SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[GojiMet86]

Curently on my first train since 2010. It's R160 #9210.

[Around the Horn]

South Ferry doesn't really need more lines. If you look at a heat map of ridership, the most crowded segments are in Midtown, the Upper East Side, and Queens. The current plans for subway expansion are:

• extension to 96 St - 2 Ave
• extension to Lex Ave - 125 St
• service from Lex Ave - 125 St to Houston St
• extension to Hanover Sq

I think that a new  service between Houston St / Grand St and Woodside via Roosevelt Island, with provisions for extension to Forest Hills, would do more to alleviate crowding than Phase 4 of SAS. 

 

At the moment, we don't need a 3 Ave or 9 Ave subway. An extension to 72 St - UWS via 10 Ave is possible in the long term.

 

A new  service could also alleviate crowding on the Brooklyn side, if a spur via Avenue A were built, connecting with the train just north of Delancey Street (a junction similar to Bergen Street could do). The can become Culver Express with the  becoming the Culver Local to Kings Highway, providing the same TPH throughput as the current at local stations.

[Caelestor]

A new  service could also alleviate crowding on the Brooklyn side, if a spur via Avenue A were built, connecting with the train just north of Delancey Street (a junction similar to Bergen Street could do). The can become Culver Express with the  becoming the Culver Local to Kings Highway, providing the same TPH throughput as the current at local stations.

 

If that's going to happen, might as well send the down Nassau St, since half the capacity provided by a new Downtown tunnel can't be used.

[Union Tpke]

9183-9222: Jamaica to Coney Island

 

I saw some of these cars on the including 9183–9192.

If any of you got the new subway map, you will notice a stupid mistake. On the cover, there is a line representing each subway route. They didn't add one for the .

[Porter]

If that's going to happen, might as well send the down Nassau St, since half the capacity provided by a new Downtown tunnel can't be used.

 

Don't the Canal Street and Chambers Street stations have unused Nassau Street Line tracks and platforms (perhaps from when the ran to Brooklyn full time)? Why not send either the or down with the and then proceed beyond Broad Street through the underutilized Montague Tunnel and perhaps to Bay Parkway or Bay Ridge?

[Union Tpke]

Don't the Canal Street and Chambers Street stations have unused Nassau Street Line tracks and platforms (perhaps from when the ran to Brooklyn full time)? Why not send either the or down with the and then proceed beyond Broad Street through the underutilized Montague Tunnel and perhaps to Bay Parkway or Bay Ridge?

 

ALIGNMENT DECISIONS SOUTH OF HOUSTON STREET

At the beginning of the SDEIS process, the full-length Second Avenue Subway had two possible alignment options south of Houston Street for service to Lower Manhattan—one would create new service via Water Street and the other would connect the service to the existing Nassau Street Line (see Figure B-9).

The Water Street alignment would involve continuation of the route directly south from Houston Street via Chrystie or Forsyth Street (see discussion below), Chatham Square, St. James Place, Pearl Street, and Water Street. This alignment is generally the route proposed for the original 1929 plan for the Second Avenue Subway, as well as the 1970s plan on which construction began. Some variations of this Water Street alignment would use the existing tunnel section that was constructed for the new subway in the 1970s near Canal Street. The Water Street alignment option would better serve the Lower East Side and would bring passengers to the eastern part of Lower Manhattan, to an area currently without subway service. This option would not preclude a potential future extension to Brooklyn using a new East River tunnel.

