Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Javier

NYC's overgrown population. Will the subway be able to handle it?

Recommended Posts

What does it not being a upper class area have to do with it? It's a still a very important constituency none the less along with other the other working class areas of the city.. These are the people and part of the population that keep's the City running both physically and economically. Giving that I agree with your other points.. It's the  (MTA)'s job to handle transportation and people should say something and voice there concerns if they feel that job isn't being done. 

Bobtehpanda argued that when and IF a subway was built in Co-Op City that the (MTA) would look to cut numerous buses.  I pointed out the economic standing of most residents in that neighborhood because even if a subway was built there, they would still expect to keep their bus service, citing how many people in the area have no other option and depend on public transit for all of their activities.  It's not like other areas of the city where those people can jump in their cars and use public transit when they feel like it. A neighborhood like Co-Op City doesn't have such a luxury in most cases, though I still feel that they overserved by too many local buses.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bobtehpanda argued that when and IF a subway was built in Co-Op City that the (MTA) would look to cut numerous buses.  I pointed out the economic standing of most residents in that neighborhood because even if a subway was built there, they would still expect to keep their bus service, citing how many people in the area have no other option and depend on public transit for all of their activities.  It's not like other areas of the city where those people can jump in their cars and use public transit when they feel like it. A neighborhood like Co-Op City doesn't have such a luxury in most cases, though I still feel that they overserved by too many local buses.

I disagree.. I know like 5 or 6 people that live in Co-Op City they all own cars but don't drive in because of traffic and parking cost there weekend warriors so to speak driving to upstate and Westchester on the weekends. Not all to different from us driving to White Plains and Central Ave when I was growing up.. They need all the bus service they can get last time I was up there at Bay Plz  three BxM7's back to back all packed. I get Bob's point it would take alot of traffic off of PBP (6) and GunHill (5) stations. Maybe in that scenario they could merge the Bx38/28 routes and the Q50/Bx23 as well less people going to those destinations and using the subway there. 

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.. I know like 5 or 6 people that live in Co-Op City they all own cars but don't drive in because of traffic and parking cost there weekend warriors so to speak driving to upstate and Westchester on the weekends. Not all to different from us driving to White Plains and Central Ave when I was growing up.. They need all the bus service they can get last time I was up there at Bay Plz  three BxM7's back to back all packed. I get Bob's point it would take alot of traffic off of PBP (6) and GunHill (5) stations. Maybe in that scenario they could merge the Bx38/28 routes and the Q50/Bx23 as well less people going to those destinations and using the subway there. 

I've don't dispute the BxM7 too much, though 20 minute headways on weekends from what I've seen isn't warranted in some cases (their bus loads are similar to other express bus lines with 30 minute headways on weekends), but they want all of the local buses looping to serve all sections. I think that's overkill.  The population size of Co-Op City has to be similar to other communities in New York City that has far less local bus service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've don't dispute the BxM7 too much, though 20 minute headways on weekends from what I've seen isn't warranted in some cases (their bus loads are similar to other express bus lines with 30 minute headways on weekends), but they want all of the local buses looping to serve all sections. I think that's overkill.  The population size of Co-Op City has to be similar to other communities in New York City that has far less local bus service.

Which communities?  And with no direct rapid transit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's quite a few of them out in Northeast Queens, the Rockaways, etc.

Like? with 43-50 K people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use Google and you'll see for yourself.

Kind of a copout! I did already didn't see anything that match the criteria which is why im asking you.. You stated them as facts id figured you'd have the information to back it up..I have Ersi software and plugin's on my home Computer Ill do the leg work..

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use Google and you'll see for yourself.

Okay back! So I pulled a 2010 census data set..

 

 

Co-Op City is 45,000

0.936 Sq miles. /49k per sqm

 

 

Northeast Queens

 

Bayside  30,135

1.375 square miles / 21k per sqm

 

Little Neck 18,220 

2.1 Sq miles  7k per sqm

 

I have to re download the .XML file for the Rockaways for the density information. Here's some base information I took the liberty of highligthing the area's that don't have direct rapid transit.. 

