Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[CenSin]

I don’t know who made you a senior moderator, but any moderator on a civil forum wouldn’t rant on a contributor trying to express his/her ideas. 

 

Real shame there isn’t a complaint box around here.....

A rant as opposed to a warning or a ban?

 

Do you have a suggestion of what to do when Second Ave needs additional service?

He doesn’t need to propose his own ideas to point out flaws in yours.

 

There are plenty of other ideas around that you can acknowledge. There’s no need to rehash them so frequently. Eventually, everything that could be said will have been said and any more commentary would just be forum members A, B, and C making comment X, X, and X. That’s what we call a consensus.

Edited August 31, 2017 by CenSin

[R42N]

A rant as opposed to a warning or a ban?

 

He doesn’t need to propose his own ideas to point out flaws in yours.

 

There are plenty of other ideas around that you can acknowledge. There’s no need to rehash them so frequently. Eventually, everything that could be said will have been said and any more commentary would just be forum members A, B, and C making comment X, X, and X. That’s what we call a consensus.

 

 

You think he should warn/ban members for proposing ideas? You were the one a few weeks ago that suggested we discuss what to do when Second Avenue Service gets increased, so what do you want me to do, say nothing?

 

And, no, he doesn’t have to express his own opinion, but if he replies with sarcastic remarks, questioning what flows through my mind, and saying one needs to think more, don’t think I or anyone else wouldn’t issue a rebuttal.

 

In my PR company, if one of my managers ask for ideas, and anyone from a newcomer to a veteran proposes it, I would expect the managers I hire to evaluate them with respect and courtesy, not make a joke and question his/her’s thought process, and if that ever did happen, I would fire him/her immediately. 

 

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, that’s fine, I’ll take it, but don’t insult people, flaunt off some hollow stars and a title, and demand more thought. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by R42N

[R42N]

I don't see whats wrong with a heavy dose of reality.

 

 

What’s wrong with it? Why don’t you ask the forum rules which he so eloquently broke:

 

"Please tailor your posts accordingly to not offend anyone. Any content that is unlawful, harmful, harassing, threatening, defamatory, vulgar, hateful or distasteful in nature is prohibited. Posting with the deliberate intent of flaming or trolling members is prohibited and will result in the loss of privileges. 

 

Is “I wonder what flows through your minds here when you come up with these ideas” not hateful to people who spend free time thinking of ideas for the goodwill of other members? 

 

How about “I wish you’d put a little more thought into them”, which implies that some people don’t spend time drawing out proposals? 

 

If you want to talk further, send me a massage, I don’t enjoy having conversations with people, especially those with so-called “authority” abusing said power and offering nothing of their own. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by R42N

[CenSin]

You think he should warn/ban members for proposing ideas? You were the one a few weeks ago that suggested we discuss what to do when Second Avenue Service gets increased, so what do you want me to do, say nothing?

 

And, no, he doesn’t have to express his own opinion, but if he replies with sarcastic remarks, questioning what flows through my mind, and saying one needs to think more, don’t think I or anyone else wouldn’t issue a rebuttal.

 

In my PR company, if one of my managers ask for ideas, and anyone from a newcomer to a veteran proposes it, I would expect the managers I hire to evaluate them with respect and courtesy, not make a joke and question his/her’s thought process, and if that ever did happen, I would fire him/her immediately. 

 

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, that’s fine, I’ll take it, but don’t insult people, flaunt off some hollow stars and a title, and demand more thought. 

Fair enough. But if you’ve been here long enough, you’ll know that his comments apply broadly to a lot of people. The fact is that people do repeat the same (or similar) iterations of their plans again and again ignoring input/wisdom/objections from other members (not just from moderators). There were posts trailing not too far behind your original post, and a bunch of recent threads that Lance was also addressing.

 

Frankly, my position is that of a freedom-of-speech absolutist.; I tolerate profanity too. Fresh input is always valuable to a community so that it doesn’t turn into a circle jerk. But saying whatever you want also means others are free to express their admonishment towards your ideas.

 

And let’s be real here, Lance sums up a lot of what others might not have been saying out of restraint. He’s a pretty valuable mouthpiece for the crowd sometimes if only for his diction.

 

people who spend free time thinking of ideas for the goodwill of other members?

Most are self-satisfying fantasies published for attention and validation from the greater world. You should’ve been around for the fantasy maps threads that were spawning left and right until they were all banned.

Edited August 31, 2017 by CenSin

[Lance]

If anyone here has a problem with my moderating style, PM me and we can discuss it outside of the public forum. Otherwise, this is a topic regarding news, information and possibilities concerning the Second Avenue line. Please keep to the topic at hand or run the risk of deleted posts.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You think he should warn/ban members for proposing ideas? You were the one a few weeks ago that suggested we discuss what to do when Second Avenue Service gets increased, so what do you want me to do, say nothing?

 

And, no, he doesn’t have to express his own opinion, but if he replies with sarcastic remarks, questioning what flows through my mind, and saying one needs to think more, don’t think I or anyone else wouldn’t issue a rebuttal.

 

In my PR company, if one of my managers ask for ideas, and anyone from a newcomer to a veteran proposes it, I would expect the managers I hire to evaluate them with respect and courtesy, not make a joke and question his/her’s thought process, and if that ever did happen, I would fire him/her immediately. 

 

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, that’s fine, I’ll take it, but don’t insult people, flaunt off some hollow stars and a title, and demand more thought. 

I think both of you are right.  Sometimes those with power around here can be a bit cocky and condescending unnecessarily. It's all about how you say things.  I'm not a mod, but I were, my tone would be much different and I'd try to be reasonable with my responses instead of playing favoritism which also happens here.  At the same time, some folks just look at a map and BAM, come up with these crazy ideas. I'm not talking about you specifically, but some of them really leave me scratching my head.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[R42N]

I think both of you are right.  Sometimes those with power around here can be a bit cocky and condescending unnecessarily. It's all about how you say things.  I'm not a mod, but I were, my tone would be much different and I'd try to be reasonable with my responses instead of playing favoritism which also happens here.  At the same time, some folks just look at a map and BAM, come up with these crazy ideas. I'm not talking about you specifically, but some of them really leave me scratching my head.

Thanks, and, I agree.

 

I'd return the favor and say Lance and other moderators have done a lot of things to where they are, and between the lines he makes sense, but not everyone has the same level of subway expertise as others. I could have kept quiet during my commute, said nothing, but instead, because I was interested in discussion, which is the purpouse of the forums, I spent time looking at the demands that people asked for, issues, PDF schedules and current TPH, and made what I thought is the most fair solution. I'm however not a transit professional, and have a career in a different field, so I was fully aware that there might be flaws.

 

A fair moderator, in my opinnion (again, maybe I'm wrong and things are different here, in which case I wouldn't take the time to propose) would say something along the lines of "Interesting, however, there are various issues here". Questioning what goes through a persons head and making assumptions on my motives is not only un-professional, it's demaining to me, someone who has been on the Forums for half it's lifespan (since 2012) and, like Lance, enjoys all of the remarks made.

 

That is all.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I was looking at this image of the 1987 Service Changes, and after reviewing them, I’ve come to the conclusion that after the construction is over and when the R211’s enter service, there will have to be a similar structure to what we see on the diagram:

 

 

- Astoria Ditmars Blvd - Coney Island (ALL TIMES) via Montague during Rush Hours Middays and Late Nights, and via Bridge on Weekdays. At Peak, 11-12 TPH out of Ditmars, 4-5 of them would short turn at Whitehall.

 

- 96st 2nd Ave - Coney Island (ALL TIMES) Broadway Express all times except nights, via Bridge 24/7

 

- Forest Hills (or Whitehall nights) to Bay Ridge (ALL TIMES) Broadway Local via Montague.

 

- 96st/2nd Ave - Kings Highway or Coney Island (RUSH) 9th Avenue or Kings Highway (Middays) Broadway Express. 20 Minute Headways during Middays like today’s GO’s. No Weekend or Rush Hours. An extra TPH is operated at Rush to run up Astoria to keep Astoria at 12-13 TPH

 

Here are the advantages:

 

- Astoria maintains 12-13 TPH with 11-12 ’s and the extra which could be signed as an to Bay Ridge.

- 2nd Avenue gets increased service of about 6 TPH with service every 10 minutes.

- Sea Beach gets increased from 9 TPH to 12 TPH, with alternating and service, perfect for commuters that want either an express up to midtown or service to the Financial District.

- Broadway Line merges are eliminated, and the extra Montague service alleviates the strain of the DeKalb bottleneck.

- 4th Avenue Local TPH increases.

- Less confusion, as Astoria/Sea Beach wouldn’t have a different primary line on Weekdays, nights and Weekends

 

 

Here are the disadvantages:

 

- Astoria (and Lex/59, 5/59) losses the express service

- This couldn’t be permanent, as the supplemental service will have to go back to Astoria when the enters service

- Second Avenue still doesn’t have 4 tracks, sorry Mr.X.....

 

Thoughts?

With the issues about moderation said, let me say that you do raise a valid point about how this proposed service plan will have change once the comes on line once (any of) the Phase 3 stations open for service. I put "any of" in parentheses, because it's certainly possible they could break up Phase 3 (and/or 4) into smaller sections, which might not be such a bad idea. On the other hand, we could be waiting quite a long time - if at all - for any of the stations below the 63rd St Tunnel to be built, so we may be stuck with something along the lines of any of the proposed service plans posted here. Or the MTA may come up with something different altogether. Hopefully it won't be more of the "patches" they're doing, like the Q's via Sea Beach and the one reverse-peak . I already feel like that rerouted R is going to cause more trouble for the entire line than it's worth.

 

But running the new express at only 6 tph during rush and only 3 tph during midday really isn't going to be much help on 2nd Ave, let alone Sea Beach and 4th Ave/Broadway express. If anything, the six W's would probably better augment the . I feel that putting the much more-frequent back in the Montague Tunnel and on the local in Brooklyn 24/7 over-serves that stretch of the line and may cause many Brooklyn riders to ditch the N in favor of the at 36th or the at DeKalb. And running more D's and/or Q's won't be possible, because either track capacity is limited (for the along Central Park West express) or there isn't anywhere to turn the extra trains (for the on the Brighton Local). The second Broadway and 4th Ave express services (or service if they are served by the same train, like the weekday currently does) have to run much more frequently than three or six trains per hour. Preferably, so should the "interim" second 2nd Ave service.

Edited August 31, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Daniel The Cool]

That R train will be signed as an R. It will be diverted from Queens Blvd, as it is heading to Q. Blvd in the opposite of the peak. It runs 10 TPH, it can spare one. After going up SAS, it will go back in the PM as a . They won't be making sure that it is an R160, meaning that a train of R46s could be on the . This is confirmed.

I'm curiously though how will they be able to layup the train then since there's already Trains that uses the layup tracks north of 96th Street during the Midday hours.

[Porter]

Some of these ideas really come off as either this "track is free therefore something must run on it" or "this line must run despite all of the information that says otherwise". It's a shame because I actually enjoy the ideas you guys come up with. I just wish you'd put a little more thought into them.

 

This is how I feel about the Montague Street Tunnel; it should see more use, especially considering all the post-Sandy money dumped into it. Even just sending some trains down into Brooklyn during rush hour would be great.

[Eric B]

That R train will be signed as an R. It will be diverted from Queens Blvd, as it is heading to Q. Blvd in the opposite of the peak. It runs 10 TPH, it can spare one. After going up SAS, it will go back in the PM as a . They won't be making sure that it is an R160, meaning that a train of R46s could be on the . This is confirmed.

 

I'm curiously though how will they be able to layup the train then since there's already Trains that uses the layup tracks north of 96th Street during the Midday hours.

Wait; I must have missed something. (Gets so hard to tell the difference between actual plans and people ideas of where they think things should go, as it's all mixed together).

 

There's an actual plan to run an up 2nd Ave.? What is the purpose of this? Because of the increase for the ? (I would think they would instead send some (M)'s up there instead; especially since all the displaced riders will be depending on it, and Queens Blvd is already where the service gets hung up the most. I had actually heard of a wild idea to run the and at the same time, with one going to 96th, though I don't know how they would manage that on 6th ave).

[Wallyhorse]

There's an actual plan to run an up 2nd Ave.? What is the purpose of this? Because of the increase for the ? (I would think they would instead send some (M)'s up there instead; especially since all the displaced riders will be depending on it, and Queens Blvd is already where the service gets hung up the most. I had actually heard of a wild idea to run the and at the same time, with one going to 96th, though I don't know how they would manage that on 6th ave).

If the brought back the it would likely be similar to my plan to split the into and , with in this scenario the being a 5 TPH supplement to the that runs to 96th/2nd on weekdays and as the primary line from Metropolitan to 96th/2nd late nights and weekends, replacing the shuttle.  

[Eric B]

Yeah; earlier, when someone criticized your idea, I alluded to it apparently not being as far out as people think. But I still don't see how it would work, in practice, with the on the same track.

[Wallyhorse]

Yeah; earlier, when someone criticized your idea, I alluded to it apparently not being as far out as people think. But I still don't see how it would work, in practice, with the on the same track.

As noted previously, from what I read, when the shutdown happens the is supposed to be increased to 13 TPH.  That was where I specifically got the 5 TPH figure for what I had as the that now may actually happen as the .  That would mean 28 TPH on the 6th Avenue local at peak times.

 

Splitting the likely allows for 1-2 less trainsets needed to cover the main part, and that is those coming from the as well as 6th Avenue. 

[RR503]

This is how I feel about the Montague Street Tunnel; it should see more use, especially considering all the post-Sandy money dumped into it. Even just sending some trains down into Brooklyn during rush hour would be great.

No. It wouldn't. People want to go to midtown, not downtown. Extend the not the -- whose route is already overlong.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No. It wouldn't. People want to go to midtown, not downtown. Extend the not the -- whose route is already overlong.

Based on what information?

[RR503]

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.

 

I think the response is still the same, no?

 

Based on what information?

Commute data, census data, etc.

 

Knock yourself out!

 

https://onthemap.ces.census.gov

Edited September 5, 2017 by RR503

[Union Tpke]

Wait; I must have missed something. (Gets so hard to tell the difference between actual plans and people ideas of where they think things should go, as it's all mixed together).

 

There's an actual plan to run an up 2nd Ave.? What is the purpose of this? Because of the increase for the ? (I would think they would instead send some (M)'s up there instead; especially since all the displaced riders will be depending on it, and Queens Blvd is already where the service gets hung up the most. I had actually heard of a wild idea to run the and at the same time, with one going to 96th, though I don't know how they would manage that on 6th ave).

 

Someone from OP told me. There are some things I can't say. This is because of increased demand on SAS. There are some changes concerning the Canarsie shutdown I really can't say. You will see when they happen.

[CenSin]

At this point, I feel like further discussion about train routings is fruitless absent of new information coming from the agency. Everything sensible that could be discussed has been discussed already; there’s no need to pull a Wallyhorse.

[agar io]

Someone from OP told me. There are some things I can't say. This is because of increased demand on SAS. There are some changes concerning the Canarsie shutdown I really can't say. You will see when they happen.

 

If demand keeps expanding, the MTA might need to add more and trips there. All the more reason to hurry up with Phases 2 and 3, preferably at the same time so the could open.

[LGA Link N Train]

If demand keeps expanding, the MTA might need to add more and trips there. All the more reason to hurry up with Phases 2 and 3, preferably at the same time so the could open.

Phase 3 should be a trunk and Phase 2 should have a 3rd track, phase 4 should take over the Nassau Street line south of Cantham Square under Park Row

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Calvin]

I'm guessing that to 96 St (if it's confirmed) is the same as the going from 125 St to Pelham Bay Park using train cars. 

[Around the Horn]

 phase 4 should take over the Nassau Street line south of Cantham Square under Park Row

Absolutely not... The cost of that would be exorbitant meanwhile the eastern portion of Lower Manhattan still has no subway...

[LGA Link N Train]

Absolutely not... The cost of that would be exorbitant meanwhile the eastern portion of Lower Manhattan still has no subway...

But what's the point, Nassau Street has REALLY low ridership and it would take years to build another east river tunnel so might as well have it go down Nassau then either connect Montague to the Transit museum then continue local to Euclid or have it supplement the as another 4 Av local

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

But what's the point, Nassau Street has REALLY low ridership and it would take years to build another east river tunnel so might as well have it go down Nassau then either connect Montague to the Transit museum then continue local to Euclid or have it supplement the as another 4 Av local

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

EXACTLY. Nassau is surrounded by the and . The Water Street option has more catchment area than Nassau Street which the MTA rejected in the EIS. You won't suddenly create ridership by adding more services.