Fix & Fortify - 14th Street (L Train) Tunnels Closure

[Wallyhorse]

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 7:08 PM, trainfanrod17 said:

still going to have a full platform and people on the stairs waitng

And another reason why perhaps what should have been done ahead of time was to rebuild Atlantic Avenue on the to at least four tracks (the infrastructure is in place so that could have been done) and set it up so perhaps something similar to the old that could have been the extra trains could have run between Rockaway Parkway and 96th/2nd (perhaps as ) while some trains terminate at Atlantic Avenue and run between there and Bedford.  That might have worked.

[LGA Link N Train]

6 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

And another reason why perhaps what should have been done ahead of time was to rebuild Atlantic Avenue on the to at least four tracks (the infrastructure is in place so that could have been done) and set it up so perhaps something similar to the old that could have been the extra trains could have run between Rockaway Parkway and 96th/2nd (perhaps as ) while some trains terminate at Atlantic Avenue and run between there and Bedford.  That might have worked.

If you REALLY wanted to rebuild Atlantic Avenue, then you must rebuild ALL of Broadway Junction, which right now (Especially with the train shutdown happening in a few months, its just not worth it, so therefore, a revival is not necessary as of yet. Also, your proposal would screw over Queens Blvd on the weekdays. If you really wanted to give Second Avenue the service you're trying to provide, you can send a couple of  's to 96th Street and the 2TPH that the loses can go to Astoria.

Aside from that, heres what I propose to cope with the shutdown.

- 2TPH are rerouted to Astoria, bumping a couple of 's to 96th Street 

and service can stay at the same level between Jamaica Center and Broadway Junction to not get rid of service on the . 

[trainfanrod17]

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If you REALLY wanted to rebuild Atlantic Avenue, then you must rebuild ALL of Broadway Junction, which right now (Especially with the train shutdown happening in a few months, its just not worth it, so therefore, a revival is not necessary as of yet. Also, your proposal would screw over Queens Blvd on the weekdays. If you really wanted to give Second Avenue the service you're trying to provide, you can send a couple of  's to 96th Street and the 2TPH that the loses can go to Astoria.

Aside from that, heres what I propose to cope with the shutdown.

- 2TPH are rerouted to Astoria, bumping a couple of 's to 96th Street 

and service can stay at the same level between Jamaica Center and Broadway Junction to not get rid of service on the . 

i dont know if there going to do this but more trains need to start from broadway junction in the morning like additional from junction 730-9

[trainfanrod17]

or special between 7 and 9

[Wallyhorse]

Just now, trainfanrod17 said:

i dont know if there going to do this but more trains need to start from broadway junction in the morning like additional from junction 730-9

Which with an Atlantic Avenue rebuild with additional tracks connected to the Junction could have been done as I said.

My views others on sending trains to 96th are well noted. 

[RR503]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

And another reason why perhaps what should have been done ahead of time was to rebuild Atlantic Avenue on the to at least four tracks (the infrastructure is in place so that could have been done) and set it up so perhaps something similar to the old that could have been the extra trains could have run between Rockaway Parkway and 96th/2nd (perhaps as ) while some trains terminate at Atlantic Avenue and run between there and Bedford.  That might have worked.

Oh dear god. This is like a shitty remake of Groundhog Day. 

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 If you REALLY wanted to rebuild Atlantic Avenue, then you must rebuild ALL of Broadway Junction, which right now (Especially with the train shutdown happening in a few months, its just not worth it, so therefore, a revival is not necessary as of yet. Also, your proposal would screw over Queens Blvd on the weekdays. If you really wanted to give Second Avenue the service you're trying to provide, you can send a couple of  's to 96th Street and the 2TPH that the loses can go to Astoria.

 Aside from that, heres what I propose to cope with the shutdown.

- 2TPH are rerouted to Astoria, bumping a couple of 's to 96th Street 

and service can stay at the same level between Jamaica Center and Broadway Junction to not get rid of service on the . 

