Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[RollOver]

You really don't have to run the extended South Brooklyn services in both directions either. Remember, pretty much every line in the system carries relatively lighter loads after leaving the CBDs in the reverse peak. Yeah, you can run the extended South Brooklyn in only one direction during the rush, depending on how busy the opposite side of the Sea Beach/West End/4th Ave Local corridor gets. The other direction doesn't need the added service, however. Even loading guidelines show the "peak of the peak" where the lines are most used.

[Armandito]

Here's my other SAS proposal, this time with service to Queens:

 

The will be rerouted to the after 36 St, onto the line after Roosevelt Island to Grand St, then onto the Nassau St line to Broad St, and then resuming its normal route to 95 St thereafter. This new route will run between Bay Ridge and Forest Hills at all times and provide Queens customers direct access to Second Avenue. However, to compensate for the loss of a direct trip to Queens Plaza from 36 St on weekends, the will run local in Queens during those times, since the does not run to Forest Hills on weekends.

 

On Broadway: the will run local in Manhattan via the Montague Street Tunnel at all times, stopping at DeKalb Av in both directions. express service along Fourth Avenue will remain unchanged. Also, there will be a new train that will run local between Astoria and Whitehall St on weekdays only. service will remain unchanged.

 

Queens customers who wish to access Broadway trains may take the train to Lexington Av/63 St and use the free out-of-system subway transfer to the Lexington Av/59 St station.

Edited September 2, 2014 by lara8710

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Here's my other SAS proposal, this time with service to Queens:

 

The will be rerouted to the after 36 St, onto the line after Roosevelt Island to Grand St, then onto the Nassau St line to Broad St, and then resuming its normal route to 95 St thereafter. This new route will run between Bay Ridge and Forest Hills at all times and provide Queens customers direct access to Second Avenue. However, to compensate for the loss of a direct trip to Queens Plaza from 36 St on weekends, the will run local in Queens during those times, since the does not run to Forest Hills on weekends.

 

On Broadway: the will run local in Manhattan via the Montague Street Tunnel at all times, stopping at DeKalb Av in both directions. express service along Fourth Avenue will remain unchanged. Also, there will be a new train that will run local between Astoria and Whitehall St on weekdays only. service will remain unchanged.

That's just screwing up riders on the for no reason. Those people want service to midtown, not second avenue. The should be fine on it's own south of 63 street.

 

The gets jammed packed already to/from Jamaica, and it's a long trip to the city, making it local will make problems worse than they should be. 

 

The would need to become an 8 car train instead of 10 (which is a big no-no).

Edited September 2, 2014 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[RollOver]

Lol at your proposal Q90 aka Q67....

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Here's my other SAS proposal, this time with service to Queens:

 

The will be rerouted to the after 36 St, onto the line after Roosevelt Island to Grand St, then onto the Nassau St line to Broad St, and then resuming its normal route to 95 St thereafter. This new route will run between Bay Ridge and Forest Hills at all times and provide Queens customers direct access to Second Avenue. However, to compensate for the loss of a direct trip to Queens Plaza from 36 St on weekends, the will run local in Queens during those times, since the does not run to Forest Hills on weekends.

 

On Broadway: the will run local in Manhattan via the Montague Street Tunnel at all times, stopping at DeKalb Av in both directions. express service along Fourth Avenue will remain unchanged. Also, there will be a new train that will run local between Astoria and Whitehall St on weekdays only. service will remain unchanged.

 

Queens customers who wish to access Broadway trains may take the train to Lexington Av/63 St and use the free out-of-system subway transfer to the Lexington Av/59 St station.

Yeah...try making that out-of-system transfer if you're elderly, pregnant, in a wheelchair or if it's raining, sleeting or 90+ degrees and humid outside. Hell, I'm not elderly or in a wheelchair and I'm a man and I did it five years ago on my way from my then-home in the Bronx to a job interview in the Queens County Courthouse in Jamaica. And it was a nice day in October. Took me 10 minutes to get from the platform at 59th St to the deep-level platform at 63rd St. 10 minutes! Imagine having to do that every day? No thank you!

 

And you don't think there are Queens Blvd riders whose destinations are 57th and 7th, Times Square or the Bronx? Those riders would be screwed big time by rerouting the R down 2nd Ave. Queens Blvd riders who wish to have access to Broadway trains - I'm one of them - already have a direct one now in the . Why must that be taken away?

