Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[TheNewYorkElevated]

There is the train to 125th Street if a Bronx extension for the train were to ever happen...

[Union Tpke]

The 125 street curve is a really bad plan, a provision could be built but the line should go up to the Bronx. No one in their right mind would, get off the train at 125 St and take a longer way to the west side, they would all transfer further South.

or maybe a 3rd Ave (Bronx) Subway

 

For me a Park Avenue subway is a given. It is about where the other 15 TPH will go.

[Mtatransit]

We need more East-West subway service, which is sorely lacking in Manhattan, so yes, plenty of people in their right mind would take the line to transfer to other subway lines that stop at 125th street. I see it all of the time at 86th street. The three biggest stops on the M86SBS are Lexington Avenue, Central Park West and Broadway because they all serve subway lines.

Bronx and Brooklyn needs East to West Service, Queens and Staten Island needs more service in General. MTA's captial project already caters to Manhattan enough, we need more expansion outside of Manhattan. Edited January 26, 2017 by Mtatransit

[Caelestor]

For me a Park Avenue subway is a given. It is about where the other 15 TPH will go.

 

Agreed on the Park Ave subway, stopping at 3 Ave - 138 St, 3 Ave - 149 St, Melrose Ave - 161 St, Park Ave - 148 St, Claremont Pkwy, Tremont, 180 St, and Fordham Plaza. The line then turns east onto Pelham Pkwy and stops at Crotona Ave, White Plains Rd , Williamsbridge Road , Eastchester Road, and Co-op City. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, the other 15 tph should turn left onto 125 St and run to Broadway.

 

The question is, which branch gets built first.

[IAlam]

We need more East-West subway service, which is sorely lacking in Manhattan, so yes, plenty of people in their right mind would take the line to transfer to other subway lines that stop at 125th street.  I see it all of the time at 86th street.  The three biggest stops on the M86SBS are Lexington Avenue, Central Park West and Broadway because they all serve subway lines.

 

On top of that it would be cheaper there than making a crosstown line in the Bronx.

 

Bronx and Brooklyn needs East to West Service, Queens and Staten Island needs more service in General. MTA's captial project already caters to Manhattan enough, we need more expansion outside of Manhattan.

 

Agreed, but saying a 125th Crosstown line won't cater to or benefit Bronx riders is false.

 

Honestly 125th shouldn't have as much bus service as it does. With all those buses running there, it justifies the need of a subway.

 

Additionally with a 125th Subway line, the M100 can be cut back to St Nicholas Ave and the BX15 can be cut back to 2nd Av which would severely help reduce the runtime and increase the reliability on those routes. 

[Italianstallion]

I agree with many people on here. I rather see the 2nd Ave line travel into the Bronx than serve 125th. Having the line run on 125th street will make the buses that already run on 125th redundant and unnecessary.I don't know why the always wants to overcater to Manhattan but not any other borough that needs new subway lines and bus enhancements like Queens and the Bronx. As much as I would like to see a Utica Ave line I would not build one before Queens gets another line. Yeah I am from Queens and I probably am being a little biased but all we have mainly is the Queens Blvd Line and the Flushing Line if you come from the middle of Queens like I do. I tend to go to Forest Hills for the Queens Blvd lines because it's slightly quicker to go there and it beats using the Q25 which has it moments. However all you need is one incident to happen like for example the lady who jumped in front of the train at Elmhurst and the whole line is delayed and shut down with very poor alternatives. Personally the MTA really needs to focus on places that need the service the most. I would say screw the 125th street crosstown. I would make that station 4 tracks and have the terminate on the middle tracks with a passageway to the Lexington Ave lines if they want to really establish a connection there which it would be horrible one because it will be like transferring from the to the 7th Ave/ Broadway Lines. I don't think too many will make that connection, but at least it's there. The would continue to the Bronx and run up third a bit and in the future I would have it run as a crosstown in the Bronx. But oh man how I wish Queens would get the royal treatment and have some type of new line built. The Culver Shuttle in Brooklyn should have been keep and extended crosstown to at least serve as a feeder to other lines.

 

The problem with building new lines in Queens is that you need a new East River crossing or at least a new Queens trunk line (like the formerly proposed Super-Express) to make them worthwhile and to provide an increase in capacity. It's a lot easier to extend lines or even build new ones in or closer to Manhattan.

 

BTW, most new subway lines make buses redundant. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The problem with building new lines in Queens is that you need a new East River crossing or at least a new Queens trunk line (like the formerly proposed Super-Express) to make them worthwhile and to provide an increase in capacity. It's a lot easier to extend lines or even build new ones in or closer to Manhattan.

