Roadcruiser1

I found this plan from NYC Subway's website. In detail it explains the plan for the existing Grand Street Station. It does prove that Grand Street was designed to be have four tracks, and two island platforms. It explains in detail how the current Grand Street Station would be widened so it would go underneath the park. Remember this was in the 1970's when A.D.A. laws didn't exist so this was cheap and feasible....

http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway:_Route_132-C_Phase_I_Report

Sara D. Roosevelt Park: Special consideration was given to the alignment of Route 132-C along Sara D. Roosevelt Park on the east side of Chrystie Street from Canal Street to East Houston Street. Because of the very heavy passenger transfer movement expected (approximately 13,000 passengers transferring during the peak hours) between the "B" and "D" services and the Second Avenue line at Grand Street Station, it is desirable to provide for a single level, across-the-platform type of passenger transfer movement in the existing Grand Street Station. This will necessitate spreading the tracks of Route 132-C to straddle the existing transit tunnel and widening the existing platforms of the Grand Street Station. The east wall of the existing stations is within one foot of the west boundary of the park. Because of the limited roadway width of Chrystie Street with no sidewalk on the east side, encroachment into Sara D. Roosevelt Park will be required from approximately Hester Street to Stanton Street for the construction of the new northbound track structure of Route 132-C..

This is a terrible idea, because

 

1. The earliest the can switch to the Chrystie St tracks is at West 4th St. Express feeds into the bridge, and local feeds into Rutgers. This is the optimal rush-hour configuration.

 

2. Grand St is planned to be deep-bore due to the disruption involved to connecting it to the current Grand St station. This would make crossovers virtually impossible (not necessarily a bad thing, since this reduces the scope for delays).

 

3. All Queens trunk lines are at capacity except the , which I would hope you're not talking about connecting to.

 

 

You would not necessarily have to connect to the Brooklyn Scoot at Atlantic itself; that would basically be impossible. You could, however, build a deep-bore station under the complex and then have it rise to meet the Atlantic Branch east of Atlantic (say, at Nostrand), and close off the LIRR terminal.

1. I don't really know. Now looking at it this plan clearly it might jam the trains at Broadway Lafayette Street. It's probably not impossible, but hard to plan out.

2. Phase 4 isn't planned yet, but I believe that using the current Grand Street Station would give the Second Avenue Subway a good chance of using the Chrystie Street Connection, and the Manhattan Bridge making it a better concept.

3. That 63rd Street Tunnel link is already planned by the as it can be seen on the planned track maps. I didn't say it would be in service. My map just shows future connections already planned by the except for the Manhattan Bridge connection which is fantasy.

I am looking at all the track maps. It looks like during the construction of the connection at Chrystie Street the neglected to think about the future problems on the Culver Line resulting in the situation we see now. Too bad you can never alter what happened in the past. It would have been better if the problems were checked before construction. It's now pretty difficult.........

The solution would be to extend all our current lines in Queens out to Eastern Queens. They did be extended up to the border of Nassau County. The stations near the border will have park and ride allowing car drivers and buses from Long Island to park at the train stations and ride the subway into the city.

I don't think the subway will be expanded into Nassau County currently. It's like the proposed subway expansion into New Jersey. Too many hurdles and technical difficulties........

I personally think they should build phases 3 and 4 with 4 tracks. A rote via the Williamsburg bridge(a rerouting of the M.) A new V would run exp via Culver and 6 Av

A route via Nassau St to Bay Pkwy via West End. Some sort of route in the LES. Express for Phases 1 and 2 can be added below the local tracks in a different tunnel like the Lex

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

There's no money, and no need for four tracks since the current service ideas would work well.

I think a better idea for a Culver express would be this........

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/349/0/5/2nd_avenue_subway_proposals_by_roadcruiser1-d6y519q.jpg

Instead of spending the money on Park and Ride it did make more sense to use that money to extend the current subway lines in Queens farther East which would also solve the problem.........

For Wallyhorse,

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html#fqcXyywHXRqvHQ3d.99

Back on topic. I doubt we will see the expansion of the Second Avenue Subway in our lifetimes. The needs to worry about the current phases that aren't even built yet. So how can they think about expanding it as of now? It's just impossible..........