 

Rockaway’s Population breakdown
 
Breezy Point **
4,096
 
Belle Harbor**
5,452
 
Rockaway Park   (A)(S)
12,664
 
Rockaway Beach (A)(S)
13,449
 
Arverne (A)
9,809
 
Edge mere (A)
17,012
 
Bayswater   (A)
10,433
 
Far Rockaway   (A)

39,625 

 

(source) 2010 U.S census 

 

These the one's you had in mind? How do they compare to Co-Op City? What are some of the factors that go into deciding bus routes and service?

 

snapback.png

There's quite a few of them out in Northeast Queens, the Rockaways, etc.

 

 

-R3

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like? with 43-50 K people?

Try Spring Creek Towers/ Starrett City in Brooklyn with one full-time bus route B82, and the B83, which doesn't run overnights. The Belt Parkway is right there at Pennsylvania Avenue Exit 14. That's somewhat similar I think.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try Spring Creek Towers/ Starrett City in Brooklyn with one full-time bus route B82, and the B83, which doesn't run overnights. The Belt Parkway is right there at Pennsylvania Avenue Exit 14. That's somewhat similar I think.

Parallels there for sure.  0.4 sq miles 13,000 people two routes.. you have a point. Lefrak City might be up there as well about 15k people there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is when Co-Op City was being developed, the city promised the community good transportation, and that's one of the things that Co-Op likes to throw out there when the (MTA) considers service cuts.  Given the size of Co-Op City and their ability to mobilize and protest, getting any service cuts through would certainly not be easy.  Co-Op City also is mainly working class folks, so I'm sure they would cry that the (MTA) was discriminating against them, noting how many people need public transportation in the area, and they would be right.  It's certainly not an upper class area, and housing costs are quite cheap there.

 

Well, they were promised the subway in 1968. If the subway were to ever go up there, that promise is as good as filled. There's no reason to have all those buses running the loops; it's excessive and as you say, there are similarly dense sized areas that have stingier levels of service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to give my opinion here, it's both a yes and a no. Once we get more automated systems like the CBTC on every line, I think we might be able to handle it. I remember the day I took the (L) in Brooklyn for the first time and saw the trains literally coming one after the other. If we can increase the number of trains, maybe even a few more lines that offer some good connections COUGH(J)INSOUTHERNBROOKLYNCOUGH. 

 

The no side of this is really, how long CBTC can aid to this problem. Trains are always gonna be crowded. I remember coming to NY a few years ago and noticing the (Q) was pretty much empty on weekends. Now you can't even get a seat going uptown. The population is gonna grow faster than the lines that we have. Leave the rest to engineering advancements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to give my opinion here, it's both a yes and a no. Once we get more automated systems like the CBTC on every line, I think we might be able to handle it. I remember the day I took the (L) in Brooklyn for the first time and saw the trains literally coming one after the other. If we can increase the number of trains, maybe even a few more lines that offer some good connections COUGH(J)INSOUTHERNBROOKLYNCOUGH. 

 

The no side of this is really, how long CBTC can aid to this problem. Trains are always gonna be crowded. I remember coming to NY a few years ago and noticing the (Q) was pretty much empty on weekends. Now you can't even get a seat going uptown. The population is gonna grow faster than the lines that we have. Leave the rest to engineering advancements.

 

I hear you.

 

Engineering advancements will help, but I don't think will be enough--there needs to be guys with shovels digging and doing construction. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, commuter railroads have to carry more weight. I really think that if NJT, LIRR and Metro North offered one seat rides to Midtown East and Lower Manhattan, a big burden would be lifted off the subway system.

 

You can have the most sophisticated signaling system, but if you have a subway line that has a terminal that can only turn 12 TPH and has to merge with 3 other subway lines at other points, guess what, you'll have a pretty signaling system and have the same problems as before. 