 

At least use a different font color, if you're proposing to reroute the R off its longtime home on Broadway and onto 2nd Ave.

 

Like this - ( R ).

Edited September 2, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Armandito]

Yeah...try making that out-of-system transfer if you're elderly, pregnant, in a wheelchair or if it's raining, sleeting or 90+ degrees and humid outside. Hell, I'm not elderly or in a wheelchair and I'm a man and I did it five years ago on my way from my then-home in the Bronx to a job interview in the Queens County Courthouse in Jamaica. And it was a nice day in October. Took me 10 minutes to get from the platform at 59th St to the deep-level platform at 63rd St. 10 minutes! Imagine having to do that every day? No thank you!

 

And you don't think there are Queens Blvd riders whose destinations are 57th and 7th, Times Square or the Bronx? Those riders would be screwed big time by rerouting the R down 2nd Ave. Queens Blvd riders who wish to have access to Broadway trains - I'm one of them - already have a direct one now in the . Why must that be taken away?

So why did the MTA propose a track connection between Second Avenue and the at 63 St to Queens? Edited September 2, 2014 by lara8710

[CenSin]

So why did the MTA propose a track connection between Second Avenue and the at 63 St to Queens?

There's a track connection between Canarsie and Jamaica at Broadway Junction. There are express tracks between Union Turnpike and 179 Street. There are express tracks between 59 Street and Coney Island. Not every connection or trackway needs to be put to revenue use because it doesn't always make sense.

 

I'm not saying a revenue route to 2 Avenue from Queens doesn't make sense (because it does), but your question suggests that all connections proposed/built by the MTA are for revenue use.

Edited September 2, 2014 by CenSin

[T to Dyre Avenue]

So why did the MTA propose a track connection between Second Avenue and the at 63 St to Queens?

The provision for that connection is already there, although it cannot be used until at least part of Phase 3 (63rd St Tunnel to Houston St) is built. It was built because back in 1968, the MTA proposed a major system expansion plan, most of which never got built (unfortunately). One part of that plan was to build an express line parallel to the Queens Blvd Line that was supposed to feed into the 63rd St Tunnel with a service going down 2nd Ave, a completely new service. Any service from Queens that goes down 2nd Ave should be a completely new service, not an existing one like the .

Edited September 2, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[RollOver]

So why did the MTA propose a track connection between Second Avenue and the at 63 St to Queens?

 

As I've told you via PM, the current configuration of the is that it's a local counterpart/feeder line as the Queens Blvd, Broadway, and 4th Ave local tracks feed onto each other, allowing the , and to run express instead of making all local stops throughout their entire runs. The most important thing is that it needs a yard access for storage and a shop for maintaince/inspection: Jamaica. Throwing the to any other northern terminal will only annoy the crews because they would have to take it OOS (if needed) and deadhead to/from Coney Island's yard/shop via either the West End or Sea Beach branches. There also wouldn't be any decent place to store its car fleet until Canal Street. 

[bobtehpanda]

So why did the MTA propose a track connection between Second Avenue and the at 63 St to Queens?

 

The 63rd St tunnel was built for the Queens Blvd Bypass, but since that never happened, the line terminated at 21st St-Queensbridge for quite a while, even though the tail tracks were only something like 1000 ft short of Queens Blvd. They made the decision to connect the two simply so that the service in the 63rd St tunnel could actually be used (and it also allowed for the creation of the once the left 53rd St.)

 

The track connection would not be usable under current circumstances since we already have maxed out Queens Blvd capacity (and CBTC is certainly not going to be enough for a brand new service on the line). The Bypass would actually need to be built for the MTA to fully utilize that track connection and the 63rd St tunnel, which is only half full.

Yeah...try making that out-of-system transfer if you're elderly, pregnant, in a wheelchair or if it's raining, sleeting or 90+ degrees and humid outside. Hell, I'm not elderly or in a wheelchair and I'm a man and I did it five years ago on my way from my then-home in the Bronx to a job interview in the Queens County Courthouse in Jamaica. And it was a nice day in October. Took me 10 minutes to get from the platform at 59th St to the deep-level platform at 63rd St. 10 minutes! Imagine having to do that every day? No thank you!

