SAS Stations

[Iamthe1]

If you could designate where the new stations on the SAS would be...where would you put them? Here's my list:

 

The album page:

http://img192.imageshack.us/g/sas1q.png/

 

Or each page individually:

http://img192.imageshack.us/i/sas1q.png/

http://img211.imageshack.us/i/sas2.png/

http://img23.imageshack.us/i/sas3.png/

[2 Train Master]

If you could designate where the new stations on the SAS would be...where would you put them? Here's my list:

 

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Gateway%20User/Desktop/SAS.htm

 

(NYCT):cool:

I sware you are hilarous,u ask me this question like everyother skool day in the same class Math 7th period.

[2 Train Master]

Change 106 St to 103rd since its kinda a hot spot on the Lexington Av line but I like it leave it.

[NYtransit]

change the link, upload the file to some where because the fle is a link from your computer.

[R32 3348]

125th St. (one on Lexington, one on 2nd Ave. IF the line ever reaches the Bronx)

116th St. (planned)

110th St. (changed from 106 to serve a major street)

103rd St. (added to serve a major street)

96th St. (planned)

86th St. (planned)

79th St. (added to better serve parts of the UES)

72nd St. (planned)

60th St. (added for important and busy xfer to )

52nd St. (changed from 55th St. as easier xfer to (E)/(V)/(6))

42nd St. (planned)

34th St. (planned)

23rd St. (planned)

14th St. (planned)

St. Mark's Pl. (added to serve East Village)

Houston St. (planned)

Grand St. (planned)

Chatham Sq. (planned)

Seaport (planned)

Hanover Sq. (planned)

 

The addition of these stations would assume that the line be built with four tracks. This is possible but cost-prohibitive for Phases 2-4 as they are still in the planning stage. As for Phase I, I'm not sure if the line is being built deep enough for the addition of an upper level of express tracks. I know that the 96th St. station is being built 70-80 feet below street level (source - http://www.thelaunchbox.blogspot.com) but IDK if that is enough for two levels. How deep is the Lexington Ave. line between 96th and 51st St?

[Grand Concourse]

I agree with splitting 106th to 103rd and 110th. I understand the cost savings of one station, but for that area, two stations would probably be worth it.

 

I still would've preferred they built the line as 4 tracks all on the same level and the stations being side platforms than the one island platform. 2nd av is wider than Lexington and it would've made construction easier to have the entrances on the sidewalks leading down towards the platform than to a mezzanine and then the platform.

[fishmech]

Take note that when the 63rd street line(s) was built stub connections were provided for that would allow eastbound trains to turn left and head uptown/downtown trains to turn and head west as well as for trains coming from Queens and Roosevelt Island to turn and head downtown on the SAS and vice versa,

[Concourse Express]

I agree with splitting 106th to 103rd and 110th. I understand the cost savings of one station, but for that area, two stations would probably be worth it.

 

I still would've preferred they built the line as 4 tracks all on the same level and the stations being side platforms than the one island platform. 2nd av is wider than Lexington and it would've made construction easier to have the entrances on the sidewalks leading down towards the platform than to a mezzanine and then the platform.

 

I don't agree with "splitting" the 106 St station into two locations since you have the M106 running along 106 St (under the original plan, this bus would help "feed" the SAS); also, with longer platforms than those on the IRT (roughly 615 ft), stations at 103 St and 110 St might be too close to each other.

 

I do agree that the SAS should be a four-track subway; however, to save space (and possibly money), the express tracks should be the outer tracks, while the local tracks should be the inner tracks. Local stops would consist of one island platform, while express stops would have the traditional two-island config.

[Concourse Express]

Take note that when the 63rd street line(s) was built stub connections were provided for that would allow eastbound trains to turn left and head uptown/downtown trains to turn and head west as well as for trains coming from Queens and Roosevelt Island to turn and head downtown on the SAS and vice versa,

 

This is true; however, to make this connection viable you'd have to reconfigure the QB express (and possibly build a new line for SAS - say, via Northern Blvd). Of course, when SAS Phase III is constructed this connection should be established (at least for non-revenue moves and emergency reroutes).

[Iamthe1]

yeah i uploaded different links...the first 1 was a mistake but my line goes all the way to the bronx...check it out...i'm gonna make more improvements later

 

alize....really???

[fishmech]

This is true; however, to make this connection viable you'd have to reconfigure the QB express (and possibly build a new line for SAS - say, via Northern Blvd). Of course, when SAS Phase III is constructed this connection should be established (at least for non-revenue moves and emergency reroutes).

 

I'm not so sure you'd need to reconfigure... also I would say a route that came from Queens and went down the SAS would probably be better off as a local.

[Concourse Express]

I'm not so sure you'd need to reconfigure... also I would say a route that came from Queens and went down the SAS would probably be better off as a local.

 

While the QB local is not at capacity, the rate at which trains are turned at 71-Continental (from what I've read here and on other boards) constrains available capacity. Mayhap extending one of the locals to 179 solves this problem, but I'm not sure what 179 can handle and whether or not this would conflict with service.

[fishmech]

While the QB local is not at capacity, the rate at which trains are turned at 71-Continental (from what I've read here and on other boards) constrains available capacity. Mayhap extending one of the locals to 179 solves this problem, but I'm not sure what 179 can handle and whether or not this would conflict with service.

 

Anything running through 63rd Street already has to work with the anyway. I doubt there's much of an issue with turning trains at 179th street, I know that it already handles all trains plus a couple trains an hour during rush (since Jamaica Center apparently has problems handling the amount rush hour trains).

 

It might be nice to have an always-local service on the QBL east of 71-Continental, allowing both and trains to run always express there outside of late nights.

[SubwayGuy]

It'd be more important to have an extra station between 72 and 86 than it would to split 106 into 103/110. But none of the above will happen, the Phase I section of the line will most likely be built late, but as planned.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I don't agree with "splitting" the 106 St station into two locations since you have the M106 running along 106 St (under the original plan, this bus would help "feed" the SAS); also, with longer platforms than those on the IRT (roughly 615 ft), stations at 103 St and 110 St might be too close to each other.

 

I do agree that the SAS should be a four-track subway; however, to save space (and possibly money), the express tracks should be the outer tracks, while the local tracks should be the inner tracks. Local stops would consist of one island platform, while express stops would have the traditional two-island config.

Agreed. Having the 106th Street stop does save the cost of building an extra station and offers easy access to the M106 bus there. You can also have exits leading towards 103rd and 110th streets from the 106th Street station. I've always believed that having a stop at 106th "corrects" the mistake of building two separate stations on the CPW line and the two IRT lines.

[INDman]

the Phase I section of the line will most likely be built late, but as planned.

 

Too bad we will never see it.