Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

163 profile views
  1. Is the benefit of greater coverage for two stations worth the decreased connections of those stations for the entire line though? I also don't personally like the idea of planning for an interlined subway, though I acknowledge this is personal preference. And even so, with an interlined SAS, while riders looking to go to and from Queens might be less affected, riders wanting to go West in Manhattan or go to Astoria would still find transfers more difficult or non-existent. The loss of coverage, in my mind, represents benefits to the whole line that are not reliant on interlining which would reduce frequencies, and even riders who are most affected still find closer subway access since it is on 3rd Av rather than Lex.
  2. I get where you're coming from, but if you include a turn onto 2nd Av South of 42nd St you mitigate a lot of that. The stations on 3rd Av at 42nd and 53rd would be as close to 1st Av as the existing stations are to York Av, so it's not as though there is no benefit since the subway is still closer for riders living on the East side. I guess I assume the increased ease of transferring throughout the rest of the system would lead to more riders than a Subway that is closer to where people live but makes it harder to transfer. If transfers are very inconvenient or don't exist, as would be the case throughout midtown for the SAS, a lot of riders would likely choose to walk to the anyway.
  3. I agree that building the tunnel to Queens as you've described it is a higher priority than building more express service in the UES. I also don't think it's a good idea to have the connect to the existing SAS, like you've said, because it necessarily limits capacity on both the and the . South of 42nd St, as others have mentioned, turning the from 3rd to 2nd would be a good way to provide both transfers in Midtown and better subway coverage for the LES where Manhattan bulges. I don't think these things are mutually exclusive, though. Phase "2.5" where you extend the SAS across 125th St probably makes sense to do before creating a new service down the East Side of Manhattan. You could also have it branch with one covering 125th St and the other covering 3rd Av in the Bronx. Having service South of 63rd St, though, in the form of the is a way of expanding subway access to Queens and a way of boosting the frequency of the SAS, since you could have a service take over 125th St or 3rd Av in the Bronx. Instead of abandoning the or leaving it as a shuttle, you could also try and connect the (P) to the Nassau Line either at Bowery or at Chambers St via Park Row. A new tunnel could then be constructed from the Nassau Line to the Fulton Line. I'd also suggest connecting the to Utica Av rather than continuing it down the Brighton Line and continuing it as the express to Jamaica. I really like the idea of connecting the Northern Boulevard Line to LGA, I've not thought about that before and it's a cool idea.
  4. This pretty much sums up how I feel about what to do with expanding the 2nd Av Line. I'd include a stop at 34th St though. Also, for the // whatever you want to call it, there are two ways I'd do it. If you are deciding to leave the Nassau Line as is, continuing to Jamaica, I'd build the line to Chatham Sq, then down St James Pl/Water St with a stop at the Seaport, after which the would go to Brooklyn connecting to Orange or Pineapple Street, then turn down Adams St with a stop at Willoughby/Fulton St. This would connect the 2nd Av Line with all the trains the current planned routing for Phase 4 will miss, connecting the train to both the Borough Hall and Jay St-Metrotech stations. It would then connect to the Fulton Line, making a stop at Hoyt St. If you decide to break up the Nassau line and connect the 6th Av Express to it, then I'd do it how you routed it or have it turn before Grand St onto the Bowery station. The way I look at 2nd Av is mirroring the Central Park Av Line. The and trains are analogous to the and trains, while the and trains are analogous to the and trains. For this reason, I don't think there needs to be 4 tracks going all along 2nd/3rd Avs. I feel the should be left alone as built, being the local on 2nd Av and the express on Broadway. Of the trains that run on 2nd/3rd Avs South of 63rd St. You could mess with the configurations, but I think one should be the express train in the UES and the express train South of 63rd, and the other should be the local South of 63rd with the connection to Queens. It's easier to just run the service down 3rd Av in the UES, and if you are building that as an express train I'd say it matters a little less that it is farther away from 2nd Av. I agree it doesn't really expand the footprint of the subway system, but the is already doing that.
  5. I wouldn't connect the to the or the just for the reason of it limiting capacity on all three. I'd say have trains terminate at 63rd St with tail tracks continuing up 3rd, with the goal ultimately being to have SAS trains run express service either up 3rd Av, which would be cheaper, or go underneath the at 2nd Av, which would be more expensive but more convenient. I would have trains go to Queens via a new tunnel at 69th or 72nd St later on, and then when the Southern portion of the SAS is expanded to 4 tracks, that's when you would also build the UES express service either on 3rd or turning back over to 2nd.