 

Subway lines have to be better scheduled and managed. Subway service patterns have to be better. Terminals have to be designed better.

Queens Blvd probably needs that bypass line. Brick and Mortar work needs to be done, period. No escaping that. 

 

And I agree on the J line.....it has so much potential.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the peak:

  • (1): No capacity issues
  • (2)(3): The only truly problematic section is the 42nd St - 72nd St section. One "solution" would be to have express trains skip 72nd St during the rush hour and redirect riders onto the (1), but this is politically challenging.
  • (4)(5): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future, SAS will offer no relief 
  • (6): On the other hand, SAS will offer immediate relief, and crowding will become okay, more like the (1)
  • (7): CBTC and articulated trains should be enough for the future
  • (A)(C): No capacity issues
  • (E): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future
  • (F): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future, since the 63rd St / Lexington Ave connection to the (Q) will attract a significant number of riders
  • (B)(D)(M): No capacity issues
  • (G): No capacity issues
  • (J)(Z): No capacity issues
  • (N)(Q)(W): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future. SAS needs 4-6 minute headways (not 8!). Astoria should be running 20 tph, but can only run 15 due to terminal limitations.
  • (L): Overcrowded for the next few years. The only solution is to upgrade the 8th Ave terminal and the electrical system during the shutdown, which will enable enable 26 tph (30% capacity increase).
  • (R): Service reliability is a bigger issue than crowdedness

The only truly problematic lines are Lexington Ave and Queens Blvd because the tracks are at capacity. I think a Northern Blvd - Roosevelt Island - SAS line would be the most cost-effective solution to relieve the Queens Line, but the Lexington Ave express service has no relief for a few decades.

 

Off-peak train issues have a simple solution: run more service. It's really not that hard to implement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the peak:

  • (1): No capacity issues
  • (2)(3): The only truly problematic section is the 42nd St - 72nd St section. One "solution" would be to have express trains skip 72nd St during the rush hour and redirect riders onto the (1), but this is politically challenging.
  • (4)(5): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future, SAS will offer no relief 
  • (6): On the other hand, SAS will offer immediate relief, and crowding will become okay, more like the (1)
  • (7): CBTC and articulated trains should be enough for the future
  • (A)(C): No capacity issues
  • (E): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future
  • (F): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future, since the 63rd St / Lexington Ave connection to the (Q) will attract a significant number of riders
  • (B)(D)(M): No capacity issues
  • (G): No capacity issues
  • (J)(Z): No capacity issues
  • (N)(Q)(W): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future. SAS needs 4-6 minute headways (not 8!). Astoria should be running 20 tph, but can only run 15 due to terminal limitations.
  • (L): Overcrowded for the next few years. The only solution is to upgrade the 8th Ave terminal and the electrical system during the shutdown, which will enable enable 26 tph (30% capacity increase).
  • (R): Service reliability is a bigger issue than crowdedness

The only truly problematic lines are Lexington Ave and Queens Blvd because the tracks are at capacity. I think a Northern Blvd - Roosevelt Island - SAS line would be the most cost-effective solution to relieve the Queens Line, but the Lexington Ave express service has no relief for a few decades.

 

Off-peak train issues have a simple solution: run more service. It's really not that hard to implement.

 

While I like a Northern Blvd line (because it's an underserved area), that would mostly serve to relieve the 7 and not Queens Blvd. You need a bypass from 63 St to Forest Hills to solve the capacity issues on that line.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the peak:

