Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Jemorie]

For now, but remember, when the was still serving Astoria, Astoria had more round trips because the operates 24/7. With the returning (or returned should I say), the TPH went down by a few trips.

 

False. It's just the only starts an hour later and ends an hour early, while the previous ran all the way from 6 a.m. to midnight.

[R42N]

Look, I honestly don’t think there any perfect scenarios here. Call me a traditionalist, but I think all of these proposals end up with only marginal differences and a whole lot of confusion with a lot of un-known answers. 

 

You have 15 TPH at Peak Periods (11-12 via Brighton and 3-4 via Sea Beach. And you need 19 TPH? There are a lot less drastic scenarios to add the extra 3-4 TPH that doesn’t result in completely chaining all of the Broadway Line Schedules. 

 

You could run 1 more up / down through Sea Beach

Run 1 ’s terminating at 14th Street Union Square southbound (125th-14th is a long way) and layup in the lower level City Hall tracks.

Run 1 ’s terminating at Brighton Beach or 9th ave southbound (short-turn one / at 2ave if you really have to)

 

There, no terminal switch. No dual Broadway Express to Coney Island up 2nd Avenue and lack of options in Queens. 

 

There is plenty of places you can cherry pick here and there before these drastic scenarios are necessary. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by R42N

[HenryB]

neo-wallyhorse ??? 

[CenSin]

Look, I honestly don’t think there any perfect scenarios here. Call me a traditionalist, but I think all of these proposals end up with only marginal differences and a whole lot of confusion with a lot of un-known answers.

This sounds a lot like the reasoning climate change deniers use to retain the status quo: we don’t know everything perfectly, so we should assume that any proposal for action is bad.

 

My facts, laid out below against yours:

You have 15 TPH at Peak Periods (11-12 via Brighton and 3-4 via Sea Beach. And you need 19 TPH? There are a lot less drastic scenarios to add the extra 3-4 TPH that doesn’t result in completely chaining all of the Broadway Line Schedules. 

 

You could run 1 more up / down through Sea Beach

Run 1 ’s terminating at 14th Street Union Square southbound (125th-14th is a long way) and layup in the lower level City Hall tracks.

Run 1 ’s terminating at Brighton Beach or 9th ave southbound (short-turn one / at 2ave if you really have to)

 

There, no terminal switch. No dual Broadway Express to Coney Island up 2nd Avenue and lack of options in Queens. 

 

There is plenty of places you can cherry pick here and there before these drastic scenarios are necessary.

…but there is:

1. …more confusion. As you ramp up frequencies on via Sea Beach and via 2 Avenue, they sort of become a separate route in their own right.
2. …more congestion as adding more service to the or instead of puts more traffic through the Manhattan Bridge and the junction west of DeKalb Avenue. Adding more service puts trains through the Montague Street Tunnel, a relatively underutilized segment.
3. …more congestion as terminating a train in the middle of heavy traffic essentially reduces the TPH along Broadway. Not only do you tie up traffic at 34 Street–Herald Square in both directions, but now you tie up traffic at 14 Street–Union Square to clear out short-turn trains and you tie up the junctions at both Prince Street and Canal Street to turn the train back.

I don’t get the irrational aversion to a terminal switch, and why a dual Broadway express from Coney Island to 2 Avenue is a bad idea. Queens has plenty of options, and the terminal switch would take only 1 major option away—the ability to skip 4 stations in Manhattan—and 1 minor option—an express to Brooklyn from Queens.

 

It’s a pretty favorable change considering that all the popular local stops (where people work) will be served by all Astoria trains eliminating a transfer at 57 Street–7 Avenue. The trains will also be more reliable due to traffic separation.

[R42N]

This sounds a lot like the reasoning climate change deniers use to retain the status quo: we don’t know everything perfectly, so we should assume that any proposal for action is bad.

 

My facts, laid out below against yours:

…but there is:

1. …more confusion. As you ramp up frequencies on via Sea Beach and via 2 Avenue, they sort of become a separate route in their own right.
2. …more congestion as adding more service to the or instead of puts more traffic through the Manhattan Bridge and the junction west of DeKalb Avenue. Adding more service puts trains through the Montague Street Tunnel, a relatively underutilized segment.
3. …more congestion as terminating a train in the middle of heavy traffic essentially reduces the TPH along Broadway. Not only do you tie up traffic at 34 Street–Herald Square in both directions, but now you tie up traffic at 14 Street–Union Square to clear out short-turn trains and you tie up the junctions at both Prince Street and Canal Street to turn the train back.