Here's what you do post shutdown at Atlantic. Transform the tracks from this: 

***EDIT*** did not realize these would render so big. Apologies! 

To this:

And extend all Myrtle  short turns to the middle tracks here, relaying south. That solves ENY build out issues, and provides eastern Bushwick with better service. Then, reduce the  to 8tph, run the  at eight each (+2tph for each), kill skip stop, and terminate the  (which is now a full local from Marcy) at either Broadway Junction or Crescent. If ridership or developmental interest then takes off, you can then make some larger investments in the Jamaica Line. Transform it from this:

Into this:

You then have  local from Crescent to Broad,  express from Jamaica Center to Broad,  from Metro to 71st, and  from 8th Ave to Atlantic or Rock Parkway. You also have full express service from Crescent to Marcy, making the  into a defensible route from outer Brooklyn/Southern Queens to Manhattan, saving people time, attracting development, and reducing the transfer load at Broadway Junction. 

If you need more service to 96th St, send the  there, and expand  service to make up for the 's loss in Astoria. Route those extra s to Kings Highway  for ease of scheduling -- the  is the  internally, after all. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by RR503

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Oh dear god. This is like a shitty remake of Groundhog Day. 

Here's what you do post shutdown at Atlantic. Transform the tracks from this: 

***EDIT*** did not realize these would render so big. Apologies! 

 

Into this:

You then have  local from Crescent to Broad,  express from Jamaica Center to Broad,  from Metro to 71st, and  from 8th Ave to Atlantic or Rock Parkway. You also have full express service from Crescent to Marcy, making the  into a defensible route from outer Brooklyn/Southern Queens to Manhattan, saving people time, attracting development, and reducing the transfer load at Broadway Junction. 

If you need more service to 96th St, send the  there, and expand  service to make up for the 's loss in Astoria. Route those extra s to Kings Highway  for ease of scheduling -- the  is the  internally, after all. 

I like this a lot. Why would you have the express track fly over the existing line as opposed to going over Jamaica Avenue. Also, would a stop at Crescent be necessary? I think 121st and Woodhaven would suffice.

Great work!

[BayParkwayW]

I like the idea, but the express track on the Jamaica line would not work. Structural issues would mean once a train runs above, the vibration would literally shake the stations apart. An alternative (and more costly) option is to build a third track in between the two existing ones, removing all existing platforms and replacing them with side platforms. Myrtle Avenue, Broadway Junction, Crescent Street, Woodhaven Blvd, and 121 St would be express stops with two island platforms. The  would be a peak direction express.

[RR503]

22 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I like this a lot. Why would you have the express track fly over the existing line as opposed to going over Jamaica Avenue. Also, would a stop at Crescent be necessary? I think 121st and Woodhaven would suffice.

Great work!

The thought was that the express track would end at Crescent, allowing folks beyond there to get a one seat express ride into town. I think any plan for a  line 3rd track should benefit Jamaica while also encouraging growth in some of the areas along the core of the line — Crescent seemed a great place to find that happy medium.

Woodhaven could also work as a terminal, though — the Jamaica line rises to go over the RBB there, so (and I’m just spitballing here) you could build a relay track which continues at grade from Woodhaven for, say, 800 feet, while the express track (which would rise to a new platform above the existing ones) joins the current tracks at the top of the RBB rise. Let me know if this is clear — if not I’ll make a diagram.

As for a Jamaica Avenue alignment, it would be more direct, but it would entail the construction of a new El without any beneft for the residents along it — a political impossibility. 

9 minutes ago, BayParkwayW said:

I like the idea, but the express track on the Jamaica line would not work. Structural issues would mean once a train runs above, the vibration would literally shake the stations apart. An alternative (and more costly) option is to build a third track in between the two existing ones, removing all existing platforms and replacing them with side platforms. Myrtle Avenue, Broadway Junction, Crescent Street, Woodhaven Blvd, and 121 St would be express stops with two island platforms. The  would be a peak direction express.

I’m aware of those concerns. The study that raised them was — if I’m remembering this correctly — done  around the time of the Dual Contracts. Since then, track/bridge construction technology has evolved greatly, creating such things as low vibration track and isolators. This is by no means an ironclad guarantee that such a design is feasible now — I just think that such a thing must be studied in the context of modern technology. 

[P3F]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The thought was that the express track would end at Crescent, allowing folks beyond there to get a one seat express ride into town. I think any plan for a  line 3rd track should benefit Jamaica while also encouraging growth in some of the areas along the core of the line — Crescent seemed a great place to find that happy medium.

Woodhaven could also work as a terminal, though — the Jamaica line rises to go over the RBB there, so (and I’m just spitballing here) you could build a relay track which continues at grade from Woodhaven for, say, 800 feet, while the express track (which would rise to a new platform above the existing ones) joins the current tracks at the top of the RBB rise. Let me know if this is clear — if not I’ll make a diagram.

Els don't have to be ugly and menacing anymore. You could do something like this on Jamaica Av (except it'd be even narrower since it'd only have one track): https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9595313,-75.2207878,3a,75y,238h,85.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ0-pXJyIH6a3e4Euw6SZGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Also, over half of the Jamaica Av route is next to a park and some cemeteries.

In terms of operations, I'm of the opinion that the third track should be installed and used on the Jamaica El, with Cypress Hills and Woodhaven Blvd being converted to express stations for cross-platform connections. If you're short on money, only convert Cypress Hills. Ideally the Jamaica line would be extended east past Jamaica Center, so that a proper terminal can be built, instead of a relay that would hamper local Jamaica capacity. Short turning local service could terminate at Crescent St.

Of course, unless you get a third track between Marcy Av and Essex St, Jamaica service will continue being limited by the , to the point where the express track wouldn't even really have a point.

Edited September 27, 2018 by P3F

[Wallyhorse]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Oh dear god. This is like a shitty remake of Groundhog Day. 

Here's what you do post shutdown at Atlantic. Transform the tracks from this: 

***EDIT*** did not realize these would render so big. Apologies! 

To this:

And extend all Myrtle  short turns to the middle tracks here, relaying south. That solves ENY build out issues, and provides eastern Bushwick with better service. Then, reduce the  to 8tph, run the  at eight each (+2tph for each), kill skip stop, and terminate the  (which is now a full local from Marcy) at either Broadway Junction or Crescent. If ridership or developmental interest then takes off, you can then make some larger investments in the Jamaica Line. Transform it from this:

Into this:

You then have  local from Crescent to Broad,  express from Jamaica Center to Broad,  from Metro to 71st, and  from 8th Ave to Atlantic or Rock Parkway. You also have full express service from Crescent to Marcy, making the  into a defensible route from outer Brooklyn/Southern Queens to Manhattan, saving people time, attracting development, and reducing the transfer load at Broadway Junction. 

If you need more service to 96th St, send the  there, and expand  service to make up for the 's loss in Astoria. Route those extra s to Kings Highway  for ease of scheduling -- the  is the  internally, after all. 

This is excellent and almost exactly along the lines of what I would want to actually do.  Lots of great stuff here,

[RR503]

5 minutes ago, P3F said:

Of course, unless you get a third track between Marcy Av and Essex St, Jamaica service will continue being limited by the , to the point where the express track wouldn't even really have a point.

Disagree. With the current (read: shitty) signal design, we can get 24tph across the bridge. 8 , 8  (express) and 8  (local) should be plenty to start. If we can get it to 27, give everyone 9; 30 everyone gets 10, and so on. I also think it's worth noting that there have been times when we've achieved single track throughput of 36tph -- what's limiting here is not general track structure (ie the 3->2 merge), it's track curvature and signal design.

I fail to see how a 3rd over the bridge helps here. Service will eventually be limited by the need to return trains back on a single track. Am I missing something? 

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The thought was that the express track would end at Crescent, allowing folks beyond there to get a one seat express ride into town. I think any plan for a  line 3rd track should benefit Jamaica while also encouraging growth in some of the areas along the core of the line — Crescent seemed a great place to find that happy medium.

Woodhaven could also work as a terminal, though — the Jamaica line rises to go over the RBB there, so (and I’m just spitballing here) you could build a relay track which continues at grade from Woodhaven for, say, 800 feet, while the express track (which would rise to a new platform above the existing ones) joins the current tracks at the top of the RBB rise. Let me know if this is clear — if not I’ll make a diagram.

As for a Jamaica Avenue alignment, it would be more direct, but it would entail the construction of a new El without any beneft for the residents along it — a political impossibility. 

