Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[LGA Link N Train]

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.

I said that I'm replacing the with the Second Avenue Subway starting at Fulton Street the. Continue south

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[quadcorder]

I said that I'm replacing the with the Second Avenue Subway starting at Fulton Street the. Continue south

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

And he explained why that's a terrible idea. The Nassau Street line won't see high ridership no matter what you put on it - because it's surrounded by other lines. By comparison, a Water Street subway would draw new riders. Please read the EIS, they got this one right.

 

As has been covered before, repeatedly, it would also be difficult to connect the Nassau St line to the Second Avenue Subway. We live in a three dimensional world, and the relative heights of the two lines won't match up, to say nothing of the sharp curves that would be needed.

[Wallyhorse]

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

The way you COULD do it on Phase 4 is to move the SAS south of 23rd Street to 1st Avenue (the way the 2nd Avenue EL used to be) that would allow for a direct transfer to the at 1st Avenue and the at the 1st Avenue end of 2nd Avenue, allowing for both a connection to the Nassau Line more easily from a block further east and also perhaps a connection from the SAS to the Rutgers line that can become the Culver Express.

[CenSin]

The way you COULD do it on Phase 4 is to move the SAS south of 23rd Street to 1st Avenue (the way the 2nd Avenue EL used to be) that would allow for a direct transfer to the at 1st Avenue and the at the 1st Avenue end of 2nd Avenue, allowing for both a connection to the Nassau Line more easily from a block further east and also perhaps a connection from the SAS to the Rutgers line that can become the Culver Express.

You already said that.

[Fresh Pond]

You already said that.

If I had a dollar for every time he said that, or the whole orange spiel, I can fund phase 3 myself lol

[R42N]

If I had a dollar for every time he said that, or the whole orange spiel, I can fund phase 3 myself lol

 

 

At least it’’s a good proposal.

 

Does anyone remember the proposal 5 years or so ago, saying the R142A’s should stay on the so the posters favorite express announcement “making express stops in the Bronx” could live on? 

 

That must have been reiterated a dozen times, but always gave me a good laugh. 

 

Anyway, I kind of like his proposal of the split , I think car constraints are the one big hold up, that kind of kills most of these proposals, unfortunately. 

[LGA Link N Train]

We live in a three dimensional world, and the relative heights of the two lines won't match up, to say nothing of the sharp curves that would be needed.

 

I said to reconnect it to the SAS AT FULTON

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[RR503]

Anyway, I kind of like his proposal of the split , I think car constraints are the one big hold up, that kind of kills most of these proposals, unfortunately. 

 

I think confusingness and lack of necessity does too. 

 

Commuters like predictability. In this day and age of broken subways, a 4 or 5 tph train will not come at any regular interval, and will probably suffer large service gaps. People won't use this because they will not know if they can rely on it. Furthermore, it will add a merge to the at 63rd, split a merge with the , and generally result in a mess. Send the down Queens Boulevard -- it's the second busiest corridor in the system and could use a few extra tph. For SAS, do the Broadway swap that literally everyone talks about. 

The way you COULD do it on Phase 4 is to move the SAS south of 23rd Street to 1st Avenue (the way the 2nd Avenue EL used to be) that would allow for a direct transfer to the at 1st Avenue and the at the 1st Avenue end of 2nd Avenue, allowing for both a connection to the Nassau Line more easily from a block further east and also perhaps a connection from the SAS to the Rutgers line that can become the Culver Express.

 

I am very for at least looking at this though. Maybe add a stop at 8th st too so it isn't just replicating existing stops on the underserved LES (or extend the new stops so that they go south/north from 14th/Houston, acheiving the same thing

[quadcorder]

I said to reconnect it to the SAS AT FULTON

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

That still doesn't solve the physical constraints preventing a connection between Nassau and Second at any latitude. Myself and other posters are not making this up - go read the EIS where this idea was rightfully dismissed!

[R42N]

I think confusingness and lack of necessity does too. 

 

Commuters like predictability. In this day and age of broken subways, a 4 or 5 tph train will not come at any regular interval, and will probably suffer large service gaps. People won't use this because they will not know if they can rely on it. Furthermore, it will add a merge to the at 63rd, split a merge with the , and generally result in a mess. Send the down Queens Boulevard -- it's the second busiest corridor in the system and could use a few extra tph. For SAS, do the Broadway swap that literally everyone talks about. 

