T to Dyre Avenue Posted July 26, 2012 Share #651 Posted July 26, 2012 Bad idea, IMO. The could be as much as 18 TPH, we need to keep it out of Dekalb Junction. I say drop Phase 4 and connect it to Rutgers instead and send it to Avenue X. It could only be 15 TPH, but it is enough to service 2nd Avenue for now. The will have to run less than 18 tph if ever joins the in the Rutgers tunnel. The is already at 15tph. The would have to be limited to 15tph. As for Culver, running both the and trains south of Church would be overkill. The Culver el is already overserved with 15 tph. It would even more so with 15 's and 15 's (even if they originate at Avenue X). A better use for the in Brooklyn would be to run it express between Jay St and Church Ave and have the replace the to Coney Island. The would then run local from Jay to Church and terminate at Church with the . This way, the would have direct access to a train yard and the can run a shorter, more reliable route. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 26, 2012 Share #652 Posted July 26, 2012 As for Culver, running both the and trains south of Church would be overkill. The Culver el is already overserved with 15 tph. It would even more so with 15 's and 15 's (even if they originate at Avenue X). A better use for the in Brooklyn would be to run it express between Jay St and Church Ave and have the replace the to Coney Island. The would then run local from Jay to Church and terminate at Church with the . This way, the would have direct access to a train yard and the can run a shorter, more reliable route. However, Culver gets very crowded on weekdays. I can see short turning some (probably the current Kings Highway trains) to Church, but not all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTARegional Bus Posted July 26, 2012 Share #653 Posted July 26, 2012 The sec ave subway is useless if it can't go to outer boroughs. it is just a Manhattan shuttle. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted July 26, 2012 Share #654 Posted July 26, 2012 im noticing that this thread has already made a complete 360. we've already discussed a loop. a connection to the centre st subway and using Rutgers. And that "its useless if it doesnt go to the outer boros" line, service to throgs neck, co-op, and every other option conceivable.. and until phase 3 is built, all second ave trains will come from CI( as Q's). as i stated before, the documentation on SAS at mta.info mentions yards throughout all 4 phases. Lay-up tracks will be provisioned starting with phase 2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted July 26, 2012 Share #655 Posted July 26, 2012 However, Culver gets very crowded on weekdays. I can see short turning some (probably the current Kings Highway trains) to Church, but not all. Good to know. In that case, I propose retaining service to Kings Highway on weekdays. I propose running it local KH to Jay St. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted July 27, 2012 Share #656 Posted July 27, 2012 I just thought of something. What if the 2 Av subway had tracks to go down into the middle tracks at Chambers St ? That could change the game you don't think? And please don't get on my ass for this, just making a proposal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted July 27, 2012 Share #657 Posted July 27, 2012 I just thought of something. What if the 2 Av subway had tracks to go down into the middle tracks at Chambers St ? That could change the game you don't think? And please don't get on my ass for this, just making a proposal. We already said this. Also, I'm wondering why the 's last stop isn't closer to Whitehall. Then a connection could be made. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 27, 2012 Share #658 Posted July 27, 2012 We already said this. Also, I'm wondering why the 's last stop isn't closer to Whitehall. Then a connection could be made. It's only 4 blocks, the connection can be made into the station. I just thought of something. What if the 2 Av subway had tracks to go down into the middle tracks at Chambers St ? That could change the game you don't think? And please don't get on my ass for this, just making a proposal. We said this can't work because the would be too frequent to go through 4th Avenue and Dekalb Junction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted July 27, 2012 Share #659 Posted July 27, 2012 Well, it was never said they have to send all the trains to Brooklyn. Maybe they could terminate some in Manhattan. Either way ideally, the would run thru southern Brooklyn using the existing tunnels. The only other option would be to build a new river tunnel and connect it to the Fulton line via the Transit Museum (which then would need to be relocated). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 27, 2012 Share #660 Posted July 27, 2012 Well, it was never said they have to send all the trains to Brooklyn. Maybe they could terminate some in Manhattan. Either way ideally, the would run thru southern Brooklyn using the existing tunnels. The only other option would be to build a new river tunnel and connect it to the Fulton line via the Transit Museum (which then would need to be relocated). There isn't any money to build a new river tunnel, and new tracks can be built under the museum for that anyway. The 's that turn in Manhattan would be empty, just further crowding the full route ones. Connecting to Culver is the best idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted July 27, 2012 Share #661 Posted July 27, 2012 Well of course there's no money, but eventually in the future there might be a need for another tunnel as I doubt all the other existing tunnels can maintain the levels they have if the population continues to rise. But the point is, there's only so many trains you can fit in the tunnel and to maintain the tph needed for the SAS. It's either short turn the or the other line it runs with going into Brooklyn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted July 27, 2012 Share #662 Posted July 27, 2012 What if the replaced the in Brooklyn and the terminated at Whitehall? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 27, 2012 Share #663 Posted July 27, 2012 What if the replaced the in Brooklyn and the terminated at Whitehall? That's an interesting idea. So, riders would transfer to the at Canal St if they wanted to go to Brooklyn? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 27, 2012 Share #664 Posted July 27, 2012 What if the replaced the in Brooklyn and the terminated at Whitehall? I'm not to keen on this one, as most riders want Midtown, not the East Side. I still think some 's should go to 95th Street in this situation... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted July 27, 2012 Share #665 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) What if every other ran via the to Brighton Beach (switching after Dekalb), and the was instead relocated to terminate at 9 Av (or 62 St, or Bay Pkwy...)? Edited July 27, 2012 by NX Express 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted July 27, 2012 Share #666 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Or, if the were built on the same level as the at Grand st. and you can have select trains run with the to Brighton. What if the replaced the in Brooklyn and the terminated at Whitehall? Hem, when I was still in favor of annexing the Nassau line for the southern part of the SAS, I did feel the should go to 95th-Bay Ridge full time and the either being cut back to Whitehall or 9th av. I'm not sure how far the last stop on Water St would be and if they will connect a passageway to Whitehall though. Edited July 27, 2012 by Grand Concourse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted July 27, 2012 Share #667 Posted July 27, 2012 I'm not to keen on this one, as most riders want Midtown, not the East Side. I still think some 's should go to 95th Street in this situation... The , assuming built as designed, DOES go to Midtown. Right under the Chrysler Building. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted July 27, 2012 Share #668 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) The entire Second Avenue Subway will be served by the between 125th Street and Hanover Square. The is joined by the between 125th and 72nd Streets. There's no need to change any service patterns and routes, especially since its better that riders needs to stick to the way the subway system is. Edited July 27, 2012 by RollOverMyHead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted July 27, 2012 Share #669 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) The Chrysler Building is nowhere near 2 Av. @Rollover the will be almost pointless as a Manhattan shuttle. It needs to go to the outer boroughs, preferably the Bronx, but more realistically Brooklyn. Edited July 27, 2012 by NX Express 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted July 27, 2012 Share #670 Posted July 27, 2012 The Chrysler Building is nowhere near 2 Av. @Rollover the will be almost pointless as a Manhattan shuttle. It needs to go to the outer boroughs, preferably the Bronx, but more realistically Brooklyn. The will sure be extended to the Bronx and Brooklyn in the faraway future. We'll just wait and see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 27, 2012 Share #671 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) The Chrysler Building is nowhere near 2 Av. @Rollover the will be almost pointless as a Manhattan shuttle. It needs to go to the outer boroughs, preferably the Bronx, but more realistically Brooklyn. It dosen't use 2nd Avenue the whole route; it does use 3rd Avenue for a short time near 42nd Street. Anyway, here are some proposals I have/or heard. Have most trains terminate at Whitehall Street while trains run to 95th Street via Nassau Street and 4th Avenue local. Have some trains terminate at 2nd Avenue or Church Avenue while the runs express and the runs local on Culver. Construct a new tunnel connecting just before the transit museum (not using those tracks) and run the via Fulton Street local to Euclid Avenue (or even Rockaway Park to replace the .) Edited July 27, 2012 by ThrexxBus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 27, 2012 Share #672 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) @Rollover the will be almost pointless as a Manhattan shuttle. It needs to go to the outer boroughs, preferably the Bronx, but more realistically Brooklyn. 125 St - Hanover Square hardly seems like a shuttle. Not every Manhattan rider is going to/from the outer boroughs, and there will (hopefully) be convenient transfers to other lines that go to them. Fine, call me a foamer...Here's my crazy proposal: to Brighton Beach via Nassau St and Brighton Express via Fulton Local to Euclid Av terminates at WTC Edited July 27, 2012 by TheSubwayStation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 27, 2012 Share #673 Posted July 27, 2012 Fine, call me a foamer...Here's my crazy proposal: to Brighton Beach via Nassau St and Brighton Express via Fulton Local to Euclid Av terminates at WTC It may not be that crazy, except it could clog 8th Avenue. It gives riders more choices. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 27, 2012 Share #674 Posted July 27, 2012 How would it clog 8 Av? The only problem I can think of is that having the Brighton Express run via the tunnel would cancel out the time savings of the express run. The benefit, though, is that fewer people will have to transfer to the IRT at Atlantic Av, which would save time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted July 27, 2012 Share #675 Posted July 27, 2012 And all the time I was under the impression that the SAS was a replacement for the 2nd and 3rd Avenue Els. You know, the areas of Manhattan that lost rapid transit service years ago. Now the Lionel Loonies have decided to improve upon a concept before it's even completed. WOW. Run trains everywhere while forgetting the original plan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.