 

And you don't think there are Queens Blvd riders whose destinations are 57th and 7th, Times Square or the Bronx? Those riders would be screwed big time by rerouting the R down 2nd Ave. Queens Blvd riders who wish to have access to Broadway trains - I'm one of them - already have a direct one now in the . Why must that be taken away?

 

At least use a different font color, if you're proposing to reroute the R off its longtime home on Broadway and onto 2nd Ave.

 

Like this - ( R ).

 

To be quite frank, I don't think that in-system transfer is staying once SAS is complete (although when they will remove it is a good question.) The only reason the has it today is so that people on the still have an East Side connection, but once the SAS is built that rationale disappears (and the transfer is not that practical anyways.)

Edited September 2, 2014 by bobtehpanda

[MTA Dude]

How many trains will be sent to SAS if there will be a plan for rush hour to Astoria? Will they increase service to every 5 or 6 minutes or what?

[realizm]

How many trains will be sent to SAS if there will be a plan for rush hour to Astoria? Will they increase service to every 5 or 6 minutes or what?

Well the W will be reinstated to replace the Q service lost in Queens. It is expected that Broadway service will be restored to pre 2010 budget cut service patterns with the N running as a nexpress in Manhattan as well as Brooklyn currently. The W train restored as a Broadway Local will serve Astoria riders and address projected service increases necessitating the revival of the service pattern and rute. The Q will serve Second Avenue at all times.

Edited September 9, 2014 by realizm

[CenSin]

The Q will serve Second Avenue at all times.

That's a given. The question (that I think I've already asked, but don't remember if there was an answer) is the frequency of the after the opening of the new line. If usage is much greater than the MTA anticipated, then it will have to bring in additional service from Broadway or 6 Avenue either by siphoning away existing services or making a new one. I don't see the being raised to frequencies rivaling the , especially since there are no other free tracks along its entire run that can turn trains midway to give Manhattan the high frequency. Maybe the will be reduced using 1 terminal track at Brighton Beach, or the MTA will have to rework the switches west of Brighton Beach to allow the to terminate at Ocean Parkway as well. Or maybe they will even allow trains to take one track away from the at Coney Island, forcing a few trains to turn south of Kings Highway instead.

 

The already has trouble with waiting at West 8 Street for the terminal to clear. Today, my train was held at Brighton Beach, and then Ocean Parkway, and then West 8 Street for a total of 10 minutes. That was around 4:00 PM.

Edited September 9, 2014 by CenSin

[realizm]

That's a given. The question (that I think I've already asked, but don't remember if there was an answer) is the frequency of the after the opening of the new line. If usage is much greater than the MTA anticipated, then it will have to bring in additional service from Broadway or 6 Avenue either by siphoning away existing services or making a new one. I don't see the being raised to frequencies rivaling the , especially since there are no other free tracks along its entire run that can turn trains midway to give Manhattan the high frequency. Maybe the will be reduced using 1 terminal track at Brighton Beach, or the MTA will have to rework the switches west of Brighton Beach to allow the to terminate at Ocean Parkway as well.

 

Well that is an issue, will they have enough cars to accomplish this since the MTA unexpectedly scrapped the R44s resulting in the current Jamaica Yard assignments for the R160s along with the halt on scrapping the R32s? One thing to consider: As is now we still have a small surplus of cars because of the R68/As at CIY. (Which was the reason why we have R68/As running at random on the A, N and Q. They had the cars necessary to increase service) As the R179 order also calls for a few 5 car sets displacing more cars (R160's etc.), they should be able to handle another line.

Edited September 9, 2014 by realizm

[Empole]

I don't doubt the return of the W to replace Q service to Astoria, but has it ever been officially stated anywhere that that's the actual plan? I don't think the rush hour split Q was ever confirmed either, but it at least seems to be another option being considered, given the Q's R160 SAS announcemenrs have a "Q to Astoria" transfer at 57-7. Not that its existence means it has to be used, of course.

[realizm]

I don't doubt the return of the W to replace Q service to Astoria, but has it ever been officially stated anywhere that that's the actual plan? I don't think the rush hour split Q was ever confirmed either, but it at least seems to be another option being considered, given the Q's R160 SAS announcemenrs have a "Q to Astoria" transfer at 57-7. Not that its existence means it has to be used, of course.

