Can SAS Phase 1 do the job?

[Roadcruiser1]

The Lexington Avenue Line is overcrowded, but the 77th Street area doesn't have the highest ridership along the entire line. There are stations that have a higher ridership, and they should be the ones that get the extra service. Plus the guy is literally foaming about putting the Roosevelt Island Tram into the 77th Street Station on a Second Avenue Subway. That is pure foam. At least I am not foaming with the Fourth Avenue Line. I am only being truthful, because the local tracks do have stations that have high ridership, and the doesn't cut it.

[DJ MC]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Roadcruiser1]

The guy wants to put the Roosevelt Island Tram into a subway station. Can you believe that nonsense?

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Gorgor]

The Lexington Avenue Line is overcrowded, but the 77th Street area doesn't have the highest ridership along the entire line. There are stations that have a higher ridership, and they should be the ones that get the extra service. Plus the guy is literally foaming about putting the Roosevelt Island Tram into the 77th Street Station on a Second Avenue Subway. That is pure foam. At least I am not foaming with the Fourth Avenue Line. I am only being truthful, because the local tracks do have stations that have high ridership, and the doesn't cut it.

 

Actually 77th Street on the has the highest average weekday ridership for any local station in the entire subway system, with 35,579. 68th Street coming in a close second with just a few hundred less at 34,984. And I don't know what you're talking about with the Roosevelt Island Tram, I don't see any posts about that, and the station on Second Avenue should be on 79th Street.

[Roadcruiser1]

I meant his Roosevelt Avenue Super Express. Sorry about it. Guess I shouldn't have speed read his post.

[Roadcruiser1]

I wasn't specifically saying the local stations. I said throughout the entire Lexington Avenue Line.

[Guest lance25]

Concerning the 77th vs. 72nd Street placement of the station, I'd say 72nd works better since it's the only bidirectional road between 79th Street and 57th Street.

 

As for putting a station at 79th Street, you have to remember that the Second Avenue Line is the poor man's express line. If you keep adding stops to the line in order to mimic Lexington Avenue, Second Avenue becomes unbearably slow. Now this wouldn't be a problem if the line was four-tracked as intended, but, you gotta take what you can get.

[MikeGerald]

But South Brooklyn still does have overcrowding, and the Fourth Avenue Line lost a lot when they lost the (Mx) especially the stations between 36th Street, and Pacific Street. Now you have to wait a long damn time before a slow moving train comes into the damn station to pick you up, and then slowly move you to it's destination. At least run this new to Bay Ridge-95th Street during rush hours to supplement the slow moving trains. All I am asking is to improve service along the Fourth Avenue Line even at best.

 

I am not saying that a southern Brooklyn version of the old M-train is not needed. I am not saying the 4th Avenue subway service can not be "dreadful" at times. Who does not have complaints about their subway service?

 

I am saying that the case for something extra has to be made to the powers that be, and that it is going to be a difficult task. It is an uphill battle as I out-lined in the message above.

 

From the perspective of northern J and M-train riders who needed or wanted direct mid-town service, their pleas and wishes fell on deaf ears for decades, even if the transit fan community over the same years created fantasy map after fantasy map about something like a restored K or KK train. In the real world as the transit cuts were being thought about and talked about a proposal to join the M-train and V-train was brought up at the right moment. That was when "the folks" are ready to listen. As I understand it, when the new (or current) M-train was proposed, all that the northern Brooklyn community of M-train riders asked for was the retention of the M-train train label, and to not call the route the V. From the MTA's perspective that is an easy sell, and it looked like a winner. That was the only bright spot in a sea of transit cuts.

 

I am saying that the case for something extra (for example a kind of restored southern-Brooklyn M-train like service) has be to carried out by local politicians, the local press, and other opinion makers -- to see the needs of the folks who want the service. However in these times of fiscal problems with the MTA, something more than just "begging for more service" will have to happen. Let's face it, what community does not beg for more service?

 

The part about a potential W-train running along side the R train, simply means more R-train service is wanted. The southern Brooklyn M-train connected routes and lines in a way that was helpful. If the wish is simply for more local service - the MTA could always make all N and R trains all local all the time in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens (it was practically that during the decade of the Manhattan Bridge renovation). Be careful what you ask for - is the point.

 

Organizing the community to demand more transit service, while marshaling the arguments that will get you what you want, while not screwing others -- is not an easy task. It takes more effort than just writing an e-mail on a message board, yes it takes foot work. No one said it will be easy.

 

Mike

[Roadcruiser1]

I don't think making the as an all local is the greatest option here. People were pissed when the ran all local in the 1990's during the Manhattan Bridge project, and if that idea was even brought back today that Chairman will end up being hung by Sea Beach residents.

[CenSin]

Actually, I would disagree. Without the Second Avenue Subway, it was a mistake to close the Third Avenue El between Chatham Square and East 149th Street on May 12, 1955 though in the end, train service was weekday only 7:00am to 7:00pm.

