Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Wallyhorse]

On 1/19/2024 at 1:19 PM, Kamen Rider said:

dude... just because a trackway exists does not mean it needs to be used for passenger service. We use the 135 spurs all the time for non-revenue moves and storage. 

This is more about allowing (for now) emergency reroutes of the and (and GOs) when needed and letting those lines use the SAS when CPW is FUBAR. 

[Kamen Rider]

so what you're saying our daily usage of those two tracks should be done away with for "well, we might need them to do this..."

 

No. We need them as they are now. they are important to our operations NOW. Some places need to be non-revenue trackage.

For example, those spurs are used to reverse trains just about every day, moving between the concourse line and 207 street, especially work equipment, which can wait there out of the way of the road until control can caution them and 59 can get them a clear window. 

 

You know what, right now, the next location you can turn an OOS, BO, or work train around in that will not block an active track while it waits is? Ether second Avenue on the F or the A5 spur north of Chambers Street on the A/C.  (A5 at Penn Station is currently not usable) 

[Wallyhorse]

11 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

so what you're saying our daily usage of those two tracks should be done away with for "well, we might need them to do this..."

 

No. We need them as they are now. they are important to our operations NOW. Some places need to be non-revenue trackage.

For example, those spurs are used to reverse trains just about every day, moving between the concourse line and 207 street, especially work equipment, which can wait there out of the way of the road until control can caution them and 59 can get them a clear window. 

 

You know what, right now, the next location you can turn an OOS, BO, or work train around in that will not block an active track while it waits is? Ether second Avenue on the F or the A5 spur north of Chambers Street on the A/C.  (A5 at Penn Station is currently not usable) 

And for now, most of the time they would STILL be used that way.  The point is, however, is connecting those to the SAS also allows for when needed those tracks being used to allow the and  to run via the SAS if CPW happens to be FUBAR OR if there is a GO requiring CPW to be shut down.  

[Kamen Rider]

sure for now... but you're missing the point... the use we have for them NOW is MORE IMPORTANT. If they build the extension, then all people need to do is TRANSFER to the Q/T instead of turning the SAS into a logjam...

[Chris89292]

I like how the MTA is going to use the cut and cover method in this phase, it also seems like they’ve learned a lot from the first phase, lots of great changes, the 116 Street station renderings look awesome, the exposed steel pillars are so unique in the subway system

[Kamen Rider]

they're going to use Cut and Cover because that's how the tunnel in question was built and it's kinda hard to use any other methods. 

[Brillant93]

18 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

I like how the MTA is going to use the cut and cover method in this phase, it also seems like they’ve learned a lot from the first phase, lots of great changes, the 116 Street station renderings look awesome, the exposed steel pillars are so unique in the subway system

That’s how most of the subway stations were built. I don’t know we overbuild now? 

[Theli11]

On 1/23/2024 at 2:57 PM, 7-express said:

https://new.mta.info/document/131306

Not present in slide 5 diagram, called out in slide 19.

Kinda sucks how they're not thinking in advance on this option. The bellmouth will leave them with a lot more options for the future like an expansion to the Bronx which I do think the SAS should have if they can get around to it 50-100 years.

[7-express]

3 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Kinda sucks how they're not thinking in advance on this option. The bellmouth will leave them with a lot more options for the future like an expansion to the Bronx which I do think the SAS should have if they can get around to it 50-100 years.

It is unfortunate.  It's going to be like the 10th Ave station on the 7 train where they cut out even the provision for it so now any attempt to create it will score poorly on capital investment score sheets since it'll require a tremendous amount of work and interruption.

[Brillant93]

I agree, there should be something to extend the second avenue subway to the Bronx. All of the stuff the city got away with the ELs back in the 40s and 50s should have been replaced or been looking to be replaced. 

[slantfan4281]

Imo it wouldn't hurt to build a new MNR stop at Claremont Parkway and create a sort of ticket where in-city fares are something like 4 or 5 dollars. It may not have the same impact as subway service, but doing that aiming for 20-30 minute headways would bring some transit access - in many European cities you have commuter trains pick up the slack in subway deserts.

[Lawrence St]

I know this was probably asked before, but why was the  chosen to serve 96th St instead of the ?

[Vulturious]

19 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I know this was probably asked before, but why was the  chosen to serve 96th St instead of the ?

One assumption I could come up with is that the  for a very long time was the more flexible one in where it operates. Before Astoria, it was to 57 St-7 Av, before 57 St, it was the  to 21 St-Queensbridge (and at some point to Inwood-207 St for however long because half of 8 Av was shutdown), and before that was to 57 St-6 Av. 

The  on the other hand was usually fixed on where it would go and operate along even when it was rerouted between local and express,it stayed consistent in it's routing between Astoria and Coney Island for decades. 

[Reptile]

On 4/14/2024 at 3:39 PM, Lawrence St said:

I know this was probably asked before, but why was the  chosen to serve 96th St instead of the ?

I imagine it came down to ridership data (eg Sea Beach riders are more likely to go to Astoria and Brighton riders to Uptown Manhattan) but also the was always less popular than the south of 57th St, meaning it would be easier to split it into the and without inconveniencing as many riders.

[4 via Mosholu]

29 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I know this was probably asked before, but why was the  chosen to serve 96th St instead of the ?

It was already terminating at 57th Street, so the eventual extension to East Side - 96th Street ended up being seamless. The reason why the train wasn't chosen was because of some understandable want for familiarity with Astoria Service being all the N.

[CenSin]

53 minutes ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

On 4/14/2024 at 3:39 PM, Lawrence St said:

I know this was probably asked before, but why was the  chosen to serve 96th St instead of the ?

It was already terminating at 57th Street, so the eventual extension to East Side - 96th Street ended up being seamless. The reason why the train wasn't chosen was because of some understandable want for familiarity with Astoria Service being all the N.

This can’t be it since the was already going to Astoria at that time. It also wouldn’t be the first time the (re)opening of a line shuffled a whole bunch of routes.

[Lex]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

This can’t be it since the was already going to Astoria at that time. It also wouldn’t be the first time the (re)opening of a line shuffled a whole bunch of routes.

Yeah, for part of the day during part of the week.

[Kamen Rider]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

This can’t be it since the was already going to Astoria at that time. It also wouldn’t be the first time the (re)opening of a line shuffled a whole bunch of routes.

The Q was only going to Astoria because the N had been made a Manhattan local… again… without the W around. But the Q had been pegged as the 2nd Avenue service long before the 2010 service changes.