In my opinion, the solution isn't more review queues, the solution is to stop the crap from entering the site in the first place.
These problems also exist on SO and have been debated endlessly there. You always end up with different camps:
The "elitists" (among which I apparently belong) who wants to restrict new people's site access and do things like mandatory review before a new user's question is even allowed to enter the site. Or at the very least implement quick ways to easily remove the crap.
The "meta-task huggers" who think that it is a human right to spew any kind of crap onto the site, and that the problem isn't the new users, but the lack of 42 different review queues through which the crap should be refined by hundreds of high-rep users.
Then there is the site owners who think more crap -> more traffic -> more cash. The site owners control the developers and therefore the developers appear to have their hands tied. So they either remain silent or side with the meta-task huggers, implementing all manner of strange review queues.
SO therefore has no less than 8 different review queues, with different degrees of ineffectiveness.
For the specific case of new users posting crap, you have the "first post" review, which doesn't do a thing, and the "triage" review, which gives a collection of completely random posts that are spat out by a very confused computer algorithm. None of these block crap, all they do is to keep various meta-task huggers busy.
There have been discussions on SO if "gold tag" users should be allowed to instantly close questions. They can currently do so, but only to duplicate questions. But I think this system of "gold tag" moderators might be less applicable to EE, since the tags tend to have much broader scope here.
So please don't look at SO for solutions, it suffers far worse from crap than EE does, and there exists no viable solutions to the problem there.
It is obvious to me that the only viable, long-term solution is to block the crap before it enters the site. Smarter algorithms that go through the post before it can be posted is one option. Review by humans before new posts are allowed on the site is another.
One concrete work-around solution is to give out more moderation rights based on overall rep, to "trusted users" (20k rep). For example, allow them to instantly close/delete any question.
Overall, I think the SE model for moderation of new user posts needs improvement and a much stronger quality focus, so debates like this should probably rather be brought up to meta.stackexchange.com.