 

I am very for at least looking at this though. Maybe add a stop at 8th st too so it isn't just replicating existing stops on the underserved LES (or extend the new stops so that they go south/north from 14th/Houston, acheiving the same thing

 

 

The Broadway swap couldn’t happen until the R211’s come in, or until the R179’s if you want to hang on to most of the R32’s and R42’s, which are going to have to go sooner or later.....

[RR503]

The Broadway swap couldn’t happen until the R211’s come in, or until the R179’s if you want to hang on to most of the R32’s and R42’s, which are going to have to go sooner or later.....

Correct. Changing Broadway/6th Ave service patterns twice in 3 years will not go down well with anyone.

[R42N]

Correct. Changing Broadway/6th Ave service patterns twice in 3 years will not go down well with anyone.

 

 

No, it won’t, but having crowded trains without additional service will go down worse. 

 

Personally, it’s all in how you present it. Take Wallyhorse’s proposal, for example.

 

It could be billed as a service enhancement with the return of the . 

 

Currently, the runs 8 TPH, that will be increased to 12-13. Where are you going to terminate those 4-5 extra trains? You could maybe terminate 1-2 more up in Forest Hills, but is extra 6th Avenue service needed up QBL? There’s already the Express and plenty of Locals, and then you’d still have confusion with the three overflow trains that wouldn’t be able to go up QBL. 

 

You could have Wallyhorse’s or go up SAS with those 4-5 TPH, and then terminate an extra 2-3 southbound at 2nd Avenue. That’s a 6-8 TPH train, which would be doable with the extra cars. 

 

Is there anything really wrong with that? Sure it’ll be some confusion, but you are going to have to terminate those extra ’s somewhere, and SAS will need extra service by the time the closes. 

 

Of course, the kinks would need to be worked out, to make the proposal do-able, but it’s a fine proposal. 

[Lance]

This persistent idea does bring up an interesting question. Does Myrtle Ave need 13 trains per hour at the height of the rush? That's approximately one train every five minutes. I'm all for adding service where it's needed and we know that Second Ave will need it sooner rather than later. However, are we sending trains from 96 Street to Metropolitan Av to meet an increased demand on both ends of the line or is it just a matter of sending to a workable southern terminal? I can see the need during the Canarsie tunnel reconstruction project with a lack of trains running into Manhattan. Besides that, not so much. Maybe I'm wrong, but the station ranking list has all of the Myrtle Ave stations in the 300s with the exception of Fresh Pond Rd (266) and Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs (66).

[RR503]

No, it won’t, but having crowded trains without additional service will go down worse. 

 

Personally, it’s all in how you present it. Take Wallyhorse’s proposal, for example.

 

It could be billed as a service enhancement with the return of the . 

 

Currently, the runs 8 TPH, that will be increased to 12-13. Where are you going to terminate those 4-5 extra trains? You could maybe terminate 1-2 more up in Forest Hills, but is extra 6th Avenue service needed up QBL? There’s already the Express and plenty of Locals, and then you’d still have confusion with the three overflow trains that wouldn’t be able to go up QBL. 

 

You could have Wallyhorse’s or go up SAS with those 4-5 TPH, and then terminate an extra 2-3 southbound at 2nd Avenue. That’s a 6-8 TPH train, which would be doable with the extra cars. 

 

Is there anything really wrong with that? Sure it’ll be some confusion, but you are going to have to terminate those extra ’s somewhere, and SAS will need extra service by the time the closes. 

 

Of course, the kinks would need to be worked out, to make the proposal do-able, but it’s a fine proposal. 

 

You're probably right that my annoyance of having heard this a thousand and one times clouds my judgement -- thanks for calling me out on that. 

 

That said, QBL (and Queens in general) does need more service, and especially after CBTC comes in, capacity will be extant for it, which is why I feel so strongly that the should be left alone. If you need more Forest Hills capacity, you can easily extend or trains to 179 during the rush, allowing select trains to go express (or not, I don't think it matters). 

 

Also: if you're increasing service for the shutdown, you probably don't want to be terminating trains at 2nd avenue...

This persistent idea does bring up an interesting question. Does Myrtle Ave need 13 trains per hour at the height of the rush? That's approximately one train every five minutes. I'm all for adding service where it's needed and we know that Second Ave will need it sooner rather than later. However, are we sending trains from 96 Street to Metropolitan Av to meet an increased demand on both ends of the line or is it just a matter of sending to a workable southern terminal? I can see the need during the Canarsie tunnel reconstruction project with a lack of trains running into Manhattan. Besides that, not so much. Maybe I'm wrong, but the station ranking list has all of the Myrtle Ave stations in the 300s with the exception of Fresh Pond Rd (266) and Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs (66).

 

You can make an induced demand case, but that only takes you so far. 

 

I think once the thing is over, we will have cars for a Broadway swap with increased service, so that should be done. 

[quadcorder]

 

Also: if you're increasing service for the shutdown, you probably don't want to be terminating trains at 2nd avenue...

You misread - he means, during L shutdown, run additional Myrtle trains to 2nd and 96th. Not 2nd and Houston.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

This persistent idea does bring up an interesting question. Does Myrtle Ave need 13 trains per hour at the height of the rush? That's approximately one train every five minutes. I'm all for adding service where it's needed and we know that Second Ave will need it sooner rather than later. However, are we sending trains from 96 Street to Metropolitan Av to meet an increased demand on both ends of the line or is it just a matter of sending to a workable southern terminal? I can see the need during the Canarsie tunnel reconstruction project with a lack of trains running into Manhattan. Besides that, not so much. Maybe I'm wrong, but the station ranking list has all of the Myrtle Ave stations in the 300s with the exception of Fresh Pond Rd (266) and Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs (66).

The Canarsie Tunnel shutdown probably is the only reason to run extra trains to 2nd Ave from the Myrtle Ave el. That has to be a temporary service that lasts only for the duration of the shutdown because at 4-5 tph, it would be useless as a normal service, especially on weekdays. And if it ran more frequently than 4-5 tph, then it would delay and service due to all the switching conflicts. The best thing to do to increase service on 2nd Ave in the long run would be to run additional Broadway Express service, either in the form of additional service (possibly terminating on another South Brooklyn BMT line other than Brighton) or to reroute the there and increase service in Astoria.

Curious: Could this or whatever you want to call it, run from Canarise-Rockaway Pkwy?

It could run weekdays only from 96/2nd Ave, via 6th Ave through the Williamsburg bridge all the way to Canarsie?

No reason to turn 'em at Broadway Junction if you can extend them to Canarsie and provide a one seat ride to Manhthan from 6 effected Train stops.

That's not how math works. Williamsburg Bridge is capped at 24, and with 12 from / along from 8+4 from and whatever the line is called you're finished. And you can't really run rush hour trains from 2nd ave. You'll have 2 merges in ~800 feet of track that handle a combined 29 tph.

 

You can turn much more than 14 there. Look at other 2 track terminals in the system: 8th ave, 34th st, Rockaway Parkway. All of them turn 20+. And 8th ave does it without tail tracks.

 

 

 

I mean in theory yes, but you start playing a zero-sum game with williamsburg bridge access.

 

It sounds like running extra trains would be constrained by both the flat junction and slow curve at Myrtle-Broadway and the 24-tph limit on the Williamsburg Bridge. If indeed that's the case, then maybe they should consider running a train from Canarsie to 96th & 2nd via the Broadway Junction flyover. Maybe do that together with running an all-stop at 10 tph throughout entire morning and evening rush hour periods. You compensate for the loss of the (which currently doesn't run for the entire rush hour period) with 10 tph at every stop and you wouldn't be increasing delays at Myrtle-Broadway by running additional or trains through the flat junction. And you stay within the 24-tph limit on the Willy B with 10 , 8 and 6 tph. Edited September 7, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Union Tpke]

The Canarsie Tunnel shutdown probably is the only reason to run extra trains to 2nd Ave from the Myrtle Ave el. That has to be a temporary service that lasts only for the duration of the shutdown because at 4-5 tph, it would be useless as a normal service, especially on weekdays. And if it ran more frequently than 4-5 tph, then it would delay and service due to all the switching conflicts. The best thing to do to increase service on 2nd Ave in the long run would be to run additional Broadway Express service, either in the form of additional service (possibly terminating on another South Brooklyn BMT line other than Brighton) or to reroute the there and increase service in Astoria.

It sounds like running extra trains would be constrained by both the flat junction and slow curve at Myrtle-Broadway and the 24-tph limit on the Williamsburg Bridge. If indeed that's the case, then maybe they should consider running a train from Canarsie to 96th & 2nd via the Broadway Junction flyover. Maybe do that together with running an all-stop at 10 tph throughout entire morning and evening rush hour periods. You compensate for the loss of the (which currently doesn't run for the entire rush hour period) with 10 tph at every stop and you wouldn't be increasing delays at Myrtle-Broadway by running additional or trains through the flat junction. And you stay within the 24-tph limit on the Willy B with 10 , 8 and 6 tph.

 

Merges of 10, 8 and 6 TPH do not work well.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Would there be enough cars to increase service? They will also have to run it full-time.

Well, no, not right away. A full time wouldn't be feasible until we have enough R211s in service. But we'd likely need a substantial number of R211s in services for pretty much any significant increase in SAS service.

Merges of 10, 8 and 6 TPH do not work well.[/size]

It's not like the and would all be merging in one place. And many of the subway's merges don't work very well. Delays at merge points have become so common nowadays. Edited September 8, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[R42N]

You're probably right that my annoyance of having heard this a thousand and one times clouds my judgement -- thanks for calling me out on that. 

 

That said, QBL (and Queens in general) does need more service, and especially after CBTC comes in, capacity will be extant for it, which is why I feel so strongly that the should be left alone. If you need more Forest Hills capacity, you can easily extend or trains to 179 during the rush, allowing select trains to go express (or not, I don't think it matters). 

 

Also: if you're increasing service for the shutdown, you probably don't want to be terminating trains at 2nd avenue...

 

You can make an induced demand case, but that only takes you so far. 

 

I think once the thing is over, we will have cars for a Broadway swap with increased service, so that should be done. 

 

 

Personally, I don’t see the Broadway Swap coming into effect (if at all) until Phase 2 opens. Astoria needs the 13-14 TPH it currently has (if not 14-15. And Sea Beach needs the 9 TPH. So, basically, while you’d be “swapping” you’d essentially be adding an extra line, especially if the Sea Beach train isn’t the same as the Astoria train. Without designations, the broadway swap would need these lines at consistent headways: 

 

Line 1: Forest Hills - Bay Ridge

Line 2: Astoria - Whitehall

Line 3: Astoria - Sea Beach/West End

Line 4: 96st - Coney Island (Sea Beach)

Line 5: 96st Coney Island (Brighton)

 

On Phase 1 alone, I truly don’t see any reason to justify an entire line being added to Broadway. When Phase 2 comes into effect, and service really needs to be pumped up, then, I think adding a line from 6th Avenue or Broadway could make some sense, but Phase 1 does not need an increase from 11 TPH to 20-21 TPH.  

[RR503]

Personally, I don’t see the Broadway Swap coming into effect (if at all) until Phase 2 opens. Astoria needs the 13-14 TPH it currently has (if not 14-15. And Sea Beach needs the 9 TPH. So, basically, while you’d be “swapping” you’d essentially be adding an extra line, especially if the Sea Beach train isn’t the same as the Astoria train. Without designations, the broadway swap would need these lines at consistent headways: 

 

Line 1: Forest Hills - Bay Ridge

Line 2: Astoria - Whitehall

Line 3: Astoria - Sea Beach/West End

Line 4: 96st - Coney Island (Sea Beach)

Line 5: 96st Coney Island (Brighton)

 

On Phase 1 alone, I truly don’t see any reason to justify an entire line being added to Broadway. When Phase 2 comes into effect, and service really needs to be pumped up, then, I think adding a line from 6th Avenue or Broadway could make some sense, but Phase 1 does not need an increase from 11 TPH to 20-21 TPH.  

 

This isn't only about SAS. It's about increasing service on Broadway. As I've said time and again, that crossing over at 34th severely restricts capacity on that corridor, making it by far the worst run of the Manhattan trunks. The Broadway swap allows you to fix that, while providing more service to both second and fourth avenues. 

You misread - he means, during L shutdown, run additional Myrtle trains to 2nd and 96th. Not 2nd and Houston.

 

Nope, read again. "...and then terminate an extra 2-3 southbound at 2nd Avenue."

Don't extend the  or  to 179. Riders east of Forest Hills want express service, not local service. And if you kept the (F)local east of Forest Hills, there will be conga lines at 179 St. 

 

A surprising number of intra-queens trips occur out towards the end of Queens Boulevard -- the or could capture that market. I'm not saying they'll run anywhere near full, but the won't not be used. 

 

Also this proposal's main intention isn't to provide more service to eastern queens -- it's to eliminate the conga line at 71st. As for 179th, its a much more efficient terminal than 71st, and because there are switches after 169th, trains arriving on the local tracks can access both the local and express tracks to terminate at 179. (you could also run like 5tph express). 

[R42N]

This persistent idea does bring up an interesting question. Does Myrtle Ave need 13 trains per hour at the height of the rush? That's approximately one train every five minutes. I'm all for adding service where it's needed and we know that Second Ave will need it sooner rather than later. However, are we sending trains from 96 Street to Metropolitan Av to meet an increased demand on both ends of the line or is it just a matter of sending to a workable southern terminal? I can see the need during the Canarsie tunnel reconstruction project with a lack of trains running into Manhattan. Besides that, not so much. Maybe I'm wrong, but the station ranking list has all of the Myrtle Ave stations in the 300s with the exception of Fresh Pond Rd (266) and Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs (66).

 

 

This is a very good question. Personally, I think anyone between Broadway Junction and Canarsie would prefer to transfer at Broadway Junction (not everybody of course, but most people), which I’d assume would leave people seeking service from Bushwick Ave to about Graham Ave. That’s a lot of customers, but maybe not 13 TPH. 

 

I think it’s a matter of sending them to a workable southern terminal that accommodates riders. So, if Myrtle gets too much, it might make more sense to send them to Broadway Junction. 

You misread - he means, during L shutdown, run additional Myrtle trains to 2nd and 96th. Not 2nd and Houston.

 

 

Correct, I didn’t make that clear enough, my apologies. I still think of ’s going westbound on the Williamsburg as “southbound”, my fault. 

Edited September 8, 2017 by R42N

[CenSin]

Personally, I don’t see the Broadway Swap coming into effect (if at all) until Phase 2 opens.

I shouldn’t. The projected TPH requirement is only 14 TPH. They could have made this a non-problem if they connected the local tracks to 63 Street as well. I believe someone mentioned that the local trackways extend far enough to make this possible.

[R42N]

I shouldn’t. The projected TPH requirement is only 14 TPH. They could have made this a non-problem if they connected the local tracks to 63 Street as well. I believe someone mentioned that the local trackways extend far enough to make this possible.

 

 

It’s most definitely feasible, and wouldn’t cost an exorbitant about of money. 

 

But if you could, can you explain how this would benefit the situation?

 

I just think it’s unrealistic to have five lines that would have to run at regular headways on the Broadway Line, at least until Phase 2 opens.

[CenSin]

It’s most definitely feasible, and wouldn’t cost an exorbitant about of money. 

 

But if you could, can you explain how this would benefit the situation?

 

I just think it’s unrealistic to have five lines that would have to run at regular headways on the Broadway Line, at least until Phase 2 opens.

By connecting the local tracks to 63 Street, you enable the less-frequent train to supplement 2 Avenue service. Then, all trains go to Astoria. 2 Avenue wouldn’t be overserved with both the and during phase 1, and it also wouldn’t fragment a letter. You can reliably determine that an goes from Astoria to Sea Beach and that a goes from 2 Avenue to South Ferry—all of them without exception! The could be switched off overnight and on weekends without major adjustments to any other service. For phase 2, however, this project isn’t necessary as the frequency of service contraindicates such a pattern of service.

[R42N]

By connecting the local tracks to 63 Street, you enable the less-frequent train to supplement 2 Avenue service. Then, all trains go to Astoria. 2 Avenue wouldn’t be overserved with both the and during phase 1, and it also wouldn’t fragment a letter. You can reliably determine that an goes from Astoria to Sea Beach and that a goes from 2 Avenue to South Ferry—all of them without exception! The could be switched off overnight and on weekends without major adjustments to any other service. For phase 2, however, this project isn’t necessary as the frequency of service contraindicates such a pattern of service.

 

 

True, currently, for every 20 trains out of Astoria, I’d say 12 are ’s and 8 are ’s, so yes, the is less frequent, and you wouldn’t have different designations running different routes weekdays and weekends. Additionally, with Second Ave customers getting used to the route with all of these GO’s and Astoria used to the , it would be an easy transition. 

 

 

However, there are the shortcomings: Only having the in Astoria would mean having 14 TPH. That’s 14 TPH merging at 34th and having to find to short turn a few at Kings Highway. And of course the elephant in the room, DeKalb. 

 

And, it’s not five lines, it’s basically four with increased service to match the , so it’s essentially five lines again.

 

Personally, I think there is going to have to be some compromise here. I don’t see anyway a line can be pulled off Astoria until the R211’s come in, which will be 2026, maybe 2030 if there are any delays. 

 

Short term, I think pulling some ’s up from the 6th Avenue Line is the only available option with car constraints as they are.