 

Keep in mind the W was phased out because of budget cuts not because of low ridership. Otherwise the MTA wouldn't split the Brighton Local/B'Way express service, that will be hell for the train dispatchers to control in Manhattan resulting in delays, train bunching you name it. So clearly all Q trains are going to Second Avenue and will run express for that matter. Therefore the W will have to be brought back for Astoria service. We wouldn't want congestion at the 42nd Street or 57th Street interlockings with a split Q service.

Edited September 9, 2014 by realizm

[T to Dyre Avenue]

That's a given. The question (that I think I've already asked, but don't remember if there was an answer) is the frequency of the after the opening of the new line. If usage is much greater than the MTA anticipated, then it will have to bring in additional service from Broadway or 6 Avenue either by siphoning away existing services or making a new one. I don't see the being raised to frequencies rivaling the , especially since there are no other free tracks along its entire run that can turn trains midway to give Manhattan the high frequency. Maybe the will be reduced using 1 terminal track at Brighton Beach, or the MTA will have to rework the switches west of Brighton Beach to allow the to terminate at Ocean Parkway as well. Or maybe they will even allow trains to take one track away from the at Coney Island, forcing a few trains to turn south of Kings Highway instead.

 

The already has trouble with waiting at West 8 Street for the terminal to clear. Today, my train was held at Brighton Beach, and then Ocean Parkway, and then West 8 Street for a total of 10 minutes. That was around 4:00 PM.

It will be very interesting to see just how well-used the three new stations will be and if the alone will be sufficient to handle them. I can't see them boosting the to 15 tph if they already have to wait long for the tracks to clear at Stillwell Ave. It shouldn't normally take 10 minutes to go from Brighton Beach to Stillwell, so I can only imagine what it would be like with a more frequent-running . I still think a limited ( P ) service to/from 6th Ave on 10-minute headways ought to be considered if there is more demand than the  alone can handle, especially because the 6th Ave IND is closer to the Lex than the Broadway BMT is from 57th to 34th Streets and that is where many major Midtown commuting destinations are (between Lex and 6th). And then they wouldn't have to mess with or service.

 

I don't doubt the return of the W to replace Q service to Astoria, but has it ever been officially stated anywhere that that's the actual plan? I don't think the rush hour split Q was ever confirmed either, but it at least seems to be another option being considered, given the Q's R160 SAS announcemenrs have a "Q to Astoria" transfer at 57-7. Not that its existence means it has to be used, of course.

A split will cause lots of confusion, especially if the new stations prove to be very popular. You get on the wrong and you'll find yourself a long way off from where you need to be and no real way to get back, other than the way you came. A split would require both branches to run less service than is needed on both lines. East Side riders will stick with the Lex and keep it overcrowded if there is not enough service on 2nd Ave. I'm pretty sure the MTA would not want to risk that.

Edited September 9, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Empole]

This hypothetical P would run from 96 St to 2 Av/Houston St, I'm guessing? Or would the switching involved there delay the F and M too much?

[Wallyhorse]

This hypothetical P would run from 96 St to 2 Av/Houston St, I'm guessing? Or would the switching involved there delay the F and M too much?

As I noted before, if you see any 6th Avenue service on the SAS, it's more likely to be on evenings and weekends to supplement the at those times:

 

Best way to do that right now would be to make the 24/7 and have it run as it does now until the end of PM Rush Hour (5:30 AM-8:00 PM), then all other times (8:00 PM-5:30 AM weekdays and all times 8:00 PM Friday-5:30 AM Monday) have the go to 96th and 2nd to supplement the .  That I think will be needed given the UES is arguably the most densely populated area in the country.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Wallyhorse

[NYSubwayBuff]

Wally you cant have that and the M to queens blvd at different times. Theoretically if one wanted 6av services there would have to be a V reinstated to replace the M along queens blvd but then agian a shuttle whether V or P would still be easier the altering the patterns of an M just for certain time periods

[Union Tpke]

It will be very interesting to see just how well-used the three new stations will be and if the alone will be sufficient to handle them. I can't see them boosting the to 15 tph if they already have to wait long for the tracks to clear at Stillwell Ave. It shouldn't normally take 10 minutes to go from Brighton Beach to Stillwell, so I can only imagine what it would be like with a more frequent-running . I still think a limited ( P ) service to/from 6th Ave on 10-minute headways ought to be considered if there is more demand than the  alone can handle, especially because the 6th Ave IND is closer to the Lex than the Broadway BMT is from 57th to 34th Streets and that is where many major Midtown commuting destinations are (between Lex and 6th). And then they wouldn't have to mess with or service.

 

A split will cause lots of confusion, especially if the new stations prove to be very popular. You get on the wrong and you'll find yourself a long way off from where you need to be and no real way to get back, other than the way you came. A split would require both branches to run less service than is needed on both lines. East Side riders will stick with the Lex and keep it overcrowded if there is not enough service on 2nd Ave. I'm pretty sure the MTA would not want to risk that.

You should name the service the V, it is still on rollsigns and you just need to cut and paste for the announcements.

[BronxBombers]

As I noted before, if you see any 6th Avenue service on the SAS, it's more likely to be on evenings and weekends to supplement the at those times:

 

Best way to do that right now would be to make the 24/7 and have it run as it does now until the end of PM Rush Hour (5:30 AM-8:00 PM), then all other times (8:00 PM-5:30 AM weekdays and all times 8:00 PM Friday-5:30 AM Monday) have the go to 96th and 2nd to supplement the .  That I think will be needed given the UES is arguably the most densely populated area in the country.

 

I don't think that the needs to be supplemented. It's only 3 stations that the will be serving on the UES. I think that people will still opt for the Lexington Avenue Line since it's a 2 block walk. Also it does offer express service and will most likely get them to their destination faster.

[realizm]

I have never heard of the MTA officially using a theoretical 'P' train in their enviormental studies or their board committee meeting materials before. Its a myth that was based off a rollsign on the side of an R32. The MTA always have designated the main service of the SAS (since 1968) as the . Teal as the color indicator starting in 2007.

Edited September 9, 2014 by realizm

[MTA Dude]

SAS 4 tracks isn't nessecary because if there was, only 116th Street, 106th Street, 23rd Street, Chantam Square, and Seaport (IDK about the last two). That is 5 stops from 16 stops. Maybe a single express track that isn't for renevue service between 125th and 96th, and 34th and Hanover. But that's about it, so it isn't worth it to have 4 tracks. Stop talking about 4 track SAS because it won't be needed.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

You should name the service the V, it is still on rollsigns and you just need to cut and paste for the announcements.

Sure, why not? Not to mention, we still have a smiley on here, whereas we have no P. A while back, I modified both Joe Brennan's and Robert Schwandl's excellent unofficial subway maps to show what the system would look like with SAS Phases 1 & 2, including a 2nd Ave/6th Ave service using MS Paint. The only reason I used P instead of V because I found it much easier to make a P bullet because, for some reason, text in the current version comes out blurry. I didn't want a blurry V, so I just re-colored the R bullet on the Schwandl map orange and erased the leg of the R, and there was my P. But would work just as well.

 

As I noted before, if you see any 6th Avenue service on the SAS, it's more likely to be on evenings and weekends to supplement the at those times:

 

Best way to do that right now would be to make the 24/7 and have it run as it does now until the end of PM Rush Hour (5:30 AM-8:00 PM), then all other times (8:00 PM-5:30 AM weekdays and all times 8:00 PM Friday-5:30 AM Monday) have the go to 96th and 2nd to supplement the .  That I think will be needed given the UES is arguably the most densely populated area in the country.

But the extra service wouldn't be needed evenings, nights and weekends anywhere near as much as it would be on weekdays. Where in the subway system do you currently see a second line providing extra service during off-peak hours where said second line doesn't run during peak hours? Nowhere! The late-night , and local services in Manhattan don't count because those trains do run on the same lines during the day, except they run express. Your plan (and the plan you made in the Subway Proposals thread) calls for the M to serve 2nd Ave only during evenings, nights and weekends, leaving the as the sole line on weekdays. That's going to cause major confusion, especially given that this is going to be a new line that no one will be familiar with at first.

 

This hypothetical P would run from 96 St to 2 Av/Houston St, I'm guessing? Or would the switching involved there delay the F and M too much?

I was thinking this hypothetical could continue on to Brooklyn via the Rutgers St Tunnel and provide the Culver Express service, so that the can continue to serve the local stations on its current headways.

Edited September 10, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue