Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[CenSin]

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. 

It would appear from the schedule explorer on Google Maps that Astoria handles 18 TPH for a period of 30 minutes from 8:12 to 8:42 AM. A total of 9 trains leaves the terminal during that time. If you would the 8:43 AM train which leaves a minute outside of that range, it could be said that the maximum rush hour TPH of the line is 19 for a very short window of time.

 

Now I don’t know about the terminal congestion situation in Astoria, but Coney Island certainly has trouble turning its PM rush trains () due to the crappy switch arrangements. 12 TPH is probably the limit for the Coney Island end of the , but the bigger problem is the junction at DeKalb Avenue.

 

That makes me think it might still be a good idea to keep both the and in Astoria for phase 1 to keep the loads manageable south of Canal Street. As for the extra service needed on 2 Avenue, do a different-colored temporarily, but it ought to be substantial enough to warrant christening (6+ TPH). I might add that building a Broadway local connection to 63 Street could enable a 6 TPH from 96 Street to 9 Avenue which would neatly fill in a need for more service.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

No, those bellmouths face the wrong way for service to the UES. There are trackways that lead from the local tracks and merge with the express on the way to the 63rd St tunnel. Although the northbound trackway appears to have some kind of shed built on top of it. It would have to be demolished before track could be laid there.

[RR503]

I personally think that the money that would be needed for 2av exp service would be better spent building extensions elsewhere, but I'll give my opinion anyway.

 

You should swap the and the or (U) in your plan. People going from the west side of Manhattan across town probably want to go to, well, the east side, and the just takes them back west at 63rd.

 

For the (P), I'm assuming that there's some new line your building to get trains onto the Myrtle el, but do you really think that's the best use of resources? They already have direct midtown service. Use that money to do a Utica Ave line or something.

 

I'm 101% with you on a 3rd Ave line, though I think you should cut one of your other bronx lines and send its trains up there. The BX already has good subway coverage -- we really don't need another 3 lines. Also: your will not be able to access Fulton exp unelss you want to add a merge at Hoyt. And anyway, instead of sending 20+ tph of SAS down Fulton, I'd use savings from cutting a bx line and the Myrtle connection to build a Utica line. Then you can have 1 down Fulton, 1 or 2 down Utica, and the last on some other Brooklyn trunk (or just terminating in lower Manhattan somewhere).

 

I am all for SAS-Queens Boulevard service, but I think SAS trains should run on the main corridor, not the bypass -- the F should run there. Mainline stops have service to 6th via the , and wouldn't benefit at all from the 2nd Ave connection if it runs via the bypass -- no place to xfer west of 71st Ave.

[bobtehpanda]

I am all for SAS-Queens Boulevard service, but I think SAS trains should run on the main corridor, not the bypass -- the F should run there. Mainline stops have service to 6th via the , and wouldn't benefit at all from the 2nd Ave connection if it runs via the bypass -- no place to xfer west of 71st Ave.

 

I prefer SAS on the Bypass, just because that reduces the overcrowding issue at Jackson Heights-Roosevelt (want the East Side? Transfer at Woodside!) Too many choices at Jackson Heights makes the overcrowding issue even worse.

 

I've always thought that the Bypass should actually have intermediate stops at Woodside and Rego Park, just because making two stops does not add all that much to travel time and the 70MPH, ATO-controlled R46 is the only scenario where it would actually matter, but that's not happening.

[RR503]

1. The 3 most important ones (125 crosstown, Bypass and 3rd ave) can be handled with a 2 track SAS. And many of the areas of the eastern bronx that you mention will never be able to produce enough demand to justify new subway construction, or are much better served with extensions of existing services (think coop city and the ).

 

2. Yes but why make them do that when the solution is literally swapping two trains? 

 

3. ???? The Utica ave line would fill a MASSIVE transit desert and link many east-west corridors in Brooklyn. And given that it runs through areas much more dense than say, Throgs Neck, it is a much more justifiable expansion than some of the ones you've proposed. I'm all for a northern boulevard line, but that has nothing to do with your current proposals.

 

4. That's what the should be doing in this scenario -- running to Lefferts (at least weekday rush hours).

 

5. Honestly, between Dyre and the , that part of the east bx doesn't really need more service. A few SBS lines is more the capital cost magnitude that the area needs, not a multi-billion dollar subway line, especially when some of your other proposed northern extensions (crosstown and 3rd ave)  serve very real, very large, and very underserved markets. 

 

6. To both Bob and you: 

 

SAS via bypass would off the bat disallow any Queens Boulevard riders who board west of 71st ave from benefitting from the service. That is a MASSIVE market in queens, especially those stops between 71st and Roosevelt, and it seems kinda bad to ignore them. 

 

Now about Roosevelt congestion. I honestly don't think which service runs via bypass will make much of a difference to crowding there. In one scenario, it stays the same with some manhattan congestion moved to woodside. In the other, you move xfer passenger to the to woodside, and move some east side transfers to Roosevelt. That said, I don't think many east side riders will switch to a service going there in Queens. The links up with the at GCT, and a ride there will probably take about as long as a ride on the Queens SAS service. And yes, I can read a map, and I'm aware there are stops east of 71st ave. What I'm saying is that to them, whether their SAS service or train goes via the Bypass or the QB Express tracks is immaterial. However, which goes where matters very much for those west of 71st. They have 6th ave on the , so the is not totally necessary, but if SAS goes via bypass, you'll be giving them nothing in terms of east side access. In fact, you may even see riders using the as a bridge between the mainline and the Bypass, adding to the horrific crowding on that line. 

[R42N]

It would appear from the schedule explorer on Google Maps that Astoria handles 18 TPH for a period of 30 minutes from 8:12 to 8:42 AM. A total of 9 trains leaves the terminal during that time. If you would the 8:43 AM train which leaves a minute outside of that range, it could be said that the maximum rush hour TPH of the line is 19 for a very short window of time.

 

Now I don’t know about the terminal congestion situation in Astoria, but Coney Island certainly has trouble turning its PM rush trains ( ) due to the crappy switch arrangements. 12 TPH is probably the limit for the Coney Island end of the , but the bigger problem is the junction at DeKalb Avenue.

 

That makes me think it might still be a good idea to keep both the and in Astoria for phase 1 to keep the loads manageable south of Canal Street. As for the extra service needed on 2 Avenue, do a different-colored temporarily, but it ought to be substantial enough to warrant christening (6+ TPH). I might add that building a Broadway local connection to 63 Street could enable a 6 TPH from 96 Street to 9 Avenue which would neatly fill in a need for more service.

 

 

As someone who lives along the Astoria line for years, I’d say the situation at Astoria is as good as it could be without be overwhelmed. It changes on a day by day basis, but generally you are looking at a train every 4 minutes at peak timing, with the odd time where it’s every 2 minutes, and then the other times when it’s every 6 minutes. It really does change every day, so I just go by the “general range” TPH. 

 

And I agree with you on your last point, I think service is fine with both the and , and DeKalb pretty much eats up any proposal you throw at it, and adding a fifth line puts a huge strain on it and the southern terminal. 

 

The only real-feasible scenario (at least at the present time until Phase 2/R211) is some extra service from a 6th Avenue Line that doesn’t go to DeKalb. So, either some ’s, or extra ’s. 

 

Obviously, with the extra service coming up to compensate riders, it seems like running extra trains up SAS is a win-win. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by R42N

[CenSin]

The only real-feasible scenario (at least at the present time until Phase 2/R211) is some extra service from a 6th Avenue Line that doesn’t go to DeKalb. So, either some ’s, or extra ’s. 

 

Obviously, with the extra service coming up to compensate riders, it seems like running extra trains up SAS is a win-win. 

To give 2 Avenue the 6 TPH to 6 Avenue, service would probably have to be reduced, meaning service would be increased to compensate. The is a loner in Brooklyn with a pair of tracks all to itself, so it shouldn’t pose much of a problem.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

I think some of the resources from SAS should be used to create additional options for service between Manhattan and Brooklyn, such as reviving some of the DSC plans that were scrapped decades earlier, as a means to provide reroutes, not service.

 

Also, replacing the flourescent tubes with independently powered LEDs with light sensors affixed to them. Several substation explosions this year are definitive proof that the system is placing undue burden on the electrical grid, and if they want to implement CBTC they need a strong electrical system and not one that takes half the system to hell and back.

[R42N]

To give 2 Avenue the 6 TPH to 6 Avenue, service would probably have to be reduced, meaning service would be increased to compensate. The is a loner in Brooklyn with a pair of tracks all to itself, so it shouldn’t pose much of a problem.

 

 

Did you by chance watch that public hearing discussing the opening of the SAS? Nearly every other speaker asked for additional 4th Ave local service, due to poor headways. An additional 1-2 TPH would be fine and is manageable at Bay Ridge. 

 

Even so, I don’t think it would be more than 1 extra TPH up QBL. You could add the 4 additional ’s to compensate the , and then run two QBL up SAS. The extra would cover those two QBL runs. 

[RR503]

"There HAS to be Express tracks. It would give riders a faster commute into the city and would benefit a lot."

 

You do realize that despite our love for express service, they really don't make that much of a difference? Ex: Roosevelt to Queens Plaza via exp: 8 mins, via local: 10 mins. And there the express is skipping 5 closely spaced stops.. SAS stops are spaced well -- trains have no trouble getting up to a good clip between them. Because of this, trains on the line, despite their local nature, will have express train speeds.

 

"I feel that the and (U) might swap, but I'm not too sure unless riders warrant it.

 

I think the riders wanting to go where they thought they were going will warrant it.

 

"Um I would build the Utica Av line as a branch off of the Eastern Pkwy Line, and the would run on it to Kings Plaza."

 

Sure, that works too, but if you do it from SAS you get more service to bedstuy, downtown Williamsburg, and a line that intersects , allowing for excellent transfers. If you don't do it though, and you kept your express tracks, you'd have to build an insanely efficient terminal somewhere in Manhattan, or connect SAS to more than one Brooklyn trunk. Connecting to SAS also gets you more BK <-> Manhattan capacity.

 

"But Throgs Neck doesn't have nearby subway access. As for the NE corridor line, if would mainly take relief off of the and . But I will say it is the least important. I'm even considering taking it out since Metro-North will have proposed stops in the area and running the (U) there would be redundant."

 

Yes, but there are SO many neighborhoods that don't have subway access. You have got to prioritize, and give that some of the ones you're proposing building to are a lot denser than throngs neck, I say do those. I like your thinking with metro north -- if freedom ticket goes through, people will be able to use it cheaply anyway.

 

"As for the bypass line, its main purpose is to speed up riders commutes to Manhattan and to take relief off of QB. And there should be a transfer at the 42 St SAS Station to Grand Central-42 St since the easternmost exit on the platform is at 3 Av. The is totally necessary, and if you kept the local and SAS express, the will become overcrowded. Riders west of 71 Av can use Woodhaven Blvd, which will be converted into an express station and will still serve a major transit hub with the now stopping there."

 

I'm so with you on the bypass being needed, and the xfer at GCT, and the woodhaven express conversion. However, I don't follow your argument on the becoming overcrowded because you aren't giving one. I'm not interested in you telling me it won't work, I'm interested in you telling me WHY it won't work. I have given you a (at least to me) rational argument for my plan, and given I may be wrong, I want the same from you so we can actually have this discussion. You hear me?

Edited September 10, 2017 by RR503

[RR503]

2 Av Express: The 2 Av express is to speed up service from the OUTER boroughs, not 2 Av itself.

(Q)/(U) swap: The reason why I kept it terminating at 125 St is because its already long enough.

Utica Av Extension: For Utica, the intersects those lines at least once in Manhattan or Brooklyn. But even better, it directs riders to Atlantic Av, a much more popular destination than Williamsburg that also has many transfers. Riders wanting full crosstown service can take the B46 SBS which will see a lot less traffic due to the Utica Extension.

Throgs Neck: Yes, I'm fully aware that outer neighborhoods need extensions. I would even build extensions to neighborhoods such as Cambria Heights, Laurelton using the Atlantic Branch, Bayside, Whitestone, Queens Village, and even Riverdale. If all those could be built, then why not Throgs Neck?

QB Bypass: The reason the will become overcrowded is because QB local riders lose access via 53 St/6 Av. But even if you kept the local, the express would still lose access on 6 Av. To sum it up, either way, one will still lose direct access to 6 Av/53 St. If you kept the on Queens Blvd, and kept the as-is going to the Rockaways, no one loses any sort of service on QB. That is what I meant about the becoming overcrowded.

 

1. That's what I'm saying. With SAS built how it is, exp service really won't make much of a difference. 

 

2. Your (Gun Hill to Lefferts) and (U) (Co op City to Euclid) are also quite long. 

 

3. It's not that TN can't be built, it's that those other neighborhoods need the service more as they have more people in them. 

 

4. Ummmm QB local riders can stay on the to 53rd or 6th. And just FYI the runs on 63rd, not 53rd, so you can't really lose service to a corridor you never served. And remember, with SAS on Bypass, QB local riders aren't necessarily losing service, but they're reaping 0 benefit from the largest subway expansion in the city since the 30s. I think that should be thought about. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by RR503

[RR503]

One thing I forgot to mention is that the express tracks on SAS would add additional capacity instead of halting capacity at 30 TPH. But can you explain to me how QB local riders would benefit even if the ran there? It would still make the same stops as the SAS . Even with SAS on the bypass, QB local riders STILL have the as an option IN ADDITION to the . Taking the off QB to me seems like taking the off of 6 Av because at least one 6 Av train runs there.

Yes, but we don't need 60tph on second avenue. on 10th is a better investment IMO.

 

I don't understand your question about the . If it ran via bypass, QB local riders would benefit by getting easy East Side service. The on the bypass doesn't help them at all. In your plan, they have 2 6th avenue options, 1 8th and 1 Broadway. In mine, they have 1 2nd, 1 6th, 1 Broadway, 1 8th, giving them an unprecedented spread of options across Manhattan. I also honestly don't understand why you're so excited by the idea of having the "IN ADDITION" to the -- the is actually a more useful service than the as it serves 53rd st. Giving them 4 options -- 2 of which go the same place -- is fine, but when you have an opportunity to give them 4 distinct choices, why the hell wouldn't you do it?

 

Lastly, you're analogy just is missing me. Most of the time in arguments when someone uses analogies, I get where they're going with it and disagree, but you just seem like your angry with me for arguing with you and are grasping at straws. There is no CPW or concourse bypass/connection to 2nd Ave being considered, so I'm baffled.

[RR503]

My  analogy was because they both go to 6th just like the  . And I didn't even propose a Concourse bypass AT ALL. But I feel  riders are only complaining about the OOS transfer at Lex-63, also riders can switch at Roosevelt Island or 21 St-Queensbridge for east side service on the  in my plan. Riders from QB wanting east side service, should take the  to the aforementioned destinations and transfer. They could even take the  to Woodside, which will see less crowding due to my proposed Northern Blvd Subway for the  . On top of that, the  would practically parallel the current QB express.

 

Yes, but exactly because there is no Concoure/CPW bypass or connection to another trunk being considered, it makes no sense. If one of those was being considered, I would absoloutely be for removing one 8th or 6th ave service in order to give riders more options. Because that's what they want. 

 

See where your reasoning beyond that falls apart is here: "But I feel   riders are only complaining about the OOS transfer at Lex-63, also riders can switch at Roosevelt Island or 21 St-Queensbridge for east side service on the   in my plan. Riders from QB wanting east side service, should take the   to the aforementioned destinations and transfer." 

 

If you ran the on Queens Boulevard itself, they would not have to do a 3 legged transfer to get to the , they would just make one, simple across the platform switch. No crowding, no pain, simplicity. Riders east of 71st wanting 6th avenue (or that area of midtown in general) would take the , reducing crowding there. West of there, 6th avenue riders have the , Broadway , 8th and 2nd . And it doesn't matter that the Bypass is parallel to QB -- it is a BYPASS. Note that bypass means few or no stations. 

[RR503]

Or to simplify things we could cut the bypass entirely and run the 2 Av  on QB with the     express. 

Where's the capacity?

[RR503]

But transferring at 21 St-Queensbridge or Roosevelt Island is much better than using the  to get to the  . There are only two platforms, and would also be a calm transfer. While it isn't cross-platform, it is better than a three-legged transfer. Plus, the 2 Av  would cover local stops east of 71 Av, so it would give those on the eastern end of QB a 2 Av option. But the bypass would greatly alleviate congestion on QB enough that there wouldn't really be demand to swap the  and SAS   because they think service is fine as-is, and wouldn't really make sense. 

 

It is literally a 3 legged transfer. I'm sorry, but either you don't know what the term means, or you're hoping I miss you saying it. 

 

Leg 1 (QB local station) to Roosevelt via or

Leg 2 Roosevelt to Queensbridge via

Leg 3 Queensbridge to 2nd ave via

 

The SAS will cover the stops west of 71st either way -- it makes zero difference to those riders whether it goes via bypass or QB express.

 

You see, saying things like "But the bypass would greatly alleviate congestion on QB enough that there wouldn't really be demand to swap the   and SAS   because they think service is fine as-is, and wouldn't really make sense" is basically using the assumption that you're right to prove you're right.

 

For the 1001st time, there will be demand for SAS on QB west of FHills as long as there is a subway line there. Manhattan's east side is being upzoned, and will soon see a spurt of commercial construction, precipitating job creation yada yada yada (the existing market between the two is already large enough to justify a service, but not the issue here). And even if Queens Boulevard magically becomes empty, free of SROed trains, more options does indeed still = better. 

 

Queens Boulevard congestion will not be relieved of its ridership burden in any meaningful manner by the Bypass -- those extra 15 tph will be filled quickly with commuters owing to the lovely principle of induced demand, along with the reality of job growth. But that isn't the point here. The point here is that you continually refuse to accept the stark reality that at NO COST TO ANYONE, we can provide commuters with better subway options.

 

Putting the on Queens Boulevard itself gives riders at all Queens Boulevard stations access to every single B division trunk in manhattan without having to transfer more than once. And at what cost? Riders west of Forest Hills lose a redundant express service (big deal, local is 2 minutes longer), while those east gain an alternate route through queens, one that avoids crowding at jackson heights. 

 

So if this isn't a good idea, pray, cogently explain why. I'll be here, eating popcorn. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by RR503

[bobtehpanda]

SAS via bypass would off the bat disallow any Queens Boulevard riders who board west of 71st ave from benefitting from the service. That is a MASSIVE market in queens, especially those stops between 71st and Roosevelt, and it seems kinda bad to ignore them. 

 

Now about Roosevelt congestion. I honestly don't think which service runs via bypass will make much of a difference to crowding there. In one scenario, it stays the same with some manhattan congestion moved to woodside. In the other, you move xfer passenger to the to woodside, and move some east side transfers to Roosevelt. That said, I don't think many east side riders will switch to a service going there in Queens. The links up with the at GCT, and a ride there will probably take about as long as a ride on the Queens SAS service. And yes, I can read a map, and I'm aware there are stops east of 71st ave. What I'm saying is that to them, whether their SAS service or train goes via the Bypass or the QB Express tracks is immaterial. However, which goes where matters very much for those west of 71st. They have 6th ave on the , so the is not totally necessary, but if SAS goes via bypass, you'll be giving them nothing in terms of east side access. In fact, you may even see riders using the as a bridge between the mainline and the Bypass, adding to the horrific crowding on that line. 

 

Like I said, I would have the Bypass with stops at Woodside and Rego Park, which are roughly in the logical locations for express stops on the Queens Blvd line anyways. In fact, you could see further reductions in congestion that way, since riders on the Q11/21/52/53 will hit the Bypass before they hit QBL, lessening the load by quite a lot.

 

I agree that western Queens is a big market. However, that's actually why I wouldn't put the SAS service there. Moving the to the Bypass would really thin out the crowds on the because all those people could just board the , and the would get totally slammed. Whereas the would roughly stay as crowded as it is now, and the would be able to draw riders to the Bypass due to the unique destinations served. It's the same logic as making Jackson Heights-Roosevelt a local stop.

[LGA Link N Train]

Totally agree Bob. You are right. With on the bypass, the would get crowded. But with on the bypass, they would stay at the same level as crowding! What is better, more crowding or the same level of crowding.

I'd only care if any of these trains alleviate congestion because I'm someone who uses the train every day on QBL and I can tell ya that it gets REALLY overcrowded at times depending on direction of travel. Now if the Bypass went to Rockaway and joined with the how would things go with a stop at Rego Park

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[bobtehpanda]

I'd only care if any of these trains alleviate congestion because I'm someone who uses the train every day on QBL and I can tell ya that it gets REALLY overcrowded at times depending on direction of travel. Now if the Bypass went to Rockaway and joined with the how would things go with a stop at Rego Park

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

Rockaway would be a waste of Bypass capacity that is needed farther east.

 

Just extend a local train to Howard Beach and call it a day.

[LGA Link N Train]

Rockaway would be a waste of Bypass capacity that is needed farther east.

 

Just extend a local train to Howard Beach and call it a day.

Should we leave a connection to the Rockaways in case of emergency????

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Rockaway would be a waste of Bypass capacity that is needed farther east.

 

Just extend a local train to Howard Beach and call it a day.

Then should we leave a connection to the Rockaways in case of emergency???

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Edited September 13, 2017 by LGA Link N train

[P3F]

Does anyone know which destination on the R68 signs was covered over by the 96th Street designation?

[RR503]

Like I said, I would have the Bypass with stops at Woodside and Rego Park, which are roughly in the logical locations for express stops on the Queens Blvd line anyways. In fact, you could see further reductions in congestion that way, since riders on the Q11/21/52/53 will hit the Bypass before they hit QBL, lessening the load by quite a lot.

 

I agree that western Queens is a big market. However, that's actually why I wouldn't put the SAS service there. Moving the to the Bypass would really thin out the crowds on the because all those people could just board the , and the would get totally slammed. Whereas the would roughly stay as crowded as it is now, and the would be able to draw riders to the Bypass due to the unique destinations served. It's the same logic as making Jackson Heights-Roosevelt a local stop.

 

I will bite, one last time. 

 

Even with Woodside and RP stations, most Queens Boulevard local riders still won't get nearby SAS service. People will take a 3 legged transfer over a 15-25 minute walk (which is approx what it is from QBL stations that are not Woodhaven Boulevard). So you still are denying these people access. 

 

I disagree with you on the . The stations west of 71st ave (incl. Archer) have massive riderships too, (4 or 5 in the top 100, I don't remember), and if given the opportunity to transfer to a Manhattan-bound train that avoids the crowds at Roosevelt, they by all means will. I also forsee a massive shift in ridership to the bypass -- people can take the express there, which will be a major plus for us speed-loving New Yorkers. Also, once again, it's a way to avoid Roosevelt (which is a local stop on the because it was built before the QBL line was even a dream, btw). 

 

Furthermore, the won't pull ridership from the , it'll actually pull from the , and . I also don't understand how you can claim both to be giving west-of-71sters service and that it somehow won't be "slammed" if it runs on the bypass. 

 

Finally, I just find your logic amusing. In essence, you are saying we should not give riders service because (god forbid!) they will use it. That sounds like something some stereotypically cynical bureaucrat would say. Yes, you have a stop in Rego Park and in Woodside, but unless you build the Bypass as a local line, you are still leaving the majority of west-of-71sters without SAS service. I find that unacceptable, especially given that so little would have to be changed to make this work. This isn't an operational or structural problem, it's a philosophical one.

 

To you, the being crowded is an issue to be avoided, even if it means taking the service away from those who need it. I disagree. To me, good transportation is a right, not a privilege. If a service is being used heavily, that means success. We have created something people want, and use. Then we think of solutions -- whether that be squeezing more tph out of CBTC, removing seats, using open-gangway cars, or something wholly unconceivable to us residents of the present. We do not cower from problems, for if we do, we are not doing our jobs. The subway serves the people, not the other away around. 

[bobtehpanda]

I will bite, one last time. 

 

Even with Woodside and RP stations, most Queens Boulevard local riders still won't get nearby SAS service. People will take a 3 legged transfer over a 15-25 minute walk (which is approx what it is from QBL stations that are not Woodhaven Boulevard). So you still are denying these people access. 

 

I disagree with you on the . The stations west of 71st ave (incl. Archer) have massive riderships too, (4 or 5 in the top 100, I don't remember), and if given the opportunity to transfer to a Manhattan-bound train that avoids the crowds at Roosevelt, they by all means will. I also forsee a massive shift in ridership to the bypass -- people can take the express there, which will be a major plus for us speed-loving New Yorkers. Also, once again, it's a way to avoid Roosevelt (which is a local stop on the because it was built before the QBL line was even a dream, btw). 

 

Furthermore, the won't pull ridership from the , it'll actually pull from the , and . I also don't understand how you can claim both to be giving west-of-71sters service and that it somehow won't be "slammed" if it runs on the bypass. 

 

Finally, I just find your logic amusing. In essence, you are saying we should not give riders service because (god forbid!) they will use it. That sounds like something some stereotypically cynical bureaucrat would say. Yes, you have a stop in Rego Park and in Woodside, but unless you build the Bypass as a local line, you are still leaving the majority of west-of-71sters without SAS service. I find that unacceptable, especially given that so little would have to be changed to make this work. This isn't an operational or structural problem, it's a philosophical one.

 

To you, the being crowded is an issue to be avoided, even if it means taking the service away from those who need it. I disagree. To me, good transportation is a right, not a privilege. If a service is being used heavily, that means success. We have created something people want, and use. Then we think of solutions -- whether that be squeezing more tph out of CBTC, removing seats, using open-gangway cars, or something wholly unconceivable to us residents of the present. We do not cower from problems, for if we do, we are not doing our jobs. The subway serves the people, not the other away around. 

 

It's not necessarily that the SAS service should not be crowded, it's that the SAS service should not be overwhelmed at expense of the . In nearly all cases, the will be more inconvenient for passengers to get to if it is on the Bypass. We saw similar movement from the when it was moved from 53 to 63 St.

 

If the is on both 63 St and the Bypass, I believe the following will happen:

 

ridership drops significantly because it is now significantly less convenient by both not having a Lex transfer and running via the Bypass, rather than slightly less.

ridership goes up through the roof because there is enough demand for 6 Av on Queens Blvd to fill two train services at present, but there isn't really extra capacity to add to it due to the fumigation issues at Forest Hills.

ridership probably remains as congested as always

SAS service ridership is very high, and we probably see similar express congestion as pre 63 St QBL express.

 

The SAS via the Bypass at least gives a reason for people north of Queens Blvd to venture farther south. Obviously bus routes would have to be reconfigured to hit both of them (similar to how Jamaica buses were reorganized in 1988 to hit both the and the in most cases), but it would peel people off of the Queens Blvd Line more successfully than the would since there is already 6th Av service on the QBL.

 

I don't doubt that there are 4 or 5 in the top 100 (which is like what, the top 100%), but of the uber busy stations on QBL two of them would be adequately served by an SAS service. Woodhaven buses hit the Bypass before they hit the QBL, and people at Roosvelt can just take the two stops to Woodside. The rest of the busy stops on QBL are either in LIC, where the point is basically irrelevant, or Northern Blvd, which IIRC in some proposals also had a Bypass stop.

[N6 Limited]

If the bypass is built they can do fast track on the QBL and get it in tip top shape

[RR503]

It's not necessarily that the SAS service should not be crowded, it's that the SAS service should not be overwhelmed at expense of the . In nearly all cases, the will be more inconvenient for passengers to get to if it is on the Bypass. We saw similar movement from the when it was moved from 53 to 63 St.

 

If the is on both 63 St and the Bypass, I believe the following will happen:

 

ridership drops significantly because it is now significantly less convenient by both not having a Lex transfer and running via the Bypass, rather than slightly less.

ridership goes up through the roof because there is enough demand for 6 Av on Queens Blvd to fill two train services at present, but there isn't really extra capacity to add to it due to the fumigation issues at Forest Hills.

ridership probably remains as congested as always

SAS service ridership is very high, and we probably see similar express congestion as pre 63 St QBL express.

 

The SAS via the Bypass at least gives a reason for people north of Queens Blvd to venture farther south. Obviously bus routes would have to be reconfigured to hit both of them (similar to how Jamaica buses were reorganized in 1988 to hit both the and the in most cases), but it would peel people off of the Queens Blvd Line more successfully than the would since there is already 6th Av service on the QBL.

 

I don't doubt that there are 4 or 5 in the top 100 (which is like what, the top 100%), but of the uber busy stations on QBL two of them would be adequately served by an SAS service. Woodhaven buses hit the Bypass before they hit the QBL, and people at Roosvelt can just take the two stops to Woodside. The rest of the busy stops on QBL are either in LIC, where the point is basically irrelevant, or Northern Blvd, which IIRC in some proposals also had a Bypass stop.

 

The will be Eastern Queens's trouble-free route to Manhattan -- and a way for those very bus riders you mention on Woodhaven to get an express. If you think your will get ridership, the will too. 

 

Also: 3/5 of the stops between Forest Hills and Jackson Heights are top 100. I'd count those as both busy, and not served, no? As for nothern boulevard, you are once again making the bypass local, and therefore politically untenable. And FWIW, Northern Boulevard and the bypass don't intersect. 

[bobtehpanda]

The will be Eastern Queens's trouble-free route to Manhattan -- and a way for those very bus riders you mention on Woodhaven to get an express. If you think your will get ridership, the will too. 

 

Also: 3/5 of the stops between Forest Hills and Jackson Heights are top 100. I'd count those as both busy, and not served, no? As for nothern boulevard, you are once again making the bypass local, and therefore politically untenable. And FWIW, Northern Boulevard and the bypass don't intersect. 

 

I'm saying the is less compelling than the SAS on the Bypass, because most people will still be able to take the which also takes them to 6th Avenue. The SAS would be a unique desination not available to those people on Queens Blvd.

 

The Bypass would have to tunnel under Northern Blvd to get to the LIRR Main Line. As far as the whole "local bypass" thing goes, there are three points against that:

 

1. It'd still be the longest interstations in the system, Rockaways not withstanding
2. You really wouldn't save that much time, given that trains are capped at 55MPH and a stop takes a total of what, a minute, worst case?
3. The whole question of politically tenable is quite silly, if only because the Bypass has not been a serious consideration for basically four decades at this point. Ask any person in Queens about the Bypass and there's like a 90% chance you'll get a blank stare. There is no expectation for it, and the entire idea of "super-express" was always half baked.

Edited September 16, 2017 by bobtehpanda