CenSin

Actually, I believe it was the express tracks that were supposed to go there (may be both). The express tracks coming from the Broadway line is said to curve a bit west before curving east again to meet the 63 Street line.It would make sense since the line (in the 1939 plans) would run under Central Park making no stops until around 110~145 Street. I have my doubts about the utility of a line that is used to connect people between airports. Considering the fact that most travel between the Airport and Manhattan, it'd appear that the line is most useful to those within Queens (traveling to/from there). Everyone else would take the N or P since most of the outer borough branches tend to funnel people into Midtown Manhattan anyway. For that LGA–JFK connection to be useful, there needs to be a lot more outer borough lines intersecting it—which means those lines must remain outside of Manhattan. I can't seem to identify many useful corridors though.

The local tracks above 57 Street–7 Avenue can be extended north. There are trackways for that. Rumor has it that there used to be tracks there but got removed due to disuse. This system extends it and connects it to the express tracks further north after the 59 Street tracks dive under the main line. The fact that the express and local share tracks for a single station still poses a problem though. Some creative rerouting will need to be done or I could just wave a magic wand and say there is another tunnel extending from the Broadway local tracks that stops by Lexington Avenue and directly connects to the 2 Avenue local tracks without harassing the express tracks. By the way, does anyone else think that an LGA to Rockaway Park line would be a great crosstown connector? It's nearly straight as an arrow and its northern portion runs along a "major" road. The Rockaway Beach branch just seems to naturally continue along Junction Boulevard without much of a twist or turn.

Asides from the roads and geographical approximation, there's not really much else to my map. But if you make something awesome, I'd like to see it! Good luck to you.

For entirely new lines, I've got a lot of stations that are pretty far apart. If anyone thinks there should be a station somewhere in between or a station that should be moved to a better location, tell me and I'll add one in. Sure. Do what you need to the file. Keep in mind that there's a caveat: it's not as geographically accurate as I'd like it to be. The streets and land outlines were sourced from 2 different places and so some features don't exactly line up; some streets will appear to be in the water in some areas. If I can find a better source for map data, I'd like to rectify the mistake. Just beware of the numerous roads. There are so many of them; they crashed my editors before and they'll do it again. I probably should have, but it was late in the night and I didn't get much sleep, so I ended the H right there rather than drawing more lines (and the accompanying shadows, guides, and station markers). From where it ends now, it's obvious how it'd be extended to the airport, but I have doubt about its usefulness. Most people aren't traveling between the airport and eastern Queens exclusively, and the P would probably be the most popular option. The H is also an entire station away from the LIRR Jamaica junction station. The AirTrain is the better option for them. I was thinking about connecting the H to Atlantic Avenue and having it run down to Downtown Brooklyn instead to make it a speedy crosstown line. You're right about western Bronx; the Regional Planning Association documents do mention that the area has poor rapid transit options and are also densely populated. I think extending the 3 would be a better option though since it's already there and should have probably been extended. And now that you mentioned branching off the 63 Street tunnel, I caught a mistake within Central Park; there shouldn't be a station in Central Park. I'll delete that in the next revision. I wasn't kidding when I said "geographically accurate". The U runs in a tunnel parallel to the Battery Tunnel and runs to Staten Island via a tunnel under and adjacent to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. You'll notice that for the lines that do run on the bridges, the lines are drawn directly on top of them rather than next to them. Give me some ideas for Staten Island though. The area has very few obvious places where a subway branch makes sense and few, if any, streets appear to be "important".