 

Though the Third Avenue El was definately aging, I feel it was a bigger mistake to close it betwen East 149th Street and Gun Hill Road on April 30, 1973. In the end, the el structure was handling R12s.

 

I would agree that Phase II, at least, would be needed to help ease the Lexington Avenue subway. Phase I should help in that, to an extent, the should attract riders between East End Avenue and Second Avenue at 96th, 86th and 72d Streets; however, an honest, more accurate showing likely won't be available until Phase III opens - since, then, service would serve Second Avenue between 125th and Houston Streets.

Just phase 1 of the 2 Avenue line would be quite useful on its own already. A lot of people traveling in that area are hospital staff working in the far east side of Manhattan. I don't know the travel patterns, but a lot of riders south of 23 Street and in Brooklyn who are heading up there might opt to take the instead.

 

I have a friend who lives in the Upper East Side around York Avenue and 89 Street. Going up there requires a very long walk after getting off the Lexington Avenue and 86 Street stop. That's a distance problem between the far east side and subway service.

 

My friend also needs to access the west side frequently (Washington Heights, Times Square, Chelsea, and West Village). Her options are to take a 40-minute bus ride across town, or take the Lexington Avenue express and transfer to other trains at via the 42 Street Shuttle. A typical subway ride would require at least 2 transfers and a long walk in the station while transferring. The Lexington Avenue line has poor options for getting to the west side currently.

 

The going up 2 Avenue would reduce the walking for those living further east of Lexington Avenue, provide west side access, and provide transfers to the (© trains.

 

I don't think making the as an all local is the greatest option here. People were pissed when the ran all local in the 1990's during the Manhattan Bridge project, and if that idea was even brought back today that Chairman will end up being hung by Sea Beach residents.

I would hang him. I have horrible options for rides between Flushing and Coney Island.

[geoking66]

Concerning the 77th vs. 72nd Street placement of the station, I'd say 72nd works better since it's the only bidirectional road between 79th Street and 57th Street.

 

As for putting a station at 79th Street, you have to remember that the Second Avenue Line is the poor man's express line. If you keep adding stops to the line in order to mimic Lexington Avenue, Second Avenue becomes unbearably slow. Now this wouldn't be a problem if the line was four-tracked as intended, but, you gotta take what you can get.

 

Exactly what I was going to say. If the SAS were a true trunk line with express service then I would see no reason why not to have a 77/79th Street stop, but right now this is the best we've got. And hey, if the resultant service would be faster and more convenient for some riders who'd otherwise transfer at Grand Central or 59th, then that's some relief right there.

[cotb16]

I don't think making the as an all local is the greatest option here. People were pissed when the ran all local in the 1990's during the Manhattan Bridge project, and if that idea was even brought back today that Chairman will end up being hung by Sea Beach residents.

 

And by businessmen in Chinatown as well who fear of losing customers from the Sea Beach Line.

[Tokkemon]

Then IS an all-local right now.

[Roadcruiser1]

It's local on the Broadway Line, but not on the Fourth Avenue Line.

[Kacie Jane]

It's local on the Broadway Line, but not on the Fourth Avenue Line.

 

It was express on 4th Avenue for most of the 90's as well.

 

I think the point is that while yes, it's local through midtown, at least it still bypasses Lower Manhattan. (Plus, maybe people -- like most of this board -- are still holding out hope that the current situation is temporary.)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The part about a potential W-train running along side the R train, simply means more R-train service is wanted. The southern Brooklyn M-train connected routes and lines in a way that was helpful. If the wish is simply for more local service - the MTA could always make all N and R trains all local all the time in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens (it was practically that during the decade of the Manhattan Bridge renovation). Be careful what you ask for - is the point.

 

I'd hate to see the be made local in Brooklyn again! It's bad enough they had to make it local in Manhattan after cutting the .

[MikeGerald]

I agree that I would not prefer the N-train to be an all local train in Queens, Manhattan and Brooklyn - except for the midnight hours. However my real point was a suggestion to look at closely about what is being asked for.

 

If folks are saying the R-train service is "too slow" and "crowded", etc. Then it would appear the solution is to beef up R-train service. To solve the R-train problem, why would another line need to be created? If the answer is that R-train service is the most that can be supplied at this time, and that another route is needed then what route would have to sacrificed?

 

I'm an old fogey at times, and I liked it when the N-train was completely express in Manhattan and Brooklyn (decades ago), while the R-train was a really efficient local service. The attempt to be all things to all people is not that easy to accomplish. Decades ago, the RR was all local to/from Astoria - so now that the N-train goes there, there is the effort to make N-trains local (replicating what was there). The EE train was all local to/from Queens Blvd - so there was the effort to make the N-train local from there, and now with the R-train. Plus the whole Manhattan Bridge renovation work - making everything both N and R trains all local all the time for Manhattan and Queens.