The Nassau Street Line option would connect the Second Avenue Subway to the existing Nassau Line (JMZ service) at Kenmare Street, south of Houston Street. This option was considered in earlier plans for the Second Avenue Subway in the 1940s and 1950s. The Nassau Street Line carries trains into and out of Manhattan from Brooklyn via the Williamsburg Bridge and Montague Street Tunnel; between these points, trains on the Nassau Line travel north-south from roughly Kenmare and Centre Streets to Nassau and Broad Streets, with stops at the Essex Street, Bowery, Canal Street, Chambers Street, Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau, and Broad Street Stations. With some reconfiguration of tracks, lengthening of platforms in existing stations approximately 120 feet to a length of 615 feet, increasing the passenger circulation capacity at some of the existing stations, and modification of service plans south of Chambers Street, the existing Nassau Street Line could provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional trains that Second Avenue Subway service would require. The Nassau Street alignment option would bring new subway service to the heart of the Financial District and allow the new service to continue into Brooklyn with no new construction. However, it would not provide a station in the Grand Street or Chatham Square areas like the Water Street alignment option. With respect to relative station locations south of Canal Street between the two options, the Water Street option’s Chatham Square station would be approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the Nassau Line Chambers Street station, the Water Street option’s Fulton/Seaport Station would be approximately 1,000 feet east along Fulton Street from the Nassau Line Fulton Station, and the Water Street Hanover Square Station would be approximately 1,000 feet east along Wall Street of the Nassau Line Broad Street Station. 

 

As described above, with the Nassau Street alignment, the Second Avenue Subway would join the existing Nassau Street Line on Kenmare Street, immediately west of the Bowery Station, and then travel south along that route either to Brooklyn via the Montague Street Tunnel or to a terminus at Broad Street. With Second Avenue Subway service, some M trains, which currently all go to Brooklyn, would have to terminate at Broad Street as well, or at Chambers Street. The JZ service would have to terminate at Chambers Street rather than at Broad Street, forcing some customers to transfer to reach the Financial District. No new stations would be constructed in Lower Manhattan; service would instead be provided from the four existing Nassau Street Line stations: Canal Street, Chambers Street, Fulton Street, and Broad Street. To accommodate the new Second Avenue Subway trains, however, the platforms would need to be lengthened by approximately 120 feet to a length of 615 feet, as would the Broad Street tail tracks, and changes to track geometry would be required. In addition, particularly at the Canal Street Station, station entrances/exits and transfer passageways would need to be expanded to accommodate new Second Avenue Subway riders. While some construction could occur within existing stations, considerable excavation at street level would also be required, and substantial underpinning and ground improvements would also be needed (see Chapter 3, “Description of Construction Methods and Activities,” for a description of these techniques).

 

Selection of Water Street Alignment as the Preferred Option The following discussion summarizes the reasons for selecting Water Street as the preferred alignment for the Second Avenue Subway south of Houston Street. While each alignment would provide significant benefits and would generate adverse impacts during construction, the Water Street alignment would better meet the goals and objectives of the project in terms of reducing crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line and improving subway access to the far East Side of Manhattan. The Water Street alignment would also create a new subway service where none currently exists, and would expand transit access eastward in the Lower East Side and the Financial District. Although the Water Street alignment would cost $360 million more than the Nassau Street alignment, the added benefits associated with Water Street offset the additional expenditures.

 

Comparison of Key Transportation-Related Issues

 

Subway System. As with the Water Street Option, the Nassau Street Option would relieve crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line, but it would leave 1,700 more riders in the AM peak hour on the crowded southbound Lexington Avenue 45 express services and would not bring crowding levels on the 45 express trains below NYCT’s passenger loading guidelines at Grand Central Station, compared with the Water Street Option. On the other hand, the Nassau Street Option would establish increased subway service to the center of the Financial District and would provide extended service to Brooklyn. As a result, it would carry 1,500 more southbound riders and 3,200 more northbound riders in the AM peak hour than would the Water Street Option.

 

When complete, the Nassau Street Option would result in major changes in JMZ train service. Under the preliminary operating plan, M trains would be suspended between Broad Street and Bay Parkway, Brooklyn, and J and Z trains would terminate at Chambers Street rather than at Broad Street. While some Second Avenue trains would provide service to Bay Parkway, commuters entering Manhattan from the Williamsburg Bridge would have to transfer trains for access destinations in other parts of Brooklyn. Furthermore, increased traffic on the Nassau Line may cause delays, particularly during peak periods. The Water Street Option would not require changes to existing transit service in this area.