  • (1): No capacity issues
  • (2)(3): The only truly problematic section is the 42nd St - 72nd St section. One "solution" would be to have express trains skip 72nd St during the rush hour and redirect riders onto the (1), but this is politically challenging.
  • (4)(5): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future, SAS will offer no relief 
  • (6): On the other hand, SAS will offer immediate relief, and crowding will become okay, more like the (1)
  • (7): CBTC and articulated trains should be enough for the future
  • (A)(C): No capacity issues
  • (E): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future
  • (F): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future, since the 63rd St / Lexington Ave connection to the (Q) will attract a significant number of riders
  • (B)(D)(M): No capacity issues
  • (G): No capacity issues
  • (J)(Z): No capacity issues
  • (N)(Q)(W): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future. SAS needs 4-6 minute headways (not 8!). Astoria should be running 20 tph, but can only run 15 due to terminal limitations.
  • (L): Overcrowded for the next few years. The only solution is to upgrade the 8th Ave terminal and the electrical system during the shutdown, which will enable enable 26 tph (30% capacity increase).
  • (R): Service reliability is a bigger issue than crowdedness

The only truly problematic lines are Lexington Ave and Queens Blvd because the tracks are at capacity. I think a Northern Blvd - Roosevelt Island - SAS line would be the most cost-effective solution to relieve the Queens Line, but the Lexington Ave express service has no relief for a few decades.

 

Off-peak train issues have a simple solution: run more service. It's really not that hard to implement.

Seems the major factor is the SAS needs to be completed in it's entirety to relieve these arteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the peak:

  • (F): Overcrowded for the foreseeable future, since the 63rd St / Lexington Ave connection to the (Q) will attract a significant number of riders

Which is one of the other reasons separate from those already noted why not just during the (L) shutdown, but actually as soon as the (M) returns from the shutdown of the Myrtle El I look to split the (M) into the (M) and (T), with the (T) basically being the (M) except for being most of the time a 5-6 TPH line (3 TPH late nights) 24/7 between Metropolitan Avenue and 96th Street-2nd Avenue, absorbing both of the current (M) shuttles in the process (during the (L) shutdown, weekends would see it increased then to 6-9 TPH depending on needs).  The (T) would take some pressure off the (F) as it would for most eliminate the need to do a transfer at 63rd/Lex..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like a Northern Blvd line (because it's an underserved area), that would mostly serve to relieve the 7 and not Queens Blvd. You need a bypass from 63 St to Forest Hills to solve the capacity issues on that line.

 

I consider the two options mostly equivalent. The Queens Blvd and Astoria lines are overcrowded because there are too many (7) riders transferring, so an underground Northern Blvd line would actually be a fairly quick route into the city that could take some relief off the other lines directly and indirectly. The bypass also works, but to attract consistent ridership throughout the day, more stops need to be added than just Woodside, namely Sunnyside, 51st Ave, and Woodhaven Blvd. Also, it is basically the prerequisite for the Queens - Rockaways line.

 

Seems the major factor is the SAS needs to be completed in it's entirety to relieve these arteries.

 

Pretty much: the (Q)(T) relieves the (6), and presumably a new service via Roosevelt Island can be introduced to increase peak Queens capacity by 15 tph. That leaves the (4), for which the only "solution" at the moment is to run all Lex Ave express trains to Woodlawn and redirect some (3) trains up to Eastchester.

 

Which is one of the other reasons separate from those already noted why not just during the (L) shutdown, but actually as soon as the (M) returns from the shutdown of the Myrtle El I look to split the (M) into the (M) and (T), with the (T) basically being the (M) except for being most of the time a 5-6 TPH line (3 TPH late nights) 24/7 between Metropolitan Avenue and 96th Street-2nd Avenue, absorbing both of the current (M) shuttles in the process (during the (L) shutdown, weekends would see it increased then to 6-9 TPH depending on needs).  The (T) would take some pressure off the (F) as it would for most eliminate the need to do a transfer at 63rd/Lex..

 

There's actually no issues on the Brooklyn side, since more trains can be run in that direction. I'm talking about the Queens side, where a lot of riders will transfer to the (Q) at 63rd St to access 72nd St or Times Sq. This will take some pressure off the (E), but that line's already overcrowded and probably will stay so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Javier here's a idea I've had for expanding transit. In addition to the full 2nd Ave Subway of course. 

 

(City Rail)

Im drafting up a detailed track map and stations in CAD ill work on it over the summer and upload as I finish.

 

Here's the route brake down. Excuse the few sections of notes and questions

  • LIRR Bay Ridge line ( Central Line ) 
2 tracks electrified for Rail  600-650V nominal 3rd Rail system
1 freight.
 
LIRR Northern Rockaway line (Eastern Line) 
4 tracks 

 

 

 
 
Central line wouldn't t share any track to standard subway Rolling stock. And could run modified NTT’s or M7/M9 Rolling stock to allow use of the line under FRA guidelines or and or possibly the Hellgate Bridge. 
 
Bottlenecks and cross agency scheduling may or may not allow the possibility of Bronx expansion.
 
 
The Hell Gate line could operate.
 
7-10 Min Headways Rush and middays.
 
10-12 Evenings ans weekends
 
20-30 Late nights*
 
Freight operations would share trackage with MTA C division trackage with movement at Nights The Hell gate line would parallel both Amtrak and Metro North services and would require the rebuilding of the 4th track on the Hell Gate.
 
 
 
Operational Speeds.
 
 
  • The Northern Central line can operate up to speeds of 60 MPH.
  • The Hell Gate Crossing allows for speeds of 55 MPH
  • The Queens segment of the Central Line allows for Speeds of up to 45 MPH north of Metropolitan south of Queens Blvd. and 55MPH south to Brooklyn.
 
Rockaway Branch 
  • South of the LIRR mainline allows for speeds up to 50 MPH
  • Along the LIRR Mainline/Central up to 60 MPH
 
 
 
What is the MTA C division? The MTA C division would concise of new above ground routes and service that use repurposed railroad ROW's in the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens and The Bronx to create new connections to emerging centers outside of the Central Business District. 
 
Would I be able to connect or transfer to existing Subway and bus routes?
 Yes the C division routes would fit into the existing fare structure with free transfer to other subway routes and Buses.
 
What’s the difference between A,B and C divisions?
Operations for the most part are very similar there are some differences in rolling stock Maintenance and Standards The C division routes operate on or adjacent to mainline road roads  i.e. Amtrak. Federal requirements mandate these cars have certain inspections to FRA standards. Cars and lines also use a mix of signaling types that are used on the Standard Subway routes as well a Main line railroads with LIRR or MetroNorth. Here’s a line breakdown. This may also required the use of FRA certified engineers could be a cost issue?
 
A Division
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
 
B1 Division
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,N,Q,R,T,W
 
B2 Division
J,L,M,Z
 
C Division (CityRail)
Central Line
NEC/Central Line
Rockway Line (Airport) (Joint)
Putnam Line
Staten Island Line (SIR) 
 
road bed would be arranged as followed North of Oakpoint yard.
 
 
West to east
 
2x Tracks MTA C division tracks  650V 3rd rail or AC 12KV?
3x Metro North and Amtrak with a Express bypass. AC 12KV
1x Freight Non powered.
 
Signaling on Central line is a CBTC(ATO) line on it’s northern and Southern Ends.The Hell gate section is code manual with Cab based signaling and ACSES due to it’s proximity and use of the Standard mainline railroad.
 
Possible routes and short turns
 
4th Ave to LGA   (16.7 Miles)
4th Ave to Jackson Heights (14.6Miles)
4th Ave to Co-Op City  (25 Miles)
LGA to Midwood 
Jackson Heights to Midwood 
LGA to JFK 
Jackson Heights to JFK. 
 
(Bold depicts a terminal station)
*Short turns
** Substation
 
Central Line
 
(Harbor Yard)
 
  • 4th Ave  N,R  
**
     Line split to 4th Ave Line
 
  • Fort Hamilton Pkway (N)   (1.08 Miles)
  • New Utrecht Ave  D,N   (0.5 Miles)
**
  • McDonald Ave  F     (1.12 Miles)
  • Coney Island Ave  Q (0.8 Miles)
**
  • Nostrand -Flatbush  2,5, B44*  (0.8 Miles)
  • Utica- Kings Hwy  B46  (1.13 Miles)
**
  • Ralph Ave              (0.480 Miles)
  • Remsen Ave          (0.411 Miles)
  • Rockaway Ave  (0.3 Miles)
**
  • Linden Blvd  L
  • Livonia Ave  3,L
**
  • Broadway  A,C,J,L,Z  - LIRR, Atlantic Line
  • Central- Wilson  L
 
Bklyn/Queens
 
**
 
  • Cooper -Cypress
  • Fresh Pound -Myrtle
(Fresh Pond yards and maintenance)
  • Metropolitan  M
**
  • Eliot Ave
  • Grand Ave
**
Split/Join with Eastern Line
 
  • Queens Blvd
  • Roosevelt -Broadway  7,E ,F,M,R*  
  • Northern Blvd   LGA Spur
**
FTA / FRA jurisdiction
 
NEC /LGA Spur spit
 
  • 25th Ave
  • 82nd street
  • LGA (Rockaway Line , AIRTRAIN)
 
 
NEC LINE  (10 TPH bidirectional 12min Headways?)
 
——————— Queens/Bronx
(Hell gate Bridge)
  
Line Provision for SAS Line
 
  • 138th Street  (Putnam)
 
Line splits via Putnam to Riverdale (North \/  )
 
  • Hunts Point Ave   (6),Metro North
  • 174th Street
  • Parkchester    Metro North
  • Eastchester - Morris Park  Metro North
  • Pelham-Metro  Bx12 SBS
(Pelham Yard)
  • Co-op City  MetroNorth
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Rockaway Branch would share it’s trackage with Queens Blvd Local trains. From Howard Beach to Yellowstone Blvd. As well as IND Fulton trains from Howard Beach to Rockaway Blvd.
The Rockaway Rolling stock would consist of modified NTT or M7/M9 cars like it’s sister line the Central Line.    
2,3,4 tracks  600-650V nominal 3rd Rail system
 
Signaling on Rockaway Branch line is a CBTC(ATO) 
 
 
Possible routes and short turns
 
  • LGA to JFK
  • JFK to Jackson Heights
  • JFK to Co-Op City Via HellGate
  • JFK to Barclays Center 
 
(Bold depicts a terminal station)
*Short turns
** Substation
 
         Miles
  • (0)             Howard Beach -JFK   A,R
  • (1.5) 2m    Liberty Ave   (A)
**
(Whitepot Yard)
  • (2.14)1m  Atlantic Ave  LIRR (Atlantic Line)
  • (2.5) 1m   Jamaica Ave   J ,Z
**
  • (3.12) 1m  Myrtle- Forest Park
  • (3.82) 1m Metropolitan Ave
  • (4.18) 1m Yellowstone Blvd R
**
R splits to Manhattan via Queens Blvd
Joins LIRR main line.
  • (6.70) 4m  Queens Blvd
 
joins Central Line
  • (7.23) 1m  Roosevelt- Broadway 7,E,F,M,R *
  • (7.82)1m Northern Blvd  (Trains to Bronx)
**
  • (8.37) 25th Ave
  • (9.04) 82nd Street 
  • (9.89) LGA
 
23 mins
Putnam Line
Would start at 231st in Riverdale and parallel the Hudson Line making 7 stop along the routes the Line turn’s north using the wye connecting to Harlem Line before turning off on to the Old Port Morris ROW.
 
