Caelestor

So has anyone seen reactions from regular commuters that the Q train now goes to 96th street instead of 57th street?

From the videos I've seen every train was full on opening day, so unlike Hudson Yards, there is already latent demand for the extension.

I expect the to be overcrowded in a few months' time. Maybe some more trains will have to run up to 96 St.  

Does anyone know if I can transfer from two busses onto the same line? And from subway to bus to subway?

 

I want do the whole thing on one fare:

Q to 96,

M15 from 96 to 86 to 72 to 63.

Q to 96

The bus will be free. The second to 96 St will cost an additional fare.

Will the southern terminus of Phase 3 feature a direct connection to the at Second Avenue Station? This connection doesn't appear on the four-phase map, but it seems unthinkable for the Second Avenue Subway to neglect Second Avenue Station.

All the transfers in Phases 3 and 4 are tentative, but I think that 55 St, 14 St, Houston St, and Grand St are guaranteed to connect to their respective lines. The only one that may be in question is 42 St, but I think the underground passage to GCT is too important to not build.

Isn't there a point under 2nd Avenue that would allow for 4-track service? 

Every north-south avenue can support 4-track service. In cases like CPW, you might have to build two levels of two tracks each. I don't think there's a provision for Second Ave express service, and frankly it's not needed at this point. If another service is needed, it's cheaper to build another line on 3rd Ave.

Crowding in the Bronx is comparable with other parts of the system. The Lex in Manhattan isn't. For a Bronx extension to do any good without a station at 125th/Lex, you'd need to have connections to at least the and probably the as well. That's 2 more stations, minimum, plus an underwater tunnel. We're probably talking 2-3 times the total cost for the phase. A station at 125th would also make it easy to construct a crosstown extension to connect to the , which would greatly improve mobility and allow customers to get around issues.

You see, the idea behind SAS isn't only to get people on the Upper East Side to take the new line. The idea, Phase 2 and beyond, is to get people going to destinations along the (and eventually the ) to transfer at 125th Street, north of the most-crowded section of the Lex. If there is a station at 2nd and 125th, there won't be an easy transfer to the Lex, so Bronx traffic wouldn't use SAS.

Contrary to most people here, I think an SAS stop at Lex Ave - 125 St will be a very successful transfer station. The caveat is that the transfer only becomes useful in Phase 3 when the serves the employment areas between 55 St and 14 St.

Didn't they also want Hanover Square to have three tracks?

If the 34 St - Hudson Yards terminal works with 2 tracks, so can 125 St and Hanover Square.

I'm pretty new too. Anyways:

1) There's currently no known plans to renovate the rest of the station.

2) I saw a track map some time ago and 116th St still had an island platform like the rest of the stations. However, 125th Street will be a three track station with two island platforms, and the layup tracks north of the curve to 125th will be capable of storing around nine or trains.

My money is on the 125 St terminal being 2 tracks for some easy cost savings. There would be tail tracks west of the 125 St terminal, plus 2nd Ave tracks north of the curve for the future Bronx provision, that would store the trains.

The is getting more frequent service on weekends now. Trains will run every 8 minutes during midday on Saturday and Sunday instead of every 10 minutes.

That's already been happening since the November changes.

I guess whoever wrote this was instructed to make the route as detailed as possible as it pertains to the new 2nd Avenue line. It is incredibly verbose when compared to other lines with similar service patterns though.

The blurb basically states every station that the stops in Manhattan during normal hours. Probably just to make it clear what stops are available for new SAS riders.

Phase 2 is the easy one. Phase 3 is challenging because it has double the number of stations and lots of rail and car tunnels in the way, and there is a reason why the original plans in the 1990s only included Phase 1 and 2. There is also the possibility of the Broadway/63 St connection quickly eating up most of the capacity of the SAS, and then plans will have to be rethought.

No but the cost seems unreasonably high here compared to the rest of the world, even London which have a high cost of living

The question is, is it incompetence or corruption? NA doesn't have much expertise in transit construction nowadays, but spending $1 billion on a station instead of $500 million should be raising eyebrows.