 

BTW, most new subway lines make buses redundant. 

You supposedly live in a neighborhood that doesn't have subway access and you're advocating for cutting buses?  Something doesn't add up... 

[Italianstallion]

"What Queens should be doing is fighting to improve LIRR service. It has happened with MNRR in the Bronx recently with Tremont and Melrose receiving more frequent service.  Let's face it... You have trains running right through Queens that people aren't using that could be used until subway service is improved.  That could have an immediate impact on various neighborhoods throughout the borough instead of everyone packing onto the already overcrowded subways there."

 

Not only that, but intra-city RR fares should be reduced to make them closer to subway fares.

You supposedly live in a neighborhood that doesn't have subway access and you're advocating for cutting buses?  Something doesn't add up... 

 

Where did I say to cut buses?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Where did I say to cut buses?

When you say  "BTW, most new subway lines make buses redundant", what should one conclude?

Edited January 26, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Mtatransit]

On top of that it would be cheaper there than making a crosstown line in the Bronx.

 

 

 

Agreed, but saying a 125th Crosstown line won't cater to or benefit Bronx riders is false.

 

Honestly 125th shouldn't have as much bus service as it does. With all those buses running there, it justifies the need of a subway.

 

Additionally with a 125th Subway line, the M100 can be cut back to St Nicholas Ave and the BX15 can be cut back to 2nd Av which would severely help reduce the runtime and increase the reliability on those routes.

 

I agree with the future need of the 125th crosstown route. It could improve connectivity of the subway service up there without heading all the way to midtown or the Bronx. But knowing the MTA, there will not be any 125th subway Line, the subway will end at 125/lex for the next 50-75 years. That's why I say we build it to 3 AV-149 in the Bronx and leave a provision at 125 for future service crosstown

[IAlam]

I agree with the future need of the 125th crosstown route. It could improve connectivity of the subway service up there without heading all the way to midtown or the Bronx. But knowing the MTA, there will not be any 125th subway Line, the subway will end at 125/lex for the next 50-75 years. That's why I say we build it to 3 AV-149 in the Bronx and leave a provision at 125 for future service crosstown

I'd do the exact opposite where I'd put crosstown first as a potential phase 5 and add in the provisions to the Bronx for a phase 6

[Mtatransit]

I'd do the exact opposite where I'd put crosstown first as a potential phase 5 and add in the provisions to the Bronx for a phase 6

I mean we could end phase II in the Bronx, cancel phase IV and start working on the the crosstown or further up on 3rd Ave. To compensate for the loss of downtown service maybe extend it south where it could connect with the many options downtown (J,Z) Edited January 27, 2017 by Mtatransit

[CenSin]

The problem with building new lines in Queens is that you need a new East River crossing or at least a new Queens trunk line (like the formerly proposed Super-Express) to make them worthwhile and to provide an increase in capacity. It's a lot easier to extend lines or even build new ones in or closer to Manhattan.

Not really. The 63 Street tunnel isn’t even at 50% capacity. Provisions are in place for another branch in Queens. The Astoria and Flushing lines also have provisions for extension from their northern termini. A lot could be added done without another East River tunnel or trunk line.

[bobtehpanda]

On top of that it would be cheaper there than making a crosstown line in the Bronx.

 

 

Agreed, but saying a 125th Crosstown line won't cater to or benefit Bronx riders is false.

 

Honestly 125th shouldn't have as much bus service as it does. With all those buses running there, it justifies the need of a subway.

 

Additionally with a 125th Subway line, the M100 can be cut back to St Nicholas Ave and the BX15 can be cut back to 2nd Av which would severely help reduce the runtime and increase the reliability on those routes. 

 

It would benefit Bronx riders going from the and to the other lines. The rest of them are already connected to each other in the Bronx.

[Union Tpke]

It would benefit Bronx riders going from the and to the other lines. The rest of them are already connected to each other in the Bronx.

 

So would you build the 125th Street crosstown over a Bruckner Expressway line?

[Caelestor]

So would you build the 125th Street crosstown over a Bruckner Expressway line?

 

Well, the two serve very different purposes. If money wasn't an issue, the SAS would feed into the only two branches the Bronx really need, the Park Ave and Throggs Neck lines, and the 125 St crosstown would be part of the Triboro RX.

 

If I was forced to pick only one, 125 St Crosstown wins out because it's the shorter and cheaper extension with probably higher ridership per mile.

