Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think extending the N/W is a fine plan, but it's above-ground and it's harder to get a neighborhood behind that. Wasn't there already a push to do that in the past which was killed via neighborhood opposition?
The G's current ridership levels aren't anywhere near the highest, but it's been among or the fastest growing for several years now and several neighborhoods it serves in Long Island City, North Brooklyn, and downtown Brooklyn are among the fastest expanding in both commercial and residential construction. Even with the political will to do so, this extension would serve an even more developed version of these neighborhoods a decade out from now.
I understand that it's possible to run the G further past Forest Hills, but there is no demand for another local service there since there's no major site to anchor ridership at the other end and also doesn't bring service to a new area for anyone.
Extending the G north from Jackson Heights however means bringing Jackson Heights, the densest neighborhood in the outer boroughs, into the subway system with a one-seat ride to Long Island City, North Brooklyn, and downtown Brooklyn and a single transfer that can be made within Queens to almost any stop in Midtown and Lower Manhattan while having an anchor site at the end with LaGuardia.
That being said, an extension from the IND Queens Boulevard local tracks means that the M and R could potentially also be re-routed to go up north to the airport with the G going to parts east in their place, but I reckon doing that would **** a lot of people off.
So that's the line of thinking behind that. However, I'm not sure if it's technically feasible. Even if this new G train service is able to avoid the bottleneck from turning around at Forest Hills, is there an operational constraint along the shared local tracks west of the Jackson Heights/Roosevelt station that would still make this unable to work with the current peak service frequencies?
With the current infrastructure, the queens blvd local tracks can handle an additional 10/12 TPH. more than enough to extend the G. But again, no-one along Queens blvd WANTS the G. It is true that G has seen massive ridership increase, but that increase is in Brooklyn where there is no train but the G. And those riders are going to the L or to the E/M/7. There's no indication that there is ridership demand along Queens Blvd for the G.
In a perfect world, the G would be the only train that would run on the Queens Blvd local tracks, going from Forest Hills to Church Ave in Brooklyn with 20 TPH. The E&F would run Express on Queens Blvd, and the F would run Express in Brooklyn, with only the G as local service. That would dramatically increase reliability and reduce travel times, because thats how the system was designed to run. But riders hate transferring so we end up with the mess we have today.
As for the LGA extension, yes N/W extension faced massive NIMBY obstructionism but its nothing the MTA wouldn't be able to overcome if they really desired a LGA connection that made sense. Especially if you consider the cost savings. A G/Queens BLVD connection is simply too expensive, even with stops in Jackson Heights, for it to be worth it. After all, Jackson Heights, while incredibly dense, is actually small geographically and well served by the 7 and the Queens Blvd Express at Roosevelt Ave. The LGA connection would be most beneficial to East Elmhurst, a transit desert sure, but a not a particularly populated transit desert to justify the cost. Especially considering that East Elmhurst's proximity to the airport drastically limits any potential up zoning a subway extension should bring.
If money is going to be spent adding extensions to the Queens blvd line, the primary objective should be extending express service closer to the Nassau border. Those neighborhoods are not particularly dense, but a massive rezoning of the neighborhood would surely create thousands of affordable housing units and the ridership to justify an extension. The F would be rerouted to remain express after Forest Hills and the locals could be extended to 171st, allowing the G to make a glorious return to Queens Blvd.
Ask any pilot which major airport they don't like to go and LGA is one of them. Short take off runway and lack of airspace. Because it's the heart of NYC, there's very little airspace to make safe turns in order to line up for landing. If a midair collision ever happens it may end up crashing in Queens. Captain Sully made a daring landing on the water, he had no choice and no other place to make emergency landing.
Yea, those runways are really short. Supposedly there's a plan to extend them. Supposedly.
No, I don't think there really is a plan, just an idea. They talk about it, and maybe it will happen someday, but once you decide to start building over the water, you're bringing in years of environmental study and costs before anything happens.