Face it. The trunk lines that we have now with express service was built in the day when building it was cheap. Labor was cheap, steel was cheap, and etc. Nowadays it's done by unionized workers that get paid $40,000+ a year, laying track costs $700+ a ton, steel is $400+ a ton, and concrete is $150+ per cubic yard. Let's not forget to mention that you have to pay for architects, engineers, machinery, studies, urban planners, and etc. You guys get the message. Express tracks are not going to probably happen today. It's too expensive. Most of our new subway lines will probably have only two tracks. Though I do see future modifications on current trunk lines to help with our problems today.......

Which is a completely different point than the one I replied to... You were saying that taking road lanes for SBS to inconvenience 8 million drivers (which is factually incorrect, since a good portion of New York City households are car-free) was a bad idea, and now you're doing this about-face where we should add SBS to the West Side.

 

Honestly, we could probably boost M11 and M7 service a lot more before having to resort to SBS implementation. On other UWS and Uptown bus lines, it'd be a lot harder to implement SBS, since a lot of them use east-west streets and cross over to the East Side (M100/101, M4, M5, etc.) Plus, for those particular lines, you could probably cut away stops on the Limited services - LTD service in Manhattan seems to stop far more frequently than it does in the outer boroughs, where spacing is closer to a half-mile or mile.

LOL I said that Select Bus Service wasn't a good idea but I never said I was 100% against it. Truthfully there has to be some solution to this problem..........

SBS is perfectly fine and dandy, since SBS moves disproportionately more people than a traffic lane does (which is only 2000 people per hour, and this is the standard used by USDOT for a highway lane that is free-flowing at 55MPH - urban street capacity is bound to be significantly lower). According to New Flyer, a 60 ft Xcelsior carries 123 people - you can carry the same amount of people with 16 buses per hour, which is approximately a four-minute headway. The amount of people positively affected by SBS is much larger than people disadvantaged by it, who also stand to gain from it due to less cars from people switching to buses. So SBS taking lanes is acceptable.

 

We should actually reduce the amount of taxis since they cause so much congestion (unlike commuters' cars, which are in a lot for the workday, taxis constantly move). In every taxi strike that has occurred during Bloomberg's tenure, taxi utilization and speeds actually increased, and those who didn't strike actually made more money. (The last one also had some innovative things that most people didn't really get upset at - group taxis and fares by zone and traffic time instead of distance and traffic time.)

I looked up the ridership on the Lexington Avenue Line for 2012 and they are comparable to the ridership levels on the Broadway Line and the Washington Heights Line for 2012. You can look this up if you don't believe me. Yet there is no Select Bus Service on the West Side of Manhattan or a new subway line being built to relieve this congestion. It's not a good idea to keep denying this. Something has to be done. Regardless if it's either choice but it has to be done. This issue has to be solved somehow..........

That's exactly why I don't understand why other transportation methods keep getting shot down when they're brought up.  No to express buses, no to ferry service.  Just keep adding more service on the subway lines as if they have endless capacity. 

That's because taking away lanes for SBS isn't a good idea since 8 million or more people are driving around our city's streets each day. This includes tourists and taxis, and not everyone lives next to the coast so they can't use a ferry.

I understand that there isn't a money to build a Ninth Avenue Subway. That is why the solution for now is to increase service, but a new subway line will have to be built in the West Side regardless. It is crowded. Dismissing this idea is just plain foolhardy. We know that all the lines there are crowded. They will need to be supplemented..........

Now that's the thing, the IND had built the entire 8th Ave line with the CPW, along with the Washington Heights line running parallel with the with the idea that it will cause a downtrend in passenger demand on the IRT 7th Ave/West Side line with acquisition in mind. Yet the West Side is still very heavily used today even with a supplemental IND line. I guess aside from the fact that it serves major universities that the runs through majorly populated residential areas in uptown Manhattan as I was alluding to, which is still growing. 

 

Not criticizing you personally over the proposal but if the IND CPW does not come as close to the heavy passenger usage on the , I will have to say that I'm not sure if a new subway line might work. If the capacity problem on the IRT West Side can be solved, as needed in time in the years to come, then it could possibly work, but the benchwalls locks the engineers in, and so too with the political money wrangling and lack of political will in City Hall and Albany to fund the project. Forget the opposition from the community leaders and real estate developers and the problems with legal acquisition of property that will come along with it.

 

*Exception would be the and the IND Washington Heights feeder line as far as upper Manhattan lines are concerned, from being a former Bronx resident, the during rush hours? Crushloaded to the point it's not even funny. I was actually surprised as I was moving up there to the Boogie Down some years back.

 

So I agree, the needs an up in service, only practical way to handle the increased passenger demand, as a short term solution. A new subway line though, I beg to differ.

Ironically they both seem to have the same number of ridership per station.

Washington Heights From 207th Street to 59th Street Columbus Circle Station Ridership Numbers (2012)

 

-207th Street: 2,795,992

 

-Dyckman Street: 2,344,316

 

-190th Street: 1,473,807

 

-181st Street: 3,242,555

 

-175th Street: 4,028,015

 

-168th Street: 7,503,282

 

-163rd Street: 1,230,018

 

-155th Street: 798,881

 

-145th Street: 7,048,938

 

-135th Street: 1,633,487

 

-125th Street: 8,427,453

 

-116th Street: 2,000,033

 

-110th Street: 2,207,790

 

-103rd Street: 1,472,319

 

-96th Street: 2,829,949

 

-86th Street: 3,300,644

 

-81st Street: 4,232,404

 

-72nd Street: 2,832,934

 

-59th Street: 21,599,586

 

Broadway Line From 207th Street to 59th Street Columbus Circle Station Ridership Numbers (2012)

 

-207th Street: 2,205,288

 

-Dyckman Street: 1,231,954

 

-191st Street: 2,512,719

 

-181st Street: 3,496,979

 

-168th Street: 7,503,282

 

-157th Street: 3,381,015

 

-145th Street: 3,289,827

 

-137th Street: 4,634,498

 

-125th Street: 2,560,513

 

-116th Street: 4,942,022

 

-110th Street: 4,491,643

 

-103rd Street: 4,366,343

 

-96th Street: 12,108,040

 

-86th Street: 6,219,513

 

-79th Street: 5,292,422

 

-72nd Street: 13,043,031

 

-66th Street: 7,367,599

 

-59th Street: 21,599,586

 

So as you can see since their numbers are about the same it means they are both extremely crowded. A new subway line might have to be built in the not so distant future to handle this..........

Face it. The didn't work. The easier option is just to have more trains, and probably a proposal to build a new subway line (this idea is far fetched and probably won't happen) that would help. Any other point is moot..........

Like skip stop but with trains making all stops and trains skipping some

It's already been mentioned that it won't work. Don't try rehashing ideas that don't work..........

At this rate the only option is to build a new West Side Subway Line. Preferably along Ninth Avenue..........

service has always been limited, in one form or another. The loop terminal limited capacity due to high dwell times - then, new SF limited capacity because of the lack of tail tracks.

 

If the had done something instead like extending the platforms past the loop and walling off the curved sections, we'd have the best of both worlds - a loop is theoretically the most efficient way to terminate a line, so long as there is no platform on the line.

We do have that. It's called the new South Ferry platform. It was flooded out due to Hurricane Sandy so it won't be coming back for a while..........

There is an interesting point I would like to bring up. The IND foresaw this problem. Back in 1929 they proposed a Morningside Avenue Line which would have ran ride alongside the . This would have solved the congestion problems on the . The proposal was to have a Broadway Line service run from 57th Street, through Central Park West, and run up Morningside Avenue to 145th Street. Sadly it never happened so..........

As someone that has used the Seventh Avenue Line for almost 2 years my opinion is no. I don't see the point in the coming back. It won't address the current issues which is overcrowding on the . It would skip too much popular stations, and it would be a terrible pain on the butt on the local stations on the entire line which is why it was killed in the first place. So no the won't be coming back.

A more realistic idea would be to add more trains during rush hour which will solve the overcrowding on the . This would work better and if communications based train control (CBTC) was brought to the Seventh Avenue Line it will help address the issues on the even more. There is no reason to use the 3rd track anyway since it's used for yard moves anyway. (Really I don't see this point brought up by foamers to use tracks that are unused for services that are not needed!!!!!!!!!!)

Looked at it before when I was young. Now that I am older I know that all those plans on his map will never happen. It's impossible..........

That map has changed, I think its just the proposal way back in early 2000s. MTA is fully committed to build a true SAS from Seaport to 125. There is plans for 125 St/Lex on 125 St to near Lenox Av for trail tracks, maybe a future crosstown 125St?

Not really. Drilling underneath a fault line isn't really a great idea..........

This looks like what I would be looking at doing.  As I would do it, the SAS would connect to the Nassau Line west of the Bowery station and come in on the "express" tracks at Canal before moving to the wall tracks south of Canal Street (this also means the currently-abandoned eastbound platforms at Canal and Bowery would both need to be reopened and renovated as the would go back to being on its old setup at Canal and Bowery).

