Jump to content

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin

Recommended Posts

Actually, it was likely due to a perceived poor investment at the time. Remember that the current version of the line was to be built in stages, not all at once like the 1970s version was to be. Digging a large tunnel three miles further than the intended southern end of the line at the end of stage one would've been seen as a waste of money, regardless of the time savings we would've gotten from it. Then there's the maintenance of such a long and currently unusable tunnel, which I cannot imagine would've been that cheap. It would've been nice to get a head start on future construction of the line, but it would've already been about ten seven years that the tunnel would've sat idle without any plans for use. And based on the latest information on the project, it will be another decade before we even begin to discuss realistic plans for an extension of the line south of 63rd Street.

Edited by Lance
Corrected to account for 2011 completion of tunnel boring
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

IMHO, are we really sure that Phases 3 and 4 are even a good idea? Where I'm coming from is that 2nd Ave below 63rd St is *not* really part of the East Midtown CBD. 2nd and 1st Aves are pretty much pure residential all the way down Manhattan, and if we're going to spend multi-billions on subway extensions it really should be either 1) Expanding capacity into Core Midtown or 2) serving transit deserts like 3rd Ave (Bronx) or Utica Av. My fear is everyone is drawing up plans for QB 2nd Ave services that to be honest I don't think anyone is going to really want to use (I live along QB BTW). People want anything between 8th and 3rd Aves and a lower SAS is at best convenient to 3rd Ave offices which already have decent subway access. 

I know some advance the argument that the city will somehow upzone or adjust Far East Midtown to become another office district but I doubt that's going to happen. The reality is that 1) That area is really well heeled and 2) with the general anti-development mindset of many city leaders I doubt the political will is there to have 2nd Ave morph into a business zone. 

Long story short, I think we are making a very big assumption that the SAS below 63rd st will be as big of a hit as the Uptown/Bronx section, and I personally don't see it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, are we really sure that Phases 3 and 4 are even a good idea? Where I'm coming from is that 2nd Ave below 63rd St is *not* really part of the East Midtown CBD. 2nd and 1st Aves are pretty much pure residential all the way down Manhattan, and if we're going to spend multi-billions on subway extensions it really should be either 1) Expanding capacity into Core Midtown or 2) serving transit deserts like 3rd Ave (Bronx) or Utica Av. My fear is everyone is drawing up plans for QB 2nd Ave services that to be honest I don't think anyone is going to really want to use (I live along QB BTW). People want anything between 8th and 3rd Aves and a lower SAS is at best convenient to 3rd Ave offices which already have decent subway access. 

I know some advance the argument that the city will somehow upzone or adjust Far East Midtown to become another office district but I doubt that's going to happen. The reality is that 1) That area is really well heeled and 2) with the general anti-development mindset of many city leaders I doubt the political will is there to have 2nd Ave morph into a business zone. 

Long story short, I think we are making a very big assumption that the SAS below 63rd st will be as big of a hit as the Uptown/Bronx section, and I personally don't see it.  

 

East Midtown has already been upzoned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, are we really sure that Phases 3 and 4 are even a good idea? Where I'm coming from is that 2nd Ave below 63rd St is *not* really part of the East Midtown CBD. 2nd and 1st Aves are pretty much pure residential all the way down Manhattan, and if we're going to spend multi-billions on subway extensions it really should be either 1) Expanding capacity into Core Midtown or 2) serving transit deserts like 3rd Ave (Bronx) or Utica Av. My fear is everyone is drawing up plans for QB 2nd Ave services that to be honest I don't think anyone is going to really want to use (I live along QB BTW). People want anything between 8th and 3rd Aves and a lower SAS is at best convenient to 3rd Ave offices which already have decent subway access. 

I know some advance the argument that the city will somehow upzone or adjust Far East Midtown to become another office district but I doubt that's going to happen. The reality is that 1) That area is really well heeled and 2) with the general anti-development mindset of many city leaders I doubt the political will is there to have 2nd Ave morph into a business zone. 

Long story short, I think we are making a very big assumption that the SAS below 63rd st will be as big of a hit as the Uptown/Bronx section, and I personally don't see it.  

 

Parts of 1st and 2nd Avenues have always been offices, especially around the UN.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, are we really sure that Phases 3 and 4 are even a good idea? Where I'm coming from is that 2nd Ave below 63rd St is *not* really part of the East Midtown CBD. 2nd and 1st Aves are pretty much pure residential all the way down Manhattan, and if we're going to spend multi-billions on subway extensions it really should be either 1) Expanding capacity into Core Midtown or 2) serving transit deserts like 3rd Ave (Bronx) or Utica Av. My fear is everyone is drawing up plans for QB 2nd Ave services that to be honest I don't think anyone is going to really want to use (I live along QB BTW). People want anything between 8th and 3rd Aves and a lower SAS is at best convenient to 3rd Ave offices which already have decent subway access. 

I know some advance the argument that the city will somehow upzone or adjust Far East Midtown to become another office district but I doubt that's going to happen. The reality is that 1) That area is really well heeled and 2) with the general anti-development mindset of many city leaders I doubt the political will is there to have 2nd Ave morph into a business zone. 

Long story short, I think we are making a very big assumption that the SAS below 63rd st will be as big of a hit as the Uptown/Bronx section, and I personally don't see it.  