I don’t get the irrational aversion to a terminal switch, and why a dual Broadway express from Coney Island to 2 Avenue is a bad idea. Queens has plenty of options, and the terminal switch would take only 1 major option away—the ability to skip 4 stations in Manhattan—and 1 minor option—an express to Brooklyn from Queens.

 

It’s a pretty favorable change considering that all the popular local stops (where people work) will be served by all Astoria trains eliminating a transfer at 57 Street–7 Avenue. The trains will also be more reliable due to traffic separation.

 

Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree (even though I’ve always thought that’s cliche). 

 

Offering two Broadway Express’ one line (basically the same line with one going on a different tangent in Brooklyn) and offering only one local line full time to places (Financial) no one wants to go to during Middays and Weekends sounds like a terrible idea to me, but, again that’s just my opinion. 

 

While Rush Hours makes some sense (I do understand the switches part) there would be total confusion in non-rush times. What service does Sea Beach get on Weekends and Late Nights when you can’t have two 2nd Ave Lines, what would Astoria have, and would it stop at Whitehall late nights, what happens to the R then? What’s running local through manhattan at off-peak times? You’d have to change it all up to make sense, and have various late night shuttles, that it’s just too much confusion, for me, at least. 

 

I think it’d be easier to cherry pick and add a few trains rather than messing with everything. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by R42N

[Lawrence St]

Well the current set up has rush hour trains operating via Second Avenue which eliminates that merge at 34th Street, since they are technically trains via Sea Beach (even though internally they are trains.)

 

By removing the from Astoria you eliminate the merge at 34th Street, boosting TPH on Broadway by 1. Having the as the sole Astoria service is a good idea, however some RUSH HOUR trains have to operate to Astoria AS A BROADWAY LOCAL! Basically, these trains would be put in trains from Gravesend. That way, with the having 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway as its terminal, riders along Broadway can take the to Atlantic, Canal or 36th Street for service to/from Sea Beach.

 

And let's not forgot the to 96th St on the weekends which will most likely become a permanent thing based on my studies from when the was operating to 96th Street a few months back.

[RR503]

Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree (even though I’ve always thought that’s cliche). 

 

Offering two Broadway Express’ one line (basically the same line with one going on a different tangent in Brooklyn) and offering only one local line full time to places (Financial) no one wants to go to during Middays and Weekends sounds like a terrible idea to me, but, again that’s just my opinion. 

 

While Rush Hours makes some sense (I do understand the switches part) there would be total confusion in non-rush times. What service does Sea Beach get on Weekends and Late Nights when you can’t have two 2nd Ave Lines, what would Astoria have, and would it stop at Whitehall late nights, what happens to the R then? What’s running local through manhattan at off-peak times? You’d have to change it all up to make sense, and have various late night shuttles, that it’s just too much confusion, for me, at least. 

 

I think it’d be easier to cherry pick and add a few trains rather than messing with everything. 

 

The replaces the nights/weekends. The and run local as now. Nights you have 96-CI (Brighton), Astoria-CI (SB, via tunnel), Whitehall-95. Weekends, same deal just to 71. 

 

I don't see how this is confusing. Express to 96/125, and local to Queens. Express via Bridge, local via tunnel. Seems simple enough to me...

 

The most important benefit of all this is the capacity bump. The local tracks will carry 30 through their whole length, and express will have >20. That's a significant increase over the restricted reality of now. 

[R42N]

The replaces the nights/weekends. The and run local as now. Nights you have 96-CI (Brighton), Astoria-CI (SB, via tunnel), Whitehall-95. Weekends, same deal just to 71. 

 

I don't see how this is confusing. Express to 96/125, and local to Queens. Express via Bridge, local via tunnel. Seems simple enough to me...

 

The most important benefit of all this is the capacity bump. The local tracks will carry 30 through their whole length, and express will have >20. That's a significant increase over the restricted reality of now. 