Click to download the PDF: New_York_City_Subway_Map_2.pdf Click to download the PDF: New_York_City_Subway_Map_2.pdf There are way too many lines crammed onto the map to make labels easy to read. I'm going to resort to making an interactive (either Flash or HTML5) map that will display the station names dynamically. Service patterns: 1: Same as current. 2: Same as current but extended to Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn. 3: Same as current but extended one station further beyond the yard in Brooklyn. 4: Same as current but extended to Broadway Junction. The A will now have a connection to the IRT in Brooklyn and a better option for reaching the Atlantic Avenue–Pacific Street station. 5: Same as current but extended to Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn. 6: Same as current. 7: Runs from Bayside to 23 Street and 11 Avenue in Manhattan via the Flushing line. Some trains run express. 8: Runs from College Point in Queens to 23 Street and 11 Avenue in Manhattan as a local via the Flushing line. A: Same as current but always goes to/from Far Rockaway. The Liberty Avenue extension from Euclid Avenue has been eliminated and all trains take a shorter route along Pitkin Avenue. B: Runs from Laurelton in southeastern Queens using the LIRR right-of-way to Jamaica Center, then runs to Queensbridge–21 Street non-stop. The 6 Avenue express tracks now continue under the east river to South 4 Street. The B heads to Kings Plaza via Utica Avenue express. C: Same as current except it runs under Worth Street after Canal Street to the South 4 Street station where it continues to Kings Highway via Utica Avenue as a local. D: Runs from Baychester Avenue in the Bronx to Coney Island. It's express along Central Park West and 6 Avenue. At 2 Avenue, it switches to the local tracks and continues Jay Street–MetroTech where it runs express to Church Avenue before continuing to Coney Island. Some trains run express between Church Avenue and Kings Highway. E: Runs from Springfield Boulevard in southeastern Queens along Linden Boulevard and Van Wyck Expressway and continues via Queens Boulevard as an express. The E continues running express along 8 Avenue (it's local role now filled by the K) and Fulton Street to Rockaway Park. F: Runs from Littleneck Parkway in northeastern Queens via Hillside Avenue and Queens Boulevard as an express. Runs local in Brooklyn and terminates at Church Avenue. Some trains run local between Church Avenue and Kings Highway. G: Runs from Utopia Parkway via Jewel Avenue and Queens Boulevard as a local and continues as a local to Church Avenue. H: Runs from Roosevelt Avenue to Linden Boulevard via Parsons Boulevard. It's the crosstown service for eastern Queens. J: Runs from Hollis to the Financial District via Jamaica Avenue and Bushwick Avenue. The line has been straightened and placed underground. Some trains run express between Jamaica Center and Myrtle Avenue. K: Runs from Bedford Park Boulevard to the World Trade Center as a local. L: Runs from 72 Street and Broadway in Manhattan to Canarsie as a local. M: Runs from 73 Place and Central Avenue via Central Avenue and Myrtle Avenue to Bay Parkway as a local. N: Runs from LaGuardia Airport to Coney Island as an express along Broadway and 4 Avenue. O: Runs from Little Neck Parkway in northeastern Queens via Horace Harding Expressway (the Long Island Expressway) to 34 Street and 11 Avenue in Manhattan. P: Runs from the John F. Kennedy Airport to 34 Street and 11 Avenue via the former LIRR Rockaway Beach right-of-way and the Montauk branch. It's pretty much the most direct route you can have between the Pennsylvania Station and John F. Kennedy Airport without displacing a large population of people to make way for a new right-of-way. Q: Runs from Woodlawn in the Bronx along the MetroNorth right-of-way, 3 Avenue, 2 Avenue, Broadway, and Brighton to Coney Island. It's local in the Bronx, express in Manhattan, and express Brooklyn. R: Runs from Jamaica–179 Street to Bay Ridge as a local. T: Runs from Woodlawn to Coney Island along the MetroNorth right-of-way, 3 Avenue, 2 Avenue, 4 Avenue, and West End. It is local in the Bronx, and express in Manhattan and Brooklyn. U: Runs from Co-Op City, Bronx to Richmond Avenue in Staten Island. It uses the Amtrak right-of-way in the Bronx and runs express via 2 Avenue in Manhattan and 3 Avenue in Brooklyn. V: Runs from East Tremont Avenue in Throggs Neck, Bronx to Howard Beach in Queens as a local via Lafayette Avenue, 2 Avenue, and Fulton Street. W: Runs from 125 Street and Broadway in Manhattan to Brighton Beach via 2 Avenue, Broadway, Montague Street tunnel, and Brighton as a local. X: Runs from Inwood–207 Street in Manhattan to the north shore line in Staten Island. It runs express along 3 Avenue in the Bronx and express where it runs parallel to the Canarsie line. Most of its route is that of the TriboroRX. It was designed to intersect with as many routes as possible with transfers to them. Y: Basically the north shore railroad in Staten Island. Z: Basically the Staten Island Railway today with an extra station at the Staten Island Expressway to make a connection to the X. Plane: Connects the LaGuardia Airport with the John F. Kennedy Airport. It runs via Junction Boulevard and the LIRR's currently-abandoned Rockaway Beach right-of-way. The connection from the Rockaway Beach right-of-way to the John F. Kennedy Airport is partly elevated, partly depressed, and partly underground. It's southern terminus is at Terminal 4. Except where there's obviously too many services for 2 tracks, most new extensions are double-tracked only. From 161 Street and 3 Avenue in the Bronx to the Harlem River, the line is 6-tracked. 2 tracks are dedicated to the X (which, in fact, has 2 tracks to itself from end to end). From 125 Street and 2 Avenue in Manhattan to 63 Street, the line is also 6-tracked. 4 tracks are for the express underneath the pair of local tracks. The rest of the 2 Avenue line is 4-tracked, and Grand Street—having been cut off from 6 Avenue—is now solely served by 2 Avenue service. Below Grand Street there is a connection to the Manhattan Bridge, and below Hanover Square, the local and express tracks make a dive and turn towards Brooklyn. In Brooklyn, the 2 Avenue local tracks connect to what is now the Transit Museum, and the express tracks run elevated over 3 Avenue a là AirTrain. There was no obvious site for connecting another line from Manhattan to 4 Avenue and there are already 2 express routes running along its length. Staten Island, being so far from Manhattan, would be better off using its own right-of-way which leaves room for additional capacity in the future. Of course, that means it'll be poorly connected to the other lines in Brooklyn. That transfer at 36 Street between 3 Avenue and 4 Avenue is a long one indeed. The entire elevated portion of the Jamaica line from the Williamsburg Bridge to Jamaica has been dismantled and that includes the Myrtle Avenue branch. A new trunk line lays just north in its place with 3 massive junction stations at Marcy Avenue, Union Avenue, and Flushing Avenue. The Broadway–Union Avenue station will be named Broadway Junction West and the current Broadway Junction station will be renamed Broadway Junction East. Marcy Avenue and Union Avenue are 6-tracked. The Myrtle Avenue line is 2-tracked, Jamaica line is 3-tracked, and Utica Avenue line is 4-tracked.

Nice. I wonder what the depth of the tunnel is and how it's aligned relative to the streets above it.

What if Robert Moses was a subway fan?

Let's see you handle a blockage on all 2 tracks at 34 Street. You'd still have to squeeze all of the trains through 8 Avenue or the other 2 tracks. The end result, anyhow, is that any blockage along a corridor is going to cause problems. We call it a bottleneck.

It's already been said that the fault is only applicable to the far west side. In fact, this was a response to a very comment you made about the same issue: The reason the is elevated at 125th is the same reason north of Dyckman it's elevated: The topography of Manhattan and how it drastically changes in those areas. 125th and Broadway is in an extremely deep valley, which was why the went elevated over the stretch it does in order to avoid having to go deeply downhill and uphill in order to keep the line level. Any SAS extension across 125th would likely have to end on an elevated platform at Broadway-12th Avenues for this reason, not to mention the fact that there IS a fault line there while also would make most, if not all of such an extension across 125th street have to be elevated. The reason I can see this happening is because of the massive expansion of Columbia University that is currently taking place and will continue to over the next 10-12 years. By the time such a line reached Broadway-12th Avenue, Columbia would likely be in a position to greatly benefit from such an SAS extension, which is why if I were at Columbia I'd be looking to partially pay for such an extension across 125. Dyckman street is a similar issue, as the comes out of a tunnel directly onto a platform that very quickly becomes more elevated within that station. I'm sure you've read the post before responding. It appears that the only thing stopping the from being underground is the deep valley caused by the fault. The fault didn't really stop 3 other lines from being built underground, and according to the MTA's documents on the Second Avenue Subway's construction further north, it doesn't seem like it'll make a difference there either. As for tunneling under 125 Street across, it's a gentle slant along the valley so it might be a non-issue. Here's a topographic map of the area: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.807954,-73.940728&spn=0.030696,0.066047&t=t&z=15 Here's some materials I referenced quickly: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~mwest/scrap/NYseismicity.pdf http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparks1524/4842819292/

The projected ridership figures say it's less of a neighborhood by more than 100,000 riders. What's this reason? If you want to challenge the facts I laid out, you're welcome to present facts of your own rather than jumping to conclusions. I've presented enough arguments for two services to the Upper East Side; you can quote them and show me how they're wrong, or you can take a seat.