[Wallyhorse]

Not really. The 63 Street tunnel isn’t even at 50% capacity. Provisions are in place for another branch in Queens. The Astoria and Flushing lines also have provisions for extension from their northern termini. A lot could be added done without another East River tunnel or trunk line.

Right.  In the case of the Astoria Line, I have suggested THAT be extended to The Bronx via a new Bridge, with such running a route that would include transfers to/from the and at East 180 and at Westchester-Elder Avenue.  Such an extension can give Bronx riders a new way to get to Queens WITHOUT going through Manhattan.  

[Wallyhorse]

Well, the two serve very different purposes. If money wasn't an issue, the SAS would feed into the only two branches the Bronx really need, the Park Ave and Throggs Neck lines, and the 125 St crosstown would be part of the Triboro RX.

 

If I was forced to pick only one, 125 St Crosstown wins out because it's the shorter and cheaper extension with probably higher ridership per mile.

Right, plus, it can be connected to the 8th Avenue line for when the and in particular need to otherwise divert from the 8th Avenue line, going to 63rd/Lex where it can then run via 6th Avenue and then (in the case of the ) back to normal after West 4th.  In addition, you could have an SAS line run via the Concourse or to extreme upper Manhattan that way. 

[CenSin]

Right.  In the case of the Astoria Line, I have suggested THAT be extended to The Bronx via a new Bridge, with such running a route that would include transfers to/from the and at East 180 and at Westchester-Elder Avenue.  Such an extension can give Bronx riders a new way to get to Queens WITHOUT going through Manhattan.  

That doesn’t really help people going into Queens. It only serves a small subset of Queens and feeds riders into Manhattan shortly after. A true Bronx–Queens trunk would connect the two boroughs centrally thusly: Jamaica Center, Flushing, Parkchester, Morris Heights, and Inwood. The Astoria Line is a spoke in the hub-and-spoke transit model and should serve only Queens.

 

I could have sworn there was a clear rebuttal to this idea before. Someone ought to maintain a database of such rebuttals for posting repeatedly where needed.

[HenryB]

trying to think outside the box...maybe not a SAS crosstown. Instead, it could be a crosstown connected to the Bronx directly?

 

[NewFlyer 230]

The problem with building new lines in Queens is that you need a new East River crossing or at least a new Queens trunk line (like the formerly proposed Super-Express) to make them worthwhile and to provide an increase in capacity. It's a lot easier to extend lines or even build new ones in or closer to Manhattan.

 

BTW, most new subway lines make buses redundant.

It's sad that all the new extensions in the 21st century besides the opening of the 63rd street line to the Queens Blvd Line has been in Manhattan.

The Second Ave line was well overdue but what about clearing the debris and building a line on the old LIRR Rockaway ROW. Even if it serves as a Shuttle for right now from the Rockaways to Rego Park and Queens Blvd so be it.

[Caelestor]

trying to think outside the box...maybe not a SAS crosstown. Instead, it could be a crosstown connected to the Bronx directly?

 

The Bronx branches need to run into Midtown, i.e. connect to the SAS, to actually reduce overcrowding on the IRT lines.

[bobtehpanda]

Also, concentrating all the transfer crowding at existing, overcrowded transfer stations doesn't make sense; better to run up Third than to follow the .

[IAlam]

Not really. The 63 Street tunnel isn’t even at 50% capacity. Provisions are in place for another branch in Queens. The Astoria and Flushing lines also have provisions for extension from their northern termini. A lot could be added done without another East River tunnel or trunk line.

 

There is no way the 63rd tube is running less than 50% with trains averaging 3 min apart I doubt the line can do any better than a 2min headway. 

 

It's sad that all the new extensions in the 21st century besides the opening of the 63rd street line to the Queens Blvd Line has been in Manhattan.

The Second Ave line was well overdue but what about clearing the debris and building a line on the old LIRR Rockaway ROW. Even if it serves as a Shuttle for right now from the Rockaways to Rego Park and Queens Blvd so be it.

 

This should definitely be a priority Queens is always being left out.

[bobtehpanda]

There is no way the 63rd tube is running less than 50% with trains averaging 3 min apart I doubt the line can do any better than a 2min headway. 

 

 

This should definitely be a priority Queens is always being left out.

 

Trains on the do not run an average of 3 minutes apart; they're scheduled to run 15 TPH, exactly half of QBL's 30TPH capacity. And I say this as someone who used to take the everyday.