 

Construction on the Nassau Line would require the suspension of service on JMZ trains during late night and/or weekend hours over a two- to three-year period, which would be more severe than any of the disruptions required with the Water Street Option. Like the Water Street Option, the Nassau Street Option would also require disruption of BD trains. The communities directly affected by these disruptions contain significant populations of minority and low-income residents, which may constitute a significant environmental justice impact. Chinatown and the Lower East Side are currently without BD service due to rehabilitation work on the Manhattan Bridge, and JMZ service via the Williamsburg Bridge was only recently restored following a year-long outage.

 

Although the Nassau Street Option could provide sufficient capacity for basic Second Avenue Subway service (12 trains per hour between 63rd Street and the Financial District), it could not handle the future growth that could be provided with the Water Street Option, unless there was a corresponding reduction in JMZ service. The Water Street option would also have sufficient capacity to allow for a future Queens service via the 63rd Street connection, while the Nassau Street Option would not since additional trains could not operate on the Nassau Street Line without a reduction in existing service to Brooklyn. In addition, the Nassau Street Option would not meet the project’s goal of providing new service to areas east of existing subways, including South Street Seaport, Chatham Square, and along the densely developed Water Street corridor.

 

The estimated construction costs for the Nassau Street Option are lower in part because the existing stations would not be renovated to the same standards as the new stations proposed for the Water Street Option. For example, while they would be ADA-compliant for altered stations, they would not meet the accessibility standards for new construction as would the new Water Street stations because of the constraints of the existing infrastructure. To renovate the stations to these standards would require additional surface and underground construction, resulting in greater impacts and a considerable increase in associated costs. Further, it may not be feasible to expand the existing Nassau Street Stations, especially the Canal Street Station, to accommodate the significant increase in users of these stations that would result from the addition of Second Avenue Subway riders.

 

Summary

In conclusion, the Nassau Street Option would not meet the goals and objectives of the project as well as the Water Street Option. It would not reduce crowding levels on the Lexington Avenue Line to the same degree as the Water Street Option. With the Nassau Street Option, crowding levels on the Lexington Avenue 45 express routes would continue to exceed NYCT’s loading guidelines at Grand Central Station. The Nassau Street Option would also not improve subway access to the Lower East Side and the easternmost areas of Lower Manhattan as well as the Water Street Option. Three new station areasChatham Square, South Street Seaport, and Hanover Squarewould be served by the Water Street Option. Also, access to a new north- south subway service would be provided at Grand Street with the Water Street Option. Under the Nassau Street Option, it would not be possible to accommodate future growth by adding trains without an equivalent reduction in JMZ service over the Williamsburg Bridge. The estimated costs for the Nassau Street Option could rise considerably if the existing stations were fully expanded and upgraded to accommodate the additional riders (and it may not be completely feasible to do so), eliminating one of the major advantages of this Option. The Nassau Street Option also has the potential to create significant adverse impacts to historic, visual, and archaeological resources, as the areas of construction would be very disruptive and are often in more sensitive areas than the Water Street Option. Finally, with the Nassau Street Option, there would be significant construction-period and permanent impacts to existing Nassau Line (JMZ) service, a potential significant environmental justice issue as well as a transit impact.

 

From a community outreach standpoint, consultation with Community Board 1 and local interest groups—the South Street Seaport and South Street Seaport Museum, The Downtown Alliance, and Regional Plan Association (RPA)—indicates that these groups prefer the Water Street alignment, as it provides new service in the eastern portion of Lower Manhattan and has provisions for future growth, benefits not provided by the Nassau Street Option. In consideration of the engineering, economic, environmental, transportation, and planning considerations presented in the foregoing, NYCT has selected the Water Street Option as the preferred option for the Second Avenue Subway. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, all analyses in the remainder of this FEIS assess the Water Street Option. 

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Union Tpke

[TheNewYorkElevated]

Haven't posted here in a while.

 

Yesterday was a busy day for the BMT Broadway line. It was a mix of R68's and R160's. We had the return of the with some of it's trains going to Brooklyn. And an R68 train ran.

 

That is a lot of things.

[GojiMet86]

So far this morning:

 

Two R68A

One R68

One R68A

Some #9200 R160

[bstar1]

Nice to see R68s more often on Broadway Line.

[trainfan22]

These R68's on Broadway remind me of the R62 train in 05 - 08 when it was only like two sets on the line while the rest were 142/A's.

 

 

So glad their back on Broadway, as a railfan I prefer if they all ran on the rather than the though.

[Tonyboy515]

These R68's on Broadway remind me of the R62 train in 05 - 08 when it was only like two sets on the line while the rest were 142/A's.

 

 

So glad their back on Broadway, as a railfan I prefer if they all ran on the rather than the though.

 

In my opinion, I think that they belong on the Brighton Line. That is where they first started service, so I'd prefer them on the . In the late 80's, they first appeared on the and .

[S78 via Hylan]

I happened to catch the R68 set 2768-2775 on the today. It felt good riding it on the express track in Manhattan as well as riding the once again.

[trainfan22]

In my opinion, I think that they belong on the Brighton Line. That is where they first started service, so I'd prefer them on the . In the late 80's, they first appeared on the and .

For my first two years of High School I rode the every day to school on R68A's, Wheres I didn't ride them on the nearly as much. Plus the is always going local along Brighton during Midday G.O's so seeing them on the again isn't really exciting to me anymore. I could totally understand someone who didn't ride the Brighton Local regularly prior to the 160s loving the 68 train though 

 

 

Now once SAS is up and running I'd LOVE to see 68's on the .

 

 

I remember and rode the on Brighton and the orange Q.

[Tonyboy515]

For my first two years of High School I rode the every day to school on R68A's, Wheres I didn't ride them on the nearly as much. Plus the is always going local along Brighton during Midday G.O's so seeing them on the again isn't really exciting to me anymore. I could totally understand someone who didn't ride the Brighton Local regularly prior to the 160s loving the 68 train though

 

 

Now once SAS is up and running I'd LOVE to see 68's on the .

 

 

I remember and rode the on Brighton and the orange Q.

Yeah. The really annoying part about those G.O.'s is the fact that both lines run express on one side, and local on the other. The Brighton line has really frustrated me. But before 2010, it was really common for me to get a seat in an R68 .

 

 

Sent from my iPad using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[D to Burke Avenue]

Guys I'm at 182-183rd and there are police and fire fighters at the southbound platform. I think it's a 12-9 but from what I see here there are workers looking under the train with flashlights.

Edited November 9, 2016 by D to Burke Avenue

[LegoBrickBreaker101]

Guys I'm at 182-183rd and there are police and fire fighters at the southbound platform. I think it's a 12-9 but from what I see here there are workers looking under the train with flashlights.

 

The MTA website says:

 

Due to a passenger injury at 182-183 Sts, southbound  and  trains are bypassing 182-183 Sts.

[BreeddekalbL]

also on the car assignments does that mean all 143's are back on the ?

[Around the Horn]

also on the car assignments does that mean all 143's are back on the ?

No. They still run on the as needed. They were never officially assigned there like the R160 on the .

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Why was there a mass cancellation of planned work for today?

[bstar1]

Great get a break from Weekday Midday GO's even though I know its important.

[GojiMet86]

R68A just left Coney Island, at 5:24.

[Fresh Pond]

Why was there a mass cancellation of planned work for today?

Because of the fatality with the worker on the

[BronxBombers]

The Broadway Line is so much better now that the came back.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Because of the fatality with the worker on the

That was a week or 2 ago though... this is related to that?

[trainfan22]

Why was there a mass cancellation of planned work for today?

The still ran that 12 minute headway G.O today.

 

 

Random, but I rode the around 2:30 today and the train was... an R32. Nice, pleasant surprise.