How much would the buses help though? The route currently has about 1 train running down the Lexington line every 2 minutes max. It is also helped by the and the as well as around 3~4 parallel bus routes running close to the Lexington Avenue line (7~9, if you want to count the ones running near Central Park). Along this corridor, the Lexington line alone serves about 150,000 passengers daily (a bit less if you only want to count the ). All of the north-south east side bus routes combined ((M1), (M2), (M3), (M4), (M15), (M31), (M101), (M102), (M103)) for the entire length (that means all the bus stops combined) serves about 190,000 passengers daily compared to 150,000 for just 4 stations along the Lexington subway line. The 2 Avenue line is projected to serve 200,000 passengers daily for just phase 1 of the line. It is going to require the same amount of service if not more (since 200,000 > 150,000). Show me how your bus service is going to "help" the lone running at 5~7 minute headways with the crowds. Astoria doesn't need 2 services; the Upper East Side does.

Who are you kidding? :confused: A subway car can pack a little over a hundred people. A bus can pack half as much (maybe less). One train will easily transport over a thousand people with a conductor and a train operator. Let's say you sent 12 trains per hour up 2 Avenue; that's 12,000 people an hour for the cost of 12 conductors and train operators each. You would need 20 buses to match one train, bringing the requirements to 240 buses per hour. (These numbers assume buses will be just as efficient with picking up and dropping off passengers and moving down the avenue even though buses only have a door for entry and a door for exit and are subjected to traffic.) Not having to rely on bus service is one of the reasons why the subway is being built. Are we trying to solve a subway problem with buses or the other way around? If bus service were such an adequate supplement to subway service, why not give this great service to Astoria instead?

For the short term, you may be right. But the idea is still to have two services: the and the to be comparable to the , , and . Since phases 3 and 4 precludes the , and hints are that those phases are going to be far off, some other service will need to fill in a growing gap between the opening of the new line and phase 3. My suggestion to send both the and up there hinges on the prediction that the demand will rise in that area. Phase 1 is expected to serve about 200,000 riders daily. I don't know how the MTA came up with this number, but along Lexington Avenue, daily weekday ridership from 68 Street to 96 Street was 156,398 for 2010 (171,608 if including 103 Street). (The MTA probably has raw data on ridership by street along the (M15), (M98), (M101), (M102), and (M103) as well, but only shows info for the entire route.) Astoria, in comparison, has an average weekday ridership of 63,941 (or 68,399 if you count in half of Queensboro Plaza's ridership). If the train with such a high frequency is barely enough to serve that segment, I think I make a very good case to send the and up there to increase service without skewing Brooklyn service (and how often does a Brighton local need to come anyway?). Anyway, how would you have allocated resources to best serve both? Source: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2008/10/31/second-ave-optimism-by-the-mta/#comment-56908

Anyway, getting back on topic: it's said that the division of the Second Avenue Subway into 4 phases pretty much doomed all of the other phases (other than phase 1). Instead, what we'll get for now is phase 1 and a length of tail tracks stretching just shy of 105 Street for holding a few trains. Source: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2012/02/16/what-future-the-second-ave-subway/

If I were forced to I'd take a salad, otherwise none of the above.

Discussions shouldn't be deleted though. Maybe they would be better in its own sub-forum.

I proposed to put the and in Astoria and Forest Hills respectively to: keep each line shorter. Because Astoria to Bay Ridge and Forest Hills to Whitehall Street are both short routes, I chose those over Astoria to Whitehall Street and Forest Hills to Bay Ridge. allow for high frequency service along Astoria. Whitehall Street restrains the capacity of any route that terminates there, so Astoria trains should not terminate at Whitehall Street. Canal Street also cannot be a terminal, because increased Broadway local service precludes that, and I don't know about reactivating the lower level of City Hall to turn around trains that Whitehall Street can't. Forest Hills will get reduced Broadway local service, but will get increased 6 Avenue local service to compensate. If the , , and remains as is, then there is plenty of room for additional service. Returning to the yard problem… I think I've struck a right balance as passenger-facing improvements should be prioritized over operations improvements. Passengers don't stand to gain much from "direct yard access" as opposed to a ride that is less delay-prone, faster, or more frequent. If you think about it, the doesn't exactly have direct yard access either. The MTA works around it by putting trains into service from a line that does have access to a yard. It was more or less the same with the before the 2010 service cuts (if you don't count City Hall as a "yard").

It's not exactly a serious problem. The trains use the Sea Beach line's express track to access the yard all the time (before the express track got taken out of service); and the express track's renewal is almost done. Some trains would also be stored at City Hall.

(quote cut short to make this post 35 bullets max)If I remember correctly, West End used to be a shuttle at night since it was serviced by a part-time line—the . If the MTA had its way, the would only be running during weekdays. Now that the has been moved to Grand Concourse and Brighton express, the MTA has simplified operations by reducing the amount of short segments and line/terminal-shifting around the clock. Furthermore, it's been ever more important that the MTA saves money. While your proposal sounds great to the customer (except for the which can't make up its mind between 2 Avenue or Astoria), the MTA has to spend money running excess service through 4 Avenue, Bay Ridge, and Broadway since every single line that runs during the day also runs during the night. If you were a cop, I'd call this police brutality. Why split the ? If the comes back, I think the best that can be done is this: 96 Street/Coney Island part-timeDay: Broadway express, 4 Avenue express, via Manhattan Bridge, via Sea Beach Night: service shortened to 59 Street/Coney Island [*] 96 Street/Coney Island full-time Day/Night: Broadway express, via Manhattan Bridge[*] Astoria/Bay Ridge full-time Day/Night: Astoria local, Broadway local[*] Forest Hills/Whitehall Street daytime Day: Queens Boulevard local, Broadway local Night: (no service) [*] Forest Hills/Middle Village part-time (increased service to maintain Queens Boulevard local service) Day: Queens Boulevard local, Broadway local Night: service shortened to Middle Village/Myrtle Avenue This setup achieves all of these goals: 2 Avenue has a high frequency of service. Switching is only around DeKalb Avenue and that's pretty much what will determine throughput for 2 Avenue and Broadway express service. The status quo is pretty much the same for the night as before the service cuts in 2010: one Broadway express, one Broadway local, and one shuttle in Brooklyn. Spending is only increased to extend additional trains to 2 Avenue and for Astoria (to make up for having only one route serving it). 4 Avenue and Bay Ridge, consequently, get increased service as well. Each service still retains a single identity. If the terminal changes during the night, it's only because it's shortened; there is no splitting. It might seem cheap to connect 2 Avenue to the Dyre Avenue branch, but the line will have to tunnel (via Boston Road) to reach there. For slightly extra cost, the MTA should probably continue up 3 Avenue as a tunnel and provide long-absent service to that corridor. Summary: A good counter reason is better than a loud voice.

The should not be extended as an express at all. It simply wasn't designed to connect that way. You'd introduce the same problem (if not a worse problem) as the Rogers' Junction on Eastern Parkway. The or (whatever Broadway line goes there) would be fine. The Broadway local serves the line 7 days a week anyway and has excellent transfer options. Anyhow, the topic's been discussed to death; refer to the previous posts so we don't rehash the same points again and again.

Just a reminder: not all of the MTA's ideas were that bright either. Just because an idea has been proposed before, doesn't make it work today—especially an idea that's prehistoric. I, for one, don't think the to the Rockaways is a good idea.

Really? Show us the cause and effect relationship. I call it foam because there's no obvious connection, rhyme, or reason.

Sure… but the scales seem to be heavily weighted on one side. Genting won't even pay for street improvements and you expect an entire line rehabilitated and new service added? And what makes you so sure that's how it will go? There are at least a dozen posts on how the MTA could possibly schedule service (all in this thread too). You might want to enlighten yourself. Fair enough: I explained why before. Not likely… Time for someone to pull their foam extinguisher out… The will still be able to access the yard via the Sea Beach express track. It's not something I think the MTA would use as a reason to screw with service. And also, as much as I'd love to see the get shoved off the (N)'s express tracks, it's just preposterous that you think the MTA could make the local and even run to Bay Ridge! Whether the MTA might do what you suggested may come down to whether you can become the MTA's chairman/CEO. Because if there were ears listening for ideas, they would've stopped listening right at this:

Not after 2 Avenue opens up for service… The doesn't really have an option to run local lest the MTA decides it's worth it to tie up other services with double-switching.

I travel at night, but way more often during days. I'd rather have my day schedule unmolested by construction.