Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Threxx]

The switch to the 63rd Street Tunnel prevents that from happening. Along with the transfer to the idea.

 

I am not being mean here I am telling the truth. The can barely afford to complete this subway line, the neighborhood is up in arms, and the construction time is extremely long even for a 2 tracked line. Do you really think there would be express service here? I don't think it will happen. We will never live to see the Second Avenue Subway in the Bronx. Maybe Queens since it is hooked to the 63rd Street Tunnel, and maybe if it could be connected to the Rutgers Street Tunnel then we will see Brooklyn, but there is no way we will see the Second Avenue Subway in the Bronx because that would require new infrastructure. It would take a long time as well. I highly doubt the Second Avenue Subway will carry four tracks. Even if it's completed I have full doubt. They don't have the money and they don't have the room. Also the Second Avenue Subway doesn't need express tracks. The London Metro does well with 2 tracked lines, the Tokyo Metro does well with 2 tracked lines. Most of the new metro systems in China are 2 tracked. It doesn't make them inferior. New Yorkers are just used to a four track system because it was built like that. Nowhere else in the world will you find a 4 track or 6 track subway system except in NYC.

 

 

The is receiving grants from the government to help complete this thing. There's nothing to say they won't get anything to complete Phase 3.

 

Anyway, 4 tracked service is possible. I don't understand what you mean by no space; 2nd Avenue is wider than Lex, and Lex just had double decked lines. That can be done on the SAS, and considering all the track connections, it may be a better option. And about the 63rd Street transfer: The passage can run under 62nd Street.

 

And about the Bronx: I said nothing about that, I just said that their would be provisions for future expansion! Get your facts straight.

 

And about other systems:

That is a flaw of those cities. Also, those cities are smaller in size and have more transit oriented resources, they can afford to do other things. For example, Tokyo's #2 line has a frequency of 60 seconds. We can't do that b/c of our outdated signal system. That's why our lines should and do have express tracks.

 

Quite frankly, I just can't believe you when you claim you're not trying to be mean...

Edited May 23, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[Roadcruiser1]

The is receiving grants from the government to help complete this thing. There's nothing to say they won't get anything to complete Phase 3.

 

Anyway, 4 tracked service is possible. I don't understand what you mean by no space; 2nd Avenue is wider than Lex, and Lex just had double decked lines. That can be done on the SAS, and considering all the track connections, it may be a better option. And about the 63rd Street transfer: The passage can run under 62nd Street.

 

Quite frankly, I just can't believe you when you claim you're not trying to be mean...

 

 

The Government is funding the first section only right now. We don't even know if we will get funding for the next three phases. The once again can't afford this. Unless if there is congestion pricing, or something like that the is broke. There is also no way that a 63 Street station will exist underneath the switch. It is too far down below street level to even consider it. You also have the East Side Access down there. Also the already has a transfer at 63rd Street to the . riders if it will ever happen will just transfer to the . If they don't want to there is Houston Street. Another location to transfer to the . 55th Street has a transfer to the and the . I just don't see the need for this if the idea already exists.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Roadcruiser1

[Threxx]

The Government is funding the first section only right now. We don't even know if we will get funding for the next three phases. The once again can't afford this. Unless if there is congestion pricing, or something like that the is broke. There is also no way that a 63 Street station will exist underneath the switch. It is too far down below street level to even consider it. You also have the East Side Access down there.

 

 

It dosen't matter where it is, 60th or 61st, it can happen. Plus, the way this city is going, East Side tolls & congestion pricing would be necessary to not only keep the afloat, but to help keep the city afloat. That is hypothetical, but the way the is going, it will take a disaster to get them to do something. Plus, a few years ago, the had a surplus! Whatever happened to that??

[Roadcruiser1]

It dosen't matter where it is, 60th or 61st, it can happen. Plus, the way this city is going, East Side tolls & congestion pricing would be necessary to not only keep the afloat, but to help keep the city afloat. That is hypothetical, but the way the is going, it will take a disaster to get them to do something. Plus, a few years ago, the had a surplus! Whatever happened to that??

 

 

I already pointed it out there are transfers to many lines already that go to the IND Queens Boulevard Line. It would just be redundant. The never had a surplus. Years back they said that they needed congestion pricing, and tolls or else they would be the way they are today. The State didn't listen and now the is in terrible financial shape. They are already planning to raise fares either later this year or next year.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Roadcruiser1

[Threxx]

I already pointed it out there are transfers to many lines already that go to the IND Queens Boulevard Line. It would just be redundant. The never had a surplus. Years back they said that they needed congestion pricing, and tolls or else they would be the way they are today. The State didn't listen and now the is in terrible financial shape. They are already planning to raise fares either later this year or next year.

 

 

Anyway, people need to get over the fact that tolls are necessary. The public using transit will benifit, and I know the people that drive will use the subway at least once. They don't want to go in and find a system in disrepair. If they do, I hope they know it's their fault for not supporting congestion pricing.

[Brighton Express]

Rush hour peak direction express. During the AM rush goes express towards Hanover, PM rush goes express to 125.

 

 

Express all times peak direction so there is space for the allowing more TPH.

[Roadcruiser1]

Express all times peak direction so there is space for the allowing more TPH.

 

 

Why is that needed? There is no need for that. If the is built like it is now it would take people to nowhere. The does. Look listen. The Second Avenue Subway is hooked to the 63rd Street Tunnel. There is no need to create express service for a new subway service. A future service can use it. Whatever the letter is this service will run from Hanover Square to somewhere in Queens.

 

I have always thought of doing this to the Second Avenue Subway. The will need a way to get to the Bronx. A way will need to be found, but it will most certainly run underneath Third Avenue to Gun Hill Road. Hopefully it would be possible to connect it to the Rutgers Street Tunnel. This will allow express service on the Culver Line. It could possibly run to Coney Island and the will be pushed to Avenue U. For this plan phase 4 is capped and a provision is made for it to be finished in the future. However you can now create a second service. Whether it be the or the (U) it doesn't matter. It can run from Hanover Square to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street finally replace the .

Edited May 24, 2012 by Roadcruiser1

[Threxx]

I have always thought of doing this to the Second Avenue Subway. The will need a way to get to the Bronx. A way will need to be found, but it will most certainly run underneath Third Avenue to Gun Hill Road. Hopefully it would be possible to connect it to the Rutgers Street Tunnel. This will allow express service on the Culver Line. It could possibly run to Coney Island and the will be pushed to Avenue U. For this plan phase 4 is capped and a provision is made for it to be finished in the future. However you can now create a second service. Whether it be the or the (U) it doesn't matter. It can run from Hanover Square to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street finally replace the .

 

 

Um, can you try not to steal others' ideas when you posr and try to make them look better when you post? You completely opposed my idea, and now you U-turn and use my idea as your own? Don't do that. If I wanted to use one of your ideas, I would cite you, do the same for me.

Edited May 24, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[Roadcruiser1]

Um, can you try not to steal others' ideas when you posr and try to make them look better when you post? You completely opposed my idea, and now you U-turn and use my idea as your own? Don't do that. If I wanted to use one of your ideas, I would cite you, do the same for me.

 

 

Alright credits to you LMAO.

[Brighton Express]

I shut Shortline up the other day and I can surely do the same to you, so you better not start with me on this crap.

 

If the line doesn't need Express service, thats understandable bra. We need a middle track though. The has a middle track. The have the tracks from Bergen St to Church Av chief. The uses the Culver Express track rush hours. The runs on the to 179 St rush hours too. Even if they are not in active service, they are needed. What if a probable What If scenario became a What Should We Do? Cutting the would just make people mad if something happened to the line. Crowd up the again. Express tracks would allow the trains to still run normal service. Imagine if there were no Express tracks on the Viaduct. The would be absolutely screwed. We don't wan't to make this mistake with the .

[Roadcruiser1]

I shut Shortline up the other day and I can surely do the same to you, so you better not start with me on this crap.

 

If the line doesn't need Express service, thats understandable bra. We need a middle track though. The has a middle track. The have the tracks from Bergen St to Church Av chief. The uses the Culver Express track rush hours. The runs on the to 179 St rush hours too. Even if they are not in active service, they are needed. What if a probable What If scenario became a What Should We Do? Cutting the would just make people mad if something happened to the line. Crowd up the again. Express tracks would allow the trains to still run normal service. Imagine if there were no Express tracks on the Viaduct. The would be absolutely screwed. We don't wan't to make this mistake with the .

 

 

Do not talk to me. Talk to the , but they will only give you the same response since they are GOD DAMN BROKE!

[VWM]

Curse June 2010. All hopes and dreams for the have been ufcked because of it.

[B3 Via Av U]

The switch to the 63rd Street Tunnel prevents that from happening.

There's a freaking thing called the BMT 63rd Street Line!

Edited May 24, 2012 by Brightonkid7

[Threxx]

There's a freaking thing called the BMT 63rd Street Line!

 

 

Wut? There is a BMT 59th-60th Street line, but not a 63rd. The will be using IND track.

 

Do not talk to me. Talk to the , but they will only give you the same response since they are GOD DAMN BROKE!

 

 

No, you chill. The all-caps and the arrogant first sentence aren't necessary. I'm not trying to be a mod, but you need to chill out and think about what you say before you post.

 

I shut Shortline up the other day and I can surely do the same to you, so you better not start with me on this crap.

 

If the line doesn't need Express service, thats understandable bra. We need a middle track though. The has a middle track. The have the tracks from Bergen St to Church Av chief. The uses the Culver Express track rush hours. The runs on the to 179 St rush hours too. Even if they are not in active service, they are needed. What if a probable What If scenario became a What Should We Do? Cutting the would just make people mad if something happened to the line. Crowd up the again. Express tracks would allow the trains to still run normal service. Imagine if there were no Express tracks on the Viaduct. The would be absolutely screwed. We don't wan't to make this mistake with the .

 

 

You too. Chill out. Everyone needs to think before they post. We had a good discussion going and people are turning it into a FOAM-fueled flame war. Not saying ideas are bogus, just telling everyone: don't get to ambitious, and chill out. I don't want this thread to get locked.

[Tokkemon]

Does anyone think that the SAS, in current form, is slightly redundant? People on the Upper East Side don't even like to take the subway. I don't see how it will possibly be useful in its current form without some connection to The Bronx.

[Guest Lance]

You can argue redundancies until the cows come home, but the fact remains that Lexington Avenue needs all the help it can get. Now, we can all agree that a Bronx portion is needed, but even with the extension to 96th Street (and later, 125th Street), it will pull some riders off Lexington Avenue, especially those heading to the west side. It should also minimize the amount of transfers between Lexington Avenue and the Broadway & 53rd Street lines at 59 St and 51 St respectively for the aforementioned reason. Of course, without the southern portion (south of 63rd Street), which I don't see being built any time soon, Lexington Avenue south of 59 St will continue to be packed to the gills, but what are you gonna do?

 

Regarding all these "ideas" on the past two pages:

I'll take them by ideas and not by specific quotes because it's easier

 

Express service:

There's a reason why Second Avenue in its current form is called the poor-man's express. You know, I know, everyone and their mother knows that the line should have at least one express track. Maybe not for express service as some of you guys are calling for, but simply for an alternate track for reroutes, track work, etc. Given all the problems on the two-tracked Canarsie line with stalled trains, track problems and what-have-yous that shut down a complete section of the line (even with CBTC in place), you'd want that third track just to keep service running on the line.

 

Intermediate stations (i.e., 60th Street):

For one, adding another station slows down the line since, as we all know, it's only two-tracked. Secondly, I don't know why there is this need to connect every line in the system. The main reason this came up from what I read, is to provide a connection between 2nd Avenue and Broadway. Southbound, it's redundant as anyone would be much more willing to take the from the Upper East Side to Broadway proper than to take a one-block hike from 2nd Avenue to Lexington Av-59 St. (I say one block because the eastern end of the BMT station is at Third Avenue.) I'm not even going to talk about the unnecessary cost of digging a new transfer passageway for a connection few would actually use because it should be obvious. Northbound, it's also redundant because of all the other connections to the west side available in the area. Now you could make the argument of "what about Queens?" but if the connections to Grand Central and the Lexington Av-51/53 Sts stations is kept (obviously that's if the damn line gets built south of 63rd Street), you'd have easy access to the Queens lines right there without the need for another station.

 

Connecting 2nd Avenue to other yet to be built lines:

I commend your creativity, really I do, but doesn't the idea of connecting the yet to be completed 2nd Avenue to the yet to be rebuilt Rockaway Beach line seem just a bit like wishful thinking? I mean, we haven't even gotten this line up to 96th Street yet, the extension to 125th Street is the only other section that's semi-guaranteed (and that's because parts of the line were already dug out) and plans for the southern portion are pretty much DOA until further notice. Then, you want to connect it to the Rockaway Beach line (another line that will need to be extensively rehabbed or more likely, rebuilt). And that's if the project gets the green light in the first place. Remember, there's nothing outside a few editorials and blogs about the line and there's absolutely nothing saying the powers that be are about to throw any money into this. Just saying.

 

Finally, I will remind you that while you may not agree with someone's opinion or idea, you can make your point while remaining civil toward each other.

[Grand Concourse]

Does anyone think that the SAS, in current form, is slightly redundant? People on the Upper East Side don't even like to take the subway. I don't see how it will possibly be useful in its current form without some connection to The Bronx.

 

I dunno where you are getting at with that comment. I've seen plenty of people at the 86th St-Lex station for the last several years I was there. SAS will definitely ease the congestion of everyone cramming in on just the Lex.

=

SMH at the debating about reality vs fantasy. Can people reach a middle ground anymore without taking the extreme sides of the issue?

[6 Lexington Ave]

I have a question which I think is interesting:

when construction on the SAS is finished, will the continue to offer as much service on the Lex? I mean will the continue to run the trains at capacity like they do now?

[Grand Concourse]

Depends how far the SAS goes to. If it goes to the Bronx, I can definitely see a slight reduction for Lexington. If it's just to 125th (nothing south of 63rd yet), and people are still riding the Lex (basically SAS for those that don't want to walk all the way to Lexington av), I don't see much of a drastic change.

[Roadcruiser1]

I am not going to do any more idea things, but to increase construction speeds I often suggest the order of a second TBM. Why isn't that done?

[Tokkemon]

Where's the cash for that? I don't think it's the digging that's causing the delays, btw.

[Grand Concourse]

If this was early on at the start, they should've had 2 tbms, but I think now they just need to build the stations. Phase 2 may/may not need 2 if they incorporate the existing segments.

[VWM]

Does anyone think that the SAS, in current form, is slightly redundant? People on the Upper East Side don't even like to take the subway. I don't see how it will possibly be useful in its current form without some connection to The Bronx.

 

that's what we want. SAS to other places. But the MTA is 100% broke.

[B3 Via Av U]

Wut? There is a BMT 59th-60th Street line, but not a 63rd. The will be using IND track.

 

The BMT 63rd Street line is the connector from the 57th Street-7 Avenue station to the Lexington Avenue-63rd Street BMT side.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Brightonkid7

[Threxx]

The BMT 63rd Street line is the connector from the 57th Street-7 Avenue station to the Lexington Avenue-63rd Street BMT side.

 

 

That's IND from 57th...