Ask any pilot which major airport they don't like to go and LGA is one of them. Short take off runway and lack of airspace. Because it's the heart of NYC, there's very little airspace to make safe turns in order to line up for landing. If a midair collision ever happens it may end up crashing in Queens. Captain Sully made a daring landing on the water, he had no choice and no other place to make emergency landing.
But also, the problem with the Sully episode was the birds, which affect all the airports. The PA pays the Fish and Wildlife service to shoot them on airport grounds, but JFK is next to a wildlife refuge. It's always going to be a problem because birds don't stay where we tell them to.
I like the idea of extending the G, but not to LGA. The N makes the most sense as it goes to Manhattan, but it was shot down by NIMBYism. It would also make the most sense to run an Airtrain down GCP from Astoria Blvd station. Not only is it a shorter route, the N is one of the few trains that is almost never at capacity. But instead, Cuomo decided it would be a great idea for the supercrowded 7 train to get loaded up with suitcase toting travelers. The evening rush is already an impossibility on Mets game nights.
With the current infrastructure, the queens blvd local tracks can handle an additional 10/12 TPH. more than enough to extend the G. But again, no-one along Queens blvd WANTS the G. It is true that G has seen massive ridership increase, but that increase is in Brooklyn where there is no train but the G. And those riders are going to the L or to the E/M/7. There's no indication that there is ridership demand along Queens Blvd for the G.
In a perfect world, the G would be the only train that would run on the Queens Blvd local tracks, going from Forest Hills to Church Ave in Brooklyn with 20 TPH. The E&F would run Express on Queens Blvd, and the F would run Express in Brooklyn, with only the G as local service. That would dramatically increase reliability and reduce travel times, because thats how the system was designed to run. But riders hate transferring so we end up with the mess we have today.
As for the LGA extension, yes N/W extension faced massive NIMBY obstructionism but its nothing the MTA wouldn't be able to overcome if they really desired a LGA connection that made sense. Especially if you consider the cost savings. A G/Queens BLVD connection is simply too expensive, even with stops in Jackson Heights, for it to be worth it. After all, Jackson Heights, while incredibly dense, is actually small geographically and well served by the 7 and the Queens Blvd Express at Roosevelt Ave. The LGA connection would be most beneficial to East Elmhurst, a transit desert sure, but a not a particularly populated transit desert to justify the cost. Especially considering that East Elmhurst's proximity to the airport drastically limits any potential up zoning a subway extension should bring.
If money is going to be spent adding extensions to the Queens blvd line, the primary objective should be extending express service closer to the Nassau border. Those neighborhoods are not particularly dense, but a massive rezoning of the neighborhood would surely create thousands of affordable housing units and the ridership to justify an extension. The F would be rerouted to remain express after Forest Hills and the locals could be extended to 171st, allowing the G to make a glorious return to Queens Blvd.
Thanks for this. I appreciate the knowledge you have and I'd love to know any sites you visit to find these stats such as where to find that bit about what the Queens Boulevard local line can additionally handle without the bottleneck.
I understand this might not be the best option, so I'm collectively thinking it through with people such as yourself who are really knowledgeable, so bear with me as there's a lot I don't know or understand and I appreciate you doing so. I am in no way saying this is the best plan--I'm more just trying to figure out the parts of it that makes it a bad plan relative to its costs.
One thing I don't quite understand is why Jackson Heights is considered a small neighborhood. It seems to be on the larger side of things and the trains only run on its southern border which seems to leave a large amount of the neighborhood currently not served by subway. Another is why this subway would be particularly expensive. The G train going to Jackson Heights would stay below ground and I imagine it wouldn't have as much of the tricky utility relocation and risk of damage to mid and high-rise buildings that the Second Avenue Subway engendered since it's in a part of the city that is less dense and less old and labyrinthine with its tunnels, pipes, and utilities while also not having had them put in well before record-keeping of such caught up with it.
The sort of NIMBY obstructionism towards the N/W extension as I understand it was very intense and I don't think that will abate anytime soon. I think much of it is that it is an elevated train which is cheaper to construct, but generally attracts a lot more opposition. They can try to bring it down to ground level, but doing so would be both costly and still provoke a lot of opposition as at some point you'd have to close down streets to allow the train to go underground. If you keep it aboveground, then you face the same obstructionism as before.
I also think that LIC, North Brooklyn, and downtown Brooklyn areas are actually growing at a very fast pace in both jobs and residents which is a large part of why I think this might make sense overall. A decade from now is probably going to see these places burgeoning with a lot more jobs and residents and the G train would serve that pretty well and so I think there might be additional demand on G train service. Allowing this extended G train service means that people on the R and F, which currently do not have a direct connection to the G in Queens, will allow for that transfer to be made in Queens before hitting the oversaturated stations in Manhattan. It's also that the airport doesn't just serve tourists visiting Manhattan, but also residents and the G train serves a lot of residents going to the airport for both work and for travel and is one of the few lines that both still has some capacity and room to add capacity.
Thanks for this. I appreciate the knowledge you have and I'd love to know any sites you visit to find these stats such as where to find that bit about what the Queens Boulevard local line can additionally handle without the bottleneck.
I understand this might not be the best option, so I'm collectively thinking it through with people such as yourself who are really knowledgeable, so bear with me as there's a lot I don't know or understand and I appreciate you doing so. I am in no way saying this is the best plan--I'm more just trying to figure out the parts of it that makes it a bad plan relative to its costs.
All the main trunks, like QB local or QB express, with the current block signaling can theoretically handle around 32 TPH. But the number of trains a track/route can handle is different than the number of trains the terminals can handle. So, while the QB local tracks can handle upto 32 TPH, the forest hills terminal can only handle a turn around 20 local TPH. Extending one of the locals to 171 st (the best terminal in the entire system) solves the Forest Hills bottleneck, meaning the QB local tracks could be used to their theoretical limit, allowing for around 10/12 G TPH.
I'm a bit of a transit enthusiast, so I spend a lot time lurking/reading various transit. There's no just one site, but a good place to start, if you're interested, is to read through the NYCT forums. A lot of current and former MTA employees and other transit eugthianist post their. You can pick up on a lot of things just by reading through old threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
One thing I don't quite understand is why Jackson Heights is considered a small neighborhood. It seems to be on the larger side of things and the trains only run on its southern border which seems to leave a large amount of the neighborhood currently not served by subway. Another is why this subway would be particularly expensive. The G train going to Jackson Heights would stay below ground and I imagine it wouldn't have as much of the tricky utility relocation and risk of damage to mid and high-rise buildings that the Second Avenue Subway engendered since it's in a part of the city that is less dense and less old and labyrinthine with its tunnels, pipes, and utilities while also not having had them put in well before record-keeping of such caught up with it.
Jackson Heights is really quite small geographically. Its stretches from Broadway to Junction Blvd, and from Northern Blvd to Roosevelt Ave. All of it is within walking distance of the 7 on Roosevelt, and the densest sections are close to QB express at Roosevelt. North of Northern Blvd. is East Elmhurst, and its nowhere near as dense or populated as Jackson Heights. Much of the cost in building underground subways does not come from tunneling, but rather from station excavation. Tunneling is actually pretty much the cheapest part of subway construction as a TBM will do most of the work. The high cost in a LGA connection would come from reconstructing the Roosevelt Ave station, with new platforms and tracks to handle the new spur. All of this, while keeping the station open will be ridiculously expensive. If I'm not mistaken, keeping the 1 train operating to South Ferry while the WTC stop is being reconstructed added something like a billion dollars to the cost. Imagine what it will cost to retrofit Roosevelt Ave, since shutting off service would be impossible here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
The sort of NIMBY obstructionism towards the N/W extension as I understand it was very intense and I don't think that will abate anytime soon. I think much of it is that it is an elevated train which is cheaper to construct, but generally attracts a lot more opposition. They can try to bring it down to ground level, but doing so would be both costly and still provoke a lot of opposition as at some point you'd have to close down streets to allow the train to go underground. If you keep it aboveground, then you face the same obstructionism as before.
It was very intense, but had the N/W extension had a political champion (think Robert Moses, or to a lesser extant, Governor Cuomo and his mission to open the 2nd Ave subway by New Years at latest) it would have gone through. NIMBYS are loud, and too often the MTA caves, but where theres a will, theres a way. The 2nd Ave subway also had loud NIMBYS before construction started, but Bloomberg and Pataki plowed right through them. Plus, Astoria today is very different than the Astoria of 20 years ago. A lot of the old guard has left, renting out to many young professionals who would welcome a transit extension. Thats not to say there won't be any NIMBY opposition, but there will be a lot more support for extension today than there was 20 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I also think that LIC, North Brooklyn, and downtown Brooklyn areas are actually growing at a very fast pace in both jobs and residents which is a large part of why I think this might make sense overall. A decade from now is probably going to see these places burgeoning with a lot more jobs and residents and the G train would serve that pretty well and so I think there might be additional demand on G train service. Allowing this extended G train service means that people on the R and F, which currently do not have a direct connection to the G in Queens, will allow for that transfer to be made in Queens before hitting the oversaturated stations in Manhattan. It's also that the airport doesn't just serve tourists visiting Manhattan, but also residents and the G train serves a lot of residents going to the airport for both work and for travel and is one of the few lines that both still has some capacity and room to add capacity.
LIC is already served by the G. Extending it to Forest Hills is not going to change anything. Anyone along the R train can simply take the M train instead if they need to get to LIC. Anyone along the F train can take the E instead. Besides, the neighborhoods along the QB lines simply do not attract the type of people who work in LIC/Brooklyn. This is pretty evident in the current lack of ridership transfers from QB to the G. I have no doubt that ridership will grow a decade from now, but it will still follow the same pattern today. The increase in ridership would be better handled simply by making the G a full 10 tear train and increasing service. Don't forget that by extending the G to Forest Hills and adding more stops to its route, means the MTA needs more trains to maintain even current G service levels. People that need the G are better served by having full 10 car train sets, than more 5 train car sets for an unwanted G extension to forest hills (that will do nothing to increase service in Brooklyn.)
I like the idea of extending the G, but not to LGA. The N makes the most sense as it goes to Manhattan, but it was shot down by NIMBYism. It would also make the most sense to run an Airtrain down GCP from Astoria Blvd station. Not only is it a shorter route, the N is one of the few trains that is almost never at capacity. But instead, Cuomo decided it would be a great idea for the supercrowded 7 train to get loaded up with suitcase toting travelers. The evening rush is already an impossibility on Mets game nights.
Giuliani wanted the N extended to LaGuardia over the GCP. Money was even allocated for this. Fierce neighborhood opposition killed it.
The G to LGA would also face fierce neighborhood opposition, plus the expense of building another subway with a low return is not viable. Queens is not likely to get any new ROW anytime soon. It would be a minor miracle if they reactivate the Rockaway Beach LIRR (would be less costly by far than sending G to LGA).
Cuomo picked the Airtrain over GCP to the Flushing line because that goes through industrial areas and there isn't opposition to it. Queens activists who were dead set against the N or an Airtrain going to the Astoria Blvd station offered the Flushing train route to the state, and it is what Cuomo is going with it. This isn't the Robert Moses era, or the early 20th century era, in which large infrastructure projects could get build against substantial neighborhood opposition.
The MTA will prioritize phases 2-4 of the Second Avenue Subway, finishing LIRR to Grand Central, and two MNRR into Penn Station. The only other projects remotely on the drawing board for the MTA are North Shore Railway activation in Staten Island and Rockaway Beach LIRR and it will take minor miracles for them to happen anytime soon. Though de Blasio may have the city build the BQX connector.
I don't think Trump is going to submit an infrastructure plan, his administration is imploding with the firing of Comey.
All the main trunks, like QB local or QB express, with the current block signaling can theoretically handle around 32 TPH. But the number of trains a track/route can handle is different than the number of trains the terminals can handle. So, while the QB local tracks can handle upto 32 TPH, the forest hills terminal can only handle a turn around 20 local TPH. Extending one of the locals to 171 st (the best terminal in the entire system) solves the Forest Hills bottleneck, meaning the QB local tracks could be used to their theoretical limit, allowing for around 10/12 G TPH.
I'm a bit of a transit enthusiast, so I spend a lot time lurking/reading various transit. There's no just one site, but a good place to start, if you're interested, is to read through the NYCT forums. A lot of current and former MTA employees and other transit eugthianist post their. You can pick up on a lot of things just by reading through old threads.
Jackson Heights is really quite small geographically. Its stretches from Broadway to Junction Blvd, and from Northern Blvd to Roosevelt Ave. All of it is within walking distance of the 7 on Roosevelt, and the densest sections are close to QB express at Roosevelt. North of Northern Blvd. is East Elmhurst, and its nowhere near as dense or populated as Jackson Heights. Much of the cost in building underground subways does not come from tunneling, but rather from station excavation. Tunneling is actually pretty much the cheapest part of subway construction as a TBM will do most of the work. The high cost in a LGA connection would come from reconstructing the Roosevelt Ave station, with new platforms and tracks to handle the new spur. All of this, while keeping the station open will be ridiculously expensive. If I'm not mistaken, keeping the 1 train operating to South Ferry while the WTC stop is being reconstructed added something like a billion dollars to the cost. Imagine what it will cost to retrofit Roosevelt Ave, since shutting off service would be impossible here.
It was very intense, but had the N/W extension had a political champion (think Robert Moses, or to a lesser extant, Governor Cuomo and his mission to open the 2nd Ave subway by New Years at latest) it would have gone through. NIMBYS are loud, and too often the MTA caves, but where theres a will, theres a way. The 2nd Ave subway also had loud NIMBYS before construction started, but Bloomberg and Pataki plowed right through them. Plus, Astoria today is very different than the Astoria of 20 years ago. A lot of the old guard has left, renting out to many young professionals who would welcome a transit extension. Thats not to say there won't be any NIMBY opposition, but there will be a lot more support for extension today than there was 20 years ago.
LIC is already served by the G. Extending it to Forest Hills is not going to change anything. Anyone along the R train can simply take the M train instead if they need to get to LIC. Anyone along the F train can take the E instead. Besides, the neighborhoods along the QB lines simply do not attract the type of people who work in LIC/Brooklyn. This is pretty evident in the current lack of ridership transfers from QB to the G. I have no doubt that ridership will grow a decade from now, but it will still follow the same pattern today. The increase in ridership would be better handled simply by making the G a full 10 tear train and increasing service. Don't forget that by extending the G to Forest Hills and adding more stops to its route, means the MTA needs more trains to maintain even current G service levels. People that need the G are better served by having full 10 car train sets, than more 5 train car sets for an unwanted G extension to forest hills (that will do nothing to increase service in Brooklyn.)
Is it actually not possible to use the trackways that were built for the unused upper platform to extend the G northwards without massively disrupting the IND Queens Local?
Also, I'm not advocating for sending an IND Queens Local train to Forest Hills because there is no ridership for that--I don't think Forest Hills needs more service at all which is why it makes sense that none of the local trains go out past it.
I think the basics of it is there is ridership for LaGuardia and it makes sense to connect it directly to the subway system rather than having the airtrain going out to a far-off 7 train stop for a transfer or, in the case of the N/W, fighting a neighborhood that does not want an extension of elevated tracks and had already quashed the plan before. The one or two Jackson Heights stops if the G veered north from the Jackson Heights/Roosevelt Avenue stop are in census tracts that range from 49K ppsm to 108K ppsm which is very dense for an outer borough neighborhood and these people would be served by this as well. There is an existing ramp to veer off from the local tracks east of the Jackson Heights/Roosevelt platforms and there is existing capacity to run more trains on the tracks as well as additional room to add capacity to the G. The people working in downtown Brooklyn and North Brooklyn probably doesn't intersect heavily with Forest Hills residents, but it probably does with Astoria which the IND Queens Local does serve.
Where do you get the current rider transfers from QB to the G stats?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-10-2017 at 08:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