Converting the line to Rosedale shouldn't be to hard to SAS standards almost a walk in the park. I guess the question is could the QBL handle the extra trains to maintain headways?

Well presumably the trains to 179 St would all be shifted back to the busier Archer Ave / Laurelton line and service would be simplified into alternating trains. There is no additional room for more express service, and I'm not certain CBTC will realistically lead to more trains. The bypass line would represent at least 15 - 20 additional tph to support an expected increase in Eastern Queens ridership.

Subway. You could never build an elevated there now...

The Third Avenue El was supposed to be replaced by a Park Ave subway running under the MNR tracks.

There's also alternative plans that would have used the NEC ROW to get the SAS to Hunts Point, 180 St, and Dyre St - I think that would've been elevated or at-grade for some portion.

They started the 63rd a few years before they broke ground on the SAS. The Tunnels, for the most part, were done in 1975/76 about the time they canned the SAS. I guess they were too deep in the game to not finish. They started on connecting the 63rd to Queens Blvd short after the line opened. Even tho it was planned for the Bypass. 

The advantages of building a line in phases. If the three SAS segments was replaced by just one segment from 63 to 72 St, the or other Broadway express would've been running to the UES 40 years ago.

How about LRT on linden boulevard from Saint Albans to a future Woodhaven LIRR station via Baisely avenue, Rockaway Boulevard, Woodhaven Boulevard?

 

Or a line down Utopia Parkway/Union Turnpike from the CIP to Jamaica. That would be nice.

 

Or a system of lines on Brooklyn/Queens following Utica Avenue from Myrtle to Marine park, with a cross branch on linden Boulevard/Church Ave from Conduit Boulevard to the (F)/(G) trains.

I don't think NYC will ever do LRT, which is better for smaller cities with less dense populations. The progression seems to be regular bus service, SBS, then full-blown subway.

The Utica Avenue subway would probably be constructed as an extension of the Eastern Parkway IRT first. It would then be linked up to a new subway through Williamsburg in the very long term.

Triboro RX is the only really realistic cross-Brooklyn line that can be built.

How will ridership on tthe be affected now that the goes to 96th Street and connects to the at Lex-63?

• The ridership shouldn't change, since riders between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Ave can't use the as an alternative.
• I expect the to take on more riders, now that the transfer to 7 Ave Midtown and 2 Ave UES stations is available at Lexington Ave - 63 St. 
• Crowding on the might marginally decrease since the now has the transfer.
• The should be significantly less crowded since riders from 59 St - 96 St have the as an alternative.
• The should be slightly less crowded since 86 St riders have the as an alternative.

Is there a reason why the can't just terminate at 57 St? Let's look at how   riders transfer to other lines, and how the would replace the transfers:

• Lexington Ave Line @ Union Sq: Use Bleecker St
• 7 Ave Line @ 14 St - 6 Ave: Still use 14 St - 6 Ave
• 8 Ave Line @ 14 St - 8 Ave: Use West 4 St
• Broadway Line: The basically runs 1 block away
• Second Ave Line @ Union Sq: Use Herald Sq

People are getting mad here lol. I think we all agree that we believe the needs to be extended to 3 Ave - 149 St, but the problem is that the MTA can't keep costs down. Managements, union, and contractors are all colluding in the transportation-industrial complex everywhere in the country, but NYC is the worst. If things in NYC cost the same in London, the money in Phase 1 would have covered Phase 2 as well.

The UES crowding and Queens crowding are different issues who have a common solution in Phase 3 of the SAS. I actually think that building the Queens Bypass line takes precedent over Phase 4 because letting Phase 3 capacity go to waste is not a good idea. Split Phase 3 into a Phase 3A to 14 St, Phase 3B to Grand St, and Phase 3C into Queens.

One thing about having the SAS go all the way across 125th to Broadway is you would connect to:

 

The at Lenox Avenue

The at St. Nicholas Avenue

The at Broadway (and by then, possibly a new Metro-North station).

 

Columbia's expansion alone as noted many times is why I would go across 125. 

