Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[2Line1291]

 

I used to. I don't do it anymore, and all the things I showed around here are real proposals.

What you do now isn't the point, so bump that. If you used to come up with crazy ideas and KNOWS what it feels getting criticized heavily in a bad way, what gives you the audacity to bash everyone else??? Just because you went through the same thing doesn't mean you should do the same to others!!

[peacemak3r]

I showed around here are real proposals.

 

Let's bring back a "real proposal" from another thread.

 

You could have had erected a giant fence, or something like that to prevent them since I know that it is open cut, but they didn't.

 

I'm 100% sure the MTA had that idea on paper.

 

Back to the 2nd Avenue business, I understand some ideas here are irrelevant and some are just out of this world. But the way you are bashing them is clearly not even in the range of criticism or constructive criticism. I know you are trying to answer as bluntly as possible but you probably need a lesson in speech and answer/criticize differently to get your point out but in a mannerly way.

[CenSin]

Remember, in that scenario, the would go to Coney Island and have Coney Island Yard available. The , which has Concourse Yard, would replace the from 95th-DeKalb with both lines running local in Brooklyn 24/7, having the benefit of eliminating the current overnight shuttle in Brooklyn.

 

As in this scenario the would be a 24/7 local from Coney Island-Astoria (via West End), the can be a 16.5/5 line to Astoria with it supplementing the on the SAS at other times (to 96th/2nd from 10:00 PM-5:30 AM the next morning weeknights and all day weekends) while at the same time, the would also be a 24/7 Express in Brooklyn and Manhattan on its full route otherwise. This would severely reduce track switching since the would not have to cross to the local track in Brooklyn at all and only at 34th or 57th on weekdays when running to Astoria (since late nights and weekends it would be a supplement to the …

(quote cut short to make this post 35 bullets max)

If I remember correctly, West End used to be a shuttle at night since it was serviced by a part-time line—the . If the MTA had its way, the would only be running during weekdays. Now that the has been moved to Grand Concourse and Brighton express, the MTA has simplified operations by reducing the amount of short segments and line/terminal-shifting around the clock. Furthermore, it's been ever more important that the MTA saves money. While your proposal sounds great to the customer (except for the which can't make up its mind between 2 Avenue or Astoria), the MTA has to spend money running excess service through 4 Avenue, Bay Ridge, and Broadway since every single line that runs during the day also runs during the night.

 

NO. Again why would the need access to the Coney Island station when riders can just use the ? Quite useless. Please people come up with something smarter rather then just spew nonsense okay. Architects and Engineers don't do this. They think so THINK!

If you were a cop, I'd call this police brutality.

 

: Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island. (Via Bridge)

Via Broadway Local & Sea Beach Express.

7tph

 

: 96 Street-2 Avenue to Gravesend-86. (Via Bridge)

Via Broadway & Se Beach Express.

7tph

 

: 96 Street-2 Avenue to Coney Island. (Via Bridge)

Via Broadway Express & Brighton Local.

10tph

 

: Forest Hills-2 Avenue to Coney Island. (Via Tunnel)

Via Broadway, Queens Blvd & 4 Avenue Local.

7tph

 

: Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Whitehall Street-South Ferry. (Via Tunnel)

Via Local.

5tph

 

 

Before someone says ANYTHING, 2 services are needed to go to Astoria because of rush-hour crowding. There really is no decent way to do 2 services to the SAS.

Why split the ? If the comes back, I think the best that can be done is this:

• 96 Street/Coney Island part-time
  • Day: Broadway express, 4 Avenue express, via Manhattan Bridge, via Sea Beach
  • Night: service shortened to 59 Street/Coney Island

  [*] 96 Street/Coney Island full-time

  • Day/Night: Broadway express, via Manhattan Bridge

  [*] Astoria/Bay Ridge full-time

  • Day/Night: Astoria local, Broadway local

  [*] Forest Hills/Whitehall Street daytime

  • Day: Queens Boulevard local, Broadway local
  • Night: (no service)

  [*] Forest Hills/Middle Village part-time (increased service to maintain Queens Boulevard local service)

  • Day: Queens Boulevard local, Broadway local
  • Night: service shortened to Middle Village/Myrtle Avenue

   

This setup achieves all of these goals:

• 2 Avenue has a high frequency of service. Switching is only around DeKalb Avenue and that's pretty much what will determine throughput for 2 Avenue and Broadway express service.
• The status quo is pretty much the same for the night as before the service cuts in 2010: one Broadway express, one Broadway local, and one shuttle in Brooklyn.
• Spending is only increased to extend additional trains to 2 Avenue and for Astoria (to make up for having only one route serving it). 4 Avenue and Bay Ridge, consequently, get increased service as well.
• Each service still retains a single identity. If the terminal changes during the night, it's only because it's shortened; there is no splitting.

 

I've also thought about how SAS should go to Dyre Ave so the WPR line could run more trains and the would have Bronx express and local service plus relieving the Lexington Line but phase 4 is years and years away . But until phase 3 is here, I'm not a favor of Broadways criss-crossing but I don't ride on the Broadway so i'm fine

It might seem cheap to connect 2 Avenue to the Dyre Avenue branch, but the line will have to tunnel (via Boston Road) to reach there. For slightly extra cost, the MTA should probably continue up 3 Avenue as a tunnel and provide long-absent service to that corridor.

 

Back to the 2nd Avenue business, I understand some ideas here are irrelevant and some are just out of this world. But the way you are bashing them is clearly not even in the range of criticism or constructive criticism. I know you are trying to answer as bluntly as possible but you probably need a lesson in speech and answer/criticize differently to get your point out but in a mannerly way.

Summary: A good counter reason is better than a loud voice.

[GojiMet86]

Why split the ? If the comes back, I think the best that can be done is this:

• 96 Street/Coney Island part-time
  • Day: Broadway express, 4 Avenue express, via Manhattan Bridge, via Sea Beach
  • Night: service shortened to 59 Street/Coney Island

  [*] 96 Street/Coney Island full-time

  • Day/Night: Broadway express, via Manhattan Bridge

  [*] Astoria/Bay Ridge full-time

  • Day/Night: Astoria local, Broadway local

  [*] Forest Hills/Whitehall Street daytime

  • Day: Queens Boulevard local, Broadway local
  • Night: (no service)

  [*] Forest Hills/Middle Village part-time (increased service to maintain Queens Boulevard local service)

  • Day: Queens Boulevard local, Broadway local
  • Night: service shortened to Middle Village/Myrtle Avenue

   

This setup achieves all of these goals:

• 2 Avenue has a high frequency of service. Switching is only around DeKalb Avenue and that's pretty much what will determine throughput for 2 Avenue and Broadway express service.
• The status quo is pretty much the same for the night as before the service cuts in 2010: one Broadway express, one Broadway local, and one shuttle in Brooklyn.
• Spending is only increased to extend additional trains to 2 Avenue and for Astoria (to make up for having only one route serving it). 4 Avenue and Bay Ridge, consequently, get increased service as well.
• Each service still retains a single identity. If the terminal changes during the night, it's only because it's shortened; there is no splitting.

 

 

The was switched to from Astoria to Forest Hills because it had no direct access to any yard. If it returns to Astoria it would return that problem.

[CenSin]

The was switched to from Astoria to Forest Hills because it had no direct access to any yard. If it returns to Astoria it would return that problem.

It's not exactly a serious problem. The trains use the Sea Beach line's express track to access the yard all the time (before the express track got taken out of service); and the express track's renewal is almost done. Some trains would also be stored at City Hall.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The was switched to from Astoria to Forest Hills because it had no direct access to any yard. If it returns to Astoria it would return that problem.

 

Switch and terminals in Queens, then? The runs in Queens and Manhattan 24/7 and extends to Bay Ridge during overnight hours to replace the shuttle. The overnight would then turn into a shuttle between Pacific and CI.

[CenSin]

Switch and terminals in Queens, then? The runs in Queens and Manhattan 24/7 and extends to Bay Ridge during overnight hours to replace the shuttle. The overnight would then turn into a shuttle between Pacific and CI.

I proposed to put the and in Astoria and Forest Hills respectively to:

1. keep each line shorter. Because Astoria to Bay Ridge and Forest Hills to Whitehall Street are both short routes, I chose those over Astoria to Whitehall Street and Forest Hills to Bay Ridge.

2. allow for high frequency service along Astoria. Whitehall Street restrains the capacity of any route that terminates there, so Astoria trains should not terminate at Whitehall Street. Canal Street also cannot be a terminal, because increased Broadway local service precludes that, and I don't know about reactivating the lower level of City Hall to turn around trains that Whitehall Street can't. Forest Hills will get reduced Broadway local service, but will get increased 6 Avenue local service to compensate. If the , , and remains as is, then there is plenty of room for additional service.

 

 

The was switched to from Astoria to Forest Hills because it had no direct access to any yard. If it returns to Astoria it would return that problem.

Returning to the yard problem… I think I've struck a right balance as passenger-facing improvements should be prioritized over operations improvements. Passengers don't stand to gain much from "direct yard access" as opposed to a ride that is less delay-prone, faster, or more frequent. If you think about it, the doesn't exactly have direct yard access either. The MTA works around it by putting trains into service from a line that does have access to a yard. It was more or less the same with the before the 2010 service cuts (if you don't count City Hall as a "yard").

[CenSin]

Anyway, getting back on topic: it's said that the division of the Second Avenue Subway into 4 phases pretty much doomed all of the other phases (other than phase 1). Instead, what we'll get for now is phase 1 and a length of tail tracks stretching just shy of 105 Street for holding a few trains.

 

Source: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2012/02/16/what-future-the-second-ave-subway/

What future the Second Ave. Subway?

By Benjamin Kabak

 

 

Before leading us into the cavern of the 7 line extension last Friday, MTA Capital Construction President Michael Horodniceanu spoke at length about the megaprojects currently under his auspices. We know the story of the city-funded 7 line extension and the ever-ballooning costs and construction timeline for the East Side Access project. We know too that Phase 1 of the Second Ave. Subway is currently on pace for revenue service in December 2016 even if initial reports seven years ago predicted a 2012 finish. But what of the rest of the project?

 

During his talk on the MTACC, Horodniceanu mentioned in broad sweeps the future of the Second Ave. Subway. For many years, MTA officials refused to speak much about Phases 2-4 of the project. They were focused on securing funding for the remainder of Phase 1 and ensuring that this part of the long-awaited East Side subway line would truly see the light of day this time around. After three failed attempts at building the line, after all, and with billions of dollars in federal money on the line, the MTA couldn’t afford to let this opportunity pass.

 

Now, though, we’ll have a subway that connections from the BMT Broadway stop at 57th St., swings east to 63rd and Lexington and continues north to 96th St. and Second Ave. It is Phase 1 of a four-phase project, and maybe one day, when the 2015-2019 capital plan comes up, the MTA will look for more funding for future phases. Of course, as Horodniceanu explained, the irony is that with some extra money now, the MTA could have built SAS up to 115th St.

 

Since preexisting tunnels connect from 99th St. to 105th and from 110th to 119th, the MTA, said Horodniceanu “could now build stations at 105th St. and 115th St.” The cost would be a cool $750 million – $1 billion per station, but the only obstacle is the money. The environmental impact statements are completed, and the tunnels themselves are in place. In fact, some of the tunnel north of 99th St. will be used as tail tracks for Phase 1.

 

Of course, as we know, the MTA isn’t going to build those stations any time soon. In fact, we don’t even know if future phases of the so-called stubway line will see the light of day. On Friday, Horodniceanu estimated that the remaining three phases could cost a total of $23-$24 billion. Seven years ago, the four phases combined were expected to cost a total of $16 billion. By the time the authority puts their shovels or TBMs into the ground, I’m sure that estimated total will increase to even higher levels.

 

Essentially, the original decision to split the Second Ave. Subway project into four phases doomed it from the start. The origins of that decision these days have always been a bit murky. Some have said it came about due to pressure from Sheldon Silver and the realities of funding. The MTA didn’t think it could secure the full funding amount at the start and tried to break the project into more palatable pieces.

 

A Times story from 1999 tells a slightly different story: “Transit officials said they had limited the plan for new construction to upper Manhattan because of the engineering difficulties and expense of extending a new line under the more congested parts of midtown.” In this telling, it almost seems as those Phases 3 and 4 were simply for show. Phases 1 and 2 were easier and cheaper, but the charade of Phases 3 and 4 could keep hope alive. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

 

Today, we live with this decision. We’ll have Phase 1 at least, and Phase 2, while also expensive, should see the light of day. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess. Phase 3 through Midtown will be a challenge, and Phase 4 through Lower Manhattan will be too. The MTA though made this bed 13 years ago, and today, as the pace of construction slows and costs go up, we live with it.

[Grand Concourse]

It's not exactly a serious problem. The trains use the Sea Beach line's express track to access the yard all the time (before the express track got taken out of service); and the express track's renewal is almost done. Some trains would also be stored at City Hall.

 

Hem, you have a point there. Astoria-Bay Ridge as a 24/7 service sounds like a pretty good idea. But at only 96th, does that segment really need 2 express lines ending there? I mean sure if the shortened has enough trains, then Astoria is fine, but I dunno about the need to send both the up to 96th.

 

I do like the idea of the as the late night shuttle, but I think it'd be best to terminate it at 36th especially since 62nd on the is under construction. Basically make it a 2 train ride vs 3.

[Roadcruiser1]

I highly doubt that upper Manhattan needs both the and the . They also have the and and the future . I just don't see a need for the to go up there.

[CenSin]

I highly doubt that upper Manhattan needs both the and the . They also have the and and the future . I just don't see a need for the to go up there.

For the short term, you may be right. But the idea is still to have two services: the and the to be comparable to the , , and . Since phases 3 and 4 precludes the , and hints are that those phases are going to be far off, some other service will need to fill in a growing gap between the opening of the new line and phase 3. My suggestion to send both the and up there hinges on the prediction that the demand will rise in that area.

 

Phase 1 is expected to serve about 200,000 riders daily. I don't know how the MTA came up with this number, but along Lexington Avenue, daily weekday ridership from 68 Street to 96 Street was 156,398 for 2010 (171,608 if including 103 Street). (The MTA probably has raw data on ridership by street along the (M15), (M98), (M101), (M102), and (M103) as well, but only shows info for the entire route.) Astoria, in comparison, has an average weekday ridership of 63,941 (or 68,399 if you count in half of Queensboro Plaza's ridership). If the train with such a high frequency is barely enough to serve that segment, I think I make a very good case to send the and up there to increase service without skewing Brooklyn service (and how often does a Brighton local need to come anyway?).

 

Anyway, how would you have allocated resources to best serve both?

 

According to the MTA’s EIS, Phase One of the 2nd ave subway has a projected ridership of 200K people per day. If it’s true, then even the 15-block spur would go a long way to take some pressure off of the dangerously overcrowded Lex Ave line.

Source: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2008/10/31/second-ave-optimism-by-the-mta/#comment-56908

[peacemak3r]

During my morning commutes, we wait around 7-10 minutes per train in Brooklyn.

[Roadcruiser1]

Remember Second Avenue also has the (M15) SBS. That also would help alleviate congestion along the Second Avenue Subway.

[CenSin]

Remember Second Avenue also has the (M15) SBS. That also would help alleviate congestion along the Second Avenue Subway.

Who are you kidding? :confused:

 

A subway car can pack a little over a hundred people. A bus can pack half as much (maybe less). One train will easily transport over a thousand people with a conductor and a train operator. Let's say you sent 12 trains per hour up 2 Avenue; that's 12,000 people an hour for the cost of 12 conductors and train operators each. You would need 20 buses to match one train, bringing the requirements to 240 buses per hour. (These numbers assume buses will be just as efficient with picking up and dropping off passengers and moving down the avenue even though buses only have a door for entry and a door for exit and are subjected to traffic.)

 

Not having to rely on bus service is one of the reasons why the subway is being built. Are we trying to solve a subway problem with buses or the other way around?

 

If bus service were such an adequate supplement to subway service, why not give this great service to Astoria instead?

[2Line1291]

That was a good read. I'm proud of the construction president for not sugar-coating the reality of SAS. So this is why it's safe to say until the comes, the should up to 96th St with the especially when phase 2 is done and knowing Upper East Side is probably gonna economically grow like it's western counterpart. Just having the go up SAS is like having the service CPW local without the (.

[Roadcruiser1]

Who are you kidding? :confused:

 

A subway car can pack a little over a hundred people. A bus can pack half as much (maybe less). One train will easily transport over a thousand people with a conductor and a train operator. Let's say you sent 12 trains per hour up 2 Avenue; that's 12,000 people an hour for the cost of 12 conductors and train operators each. You would need 20 buses to match one train, bringing the requirements to 240 buses per hour. (These numbers assume buses will be just as efficient with picking up and dropping off passengers and moving down the avenue even though buses only have a door for entry and a door for exit and are subjected to traffic.)

 

Not having to rely on bus service is one of the reasons why the subway is being built. Are we trying to solve a subway problem with buses or the other way around?

 

If bus service were such an adequate supplement to subway service, why not give this great service to Astoria instead?

 

NO NO NO. I am saying the (M15) SBS will help with the crowding I am not saying that it would eliminate the need of the Second Avenue Subway.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I'm glad others on here agree that even with just Phase 1 open, the will not be sufficient to handle the potentially high ridership.

[CenSin]

NO NO NO. I am saying the (M15) SBS will help with the crowding I am not saying that it would eliminate the need of the Second Avenue Subway.

How much would the buses help though?

 

 

• The route currently has about 1 train running down the Lexington line every 2 minutes max. It is also helped by the and the as well as around 3~4 parallel bus routes running close to the Lexington Avenue line (7~9, if you want to count the ones running near Central Park). Along this corridor, the Lexington line alone serves about 150,000 passengers daily (a bit less if you only want to count the ).

• All of the north-south east side bus routes combined ((M1), (M2), (M3), (M4), (M15), (M31), (M101), (M102), (M103)) for the entire length (that means all the bus stops combined) serves about 190,000 passengers daily compared to 150,000 for just 4 stations along the Lexington subway line.

• The 2 Avenue line is projected to serve 200,000 passengers daily for just phase 1 of the line. It is going to require the same amount of service if not more (since 200,000 > 150,000).

 

Show me how your bus service is going to "help" the lone running at 5~7 minute headways with the crowds. Astoria doesn't need 2 services; the Upper East Side does.

Edited February 19, 2012 by CenSin

[T to Dyre Avenue]

During my morning commutes, we wait around 7-10 minutes per train in Brooklyn.

I can't see UES riders waiting that long during rush hours for a train, when the runs far more frequently than that. Second Avenue will need more than just the . They should send the up there too, especially if they can get Phase 2 done.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Anyway, getting back on topic: it's said that the division of the Second Avenue Subway into 4 phases pretty much doomed all of the other phases (other than phase 1). Instead, what we'll get for now is phase 1 and a length of tail tracks stretching just shy of 105 Street for holding a few trains.

 

Source: What future the Second Ave. Subway? :: Second Ave. Sagas

I still hope they can at least get Phase 2 done. Much of the tunneling for it was done in the 70s. A short section would need to be built between 105th and 110th Streets to connect the two existing sections. Probably the most significant new tunneling required in Phase 2 would be from 120th/2nd to 125th/Lex. Doesn't seem like a completely impossible, super-expensive project to do.

[Threxx]

How much would the buses help though?

 

 

• The route currently has about 1 train running down the Lexington line every 2 minutes max. It is also helped by the and the as well as around 3~4 parallel bus routes running close to the Lexington Avenue line (7~9, if you want to count the ones running near Central Park). Along this corridor, the Lexington line alone serves about 150,000 passengers daily (a bit less if you only want to count the ).

• All of the north-south east side bus routes combined ((M1), (M2), (M3), (M4), (M15), (M31), (M101), (M102), (M103)) for the entire length (that means all the bus stops combined) serves about 190,000 passengers daily compared to 150,000 for just 4 stations along the Lexington subway line.

• The 2 Avenue line is projected to serve 200,000 passengers daily for just phase 1 of the line. It is going to require the same amount of service if not more (since 200,000 > 150,000).

 

Show me how your bus service is going to "help" the lone running at 5~7 minute headways with the crowds. Astoria doesn't need 2 services; the Upper East Side does.

 

NO! Astoria needs two services, or else the would not have been rerouted after the loss of the . There is a reason the was created. Astoria is not any less of neighborhood in terms of population.

[Grand Concourse]

IIRC, not all (Q)s goes to Astoria (some ending at 57/7th) and it is partially because it keeps the local/express option for Astoria riders. Also, the service was always terrible and the at least provides the back up the needs.

[Guest lance25]

After giving it some thought, Astoria doesn't need two lines per se. It just needs enough service to match the current services now. After all, it's the Broadway line; how much time are you actually saving by skipping those four stops? As long as the Astoria and Queens Blvd branches of Broadway are kept on a tight-enough schedule and relegated to only the local tracks, you just might be able to keep almost everyone satisfied.

[CenSin]

Astoria is not any less of neighborhood in terms of population.

The projected ridership figures say it's less of a neighborhood by more than 100,000 riders.

 

Astoria needs two services, or else the would not have been rerouted after the loss of the . There is a reason the was created.

What's this reason?

 

NO!

If you want to challenge the facts I laid out, you're welcome to present facts of your own rather than jumping to conclusions. I've presented enough arguments for two services to the Upper East Side; you can quote them and show me how they're wrong, or you can take a seat.

[Grand Concourse]

After giving it some thought, Astoria doesn't need two lines per se. It just needs enough service to match the current services now. After all, it's the Broadway line; how much time are you actually saving by skipping those four stops? As long as the Astoria and Queens Blvd branches of Broadway are kept on a tight-enough schedule and relegated to only the local tracks, you just might be able to keep almost everyone satisfied.

 

Trying to make sense with how people thinks about service can be a mystery. But it doesn't surprise me that if you (the rider) gets a one seat express ride, why give it up? But that's what I would feel.

But that said, I never said I was against 2 lines to the UES. I just don't see the need to, but if they do, then that's fine and justified. Astoria will need one line that can provide the service the provides now and it's going to be a lot of work if it's the or as others mentioned here.