Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Threxx]

How would extra stations make a difference? You still have 2 tracks.

 

 

With all the layups, a stalled train could be moved onto one of them to keep things moving. The map above is the best idea I've seen that's also realistic.

[Roadcruiser1]

With all the layups, a stalled train could be moved onto one of them to keep things moving. The map above is the best idea I've seen that's also realistic.

 

 

Not really. Also you forgot it's a two tracked line. Adding more stations will slow this line down.

[Grand Concourse]

With all the layups, a stalled train could be moved onto one of them to keep things moving. The map above is the best idea I've seen that's also realistic.

 

That's assuming they build layup tracks. The only reason phase 2 might have them is because of the existing segments. I don't think it's a guarantee that phase 3 will have them. Things change. Edited May 26, 2012 by Grand Concourse

[Far Rock Depot]

Roadcriuser, the map you posted was the track plan for construction in the late 70s. it included turning Grand St into a one level, four track station. The current one, created in the late 90s, is still available on the MTA website. This shows the recent original plan for a three tracked 72nd st and the "deep Christie" option to have SAS stop under the Grand St Station. Heres the map:

 

[Threxx]

Roadcriuser, the map you posted was the track plan for construction in the late 70s. it included turning Grand St into a one level, four track station. The current one, created in the late 90s, is still available on the MTA website. This shows the recent original plan for a three tracked 72nd st and the "deep Christie" option to have SAS stop under the Grand St Station. Heres the map:

 

 

 

The layup tracks next to 14th could be used for a connection to Rutgers.

[Far Rock Depot]

The layup tracks next to 14th could be used for a connection to Rutgers.

 

 

I doubt that. first, the line at houston will be three levels down, below the platforms of the F. after houston, the line curves under Sara Roosevelt Pk to manuvor around the Chrystie cut (primarily the tunnel used by the M) and slides under the B/D. the F begins to turn south between the park and Essex St. it will be cutting it close for the tunnels to meet by delancey street. Then, where would the line continue too? CI? No. along fulton? where? Dont answer that.

Why is there such a push to rush and connect it to an existing line?? If riders want to use Rutgers to head into brooklyn, they can transfer to the F at Houston. Its just that simple. What is the dire need for all these "One-seat ride" ideas? This is NYC! We improvise. we transfer! all that would add traffic on rutgers. Look how adding the A/C along the F slows down trafic due to switching. I guarantee that if thats done, those here who are proposing this, will probably be the ones complaining they shouldve sent it to Hanover Sq.

[Threxx]

I doubt that. first, the line at houston will be three levels down, below the platforms of the F. after houston, the line curves under Sara Roosevelt Pk to manuvor around the Chrystie cut (primarily the tunnel used by the M) and slides under the B/D. the F begins to turn south between the park and Essex St. it will be cutting it close for the tunnels to meet by delancey street. Then, where would the line continue too? CI? No. along fulton? where? Dont answer that.

Why is there such a push to rush and connect it to an existing line?? If riders want to use Rutgers to head into brooklyn, they can transfer to the F at Houston. Its just that simple. What is the dire need for all these "One-seat ride" ideas? This is NYC! We improvise. we transfer! all that would add traffic on rutgers. Look how adding the A/C along the F slows down trafic due to switching. I guarantee that if thats done, those here who are proposing this, will probably be the ones complaining they shouldve sent it to Hanover Sq.

 

 

When you're on the Lex, do you need to transfer to get from Brooklyn to Manhattan? No. That's why the SAS needs a proper connection from Midtown to the Outer Boroughs. The can connect at East Broadway also. The level of the line can be changed! Phase 3 hasn't been built yet, genius! The plans aren't even finalized yet!

[Far Rock Depot]

When you're on the Lex, do you need to transfer to get from Brooklyn to Manhattan? No. That's why the SAS needs a proper connection from Midtown to the Outer Boroughs. The can connect at East Broadway also. The level of the line can be changed! Phase 3 hasn't been built yet, genius! The plans aren't even finalized yet!

 

 

first, check your tone, please.

second, if your on the 5 non-peak, or on the 6 then yes, you do need to transfer to get to brooklyn. If your in the upper east side and need to get to brooklyn, your one seat ride is the Q, ever since the C was switched with the B in the Bronx and harlem, there has been no one train service all 4 boros. Your ideas are based on perfection, which is impossible. the need is for a second full legnth east side line. with connections to other lines. your rutgers connection will be at houston. another connection to brooklyn will be at Grand. and as far as the leveling at houston, show me how that can change given current existing conditions. Google maps dont show tunnels. And how exactly will there be a connection at E. Broadway. Thats my stop and i know it very well. the SAS is slated to stop at chatham Sq after grand. so where do the 2 connect? its going to cost more to reroute the line more east to accomidate this east bway transfer then to leave it as planned. Its also a redundant transfer with one available at houston.

The Lex was built during a time of lower costs, and near unlimited planning. it was part of the first line ever built. imagine the hell of building it now in our times. You dont think about these things. When i was young, neither did I.

 

and why the hostility? as YOU said, "It hasnt been built yet, genius". But ill tell you from experience, chances are, its going to be built as planned, or less. example, 72nd St. Do some homework on NYC Subway history

 

 

BTW, the heaviest used portion of the Lex is from 86th to bowling green. and the main point of SAS is to relieve the Lex. Not everyone who uses the Lex starts out their trip on the Lex in Bk or the Bx. they come from other lines throughout the city.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Far Rock Depot

[Threxx]

first, check your tone, please.

second, if your on the 5 non-peak, or on the 6 then yes, you do need to transfer to get to brooklyn. If your in the upper east side and need to get to brooklyn, your one seat ride is the Q, ever since the C was switched with the B in the Bronx and harlem, there has been no one train service all 4 boros. Your ideas are based on perfection, which is impossible. the need is for a second full legnth east side line. with connections to other lines. your rutgers connection will be at houston. another connection to brooklyn will be at Grand. and as far as the leveling at houston, show me how that can change given current existing conditions. Google maps dont show tunnels. And how exactly will there be a connection at E. Broadway. Thats my stop and i know it very well. the SAS is slated to stop at chatham Sq after grand. so where do the 2 connect? its going to cost more to reroute the line more east to accomidate this east bway transfer then to leave it as planned. Its also a redundant transfer with one available at houston.

The Lex was built during a time of lower costs, and near unlimited planning. it was part of the first line ever built. imagine the hell of building it now in our times. You dont think about these things. When i was young, neither did I.

 

and why the hostility? as YOU said, "It hasnt been built yet, genius". But ill tell you from experience, chances are, its going to be built as planned, or less. example, 72nd St. Do some homework on NYC Subway history

 

 

First, you watch your tone. Don't try to tell me what I am thinking about. I have taken those things into account. It would not cost that much more to do the following:

• Build a connection to Rutgers.

• Add layup tracks b/w certain stations.

 

Actually, it would be cheaper, b/c this way Phase 4 can be scrapped and the SAS can have a direct connection to Brooklyn. There are multiple alternatives to Lex in Downtown Manhattan, people can use them.

Edited May 26, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[Brighton Express]

However, this is a good example on how they should build the line, with the extra stations.

 

 

EXTRA STATIONS!?

 

The amount of congestion would be unbearable. If they did this, they should just keep the how they are. This line in my eyes is going to be an Express service for Lexington. Notice how all the stops are mostly Express stops on the Lexington Av Line. If they were to add a 3T above 72 St, then we would be talking more stations. The only reason for a 3T above 72 St is so that what I said earlier works. When the line has a problem, we don't have to go on it and shut it down, but go and have a Skip-Stop.

 

 

First, you watch your tone. Don't try to tell me what I am thinking about. I have taken those things into account. It would not cost that much more to do the following:

• Build a connection to Rutgers.

• Add layup tracks b/w certain stations.

 

Actually, it would be cheaper, b/c this way Phase 4 can be scrapped and the SAS can have a direct connection to Brooklyn. There are multiple alternatives to Lex in Downtown Manhattan, people can use them.

 

 

Why do you need a connection to Brooklyn? Why does the 2 Av need to go down Culver? The only good outlook of this is that there will surely be room for a Culver Express. I drew a picture when I was smaller of the Culver Local, and the Culver Express. If this were to happen, this dream could sure be a reality.

[Far Rock Depot]

First, you watch your tone. Don't try to tell me what I am thinking about. I have taken those things into account. It would not cost that much more to do the following:

• Build a connection to Rutgers.
• Add layup tracks b/w certain stations.

Actually, it would be cheaper, b/c this way Phase 4 can be scrapped and the SAS can have a direct connection to Brooklyn. There are multiple alternatives to Lex in Downtown Manhattan, people can use them.

 

My tone is ok. You were the one with the disrespectful "genius" remark.

 

moving on......

although the reroute option IS actually cheaper, this issue of traffic comes up. Where will it join Rutgers? Where will it go after using rutgers? What happens when A/C service has to be routed vis the F? What happens when the F has to be rerouted along the A/C? GO's play a huge part in overall planning.

[Threxx]

Why do you need a connection to Brooklyn? Why does the 2 Av need to go down Culver? The only good outlook of this is that there will surely be room for a Culver Express. I drew a picture when I was smaller of the Culver Local, and the Culver Express. If this were to happen, this dream could sure be a reality.

 

 

Obviously you don't know the 's policies. Let me enlighten you...

 

They're all about cost-neutrality and savings. This will allow them to scrap Phase 4 for now while getting a connection to Brooklyn. Of course, you'd know this is what I meant if you read my whole post...

[Roadcruiser1]

EXTRA STATIONS!?

 

The amount of congestion would be unbearable. If they did this, they should just keep the how they are. This line in my eyes is going to be an Express service for Lexington. Notice how all the stops are mostly Express stops on the Lexington Av Line. If they were to add a 3T above 72 St, then we would be talking more stations. The only reason for a 3T above 72 St is so that what I said earlier works. When the line has a problem, we don't have to go on it and shut it down, but go and have a Skip-Stop.

 

 

What are you talking about? The and doesn't have skip stop service. The only two examples is the current (J)/(Z), and the former (1)/(9).

[Roadcruiser1]

Obviously you don't know the 's policies. Let me enlighten you...

 

They're all about cost-neutrality and savings. This will allow them to scrap Phase 4 for now while getting a connection to Brooklyn. Of course, you'd know this is what I meant if you read my whole post...

 

 

It was my idea. I proposed it a long time ago back on pages 1 and 2. It also isn't set in stone. The soil needs to be tested, and everything has to be checked to see if it is even possible. This is why a Nassau Street connection was cancelled a while back. The soil wasn't a good enough quality to build a connection..

Edited May 26, 2012 by Roadcruiser1

[B3 Via Av U]

What are you talking about? The and doesn't have skip stop service. The only two examples is the current (J)/ , and the former (1)/ .

 

He stated an IDEA, Roadcruiser.

Quote: Roadcruiser, shockingly, you are not always right.

I agree.

This is an anonymous quote from the LIRR Rockaway Beach branch reactivation discussion. Will not disclose further.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Brightonkid7

[Threxx]

My tone is ok. You were the one with the disrespectful "genius" remark.

 

 

Fine, I'm sorry, ok! I have a headache...

 

moving on......

although the reroute option IS actually cheaper, this issue of traffic comes up. Where will it join Rutgers? Where will it go after using rutgers? What happens when A/C service has to be routed vis the F? What happens when the F has to be rerouted along the A/C? GO's play a huge part in overall planning.

 

 

First of all, the would most likely be 8-10 TPH. Lets go with the higher.

 

On weekdays, if the or had to be rerouted, the would be truncated to World Trade Center or suspended all together. When it's the other way around, trains will terminate at Houston, since it can't go via Cranberry.

 

On weekends, it gets easier...

 

The & go from 18 & 16 TPH, respectively, to around 15 & 10, respectively.

 

Nothing changes. Essentially, if there is Cranberry construction, the will get truncated. If there is Rutgers construction, the gets truncated.

 

As for southern terminals, the would go to Avenue X. This also gives the direct access to a yard, which it did not have before. I'm assuming that the other Queens connection was for Jamaica Yard, but using CI interrupts less service.

 

It was my idea. I proposed it a long time ago back on pages 1 and 2. It also isn't set in stone. The soil needs to be tested, and everything has to be checked to see if it is even possible. This is why a Nassau Street connection was cancelled a while back. The soil wasn't a good enough quality to build a connection..

 

 

Well, I would say great minds think alike, but you still haven't truly earned my respect, especially after that (D)/ comment...

 

(He was referring to when service runs over the and vice versa, or when they run local, I presume, and just got his words mixed up...)

Edited May 26, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[Threxx]

It was my idea. I proposed it a long time ago back on pages 1 and 2. It also isn't set in stone. The soil needs to be tested, and everything has to be checked to see if it is even possible. This is why a Nassau Street connection was cancelled a while back. The soil wasn't a good enough quality to build a connection..

 

 

Nassau Street is further south. I believe that is also landfill, as where Rutgers St isn't, so that may play a role in that.

[Brighton Express]

Guys we don't want this locked...

 

And this is what we are talking

 

York St:

Jay St:

Bergen St:

Carrol St:

Smith St: ( F )( G )( T )

4 Av: ( F )( G )( T )

7 Av: ( F )( G )( T )

15 St: ( F )( G )( T )

Ft. Hamilton Parkway: ( F )( G )( T )

Church Av: ( F )( G )( T )

 

Don't you think that is plenty for one Local line to handle? I understand what we are saying about this being cheap but is it necessary?

 

On weekdays, if the or had to be rerouted, the would be truncated to World Trade Center or suspended all together. When it's the other way around, trains will terminate at Houston, since it can't go via Cranberry.

 

 

If you ask me, re-routing the or is out of question. The , maybe, but not the . And why would you suspend the on Week Days? The can't handle CPW, and there will be plenty of congestion on the trains because they would have to run Local. Be careful there, be very careful.

[Threxx]

Guys we don't want this locked...

 

And this is what we are talking

 

York St:

Jay St:

Bergen St:

Carrol St:

Smith St: ( F )( G )( T )

4 Av: ( F )( G )( T )

7 Av: ( F )( G )( T )

15 St: ( F )( G )( T )

Ft. Hamilton Parkway: ( F )( G )( T )

Church Av: ( F )( G )( T )

 

Don't you think that is plenty for one Local line to handle? I understand what we are saying about this being cheap but is it necessary?

 

 

 

Ah, that's just it! The would run Culver Express along the viaduct! Now, we are optimizing the system and keeping costs down! So. Much. Win!

 

 

If you ask me, re-routing the or is out of question. The , maybe, but not the . And why would you suspend the on Week Days? The can't handle CPW, and there will be plenty of congestion on the trains because they would have to run Local. Be careful there, be very careful.

 

 

They don't normally have that G.O on weekdays, so it probably wouldn't happen.

[Brighton Express]

I would go with the as Express, people would rather have a transfer between the and the .

[Threxx]

I would go with the as Express, people would rather have a transfer between the and the .

 

 

They can transfer at Jay Street. The is better. Local & express would be balanced, as the & combined would be 16 TPH, and the is 15-16 TPH alone.

[Far Rock Depot]

all thats gonna do is force riders back onto the lex for lower manhattan service. The cheaper alternative was scrapped (nassau st). for that, they might as well scrap phase 3 also and add a fourth Bway line from SAS terminayting at Whitehall. also cheaper. But nullifies the whole point of a full SAS.

 

The yard factor does make it logical, though. But according to the plans, trains that cant fit in lay up tracks built for SAS will be using satalitte yards like 9th Ave Bk, and already planned (for now) deadheads to CI and Jamaica.

[Threxx]

all thats gonna do is force riders back onto the lex for lower manhattan service. The cheaper alternative was scrapped (nassau st). for that, they might as well scrap phase 3 also and add a fourth Bway line from SAS terminayting at Whitehall. also cheaper. But nullifies the whole point of a full SAS.

 

The yard factor does make it logical, though. But according to the plans, trains that cant fit in lay up tracks built for SAS will be using satalitte yards like 9th Ave Bk, and already planned (for now) deadheads to CI and Jamaica.

 

 

The needs a permanent yard. Provisions will be left for Phase 4, which will be serviced by the I mentioned earlier.

 

This whole page has been a mess, and I think everyone, including me, needs to shape up and act like a responsible person.

Edited May 26, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[VWM]

If the were to go to culver, yeah, have the run express on it. the is supposed to have minimal stops. Most likely, you'd have the terminate nights at Houston St.

[Threxx]

If the were to go to culver, yeah, have the run express on it. the is supposed to have minimal stops. Most likely, you'd have the terminate nights at Houston St.

 

 

The running express would create an imbalance in local & express service.