 

As for extending the Nassau line stations to accommodate 10-car trains, that is something I would be looking to do anyway independent of any SAS work since that would actually involve lengthening all of those stations plus at least those stations that currently serves.  This would allow the to go to 10-car trains, which would help along Queens Boulevard, which would be the actual reason for doing such (allowing the to then also when needed go to Chambers as a 10-car train).

http://www.humorsharing.com/media/comment/1301/what_is_facepalm_50ff9ebd25187.jpg

Please get a life or at least a girlfriend..........

Do you think the MTA should have "scoot service" like they have in the LIRR except not serving Manhattan. For example you could have more trains running from Euclid to one of the Rockaway terminals or you could have trains from Wakefield to E 180 St or possibly some trains from Pacific St via West End express to bay pkwy. There are many possibilities; not everyone goes to manhattan but they just want to go to a nearby stop to get some lunch or the barbers or something; for example in weekends I take the or to Forest Hills from Kew Gardens. It could be possible where lines are not at capacity for instance you can't really do it in the IRT Lexington Av Line but you can do this on the Livonia Line or the West End or the Sea Beach. I think this could be a good and interesting possibility. I want other people's responses. Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

No! There is only a limit of 30 TPH per two tracks. Your idea wouldn't even work in reality..........

The only people saying the T needs to be extended to Brooklyn are those typing on this message board. The Second Avenue Subway calls for 4 phases. Each one needing to be approved and funded after completion of the previous phase. There currently is no phase 5 or Brooklyn extension plans. As a matter of fact I doubt the T will ever be extended into Brooklyn and I'm willing to bet that the R line would be sent to Staten Island or AirTrain or LIRR brought into Lower Manhattan via a new river tunnel long before the SAS is ever extended into Brooklyn.

 

The need for said extension is being created here. The MTA drew up the phases with connections to almost every Manhattan truck line in order to avoid having to worry about sending the line into Brooklyn. The Q is apart of the package because it is the defacto SAS line to Brooklyn.

That's where you are partially wrong. The Second Avenue Subway is being built currently so there would be provisions to extend it into the Bronx and Brooklyn later on. What you are suggesting will cost more as it will require the to have it's own tunnel to get to Brooklyn, but at least if it runs on the Nassau Street Line you won't have to spend all that money to build all that infrastructure..........http://observer.com/2008/03/sander-imagines-second-avenue-subway-all-the-way-to-queens/

Then if that were to be feasible that then bring up how much money would need to be spent on even more rolling stock and where this extra rolling stock could be laid up. Incorporated into SAS costs are dollars for new rolling stock, but covering Brooklyn, especially deep into Brooklyn would call for even more which means even more millions would need to be spent.

 

That's the one area I don't think everyone takes into consideration. We know we want the T and even propose (on the surface and without a detailed study) a cheaper alternative yet we don't remember that more rolling stock raises those costs significantly. Each car costs about $2 million. That's not cheap at all. $20 million per 10 car train is not a drop in the bucket.

But billions would be spent on Phase 4 if it was built and billions more will be spent later on when the needs to be extended to Brooklyn..........

  train already has two branches (three during rush hours), it doesn't need another one. Also on the BMT Jamaica Line, that's why I propose building express tracks above the existing line between Broadway Junction and Marcy Avenue however it merges back into the existing line to stop at Myrtle Avenue-Broadway. And the  train could be moved onto the IND 8th Avenue line between W 4 Street and 59 Street-Columbus Circle and would be express. But other than that it stays on it's current route.

There is no need for a third branch. Lefferts Boulevard is so close to the airport that an extension won't kill it. Besides the Jamaica Line can't handle an express track. Besides there is no room for switching at West 4th Street. It doesn't work..........

Proposed subway line I made that runs from Harlem-125 Street to JFK Airport. Operates as IND 6 Avenue local and i'm calling it the  since the former   operated on the IND 6 Avenue line (obviously). Also runs express on BMT Jamaica line between Marcy Avenue and Broadway Junction, only stopping at Myrtle Avenue-Broadway in between. Heres the map of this proposed line: New V Train - Google Maps

 

Also at Atlantic Avenue, it will use the platform of a demolished subway line right next to the  . I proposed this line because Manhattan lacks a direct link to JFK, especially Harlem. Even if you use the  to Howard Beach, you still have transfer to the AirTrain. And same thing with  or   / to Sutphin Boulevard.

First of all the Sixth Avenue Line has no room. Second of all the Jamaica Line has no room. Why not just have the go there? It's so freaking close..........