Threxx Posted July 27, 2012 Share #676 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) 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. You'd have the , , and on one track. Don't even think of having it switch at Jay Street... 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. Edited July 27, 2012 by ThrexxBus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 27, 2012 Share #677 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) You'd have the , , and on one track. No, the would run via the to Jay St, and then via Fulton Local. Guys, I know it's a radical proposal. I'm not going to try to convince everyone that it's good... Don't even think of having it switch at Jay Street... Why not????? Edited July 27, 2012 by TheSubwayStation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted July 27, 2012 Share #678 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. The point of SAS is to relieve the Lexington Avenue Line. That comes from providing outer-boro residents a way to get to the East Side without the . 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 27, 2012 Share #679 Posted July 27, 2012 No, the would run via the to Jay St, and then via Fulton Local. Guys, I know it's a radical proposal. I'm not going to try to convince everyone that it's good... Why not????? Because that will hold up the and ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 27, 2012 Share #680 Posted July 27, 2012 The point of SAS is to relieve the Lexington Avenue Line. That comes from providing outer-boro residents a way to get to the East Side without the . In that case, I don't think sending the down Culver is going to help much. I doubt that Culver riders are adding much crowding to the Lexington Line. Sending it onto the BMT would be better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 27, 2012 Share #681 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Because that will hold up the and ... Same problem with switching at West 4 St, which would hold up the , , , and trains. And, switching at Jay St eliminates the switching at Canal St. Edited July 27, 2012 by TheSubwayStation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 27, 2012 Share #682 Posted July 27, 2012 The Lex heads to the east via Eastern Parkway, to alleviate crowding you're best sending the to Fulton... Same problem with switching at West 4 St. And, remember that under this proposal, the switching at Canal St will be eliminated. TRUE (2 CHAIIIIINZ) Anyway, it's a lesser of two evils: Do you disrupt service in Brooklyn or Manhattan? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 27, 2012 Share #683 Posted July 27, 2012 The Lex heads to the east via Eastern Parkway, to alleviate crowding you're best sending the to Fulton...I don't know if I agree with that. I don't think the purpose is to keep people from getting on the on Eastern Parkway; those riders have pretty good service and would likely keep riding the even when the SAS opens. Rather than trying to duplicate the in Brooklyn, I think it's more beneficial to reduce transfers to the at crowded places such as Atlantic Av and Fulton St. That's why I think the should run via the BMT. It's better to create new route patterns (2 Av - South Brooklyn) rather than trying to create an IND-style competitor to the (2 Av - Fulton St). The SAS needs to create a new and unique route to draw people away from the . If it doesn't, few riders will switch over to it. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted July 27, 2012 Share #684 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) In that case, I don't think sending the down Culver is going to help much. I doubt that Culver riders are adding much crowding to the Lexington Line. Sending it onto the BMT would be better. The only reason I think Culver might work is because the will block any chance of reviving the . Unless they were to split the as local and express b/w Jay and Church, you'd need another line outside of 6th av to be either the local or express. I pretty much am giving up on the idea of trying to annex Nassau st. It is what it is there. Edited July 27, 2012 by Grand Concourse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted July 28, 2012 Share #685 Posted July 28, 2012 The point of SAS is to relieve the Lexington Avenue Line. That comes from providing outer-boro residents a way to get to the East Side without the . If you study the original proposal and the later revisions for the SAS, including the present phased construction plan, it's obvious that what is being constructed is a direct replacement for the els. There wasn't anything in the plan that mentioned Culver ,Fulton , or the Rockaways, IIRC. I can't deny the severe overcrowding on the Lexington lines but it appears the plan was to reduce the crowding on the upper Lex 4,5, and 6 trains, hence the phased work on SAS. IMO the Bronx would be more deserving of any extension of the line if one were to be constructed because they lost the services (2nd and 3rd Ave els) to begin with. Whether one promotes a Bronx, Brooklyn, or combinations of an extension it's my opinion that either way comes very close to the realm of fantasy in today's world. It should be noted that many plans, including some we have promoted on this forum, were scrutinized and dropped from consideration before this so-called 'final" plan was adopted and this round of construction on this SAS was approved. I can't begin to imagine how much litigation, how many environmental impact studies and the like, and how many decades it would take before any further extensions would take place. That's what I was trying to point out in my earlier post today. I've seen new tunnels, new routes, new services being promoted lately while I'm saying let's be realistic about this before this thread breaks down into arguments about what service goes where when phase one isn't completed yet. IMO phase two might be 50-50 but phases three and four are on shakey ground at the present. I'm still waiting for the IND Second System to be built in it's entirety so you can probably guess how much faith I have in the MTA and New York City and State to complete a transit project. Let's try to be civil to each other. Carry on. i 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted July 28, 2012 Share #686 Posted July 28, 2012 All I expect is the on Second Avenue. Don't expect anything more people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted July 28, 2012 Author Share #687 Posted July 28, 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. We all seem to forget that the is pretty much a Manhattan "shuttle." That thing makes a bare 3 stops in Bronx proper and the rest is in Manhattan territory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XcelsiorBoii4888 Posted July 28, 2012 Share #688 Posted July 28, 2012 Will the T train.be.R160s?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 28, 2012 Share #689 Posted July 28, 2012 Will the T train.be.R160s?? The won't be around for a LONG time, and there's no guarantee that the whole SAS (Hanover Sq-125 St) will ever get constructed. Therefore, we don't know ANYTHING about what cars it will use. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted July 28, 2012 Share #690 Posted July 28, 2012 Ok, can you knock it off already with that gif? We get it about the nonsense anytime anyone mentions some SAS fantasy idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 28, 2012 Share #691 Posted July 28, 2012 Ok, can you knock it off already with that gif? We get it about the nonsense anytime anyone mentions some SAS fantasy idea. Okay, sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 28, 2012 Share #692 Posted July 28, 2012 Ok, can you knock it off already with that gif? We get it about the nonsense anytime anyone mentions some SAS fantasy idea. Seriously, everyone needs to chill... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q10 Airport Posted July 28, 2012 Share #693 Posted July 28, 2012 We all seem to forget that the is pretty much a Manhattan "shuttle." That thing makes a bare 3 stops in Bronx proper and the rest is in Manhattan territory. This is true, but the runs through upper Manhattan, which is much closer to parts of The Bronx or Brooklyn in nature than other parts of Manhattan. I'm not sure if I can say the same for the . What does that leave us with? A SAS that, even if it is built to Hanover St, will be slower (no express service), not as useful (no service to outer boroughs), and overall more of a liability than a benefit. Why would people want to move to the SAS when the and are faster? Why would people want to take the Manhattan shuttle when they can get one-train rides on the or from Brooklyn or The Bronx to Manhattan? This is why service should go beyond what is proposed. It has the potential to serve areas that need a subway (3rd Avenue in The Bronx, 125th Street in Manhattan, and southern Brooklyn east of Nostrand). If this ever happens, it would take care of the crowding issue because the line would run parallel to the and/or throughout its whole route. At the same time, it would bring new riders. Unfortunately, this would require a lot of money that the currently doesn't have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 28, 2012 Share #694 Posted July 28, 2012 Why serve a whole new area (3rd Avenue)? Just connect it to Concourse and have it run local! I call it the Concourse Connection. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted July 28, 2012 Share #695 Posted July 28, 2012 That's the cheap way out - the point is to expand transit options to an area that doesn't have them. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 28, 2012 Share #696 Posted July 28, 2012 Here's another crazy "fantasy" proposal that I thought of: (Please don't use the term "foamer" even though you may feel so inclined. I don't have my heart set on this; I just want to have a civilized discussion) runs via Nassau St, Montague St tunnel, and Brighton Express to Brighton Beach runs via Chrystie St Cut, 6 Av express (new switches added; directly connects Essex St with 6 Av express tracks), CPW local to 145 St eliminated And, potentially: Brown runs via Nassau St returns and runs via Culver Local to Church Av runs express to Church Av Pretty crazy, eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted July 28, 2012 Share #697 Posted July 28, 2012 There's no point - Myrtle riders want Midtown and Brighton Express via tunnel won't work. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 28, 2012 Share #698 Posted July 28, 2012 There's no point - Myrtle riders want Midtown and Brighton Express via tunnel won't work. Okay, well forget the express idea, and the restoration. And, if you want, the can run via Brighton Local to Coney Island, and the can go express to Brighton Beach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 28, 2012 Share #699 Posted July 28, 2012 That's the cheap way out - the point is to expand transit options to an area that doesn't have them. But there's no money to do that! As a compromise, that is a good option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q10 Airport Posted July 28, 2012 Share #700 Posted July 28, 2012 That's the cheap way out - the point is to expand transit options to an area that doesn't have them. That's part of what I don't like about the current plan for the Second Avenue Subway. Yes, part of the goal is to reduce crowding on the and . The other goal is to expand transit options to areas that don't have them. The Second Avenue Subway has so much potential to expand those transit options, yet that is unlikely to happen. 0 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.