I’m aware of those concerns. The study that raised them was — if I’m remembering this correctly — done  around the time of the Dual Contracts. Since then, track/bridge construction technology has evolved greatly, creating such things as low vibration track and isolators. This is by no means an ironclad guarantee that such a design is feasible now — I just think that such a thing must be studied in the context of modern technology. 

Half of the walkshed along that portion of Jamaica Avenue are the cemeteries, making it easier. I think that the time savings would make it worth it. Your idea is clear. I just hadn't considered adding a relay track there.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Union Tpke

[P3F]

11 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Disagree. With the current (read: shitty) signal design, we can get 24tph across the bridge. 8 , 8  (express) and 8  (local) should be plenty to start. If we can get it to 27, give everyone 9; 30 everyone gets 10, and so on. I also think it's worth noting that there have been times when we've achieved single track throughput of 36tph -- what's limiting here is not general track structure (ie the 3->2 merge), it's track curvature and signal design.

I fail to see how a 3rd over the bridge helps here. Service will eventually be limited by the need to return trains back on a single track. Am I missing something? 

The  already runs 8.5 to 10 tph westbound over the bridge during the rush hours, so you'd be cutting service on a line whose ridership has been growing recently. And you'd better hope that your express service doesn't start getting popular, because you have no room at all to increase service frequency. And this is all on a perfect day; any delays would wreak havoc on the delicate balance.

A third track under the bridge (unless you can actually shoehorn another one onto it) would allow peak direction Jamaica express service to remain entirely clear of the , and also add some amount of resiliency against delays. Essex would still have a slow curve, but either it can be straightened, or the future Jamaica local and  will be no worse off than they are today there.

Edited September 27, 2018 by P3F

[R68OnBroadway]

Going to use this opportunity to promote my idea for a tunnel to replace the WillyB tracks: 

The Jamaica lines would be removed from the Williamsburg Bridge and would be rerouted via a new East River tunnel. Rather than curve to the WillyB like it does today, the  will continue down Broadway as a 3-tracked El until South 6th St. From here the line will curve to the north side of S 6th and descend underground by Wythe Av. This would require removing Berry between South 5th and South 6th as well as demolishing all the buildings between the WillyB and South 6th and between Bedford and Wythe. From here the line will be a three-tracked tunnel. After crossing the East River, there will be an express station at Columbia/Grand to allow for a cross-platform transfer in both directions. After this, the line will curve back onto Delancey and connect to the current tracks just before Essex. Provided that new switches are added by Delancey/Essex and Bowery and that Myrtle is rebuilt, this would remove the WillyB bottleneck, speed up the East River crossing, and allow for the   and to be de-interlined in the peak direction.       

NOTE: Marcy would become a "local" stop as a result of this change.

[RR503]

16 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Half of the walkshed along that portion of Jamaica Avenue are the cemeteries, making it easier. I think that the time savings would make it worth it. Your idea is clear. I just hadn't considered adding a relay track there.

True, though I still think that it's a whole lot easier to sell a new level of an existing structure than an entirely new one. Crescent St is also a more geographically central express station -- may be more useful than one at Cypress Hills. The point about time savings is well taken, though. 

14 minutes ago, P3F said:

The  already runs 8.5 to 10 tph westbound over the bridge during the rush hours, so you'd be cutting service on a line whose ridership has been growing recently. And you'd better hope that your express service doesn't start getting popular, because you have no room at all to increase service frequency. And this is all on a perfect day; any delays would wreak havoc on the delicate balance.

A third track under the bridge (unless you can actually shoehorn another one onto it) would allow peak direction Jamaica express service to remain entirely clear of the , and also add some amount of resiliency against delays. Essex would still have a slow curve, but either it can be straightened, or the future Jamaica local and  will be no worse off than they are today there.

The  is getting more ridership largely because the  is maxing out and the  don't serve Flushing/Lorimer/Hewes. With traction power increases on the  post-Canarsie, the former will become less of a factor, while  local service at least helps with the latter. And the resiliency issue, FWIW, is an issue with the entire system. With capacity having been eroded ridiculously by poor ops decisions, areas that run nowhere near 30 tph are seeing 'hot mess syndrome' when someone takes a boo-boo. That should be an indicator that we need to change operating practices, not that we need to reduce/limit service. 

I also take issue with the logic that we should not make these improvements because they may be popular. The  line currently maxes out at something like 60% guideline capacity -- there's a ton of room to grow even with current service. With more frequencies, I'd think ridership gains would be absorbable.  And if it becomes an issue, that's all the more incentive for the MTA to examine the Williamsburg bridge timer situation...which brings me to my main point here: that the bridge, even with all it's curves, shouldn't be handling just 24tph.

Back in 1949, when the curve at the Brooklyn end was actually sharper, the bridge had a stated capacity of 32 trains per hour. Instead of shooting down improvement ideas because we can't get our signal game together, we should be examining what bureaucratic cataclysm caused that reduction, and more importantly, how we can restore at least some of the loss. 

I honestly am apathetic about this tunnel proposal. Would it be nice? Absolutely. Should we need it? Absolutely not. 

[Union Tpke]

15 hours ago, RR503 said:

Disagree. With the current (read: shitty) signal design, we can get 24tph across the bridge. 8 , 8  (express) and 8  (local) should be plenty to start. If we can get it to 27, give everyone 9; 30 everyone gets 10, and so on. I also think it's worth noting that there have been times when we've achieved single track throughput of 36tph -- what's limiting here is not general track structure (ie the 3->2 merge), it's track curvature and signal design.

I fail to see how a 3rd over the bridge helps here. Service will eventually be limited by the need to return trains back on a single track. Am I missing something? 

What is the terminal capacity of Jamaica Center LL? Could it handle 16-20 TPH?

[LGA Link N Train]

18 hours ago, P3F said:

Of course, unless you get a third track between Marcy Av and Essex St, Jamaica service will continue being limited by the , to the point where the express track wouldn't even really have a point.

Edited 18 hours ago by P3F

A third Track already exists. All you need to do is rebuild Myrtle Junction, Marcy Avenue station into a 2 Island platforms and the Williamsburg Bridge bottleneck removed. 

 

22 hours ago, RR503 said:

Oh dear god. This is like a shitty remake of Groundhog Day. 

Here's what you do post shutdown at Atlantic. Transform the tracks from this: 

***EDIT*** did not realize these would render so big. Apologies! 

To this:

And extend all Myrtle  short turns to the middle tracks here, relaying south. That solves ENY build out issues, and provides eastern Bushwick with better service. Then, reduce the  to 8tph, run the  at eight each (+2tph for each), kill skip stop, and terminate the  (which is now a full local from Marcy) at either Broadway Junction or Crescent. If ridership or developmental interest then takes off, you can then make some larger investments in the Jamaica Line. Transform it from this:

Into this:

You then have  local from Crescent to Broad,  express from Jamaica Center to Broad,  from Metro to 71st, and  from 8th Ave to Atlantic or Rock Parkway. You also have full express service from Crescent to Marcy, making the  into a defensible route from outer Brooklyn/Southern Queens to Manhattan, saving people time, attracting development, and reducing the transfer load at Broadway Junction.

Your track proposal is similar to something I tried experimenting with on paper. But how do Canarsie trains access ENY yard, are you getting rid of "unnecessary tracks" such as that one relay track beneath both the and ? As for Myrtle Junction, I agree with what you did and I understand why you left the current northbound track. But I would've rebuilt the viaduct to only handle one track and the EL structure of the upper level only handling nothbound trains with a new interlocking just southwest of Central Avenue station for Late night trains. Lastly, I must talk about the third track extnesion. I feel that ending the third track at Cypress Hills wouldn't be doable unless you had it end AFTER Cypress Hills (heading toward Jamaica) or if you build a new "X" interlocking west of Crescent to allow the Third Track to desend into the same grade level of the other two tracks. This would require removing that relay track. 

Great Proposal though. 

[P3F]

29 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

A third Track already exists. All you need to do is rebuild Myrtle Junction, Marcy Avenue station into a 2 Island platforms and the Williamsburg Bridge bottleneck removed. 

Okay, show me a picture of this third track on the Williamsburg Bridge that "already exists".

Or read posts more carefully before responding to them.

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, P3F said:

Okay, show me a picture of this third track on the Williamsburg Bridge that "already exists".

Or read posts more carefully before responding to them.

Oh, I misread sorry. 

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

What is the terminal capacity of Jamaica Center LL? Could it handle 16-20 TPH?

I doubt it. It's configured pretty much as the UL, so I'd imagine no more than 13. 

I don't see restrictions there as an issue, though. Depending on the selected plan, locals would short turn at Crescent pocket, or at a new pocket at Woodhaven Boulevard. That means only 8tph would hit Jamaica. Now, if we figure out how to get >36tph over the Williamsburg, then we may have some problems, but I daresay that particular moment of reckoning is a wee far off. 

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

But how do Canarsie trains access ENY yard, are you getting rid of "unnecessary tracks" such as that one relay track beneath both the and ?

That red arrow you see jutting off the easternmost track is the moved yard lead -- sorry for not being clearer on that. All arrows mean 'to yard.' 

Y2 I guess stays here. It's not getting in the way of anything, so why spend money removing it...

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

But I would've rebuilt the viaduct to only handle one track and the EL structure of the upper level only handling nothbound trains with a new interlocking just southwest of Central Avenue station for Late night trains.

Why? Keeping the n/b track allows for (more) flexibility, and allows late night/short turn service to terminate adjacent to the , facilitating transfers. I don't like spending money where it isn't gonna make a positive difference, and I'm afraid  termination on the UL of Myrtle is one of those cases.

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Lastly, I must talk about the third track extnesion. I feel that ending the third track at Cypress Hills wouldn't be doable unless you had it end AFTER Cypress Hills (heading toward Jamaica) or if you build a new "X" interlocking west of Crescent to allow the Third Track to desend into the same grade level of the other two tracks. This would require removing that relay track.

Currently, the north end of the middle track is about 685 feet south of the beginning of the curve. At a 3% downgrade, that would allow a railhead-to-railhead height difference of 20' to be obtained -- which I'd imagine is plenty. 

That said, one of the many advantages of the other version I put forward -- where the express track ends at a new split-level interlocking at Woodhaven Blvd -- is that it allows this situation to be avoided entirely. The continuing elevation of the express track through the Crescent area allows curves to be wider, and leaves the possibility of extending relay to 600+' sometime in the future.

A Woodhaven terminal would look something like this:

[Union Tpke]

24 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I doubt it. It's configured pretty much as the UL, so I'd imagine no more than 13. 

I don't see restrictions there as an issue, though. Depending on the selected plan, locals would short turn at Crescent pocket, or at a new pocket at Woodhaven Boulevard. That means only 8tph would hit Jamaica. Now, if we figure out how to get >36tph over the Williamsburg, then we may have some problems, but I daresay that particular moment of reckoning is a wee far off. 

That red arrow you see jutting off the easternmost track is the moved yard lead -- sorry for not being clearer on that. All arrows mean 'to yard.' 

Y2 I guess stays here. It's not getting in the way of anything, so why spend money removing it...

Why? Keeping the n/b track allows for (more) flexibility, and allows late night/short turn service to terminate adjacent to the , facilitating transfers. I don't like spending money where it isn't gonna make a positive difference, and I'm afraid  termination on the UL of Myrtle is one of those cases.

Currently, the north end of the middle track is about 685 feet south of the beginning of the curve. At a 3% downgrade, that would allow a railhead-to-railhead height difference of 20' to be obtained -- which I'd imagine is plenty. 

That said, one of the many advantages of the other version I put forward -- where the express track ends at a new split-level interlocking at Woodhaven Blvd -- is that it allows this situation to be avoided entirely. The continuing elevation of the express track through the Crescent area allows curves to be wider, and leaves the possibility of extending relay to 600+' sometime in the future.

A Woodhaven terminal would look something like this:

So you would have service past Woodhaven be express only. I am not sure that the time savings would do enough to reduce crowding on E. I would have more stops skipped, with no stop at Crescent, 104 or 111.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Union Tpke

[RR503]

29 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

So you would have service past Woodhaven be express only. I am not sure that the time savings would do enough to reduce crowding on E. I would have more stops skipped, with no stop at Crescent, 104 or 111.

Eh. You'd go from 17 stops to Canal to 11. At 45 seconds per stop skipped, and with a minute and a half thrown in to account for the fact that currently-skipped stops could be bypassed at full speed with a 3rd track, you're looking at something around a six minute time gain if express begins at Woodhaven, and a 5 minute one from Crescent.

Regardless -- and I don't mean this as a jab at you at all -- I take issue with the logic here. The  can't be seen as simply a reliever for the ; it serves communities of its own -- communities that are without a question some of the most underdeveloped in NYC. Future efforts on the  should keep existing  ridership in mind, yes, but should primarily focus on creating sustainable transit alternatives for those who live along the line itself and encouraging (responsible) development. 

Decisions in transit planning influence their surroundings just as much as the surroundings influence transit. The complete lack of recognition of this fact can be linked to myriad issues our system -- and our city -- face today. Some examples: woefully imbalanced loads on parallel corridors, overbuilding in the core, the scarcity of affordable housing in New York, and the flight of off-peak ridership to other modes. We'd be doing the city a disservice if we don't begin to think on this larger scale. 

[Union Tpke]

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Eh. You'd go from 17 stops to Canal to 11. At 45 seconds per stop skipped, and with a minute and a half thrown in to account for the fact that currently-skipped stops could be bypassed at full speed with a 3rd track, you're looking at something around a six minute time gain if express begins at Woodhaven, and a 5 minute one from Crescent.

Regardless -- and I don't mean this as a jab at you at all -- I take issue with the logic here. The  can't be seen as simply a reliever for the ; it serves communities of its own -- communities that are without a question some of the most underdeveloped in NYC. Future efforts on the  should keep existing  ridership in mind, yes, but should primarily focus on creating sustainable transit alternatives for those who live along the line itself and encouraging (responsible) development. 

Decisions in transit planning influence their surroundings just as much as the surroundings influence transit. The complete lack of recognition of this fact can be linked to myriad issues our system -- and our city -- face today. Some examples: woefully imbalanced loads on parallel corridors, overbuilding in the core, the scarcity of affordable housing in New York, and the flight of off-peak ridership to other modes. We'd be doing the city a disservice if we don't begin to think on this larger scale. 

I agree that there needs to be a balance, but I don't think that there is any other realistic way to reduce crowding on Queens Boulevard. Considering that Jamaica Center can't handle all the trains, Woodhaven could serve as a decent terminal, allowing express trains to stop at 104th and 111th. I still think that going straight across Jamaica Avenue would be better than having a stop at Crescent. I need sleep. You have made me think more about the nuances of Jamaica Express proposals. Thanks.

[RR503]

11 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I agree that there needs to be a balance, but I don't think that there is any other realistic way to reduce crowding on Queens Boulevard. Considering that Jamaica Center can't handle all the trains, Woodhaven could serve as a decent terminal, allowing express trains to stop at 104th and 111th. I still think that going straight across Jamaica Avenue would be better than having a stop at Crescent. I need sleep. You have made me think more about the nuances of Jamaica Express proposals. Thanks.

I agree. I don't, however, think that Jamaica is where that potential can be realized. Getting people off the  from there is a lost cause. The  actually has a slightly shorter end-to-end running time than the , so unless you're going to the very eastern/southern reaches of the Financial District, you're really better off on QB. With CBTC sure to make expresses even faster, that disparity will only increase.

I think where the Jamaica line can help QB is in intercepting trips coming from south of Metropolitan Ave. As we all know, many, many QB riders transfer onto the line from buses coming from that area, as even with the bus segment, a trip from, say 90th St/91st Ave in Woodhaven to Midtown is best made via Q53 to . That said, the current difference between that option and using, say,  to  is generally less than seven minutes -- a recoverable amount of time with express service. Our efforts should thus be focused on making the  attractive to those in Richmond Hill/Woodhaven -- not only is it a market with a higher potential impact, but developing it would amount to something more than creating a second viable commute option for an area which already has one. (To be clear, what makes addressing this market more attractive than throwing a bone to Jamaica is that  from Jamaica will never be able to compete except in the Lower Manhattan market, while from Richmond Hill/Woodhaven, the  is already almost competitive in Midtown markets, and the unquestionable way to go for Downtown.)