  6. I'd be against the 28th St and St Marks Pl stops because while the goal might be 4 tracks South of 63rd St eventually, it certainly wouldn't run that way for some time, and so having larger stop spacing is important. For that reason I wouldn't put stations on 28th and St Marks. Another thing I've been thinking about is where the station connecting with 53rd St would be. I think that, assuming there is eventually a plan to build a new crosstown line in Manhattan, where that line goes should decide where the would stop since the two lines should offer a transfer where they meet. If there is a 57th St crosstown line, then the 53rd station should have its Southern end at 53rd. If the crosstown line goes down 50th St instead, then the North end should be on 53rd. Also, I really think it's important to have a station between 59th St and 63rd St, allowing for an in station transfer via the platforms, and also offering a better transfer option for riders looking to go down the East side. Just some considerations.
  7. With regard to a lower level on the upper portion of the SAS, the fact is it would be much cheaper to tunnel along 3rd than to drill a new tunnel underneath the already very deep existing stations. Between 63rd and 42nd, a relief line for the that has very long transfers at 53rd, potentially an even longer transfer at 42nd, and no transfer at all at 59th or 63rd, seems like a big problem to me. Anyone riding in from Queens wanting to travel up and down the East side would likely not choose to switch lines to the . If you put it the on 3rd and make the transfers as good or better than Lex, then much more people will use it. South of 42nd St, I do agree that the alignment is better if it runs along 2nd, so in my ideal world the line would turn onto 2nd Av, giving better access to the East Village and better transfers to and trains. That being said, if I had to pick between strictly one or the other, I would pick 3rd Av. The and already go farther East than the on 2nd Av would. And since there is no stop planned for St Marks Pl, you would need to walk from the M8 up to like 11th St or down to 3rd St to connect to the , at which point traveling one avenue further is not costing that much time I'd think. Unfortunately, either way I don't see East Village residents getting a huge service improvement. Also, with regard to Fulton St in Manhattan, the line as currently planned would be too far East to connect to any of the subway lines down there. I personally feel like since there is not a huge need for more trains to Lower Manhattan, it would be better for the to go into Brooklyn, maybe taking over the trains.
  8. It's an interesting idea to use the outer tracks to extend the up Northern Blvd, but that would leave Astoria with just the which is not enough service. Also there isn't really capacity to have and services all sharing the 2nd Av line. In this case, if trains should go to Northern Blvd, then it should probably just be a 2nd Av service I think. A bigger problem with the 2nd Av line for me is that South of 63rd the will have terrible transfers, and that without the construction of a new tunnel, Phase 3 and 4 will have low frequencies, both of which its effectiveness in decongesting the . Someone else mentioned 3rd Av in Manhattan as an alternative, maybe just for future express service, but in my mind the 2nd Av line South of 63rd St should run down 3rd Av rather than 2nd. If the were shifted over to Astoria and the to 2nd Av, then these are changes that could happen without any new tunnel construction, barring allocating or expanding yard space for the . I do agree that thee should join the and introducing a new service 8th Av service to accompany the is a good idea.
  9. Wouldn't it make more sense to connect the MNRR tracks at Grand Central to Atlantic Terminal? I get the point isn't that people will be riding the routes end to end, but I'd think more people would continue that journey past Grand Central taking MNRR than those who would do so taking LIRR. Also, LIRR riders would already be able to connect to Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn at Jamaica, something that MNRR would not be able to do until already in Midtown. Totally on board with rethinking commuter rail in NYC, though. It can be the super-express that some people have talked about on here or at least used to.
  10. Is there any real reason why they don't? Same with providing a transfer with the and lines with Atlantic Av. Is it a revenue thing? Does it really cost them that much?
  11. Is there a reason you chose to extend the M over the LIE as opposed to extending the QBL local? Just thinking that it's likely most people would transfer to QBL to get to Manhattan faster, and even if they wanted to go to lower Manhattan and stay on the local, it's just about the same number of stations. It might make sense to extend the QBL local out rather than extend the M because of this. Just a thought.
  12. Any reason you don't want to extend it up 10th/Amsterdam?
  13. There's really a couple conversations going on at once here huh
  14. That's why I think build phase 3 down 3rd av from 63rd st to 42nd st, and then have it go over to 2nd av so it can take over the going over the Manhattan Bridge. That way you avoid the interlining, but more importantly, the transfers are better so the SAS can actually do its job and be an adequate alternative to the . It will still be less of a walk for riders to the east, and you would still need to build another tunnel if you were de-interlining anyway. The 3rd to 2nd av move is a little awkward, but I'm sure doable and preferable to building it on 2nd.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.