 
3 Tracks 2 Tracks
 
Possible routes and short turns
 
  • Riverdale to Port Morris
  • Riverdale to Bay Ridge (Via Central)
  • Riverdale to JFK (Via Rockaway Line)
  • Fordham Road to Port Morris
  • Riverdale to Brooklyn (7th ave Express)**
 
 
 
 
 
  • Riverdale   (1)
  • Marble Hill 
(Yard)
  • Fordham Road (Metro North)
  • Morris Heights
  • Washington Bridge
  • 167th
  • Yankee Stadium (3,4,B,D ,Metro North)
 
City Rail and Subway Joint service
 
FTA / FRA jurisdiction
 
3 splits to Manhattan via Harlem River Tunnel
 
--------------------------------
 
via Metro North route (Melrose Station )
  • Melrose Ave
  • Third Ave
  • 149th Street 
  • 143rd Street   (6)
  • 138th Street Port Morris (Central/NEC)
 
Joins Central Line/ Splits provisions for SAS 
 
.......
 
Just a notion. Ill whip up a quick route map.. 
 
Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't have the slightest clue how to embed images haha.. this is a rough idea of the routes. Whipped it up in 15-20 mins. I'll have a more detailed version of the map with scheduling over the next month or so.

 

http://s44.photobucket.com/user/acenyc4/media/Route%20Map%20City%20Rail_zpsu8mltafh.jpg.html

Edited by RailRunRob
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copied from the other thread. Here is how I would prioritize expansion:

 

(Ongoing) Installation of CBTC: The most cost-effective way to add capacity on existing lines.

 

Completion of Phases 1-4 of SAS: The entire subway needs to be finished in order to allow for expansion to other boroughs.

 

Construction of Queens Bypass line: Once SAS is complete, new service to Queens via Roosevelt Island can be added. With connections to existing yards and subways in eastern Queens, I think that the bypass will be easier to construct than the underground Northern Blvd line. Plus, the bypass is needed for a connection to the Rockaway Beach branch - I think a connection to the existing Queens Blvd line will be too complex. Some more specific details: 

  • Two services:  (F),   (H). Up to five new stations.
  • Sunnyside - 39th St: Potential station to serve projected development at the Sunnyside Yards, potential transfer to future Sunnyside LIRR / MNR station
  • Woodside - 61st St: Transfer to the  (7) and LIRR
  • 51st Ave: Potential station to connect to future Triboro RX /  (M) extension along the Bay Ridge branch
  • Woodhaven Blvd - Rego Park: Transfer station for the Rockaway branch  (H)
  • Forest Hills - 71 Ave: Express station below existing station, connects to existing tracks at Union Turnpike.
  • (F) runs between Jamaica / 179 St and Coney Island via 6th Ave, 63rd St / Queens Bypass at all times. Express east of Union Turnpike on weekdays, local all other times.
  • (E) runs the same route, serving local stations east of Forest Hills at all times.
  • (M) now runs express between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills, and local to Jamaica / 179 St. Weekdays only.
  • (G) re-extended to Forest Hills to provide local service at all times.
  • (H) runs from Rockaway Beach to Lower Manhattan via the SAS and Queens Bypass at all times.

After that, I think the SAS extension up 3rd Ave and the (4) extension down Utica Ave should be considered, but those are still far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copied from the other thread. Here is how I would prioritize expansion:

 

(Ongoing) Installation of CBTC: The most cost-effective way to add capacity on existing lines.

 

Completion of Phases 1-4 of SAS: The entire subway needs to be finished in order to allow for expansion to other boroughs.

 

Construction of Queens Bypass line: Once SAS is complete, new service to Queens via Roosevelt Island can be added. With connections to existing yards and subways in eastern Queens, I think that the bypass will be easier to construct than the underground Northern Blvd line. Plus, the bypass is needed for a connection to the Rockaway Beach branch - I think a connection to the existing Queens Blvd line will be too complex. Some more specific details: 

  • Two services:  (F),   (H). Up to five new stations.
  • Sunnyside - 39th St: Potential station to serve projected development at the Sunnyside Yards, potential transfer to future Sunnyside LIRR / MNR station
  • Woodside - 61st St: Transfer to the  (7) and LIRR
  • 51st Ave: Potential station to connect to future Triboro RX /  (M) extension along the Bay Ridge branch
  • Woodhaven Blvd - Rego Park: Transfer station for the Rockaway branch  (H)
  • Forest Hills - 71 Ave: Express station below existing station, connects to existing tracks at Union Turnpike.
  • (F) runs between Jamaica / 179 St and Coney Island via 6th Ave, 63rd St / Queens Bypass at all times. Express east of Union Turnpike on weekdays, local all other times.
  • (E) runs the same route, serving local stations east of Forest Hills at all times.
  • (M) now runs express between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills, and local to Jamaica / 179 St. Weekdays only.
  • (G) re-extended to Forest Hills to provide local service at all times.
  • (H) runs from Rockaway Beach to Lower Manhattan via the SAS and Queens Bypass at all times.

After that, I think the SAS extension up 3rd Ave and the (4) extension down Utica Ave should be considered, but those are still far off.

51st Ave? is that along the LIRR bypass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copied from the other thread. Here is how I would prioritize expansion:

 

(Ongoing) Installation of CBTC: The most cost-effective way to add capacity on existing lines.

 

Completion of Phases 1-4 of SAS: The entire subway needs to be finished in order to allow for expansion to other boroughs.

 

Construction of Queens Bypass line: Once SAS is complete, new service to Queens via Roosevelt Island can be added. With connections to existing yards and subways in eastern Queens, I think that the bypass will be easier to construct than the underground Northern Blvd line. Plus, the bypass is needed for a connection to the Rockaway Beach branch - I think a connection to the existing Queens Blvd line will be too complex. Some more specific details: 

  • Two services:  (F),   (H). Up to five new stations.
  • Sunnyside - 39th St: Potential station to serve projected development at the Sunnyside Yards, potential transfer to future Sunnyside LIRR / MNR station
  • Woodside - 61st St: Transfer to the  (7) and LIRR
  • 51st Ave: Potential station to connect to future Triboro RX /  (M) extension along the Bay Ridge branch
  • Woodhaven Blvd - Rego Park: Transfer station for the Rockaway branch  (H)
  • Forest Hills - 71 Ave: Express station below existing station, connects to existing tracks at Union Turnpike.
  • (F) runs between Jamaica / 179 St and Coney Island via 6th Ave, 63rd St / Queens Bypass at all times. Express east of Union Turnpike on weekdays, local all other times.
  • (E) runs the same route, serving local stations east of Forest Hills at all times.
  • (M) now runs express between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills, and local to Jamaica / 179 St. Weekdays only.
  • (G) re-extended to Forest Hills to provide local service at all times.
  • (H) runs from Rockaway Beach to Lower Manhattan via the SAS and Queens Bypass at all times.

After that, I think the SAS extension up 3rd Ave and the (4) extension down Utica Ave should be considered, but those are still far off.

Not a bad idea in itself, but you kind of screwed over the riders at the Queens Blvd local stations by making the (M) an (F) clone. While I'd like to see the (G) return to Queens Blvd, I'm not sure how riders would appreciate a cut of Queens-Manhattan local service by 50%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider the two options mostly equivalent. The Queens Blvd and Astoria lines are overcrowded because there are too many (7) riders transferring, so an underground Northern Blvd line would actually be a fairly quick route into the city that could take some relief off the other lines directly and indirectly. The bypass also works, but to attract consistent ridership throughout the day, more stops need to be added than just Woodside, namely Sunnyside, 51st Ave, and Woodhaven Blvd. Also, it is basically the prerequisite for the Queens - Rockaways line.

 

Trains are already SRO by the time they arrive at Kew Gardens-Union Tpke in the morning rush. Roosevelt riders are just the icing on the cake.

 

Realistically speaking, a Northern Blvd train would be best to grab riders north of Roosevelt, Broadway, and the Astoria Lines, but at that point the Queens Blvd Line is far beyond crowded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.