 

As for the Bronx, you could accomplish some of what has been suggested as I have suggested before by extending the to the Bronx via a new Bridge between Queens and The Bronx (with a new stop in Queens added past Ditmars at 20th Avenue) with the line going underground after Food Service Drive (which would be the first stop in The Bronx), connecting to the at East 180 and the at Elder/Westchester Avenue.  This also would give Bronx riders looking for Queens a new option that does NOT make them go through Manhattan. 

The 125 St Crosstown would achieve the following:

• Permanent traffic reduction on 125 St by redirecting most bus ridership underground
• Easier East Side and Bronx access to City College and Columbia (both campuses)
• Easier UES and Midtown East access from Upper Manhattan

It won't do one important thing, though:

• Alleviate overcrowding on the ,

which is what an extension to 3 Ave - 149 St would probably do. Again, what gets built depends on the priorities of those in power. If Columbia really really wanted to build a subway to its campus, it probably has enough clout to do so.

The Bronx extension is never going to happen. For less money, I'd send it east to Laguardia if the NIMBYs change their minds.

I'm going to throw this out there I'm going to go out on a limb! I'm going to put 45-55% of UES side trips ending in the Financial District and 25-30% in Midtown and these are based on workday patterns. I'm sure weekend patterns will be different.  But all my points are based on that. If you have any information that says otherwise im open to it. Let's build on this.

I'm almost certain this isn't the case, given that Midtown is a bigger CBD than the Financial District. 

Grand Central 

People im speaking on are Metro-North riders mainly riding from GC to Lower Manhattan the isn't going to make a dent in helping there I don't think it's going to be visible to most riders on the  True people coming from the Westside Times Square namely will benefit id put that at 10% or less for ridership demand  your point with Hudson Yards is valid that could grow.  

As currently built, the SAS is not really meant to serve riders bound for the East Side or Downtown, but rather people on the West Side. Times Sq (#1 ridership), Herald Sq (#3 ridership), and Columbus Circle (#7 ridership) via 57 St - 7 Ave are all a one-seat ride on the . 

Hudson Yards has negligible ridership for this analysis until the area is built out.

Your 86th street points ill intermix that your point on people want to get closer to their destination. If most people want Lower Manhattan anyone from 5th to 3rd the Lexington is going to be the route. Now I will give you this if I live points on the extreme east York,1st 2nd the might be the option. If the and the can get me there that's an option sign me up!.  I just don't feel that's going to be majority feel like your reaching there. I guess we'll with the 2017/2018 ridership numbers hey I'm okay with being wrong.

Express/ Local two seats via Transfer two seat aren't the same. Walking across the platform to the isn't the same as walking 3 flights to catch a or it counts for riders.

68, 77, 86, and 96 St stations are 30, 28, 10, and 44 in ridership rankings. There is a ton of potential ridership in the UES that the can absorb, since based on real estate prices most subway riders probably live on 2, 1, and York Aves. If there's inclement weather, riders are also more likely to take the .

Overall, the is not the silver bullet that everyone wants, but the situation on the is dire. Riders have to wait for 2-3 trains to pass by if anything goes wrong on the line, and delays are constant. If the can change things so that riders can at least get on the next train, then everyone in the UES and Bronx will benefit. I believe that the will benefit the most by eventually going down to level crowding, and that's a significant improvement on the current situation. Unfortunately, the express trains are going to stay overcrowded until the goes further uptown.

You're right, it would likely be more expensive to build phase two straight to a Third Avenue-149th Street terminal. But I would be more inclined to have 6 Billion go towards that than 6 Billion towards 125th Street. Secondly, while it would be extremely costly to do so, that tunnel would only get even more expensive down the road. Therefore it would make more sense to not only get that tunnel out of the way now, but give the Bronx it's two branches later on.

My stance is that both the 125 St Crosstown and 3 Ave subways should be built, but they serve different purposes. Lexington Ave - 125 St will be underutilized in Phase 2 since I doubt many riders will transfer to a local taking an indirect path to Midtown West through the UES, but ridership will spike in Phase 3 when the starts running into Midtown East. On the other hand, I can definitely see a to 149 St immediately hitting ridership projections, but it's almost certainly going to take longer to build. Just depends on what people's priorities are. 

Sorry, I'm sure I brought this up before, but after looking at the new maps I can't help but wish that Phase 2 served Third Avenue–138th Street and Third Avenue–149th Street instead of Lexington Avenue–125th Street. This would mean building four stations instead of three (assuming that a station at Second Avenue–125th Street wouldn't be feasible), but wouldn't it be cheaper to dig straight north instead of curving under Manhattan city blocks and westward? I think this arrangement would alleviate the Lexington IRT corridor more noticeably.

It's technically not too late to get the MTA to change their minds. A new draft EIR will probably delay completion of Phase 2 by 5 years, but it's more important to get it right imo. I personally think that a Bronx extension is guaranteed to be more expensive, since 4 stations are more expensive than three and a new underwater tunnel should be $1 billion at least. The benefit would be to permanently solve the overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue express tracks, since riders will transfer to the for Midtown West.

In any case, 125 St - 2 Ave shouldn't be built because the walkshed is too restricted and projected ridership would be too low for the cost.

I don't think you'll see much benefits. I just don't see it. Even at 250k on the extension that's still over a million on the Lex daily.

I actually think SAS ridership will be higher than predicted just because people want to get away from the Lex and check out the new line that was proposed 100 years ago. The trains are going to be overcrowded, but I think the will see significant improvements in reliability.

How is the SAS going to open on December 30/31 if there are no notices posted up at any stations, and they still haven't confirmed a date?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

It probably isn't, though maybe the governor will rush the opening.

How are they not trains? They run on the to 57th Street and then via the to the nearest layup point, 96th Street.

We should call them NQ trains, since they run in Brooklyn and in Manhattan.

Starting to become really excited for the Second Avenue Subway Opening! 

 

However, there is one service change that I would make that is different from what they are proposing, and it regards those four to five ’s that will "short-change” at 96th instead of 57th like they currently do. 

 

The reason short-change was in quotes was because it’s hard to call it a short-change when it goes on a completely different route for four stops. I understand why they have to do it, as Ditmars Blvd can’t accommodate all those trains, but my proposal re-routes those short-turns: 

 

The four (or trains under this proposal) will short turn at Queensboro Plaza, relaying on the express tracks south of 39th Avenue and heading back into service on the southbound tracks at Queensboro. 

 

Just note that there will technically be no trains to 96 St. They'll be signed as trains via Sea Beach. In the other direction, they'll be trains from 96 St.

FWIW, I think cramming more trains through the 60 St tunnel is not good for reliability purposes.

What does the MTA do about those (N)s when the   comes into being one day? It must take them off 2 Avenue.

Why do we need to remove   trains from SAS? I think the route via Times Sq and Herald Sq will be more popular than the .

I don't think that a takeover of PATH would've worked (since PATH is IRT standard); the Sixth Av line should've been built under 5th, which would have been even more of a political lift.

To clarify, I meant that the city should have bought PATH like the IRT and BMT. The money for the 6 Ave line could have been redirected to building the first phase of SAS so that the IND had an East Side line to complement the 8 Ave line. Meanwhile, PATH could have been extended up 6 Avenue, perhaps terminating at 57 St / Columbus Circle to unify the subway lines there. 

I don't think a 5 Avenue line would have worked either. Having half of your walkshed lie in Central Park and the other half in Millionaire's Row isn't great for attracting ridership.

So if all the stations served by the get heavily populated (likely in the not-too-distant future), the could be retired in response?

Possibly, but I also don't think that all the stations would get ridership increases. If anything one or two stations might get converted from only or only to all stop.

Skip-stop on the 7 Ave line was gradually retired as every station gained enough ridership and became too important to not serve. That said, itt's unlikely to happen on the Jamaica line because the head towards Downtown instead of Midtown.

I still don't know how it costs $6 billion. If this will really cost this much. After perhaps Phase 3, there won't be subway construction for 60 years.

Contractors running up the costs.

6 Billion? Is the 125th street segment where all cost concentrated?

The 125 St station will probably be as expensive as 34 St - Hudson Yards due to its deep-level location and complexity of the area (transfers to MNR and Lex Ave).