 

If I had my way I'd just have the N and Q trains express to/from the 96th Street-Second Avenue terminals, express along Broadway, and then on to their respective routes in Brooklyn. No track switching - just rider transfers at the express stops - this would speed up the traffic between Manhattan and Brooklyn. The N-train would run 6am to midnight every day. During the midnight hours, the N-train would shut down for the night.

 

I'd have the W-train as the full-time route to/from Astoria and the Whitehall Street station (with some rush hour trains using Canal Street as a terminal - relaying on the City Hall "express" tracks). During the midnight hours, the W-train would be extended to Coney Island as an all local route, replacing the N-train. This would keep the W-train running between Manhattan and Queens every day from 6am to midnight, and at the 12 trains or more per hour needed for the Astoria segment.

 

I'd have the R-train keep its current operation, from 6am to midnight, all local in Queens, Manhattan and Brooklyn. Since only R and W trains would be on the local tracks in Manhattan that would speed up traffic to/from Queens, and through out Manhattan. During the midnight hours, the R-train would be a shuttle in Brooklyn as usual.

 

That is just what I'd do.

Mike

[Wallyhorse]

No. Suggesting adding a station at 79th Street and York or 1st would cause all hell to break loose. NIMBYism would stop any plan like that dead in its tracks, and I would have to completely agree with them. All of the main streets (72nd, 79th, 86th) south of 1st Avenue are completely residential, quiet, and peaceful, and adding a subway station there would completely ruin it.

 

I grew up in that neighborhood and can tell you a 79th/York-1st station that can serve as a short-turn SAS terminal would have been very helpful when I lived there, and that neighborhood now is much more densely populated from the time I lived there in 1970's and '80s. Yes, you have quiet streets there for sure, but 79th is and always will be a major thoroughfare.

 

As said, however, my first choice would be for a station to be at 79th/2nd with a second exit at 76th/2nd since that would be next to Wagner Junior High. That would be the one exception to otherwise having the stations as they are going to be on the SAS given how densely populated the area really is.

[Gorgor]

I grew up in that neighborhood and can tell you a 79th/York-1st station that can serve as a short-turn SAS terminal would have been very helpful when I lived there, and that neighborhood now is much more densely populated from the time I lived there in 1970's and '80s. Yes, you have quiet streets there for sure, but 79th is and always will be a major thoroughfare.

 

As said, however, my first choice would be for a station to be at 79th/2nd with a second exit at 76th/2nd since that would be next to Wagner Junior High. That would be the one exception to otherwise having the stations as they are going to be on the SAS given how densely populated the area really is.

 

Yes it would be helpful, but they'd rather all pack on to the M79 (it can be SRO by 2nd Avenue usually) to go to Lex than have a subway station right in the middle of their street, which would increase the bum population. The last time I walked around that part at night I remember seeing 3-4 bums sleeping on the steps of the church on the north side of the street, but those were the only ones I've seen ever on 79th Street.

[Roadcruiser1]

A better idea would be to have the Second Avenue Subway run all it's stops as it does now on the proposal, but to have the M15 SBS do all the local stops a local train on the SAS would have done if it was a 4 tracked line. Therefore the would sort of act like an express and the bus line would do all the local stops.

[SubwayGuy]

Bums always sleep on the steps of churches and schools. If St. Monica's was, say, a restaurant, the bums would have found somewhere else to go long ago.

[Wallyhorse]

Yes it would be helpful, but they'd rather all pack on to the M79 (it can be SRO by 2nd Avenue usually) to go to Lex than have a subway station right in the middle of their street, which would increase the bum population. The last time I walked around that part at night I remember seeing 3-4 bums sleeping on the steps of the church on the north side of the street, but those were the only ones I've seen ever on 79th Street.

 

Just like it was in my day (when it was the M17). There always had been a few bums in the neighborhood, though even in recent years when I went by that area they never were in front of the church (St. Monica's) on 79th/1st (and that actually is an improvement from the late 1980s-early '90s when I used to see quite a few bums in that area on my trips back before the old walk-ups on 79th/1st were torn down and the current building went up).

 

With the high rises that have gone up there since I left (and continue to go up), that area needs a subway stop on the SAS, whether it be 79th/2nd or a potential short-turn terminal at 79th/York-1st (that actually could serve as the terminal if the full line ever got built in the latter case). 79th/2nd is actually ideal because that also can have an exit at 76th/2nd, just east of Wagner Junior High, more equally spreading out the traffic from the school between the SAS and .

[Roadcruiser1]

It doesn't matter. The Second Avenue Subway is a 2 tracked line with no express tracks. By adding more stations you would slow the line down. The M15 SBS should do what a local service would do on a 4 tracked subway line when the Second Avenue Subway opens, and the would do what a express service would do on a 4 tracked line. That should solve all problems on Second Avenue, and if you are still dreaming the Second Avenue Subway will have a connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel.

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters