If Queens needs another trunkline...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Prime factor?

 

The Queens Blvd bypass tracks were originally conceived, basically, as a relief valve for the already-at capacity Queens Blvd IND Line back in the 1960s. Ideally, whatever service runs on the bypass should also go either to the same destinations - or near them - as the services running on existing Queens Blvd line, because the point is to siphon riders off the existing services. The bypass service doesn't necessarily have to feed back into the existing line, but it should run as close to it as possible and have direct transfers to the existing services. An example of this could be a line that runs along the existing Q64 bus route, makes a stop at 71st-Continental to connect with the , then continues a short distance south of Queens Blvd to turn onto the LIRR mainline, where it then runs on separate tracks that feed the 63rd St Tunnel. Something like that would be very likely to bring some much needed relief to the overburdened and lines.

[FLX9304]

You mean I-95 between the Hutchinson Parkway intersections?

From that point to Pelham Bay Park station

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[N6 Limited]

From that point to Pelham Bay Park station

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

They can just build it over the Bruckner.

 

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[FLX9304]

Or keep it underground until PBP, then bring it as a surface

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[N6 Limited]

Or keep it underground until PBP, then bring it as a surface

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

That would increase the cost by billions, no?

 

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[FLX9304]

Only if you do it in full route, not half and half

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[bobtehpanda]

When subway conversion happens, where would LRT terminate?

 

My idea would be that the specific tunnel segments east of say, Willets Point, would be built to allow four tracks, with the two outer ones not in use. That way, in the event that they would be converted to subway, the light rails could be linked to each other, so that trains from Jamaica would head to College Point, much like today's setup.

[RR503]

My idea would be that the specific tunnel segments east of say, Willets Point, would be built to allow four tracks, with the two outer ones not in use. That way, in the event that they would be converted to subway, the light rails could be linked to each other, so that trains from Jamaica would head to College Point, much like today's setup.

Hmm that sounds costly..

 

I'm really not set on either plan, but don't you think that given the flexibility/economies of scale/capacity that subways will bring, doing that would be simpler? Also politically, N queensers will probably feel short changed if they get LRT. I can already see the headline "Trolley to nowhere"

[bobtehpanda]

Hmm that sounds costly..

 

I'm really not set on either plan, but don't you think that given the flexibility/economies of scale/capacity that subways will bring, doing that would be simpler? Also politically, N queensers will probably feel short changed if they get LRT. I can already see the headline "Trolley to nowhere"

 

Honestly, east of 108th would be the easiest place to dig it. Plus, the side benefit is that it basically allows for full grade separation in Flushing out of the box; build some ramps and maybe you've even got a short busway for the Q44.

 

The problem with a subway is that, well, they take forever. How long have we been waiting for a Second Avenue Subway, or a Queens Blvd Bypass, or a Utica Av subway? How many billions are we throwing at the problem? Staging it as LRT is better than having nothing at all. The east would be great, but It would take 500 years before it'd be done.

[RR503]

Honestly, east of 108th would be the easiest place to dig it. Plus, the side benefit is that it basically allows for full grade separation in Flushing out of the box; build some ramps and maybe you've even got a short busway for the Q44.

 

The problem with a subway is that, well, they take forever. How long have we been waiting for a Second Avenue Subway, or a Queens Blvd Bypass, or a Utica Av subway? How many billions are we throwing at the problem? Staging it as LRT is better than having nothing at all. The east would be great, but It would take 500 years before it'd be done.

I agree on the first, but the second doesn't make sense. Building tunnels and stations won't cost less/quicken much because you're doing LRT -- it'll take just as long if not longer as the MTA figures out how LRT works. If you really want to get things done more quickly and within budget, use design-build contracts, force the MTA to use the cheapest designs possible (bye bye ballroom mezzanines) and make them actually do their jobs. On the last point especially, the MTA is failing. According to some conversations overheard at work, much of the design that gets put out for bid is unfinished -- I believe the number 10% complete was thrown around. Then as the bozos at the engineering firms/MTACC realize that you need a duct there, a wire there, and a stairwell there, change orders pile up, and costs shoot to Jupiter. Fix that and those other things and you have at least passable facsimile of modern subway construction for our city.

[CenSin]

bye bye ballroom mezzanines

I’m going to have to steal that from you.

[bobtehpanda]

I agree on the first, but the second doesn't make sense. Building tunnels and stations won't cost less/quicken much because you're doing LRT -- it'll take just as long if not longer as the MTA figures out how LRT works. If you really want to get things done more quickly and within budget, use design-build contracts, force the MTA to use the cheapest designs possible (bye bye ballroom mezzanines) and make them actually do their jobs. On the last point especially, the MTA is failing. According to some conversations overheard at work, much of the design that gets put out for bid is unfinished -- I believe the number 10% complete was thrown around. Then as the bozos at the engineering firms/MTACC realize that you need a duct there, a wire there, and a stairwell there, change orders pile up, and costs shoot to Jupiter. Fix that and those other things and you have at least passable facsimile of modern subway construction for our city.

 

LRT, in general, requires less work, simply because the capacity is a bit less (and so the station and such can be smaller by a bit, though how much depends on how future proof you want it to be, though you can certainly provision in full 10-car train lengths). It also allows you to do the hardest parts in tunnel but then save by building at street level until you really need to upgrade; you probably couldn't build 86 St - Flushing - Jamaica as subway in one shot, but you can phase it in with more and more grade separation as the Europeans do.

 

As far as capacity concerns, I decided to crunch the numbers. Seattle Link Light Rail is supposed to move to 4-car operation once they receive all the cars they've ordered; a 4 car S70 set would be about 380 feet, which is roughly a bit over the length of 6 R160 cars. So the capacity disadvantage is not too terrible, plus you can always provision for more and just not build out that section of station.

 

IMO stations should either be pocket mezzanines to street portals, or even just portals to street level station buildings (i.e; the London Underground method.) The stations with no crossunder are also actually pretty spartan and cheap to build, but then ADA is a little bit tricky.

[RR503]

I'm just worried that we'll get stuck with an isolated LRT system for Queens. extension gets you true Midtown access, high capacity, and integration into the rest of the system. 

 

OK so here's the data sheet from Siemens

 

https://w3.usa.siemens.com/mobility/us/en/interurban-mobility/rail-solutions/high-speed-and-intercity-trains/Documents/Houston1_DataSheet_2014_LR.pdf

 

This says 241 passengers per vehicle. If you have 4, that's 964 people per train. An 8 car train of R160s is ~2000 passengers. 

 

I totally agree on underground stations btw. 

[bobtehpanda]

I'm just worried that we'll get stuck with an isolated LRT system for Queens. extension gets you true Midtown access, high capacity, and integration into the rest of the system. 

 

OK so here's the data sheet from Siemens

 

https://w3.usa.siemens.com/mobility/us/en/interurban-mobility/rail-solutions/high-speed-and-intercity-trains/Documents/Houston1_DataSheet_2014_LR.pdf

 

This says 241 passengers per vehicle. If you have 4, that's 964 people per train. An 8 car train of R160s is ~2000 passengers. 

 

I totally agree on underground stations btw. 

 

Which is why I'm saying that we should build it as BMT-compliant LRT. We've done switchovers before in this city with the Astoria and Flushing Lines, and this is standard practice in other countries. We will, for example, never have the money to go whole hog all at once.

[RR503]

Which is why I'm saying that we should build it as BMT-compliant LRT. We've done switchovers before in this city with the Astoria and Flushing Lines, and this is standard practice in other countries. We will, for example, never have the money to go whole hog all at once.

 

Agh. This argument is v. convincing.