 

 

Here’s what I don’t understand, I read Late Nights Astoria-CI (SB, via Tunnel) and I think not . The route that you are describing as the even in Rush Hours, as a Broadway Local, triggers in my head. 

 

Your proposal is to have either one line on the Sea Beach/Fourth Avenue during days but then switch to another destination for evenings/weekends/late nights? Why? 

 

Maybe If I look at this as Route X/Y/Z instead of N/R/W, this’ll make more sense, but as someone who has ridden the Broadway Line since the days of the Yellow / D), this seems too convoluted. (And trust me, the Yellow turning at Q-Boro was convoluted back then)

 

Especially with the going up Second Ave during most middays, why not just call the Phase 2 supplemental line up Second Avenue the , and leave Astoria/Sea Beach as the ? 

Edited August 14, 2017 by R42N

[S78 via Hylan]

Something to remember is that the is not rerouted to the SAS for the fun of it. It's because of track work on the Astoria Line. Once those GO's are done, you won't see the running up there very often.

Edited August 14, 2017 by S78 via Hylan

[R42N]

Something to remember is that the is not rerouted to SAS for the fun of it. It's because of track work on the Astoria Line.

 

 

I’m not saying that, but that doesn’t mean SAS passengers aren’t seeing the designation up their line. The designation is only present southbound on some rush hour short turns. 

 

Making the full-time Astoria Line/Sea Beach Line (Late night Montague) line the when it’s off-peak route is a carbon copy of the current route is what makes no sense to me. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by R42N

[Around the Horn]

Look, I honestly don’t think there any perfect scenarios here. Call me a traditionalist, but I think all of these proposals end up with only marginal differences and a whole lot of confusion with a lot of un-known answers. 

 

You have 15 TPH at Peak Periods (11-12 via Brighton and 3-4 via Sea Beach. And you need 19 TPH? There are a lot less drastic scenarios to add the extra 3-4 TPH that doesn’t result in completely chaining all of the Broadway Line Schedules. 

 

You could run 1 more up / down through Sea Beach

Run 1 ’s terminating at 14th Street Union Square southbound (125th-14th is a long way) and layup in the lower level City Hall tracks.

Run 1 ’s terminating at Brighton Beach or 9th ave southbound (short-turn one / at 2ave if you really have to)

 

There, no terminal switch. No dual Broadway Express to Coney Island up 2nd Avenue and lack of options in Queens. 

 

There is plenty of places you can cherry pick here and there before these drastic scenarios are necessary. 

You're kidding me right? Terminating some southbound trains at 14th Street-Union Square and fumigating them during rush hour, is better than removing a merge point, increasing capacity on the local tracks (and to Astoria) plus simplifying the service pattern on Broadway? Really?

 

And that's not even addressing how the 19 TPH projection for phase two is as out of date as the 15 TPH projection for the phase one is, which has left the MTA scrambling to add as may 96th Street bound trains as possible this fall...

 

Your proposal is to have either one line on the Sea Beach/Fourth Avenue during days but then switch to another destination for evenings/weekends/late nights? Why? 

 

Maybe If I look at this as Route X/Y/Z instead of N/R/W, this’ll make more sense, but as someone who has ridden the Broadway Line since the days of the Yellow / D), this seems too convoluted. (And trust me, the Yellow turning at Q-Boro was convoluted back then)

 

Especially with the going up Second Ave during most middays, why not just call the Phase 2 supplemental line up Second Avenue the , and leave Astoria/Sea Beach as the ? 

It's not convoluted at all... It's like the local stations on Concourse which get the during rush hours and the other times and Fulton Street in Brooklyn prior to 2000, which got the weekdays and the all other times...

 

Plus there is no track connection from SAS to the local track, so the can't be the supplementary SAS service. Switching at 57th may be ok for middays, but that's going to seriously hamper TPH to Queens during rush hour.

[R42N]

 

 

Plus there is no track connection from SAS to the local track, so the can't be the supplementary SAS service. Switching at 57th may be ok for middays, but that's going to seriously hamper TPH to Queens during rush hour.

 

Is there some sort of law that says the has to be the Broadway Local? If you want to transform it so, why can’t the be the familiar line, and the , which has had all different types of services patterns, act as the secondary express? That would leave the as the main Sea Beach and Astoria Line 24/7, like it has always been, and the can provide the new express service that you claim will fix all? 

 

I’m not saying that the going up there during middays now is an indication, I’m just saying it’s making them familiar with the designation. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by R42N

[CenSin]

Is there some sort of law that says the has to be the Broadway Local? If you want to transform it so, why can’t the be the familiar line, and the , which has had all different types of services patterns, act as the secondary express? That would leave the as the main Sea Beach and Astoria Line 24/7, like it has always been, and the can provide the new express service that you claim will fix all? 

 

I’m not saying that the going up there during middays now is an indication, I’m just saying it’s making them familiar with the designation. 

Are we having a squabble about letters here? That contributes nothing to a working solution. Let’s name the routes by endpoint/service type. Currently:

1. Astoria/South Ferry via Broadway local (weekdays only)
2. Astoria/Coney Island via Broadway/4 Avenue express, Sea Beach local
3. Upper East Side/Coney Island via Broadway/4 Avenue express, Sea Beach local (rush hours only)
4. Upper East Side/Coney Island via Broadway express, Brighton local
5. Forest Hills/Bay Ridge via Queens Boulevard/Broadway/4 Avenue local

Edited August 14, 2017 by CenSin

[GojiMet86]

The Astoria line needs many trains during the rush hour, whether that is by two services that each provide roughly half the service, or by one very frequent line. As some have pointed out, most passengers who use the Astoria line do not ride either train all the way. Many Astoria riders are off the train by the time said train hits 34th Street (40% to 55%). That being said, the amount of riders that need the local-only Broadway stops south of 34th Street is not marginal. I would estimate that amount to be a third of Astoria riders.

 

The current Astoria set-up (half the trains are express in Manhattan and the other half is local in Manhattan) is fine. If one day the MTA decides to have all service to Astoria be a Manhattan local, that is fine, IF that service can provide the same frequency (or higher) to Astoria than what the current set-up offers AND if it doesn't screw with other local Broadway services. It can be a little hard at the moment, with a lack of rolling stock, but it's not bad. In fact, you could end with more consistent Queens-Manhattan service AND frequent intra-Manhattan service. And the time savings from taking the express to  Canal or 14th Street is small. And if the MTA ever decides to be smart and order more cars for expansion, you could have consistent Manhattan-Brooklyn 4th Avenue service provided by the and . The only switch here is at the 60th Street tunnel for Queens Plaza. And any Astoria-Sea Beach rider, which there are not a lot, just transfers to the express.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OTHER THOUGHTS:

 

 

AS IT STANDS TODAY, the Phase-I-only Second Avenue line is physically capable of handling a second service. IF the demand for this Phase-I-only Second Avenue service miraculously spikes, AND assuming that a split service just simply won't cut it (example: a split in which half the trains go to Second and half go to Astoria), then here some possibilities for this INTERIM future:

 

1) Extra service. Cobble some sets from spare ratios and other lines in the interim, cut service by a couple on intervals on other lines, and add more cars to near-future subway orders.

2) The express to Brooklyn. In this case, Astoria service would be cut. The would have to be pumped up in service, but as things currently stand, there is virtually no rolling stock available, UNLESS rolling stock from other routes is used, AND/OR the MTA is content with lower spare ratios. This would mean less service, and/or less availability of rolling stock, on other routes. I can imagine the MTA cobbling together some 8-9 sets for Astoria service by raiding each 600-foot route of one service set or a spare set. With the running a shorter route, this move would free up some sets in the same way moving the to Second Avenue freed sets for the current . And if the MTA really wants to squeeze a set or two, they could have Canal Street short-turns. But the might suffer, and even then, Astoria service might be less than what it is today.

3) The local to Whitehall. Again, Astoria service could be cut, and the MTA could cobble some sets.

4) The local . Already has to contend with the Nassau lines and the , not to mention the obvious cut in service the Queens Blvd line would see. Rolling stock would be harder to come by.

5) The local . Queens Blvd service would be cut, and the 480-foot is surely not enough to handle Queens Blvd by itself.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

IN THE FUTURE, Assuming all four phases of the Second Avenue line are built as they are currently planned (TWO tracks the whole length), there will probably be, at minimum, two routes using all, or parts of it:

 

1) route using the full physical line and 

2) a route that runs on the Broadway line and uses the Second Avenue line.

 

By this time, if the MTA had brains, there would be more than enough rolling stock, not just the extra two or three they will have with the R179/R211. Three or even four services (full services or split services) in this scenario (all phases built, two tracks the whole way) would possible:

 

South of 63rd Street:

1) Second Avenue-Queens Blvd: A route running from Hanover to Forest Hills or points east. If one wants to minimize the amount of switching, then this route would run express. This would likely cut into other Queens Blvd express frequencies, but it might not too bad. It could be local too. A combination of this local route and a split could adequately serve Queens Blvd.

 

North of 63rd Street. Would have to be a low frequency line, or a split service in which the majority of said service terminates elsewhere and not 125th Street.

2) Broadway-Second Avenue route: Probably the , but a second Broadway-Second Avenue service would cut into the . Would probably be a small partial service, with most going to Astoria.

3) Sixth Avenue-Second Avenue route: or . A non-regular, but internally scheduled, Sixth Avenue-Second Avenue routing has already occured, BUT that has been done on weekends, when the is not serving its regular Queens Blvd routing, AND with just the to contend with. Both would be, at maximum, a partial service.

And I would argue that 2) and 3) are oversaturations of one portion of the Second Avenue line.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What really kills the Second Avenue subway is that it will be two tracks. ALL the way. FOUR tracks should have been the reality. A set of two tracks solely dedicated for the entire length of the Second Avenue line would have allowed for very high frequencies along the line. A second set of two tracks, only north of 63rd Street, would have allowed for medium to high Midtown service. And a third set of two tracks, south only of 63rd Street, could have allowed for supplemental Second Avenue service to Queens. And this is without talking about any Bronx or Brooklyn expansions.

[Around the Horn]

Is there some sort of law that says the has to be the Broadway Local? If you want to transform it so, why can’t the be the familiar line, and the , which has had all different types of services patterns, act as the secondary express? That would leave the as the main Sea Beach and Astoria Line 24/7, like it has always been, and the can provide the new express service that you claim will fix all? 

 

I’m not saying that the going up there during middays now is an indication, I’m just saying it’s making them familiar with the designation. 

Let's remove the letters out of the equation:

 

In order to reduce merges as much as possible, the following four services run on Broadway:

-4 Av/Broadway local to Queens Blvd

-4 Av/Broadway local to Astoria (with some trains terminating at Whitehall St)

-Brighton Line/Broadway express to 125 St

-Sea Beach Line, 4 Av/Broadway express to 125 St

 

On weekdays, the only merges are in the 60th Street tunnel and DeKalb Av, with the 34th Street merge eliminated

 

on weekends and late nights, there are three services:

-4 Av/Broadway Local to Queens Blvd (4 Av only on late nights)

-Sea Beach Line, 4 Av Express/Broadway local to Astoria

-Brighton Line/ Broadway express to 125 St

 

On weekends, the only merges are in the 60th Street tunnel and Prince Street/DeKalb Av.

 

(You could further reduce merges by running the Sea Beach service via tunnel and 4 Av local but that would really piss off 4th Avenue riders and overwhelm the already packed train)

[R42N]

Let's remove the letters out of the equation:

 

In order to reduce merges as much as possible, the following four services run on Broadway:

-4 Av/Broadway local to Queens Blvd

-4 Av/Broadway local to Astoria (with some trains terminating at Whitehall St)

-Brighton Line/Broadway express to 125 St

-Sea Beach Line, 4 Av/Broadway express to 125 St

 

On weekdays, the only merges are in the 60th Street tunnel and DeKalb Av, with the 34th Street merge eliminated

 

on weekends and late nights, there are three services:

-4 Av/Broadway Local to Queens Blvd (4 Av only on late nights)

-Sea Beach Line, 4 Av Express/Broadway local to Astoria

-Brighton Line/ Broadway express to 125 St

 

On weekends, the only merges are in the 60th Street tunnel and Prince Street/DeKalb Av.

 

(You could further reduce merges by running the Sea Beach service via tunnel and 4 Av local but that would really piss off 4th Avenue riders and overwhelm the already packed train)

 

 

Thanks, this makes sense. I’m sorry if you think I was stubborn with the lettering, it’s just that my mind doesn’t process that right with them. When I see the letters, my association with them in the past makes me critical of the service patterns, psychological I guess. 

 

Also, your notation at the end is true, "You could further reduce merges by running the Sea Beach service via tunnel and 4 Av local but that would really piss off 4th Avenue riders and overwhelm the already packed   train)

 

However, if the express tunnel between 36 street and 59th street does have to close for a year plus like was reported, that would be a golden opportunity to do just that, and send the secondary line that would be the Weekday 2nd Avenue Express to West End (9th Avenue, maybe) Thoughts on that?  

[bobtehpanda]

The Astoria line needs many trains during the rush hour, whether that is by two services that each provide roughly half the service, or by one very frequent line. As some have pointed out, most passengers who use the Astoria line do not ride either train all the way. Many Astoria riders are off the train by the time said train hits 34th Street (40% to 55%). That being said, the amount of riders that need the local-only Broadway stops south of 34th Street is not marginal. I would estimate that amount to be a third of Astoria riders.

 

The current Astoria set-up (half the trains are express in Manhattan and the other half is local in Manhattan) is fine. If one day the MTA decides to have all service to Astoria be a Manhattan local, that is fine, IF that service can provide the same frequency (or higher) to Astoria than what the current set-up offers AND if it doesn't screw with other local Broadway services. It can be a little hard at the moment, with a lack of rolling stock, but it's not bad. In fact, you could end with more consistent Queens-Manhattan service AND frequent intra-Manhattan service. And the time savings from taking the express to  Canal or 14th Street is small. And if the MTA ever decides to be smart and order more cars for expansion, you could have consistent Manhattan-Brooklyn 4th Avenue service provided by the and . The only switch here is at the 60th Street tunnel for Queens Plaza. And any Astoria-Sea Beach rider, which there are not a lot, just transfers to the express.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OTHER THOUGHTS:

 

 

AS IT STANDS TODAY, the Phase-I-only Second Avenue line is physically capable of handling a second service. IF the demand for this Phase-I-only Second Avenue service miraculously spikes, AND assuming that a split service just simply won't cut it (example: a split in which half the trains go to Second and half go to Astoria), then here some possibilities for this INTERIM future:

 

1) Extra service. Cobble some sets from spare ratios and other lines in the interim, cut service by a couple on intervals on other lines, and add more cars to near-future subway orders.

2) The express to Brooklyn. In this case, Astoria service would be cut. The would have to be pumped up in service, but as things currently stand, there is virtually no rolling stock available, UNLESS rolling stock from other routes is used, AND/OR the MTA is content with lower spare ratios. This would mean less service, and/or less availability of rolling stock, on other routes. I can imagine the MTA cobbling together some 8-9 sets for Astoria service by raiding each 600-foot route of one service set or a spare set. With the running a shorter route, this move would free up some sets in the same way moving the to Second Avenue freed sets for the current . And if the MTA really wants to squeeze a set or two, they could have Canal Street short-turns. But the might suffer, and even then, Astoria service might be less than what it is today.

3) The local to Whitehall. Again, Astoria service could be cut, and the MTA could cobble some sets.

4) The local . Already has to contend with the Nassau lines and the , not to mention the obvious cut in service the Queens Blvd line would see. Rolling stock would be harder to come by.

5) The local . Queens Blvd service would be cut, and the 480-foot is surely not enough to handle Queens Blvd by itself.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

IN THE FUTURE, Assuming all four phases of the Second Avenue line are built as they are currently planned (TWO tracks the whole length), there will probably be, at minimum, two routes using all, or parts of it:

 

1) route using the full physical line and 

2) a route that runs on the Broadway line and uses the Second Avenue line.

 

By this time, if the MTA had brains, there would be more than enough rolling stock, not just the extra two or three they will have with the R179/R211. Three or even four services (full services or split services) in this scenario (all phases built, two tracks the whole way) would possible:

 

South of 63rd Street:

1) Second Avenue-Queens Blvd: A route running from Hanover to Forest Hills or points east. If one wants to minimize the amount of switching, then this route would run express. This would likely cut into other Queens Blvd express frequencies, but it might not too bad. It could be local too. A combination of this local route and a split could adequately serve Queens Blvd.

 

North of 63rd Street. Would have to be a low frequency line, or a split service in which the majority of said service terminates elsewhere and not 125th Street.

2) Broadway-Second Avenue route: Probably the , but a second Broadway-Second Avenue service would cut into the . Would probably be a small partial service, with most going to Astoria.

3) Sixth Avenue-Second Avenue route: or . A non-regular, but internally scheduled, Sixth Avenue-Second Avenue routing has already occured, BUT that has been done on weekends, when the is not serving its regular Queens Blvd routing, AND with just the to contend with. Both would be, at maximum, a partial service.

And I would argue that 2) and 3) are oversaturations of one portion of the Second Avenue line.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What really kills the Second Avenue subway is that it will be two tracks. ALL the way. FOUR tracks should have been the reality. A set of two tracks solely dedicated for the entire length of the Second Avenue line would have allowed for very high frequencies along the line. A second set of two tracks, only north of 63rd Street, would have allowed for medium to high Midtown service. And a third set of two tracks, south only of 63rd Street, could have allowed for supplemental Second Avenue service to Queens. And this is without talking about any Bronx or Brooklyn expansions.

 

I disagree. Two tracks is more than enough for everything except the northern half of the line, and that's only really the case because they decided to build 125th at Park.

 

You can run 15TPH to 125th, 15TPH to the Bronx, and 15TPH to Queens. So from the Bronx to Brighton Beach via 63rd, from 125th to Hanover/Brooklyn, and from Queens to Hanover/Brooklyn. And you need further expansions to even get to the Bronx or Queens.

 

There is really no need for direct Second to Sixth service given that Lex-63rd exists. There's not really room for that either (it's good to just have two services per track so that reliability doesn't go down the toilet).

 

Within our lifetimes, the MTA will never build enough to fully utilize four tracks. At the rate they're building crap, they may never build enough to utilize the two tracks that are planned. Four tracks would be useless in the meantime since they wouldn't be able to go anywhere.

[Wallyhorse]

And let's not forgot the to 96th St on the weekends which will most likely become a permanent thing based on my studies from when the was operating to 96th Street a few months back.

And I had already suggested the split of the into and where the runs as it does now while the is a supplement to the on weekdays and the full-time line from Metropolitan Avenue on weekends and late-nights to 96th Street-2nd Avenue (with the being a 24/7 line).  I suspect there will be a demand for a full-time (even if only 5 TPH on weekdays) 6th Avenue line on the SAS.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Wallyhorse

[Wallyhorse]

There is really no need for direct Second to Sixth service given that Lex-63rd exists. There's not really room for that either (it's good to just have two services per track so that reliability doesn't go down the toilet).

I disagree because I think there will be those who would especially if they work at Rockerfeller Plaza want to have a one-seat ride there via the SAS and not have to transfer (even across the platform) at 63rd.  

[RR503]

And I had already suggested the split of the into and where the runs as it does now while the is a supplement to the on weekdays and the full-time line from Metropolitan Avenue on weekends and late-nights to 96th Street-2nd Avenue (with the being a 24/7 line).  I suspect there will be a demand for a full-time (even if only 5 TPH on weekdays) 6th Avenue line on the SAS.

We heard you the 7th time, Wally

 

Seriously thiugh, if we must have an express, don't you think it makes more sense for it to be via 6th Ave express? I feel like we discussed that at some point... It wasn't optimal but better than a once-every-12-mins local...

[Wallyhorse]

We heard you the 7th time, Wally

 

Seriously thiugh, if we must have an express, don't you think it makes more sense for it to be via 6th Ave express? I feel like we discussed that at some point... It wasn't optimal but better than a once-every-12-mins local...

You COULD actually do that because you can go local or express after 57th.

 

The idea is, however to have a Broadway-Brooklyn service up there to add extra service to the SAS and also reduce the number of trains needed for the current to provide additional 6th Avenue service, especially during the shutdown when you can cut the number of trains needed by 1-2 per hour just by having some trains run to 96th/2nd instead of 71st-Continental.  

[GojiMet86]

I pointed out the services that could go up Second Avenue. Doesn't mean they should.

[R42N]

 

 

It's not convoluted at all... It's like the local stations on Concourse which get the during rush hours and the other times and Fulton Street in Brooklyn prior to 2000, which got the weekdays and the all other times...

 

 

 

 

That’s different, that’s a train skipping stations but still running the same route to the same destination. Plenty of trains do that, this is have having a route go up to Harlem during peak periods, and into LIC/Astoria in Queens during other times, and going via Montague during even less-occupied times. 

 

The only similarity I can think of is when the went via 63rd Street to 21st-Queensbridge during Evenings and Weekends in the late 90s early 2000s. And that was quite a mess, with the (Orange Q) during peak periods, a grey area overlap with evenings and weekends , and a late night Shuttle (Orange S). 

 

It would be considerably easier to have the full-time Astoria route be the Broadway Local/4th Ave Local through Sea Beach to Coney, and have the new supplemental express go up 2ave, via Bridge, and terminate somewhere in Brooklyn, like 9ave, Bay Pkwy, or even somewhere along Sea Beach. 

[R42N]

So Basically, for clarity, here’s what I think is the best case scenario if you must have 1 local Astoria Line and no 34th Street switching:
 

: NO CHANGE - 96st-Coney Island via Broadway Express, all times (Broadway Local Late Nights) 

 

: NO CHANGE - Forest Hills- Bay Ridge via Broadway Local (Northbound terminus Whitehall Late Nights)

 

: Astoria-Coney Island, all times, via Broadway/4th Ave Local, Montague, via Sea Beach. Some southbound short turns at Whitehall during Rush to allow for at Kings Hwy (Operates over bridge Weekends, maybe)

 

, mimicking the old route: 96st/2nd Ave-Kings Highway or 9th Ave if 4ave Exp tunnel is under construction: Weekdays, Broadway Express, via Bridge, 4th Ave Express to Kings Highway, with 15 min headways during Middays (so most Sea Beach commuters get Weekday Express and Weekend Bridge service)

 

This, way, there is no merging issues, DeKalb doesn’t have as many weekday Broadway Bridge traffic, so there is more flexibility, and neither Sea Beach or Astoria passengers would feel like they are getting played, as all of Sea Beach but Ave U and 86st keeps an Express, and Astoria keeps a weekend Bridge, full-time line. 

 

Does that align with your idea better?

Edited August 14, 2017 by R42N

[Around the Horn]

So Basically, for clarity, here’s what I think is the best case scenario if you must have 1 local Astoria Line and no 34th Street switching:

 

: NO CHANGE - 96st-Coney Island via Broadway Express, all times (Broadway Local Late Nights) 

 

: NO CHANGE - Forest Hills- Bay Ridge via Broadway Local (Northbound terminus Whitehall Late Nights)

 

: Astoria-Coney Island, all times, via Broadway/4th Ave Local, Montague, via Sea Beach. Some southbound short turns at Whitehall during Rush to allow for at Kings Hwy (Operates over bridge Weekends, maybe)

 

, mimicking the old route: 96st/2nd Ave-Kings Highway or 9th Ave if 4ave Exp tunnel is under construction: Weekdays, Broadway Express, via Bridge, 4th Ave Express to Kings Highway, with 15 min headways during Middays (so most Sea Beach commuters get Weekday Express and Weekend Bridge service)

 

This, way, there is no merging issues, DeKalb doesn’t have as many weekday Broadway Bridge traffic, so there is more flexibility, and neither Sea Beach or Astoria passengers would feel like they are getting played, as all of Sea Beach but Ave U and 86st keeps an Express, and Astoria keeps a weekend Bridge, full-time line. 

 

Does that align with your idea better?

 

In that scenario, all you've done is swapped the designation and designation and swapped the terminals, which managing to remove Sea Beach's weekend express service, added another weekday merge point between the at 59th Street and created fumigation delays at Kings Highway... No bueno.

 

Astoria (and Sea Beach) would always have a weekend Bridge route if the were the only service there, as it would follow the current weekend service pattern. That is not a point of contention.