridor.

Edited November 2, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[T to Dyre Avenue]

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

If you wanted to do that you'd need a third track at least to enable express trains to pass locals; Norristown HSL in Philly makes that work but they only have room to run 6-8 tph or so that way max. Their schedule shows the express leaving five minutes before the local and arriving nine minutes after the previous one, and 6tph total service (with an effective headway of 15-20 minutes on either end because of the spacing between trains required to run the service that way). You could possibly push the headways a bit tighter, but you couldn't really have smaller gaps between the locals than what PW already has (which is 20-25 minutes between locals and 20-25 minutes between expresses). I really think you're better off either converting the entire PW branch to all-stops subway operation and add infill stations at Queens Blvd and Junction Blvd, or just biting the bullet and building a separate subway corridor.

I'm glad you mentioned this, because in the past, I suggested the possibility of replacing the current  skip stop service (post-Covid) with a  express/  local, starting at Crescent St, where the  express leaves a couple minutes ahead of the  local because between Crescent and Broadway Jct, there are only two tracks, before it goes to three. But if you can only do 6-8 tph on that kind of setup, then I would favor starting the  local at Broadway Jct, where the three-track alignment starts. You can't run the  and  at a combined 6-8 tph. If anything, they should be at 8tph apiece.

Edited November 2, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

If you wanted to do that you'd need a third track at least to enable express trains to pass locals; Norristown HSL in Philly makes that work but they only have room to run 6-8 tph or so that way max. Their schedule shows the express leaving five minutes before the local and arriving nine minutes after the previous one, and 6tph total service (with an effective headway of 15-20 minutes on either end because of the spacing between trains required to run the service that way). You could possibly push the headways a bit tighter, but you couldn't really have smaller gaps between the locals than what PW already has (which is 20-25 minutes between locals and 20-25 minutes between expresses). I really think you're better off either converting the entire PW branch to all-stops subway operation and add infill stations at Queens Blvd and Junction Blvd, or just biting the bullet and building a separate subway corridor.

All stops wouldn't be too bad. LIRR stop spacing is not particularly narrow, and in any case for conversion to urban operations you'd most likely replace the M7/M9 style stock with something more similar to rapid-transit layout and performance standards, and cascade those trains elsewhere. (You'd need to procure new stock anyways to increase frequencies.)

[engineerboy6561]

47 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

All stops wouldn't be too bad. LIRR stop spacing is not particularly narrow, and in any case for conversion to urban operations you'd most likely replace the M7/M9 style stock with something more similar to rapid-transit layout and performance standards, and cascade those trains elsewhere. (You'd need to procure new stock anyways to increase frequencies.)

Setting up the PW line that way with additional stops at Junction Blvd and Broadway basically creates a bidirectional express and an extension for Flushing, with your only costs being the two new stations plus the passage from Elmhurst Av  to the new stop at Broadway and a fleet of Americanized Class 345s; that's the fairly low-cost option. 

The higher-cost option is to branch the PW line tracks off from the LIRR just before Sunnyside and tie them to the 63 St tunnel; route the  through the new tunnel, and use existing rolling stock on the line to provide service to NE Queens while freeing 2 Av up to operate as a separate trunk line. You'd wind up adding about 1.5ish miles of track, an infill stop with a connection to the Astoria line at 31 St/39 Av, and two more tubes to 63 St, but that would also work (while freeing up the  and  to run up to 30 tph combined by eliminating the bottleneck on the 59 St tunnels).

Edited November 2, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Armandito]

5 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Setting up the PW line that way with additional stops at Junction Blvd and Broadway basically creates a bidirectional express and an extension for Flushing, with your only costs being the two new stations plus the passage from Elmhurst Av  to the new stop at Broadway and a fleet of Americanized Class 345s. If you want to get really clever just branch it off from the LIRR just before Sunnyside and tie it to the 63 St tunnel; route the  through the new tunnel, and use existing rolling stock on the line to provide service to NE Queens while freeing 2 Av up to operate as a separate trunk line.

@engineerboy6561 My plan calls for the LIRR right-of-way along Sunnyside to be used for a bypass parallel to the QBL between Queensbridge and Forest Hills, which would be used by trains; the existing QBL express tracks would be used by and trains via 8 and 2 Avs, respectively. Woodhaven Blvd would be converted to an express station with provisions for subway service along the LIE to 188 St, to be served by trains on weekdays and trains during other times. 63 Dr and 67 Av would only be served by trains during the day, but this would be compensated by the addition of Woodhaven as a new express stop. How does this sound?

[bobtehpanda]

21 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Setting up the PW line that way with additional stops at Junction Blvd and Broadway basically creates a bidirectional express and an extension for Flushing, with your only costs being the two new stations plus the passage from Elmhurst Av  to the new stop at Broadway and a fleet of Americanized Class 345s; that's the fairly low-cost option. 

The higher-cost option is to branch the PW line tracks off from the LIRR just before Sunnyside and tie them to the 63 St tunnel; route the  through the new tunnel, and use existing rolling stock on the line to provide service to NE Queens while freeing 2 Av up to operate as a separate trunk line. You'd wind up adding about 1.5ish miles of track, an infill stop with a connection to the Astoria line at 31 St/39 Av, and two more tubes to 63 St, but that would also work (while freeing up the  and  to run up to 30 tph combined by eliminating the bottleneck on the 59 St tunnels).

This would be pretty bad, since 2nd Av has pretty crappy transfers and the only good one is Lex-63.

[engineerboy6561]

7 minutes ago, Armandito said:

@engineerboy6561 My plan calls for the LIRR right-of-way along Sunnyside to be used for a bypass parallel to the QBL between Queensbridge and Forest Hills, which would be used by trains; the existing QBL express tracks would be used by and trains via 8 and 2 Avs, respectively. Woodhaven Blvd would be converted to an express station with provisions for subway service along the LIE to 188 St, to be served by trains on weekdays and trains during other times. 63 Dr and 67 Av would only be served by trains during the day, but this would be compensated by the addition of Woodhaven as a new express stop. How does this sound?

I mean, that's possible, but the question comes down to what tracks you want to use where. The LIRR mainline is currently six tracks to Woodside, two of which are dedicated to PW branch service. You could disconnect those two from the PW branch and extend them down QBL as subway tracks if you so chose; I'm just not sure that's a good idea. I'd also rather see a four-track Jamaica corridor and additional corridor service down Northern Blvd and/or Astoria Blvd than jump straight to six-tracking QBL at the moment; it's not a bad idea to create a QBL bypass but I don't really want to see all those eggs in the  and 's basket.

12 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This would be pretty bad, since 2nd Av has pretty crappy transfers and the only good one is Lex-63.

Yeah; I'm more a fan of the 2nd ->3rd->2nd alignment that came up in this thread a while back (2 Av 125 to 72, 3 Av 66 to 42, 3 Av 34 to Houston) because that enables easy transfers with the  at GCT, the  at 53 St, and the  at 59/63 Sts while still hitting the hospitals and the points of interest on the LES.

[Armandito]

15 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I mean, that's possible, but the question comes down to what tracks you want to use where. The LIRR mainline is currently six tracks to Woodside, two of which are dedicated to PW branch service. You could disconnect those two from the PW branch and extend them down QBL as subway tracks if you so chose; I'm just not sure that's a good idea. I'd also rather see a four-track Jamaica corridor and additional corridor service down Northern Blvd and/or Astoria Blvd than jump straight to six-tracking QBL at the moment; it's not a bad idea to create a QBL bypass but I don't really want to see all those eggs in the  and 's basket.

There are two unused trackways located on the outermost sides of the LIRR Main Line; these were abandoned since the Rockaway Beach Branch closed down in 1962. The segment west of the junction with PW could be built as an el, with the Woodside station being built above the existing and LIRR platforms. For the LIE Line, the tracks would go outdoors via a portal near Lefrak City and also become an el, more or less in the style of AirTrain JFK along the Van Wyck (it would be depressed along the segments where the highway rises above ground; these would be the sections passing Flushing Meadows-Corona Park and around Utopia Pkwy).

[engineerboy6561]

23 minutes ago, Armandito said:

There are two unused trackways located on the outermost sides of the LIRR Main Line; these were abandoned since the Rockaway Beach Branch closed down in 1962. The segment west of the junction with PW could be built as an el, with the Woodside station being built above the existing and LIRR platforms. For the LIE Line, the tracks would go outdoors via a portal near Lefrak City and also become an el, more or less in the style of AirTrain JFK along the Van Wyck (it would be depressed along the segments where the highway rises above ground; these would be the sections passing Flushing Meadows-Corona Park and around Utopia Pkwy).

That would be an interesting idea; the alternative would be to slap a flying junction on the   express tracks where the LIRR tracks cross Queens Blvd, then bring the  up on the outer two tracks between 51 Av and 57 Av (then raise the  up once you get past the spot where the Rockaway branch breaks off).

[Armandito]

22 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That would be an interesting idea; the alternative would be to slap a flying junction on the   express tracks where the LIRR tracks cross Queens Blvd, then bring the  up on the outer two tracks between 51 Av and 57 Av (then raise the  up once you get past the spot where the Rockaway branch breaks off).

My plan closely mimics the original 1968 proposal from the Program for Action, in case you didn't know. Similar but with a few modifications.