 

Even if phase 3 is mostly residential how is that any different from the UES? Even with a transfer, it's still coverage. Area likes Murry Hill, The East Village, and the LES are seeing a fair amount of growth. A Phase 3 would probably spur more development and offer more options.  East Midtown would see some spill over. I'm not going to walk over a few hundred feet to Second Ave for service? Besides blocks are shorter on the eastside. New York is a hot frying at this point for transport In Manhattan more so. Any inch of new line will evaporate and spur development to make use at very worst case. There's so many unreachable points on the east side you won't have to reach to far.

Edited by RailRunRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2018 at 9:37 AM, Lance said:

Actually, it was likely due to a perceived poor investment at the time. Remember that the current version of the line was to be built in stages, not all at once like the 1970s version was to be. Digging a large tunnel three miles further than the intended southern end of the line at the end of stage one would've been seen as a waste of money, regardless of the time savings we would've gotten from it. Then there's the maintenance of such a long and currently unusable tunnel, which I cannot imagine would've been that cheap. It would've been nice to get a head start on future construction of the line, but it would've already been about ten seven years that the tunnel would've sat idle without any plans for use. And based on the latest information on the project, it will be another decade before we even begin to discuss realistic plans for an extension of the line south of 63rd Street.

I thought about this post while remodeling my man cave. I had provisioned extra raceways for cables under the floor to parts of my room that have no hardware to connect to at the moment, and the extra provisioning was costly. There may not be any hardware until 2020 or 2021. Or I may move to another city. But the thing is, my investment is reusable. Should I move, I can pack up the interlocking carpet tiles, the rubber tiles, and the cable raceways and install it into my new home without losing any of my investment. They will serve their original purpose no matter the outcome.

The MTA has an absolute right to withhold money from things that it does not think will be useful in the foreseeable future. With the track record of SAS being the way it is, phase 3 and beyond are best left untouched. Nobody has a timeline for finishing the job. And money that is available should be allocated to things that can demonstrate utility. We all know how that Chinatown segment of SAS will not be used in the current plans. Or maybe they may. But as far as a mind-eye can see, it may be a multi-million dollar storage cave forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

The MTA has an absolute right to withhold money from things that it does not think will be useful in the foreseeable future.

IMO here lies the problem. The MTA doesn't seem to have any proper planning arm as it did under City control. Pre-MTA Subway plans were in lockstep with Civic/regional planners.  Think were giving to much credit by even thinking the MTA/MTACC even knows what's useful moving forward to even withhold.  The MTA currently is a maintain and short game organization not in the game of prediction or building the future one bit. The 1970's SAS was an idea born and put in place in a different era and executed under a totally different regime and mindset plus the added external factors.  A casualty of a transitional time.

Edited by RailRunRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

IMO here lies the problem. The MTA doesn't seem to have any proper planning arm as it did under City control. Pre-MTA Subway plans were in lockstep with Civic/regional planners.  Think were giving to much credit by even thinking the MTA/MTACC even knows what's useful moving forward to even withhold. 

BINGO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2018 at 4:59 PM, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, are we really sure that Phases 3 and 4 are even a good idea? Where I'm coming from is that 2nd Ave below 63rd St is *not* really part of the East Midtown CBD. 2nd and 1st Aves are pretty much pure residential all the way down Manhattan, and if we're going to spend multi-billions on subway extensions it really should be either 1) Expanding capacity into Core Midtown or 2) serving transit deserts like 3rd Ave (Bronx) or Utica Av. My fear is everyone is drawing up plans for QB 2nd Ave services that to be honest I don't think anyone is going to really want to use (I live along QB BTW). People want anything between 8th and 3rd Aves and a lower SAS is at best convenient to 3rd Ave offices which already have decent subway access. 

I know some advance the argument that the city will somehow upzone or adjust Far East Midtown to become another office district but I doubt that's going to happen. The reality is that 1) That area is really well heeled and 2) with the general anti-development mindset of many city leaders I doubt the political will is there to have 2nd Ave morph into a business zone. 

Long story short, I think we are making a very big assumption that the SAS below 63rd st will be as big of a hit as the Uptown/Bronx section, and I personally don't see it.  

 

East Side Access is about to fire hose the Lex with downtown bound passengers. At the very least Phase III will be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/8/2018 at 7:59 PM, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, are we really sure that Phases 3 and 4 are even a good idea? Where I'm coming from is that 2nd Ave below 63rd St is *not* really part of the East Midtown CBD. 2nd and 1st Aves are pretty much pure residential all the way down Manhattan, and if we're going to spend multi-billions on subway extensions it really should be either 1) Expanding capacity into Core Midtown or 2) serving transit deserts like 3rd Ave (Bronx) or Utica Av. My fear is everyone is drawing up plans for QB 2nd Ave services that to be honest I don't think anyone is going to really want to use (I live along QB BTW). People want anything between 8th and 3rd Aves and a lower SAS is at best convenient to 3rd Ave offices which already have decent subway access. 

I know some advance the argument that the city will somehow upzone or adjust Far East Midtown to become another office district but I doubt that's going to happen. The reality is that 1) That area is really well heeled and 2) with the general anti-development mindset of many city leaders I doubt the political will is there to have 2nd Ave morph into a business zone. 

Long story short, I think we are making a very big assumption that the SAS below 63rd st will be as big of a hit as the Uptown/Bronx section, and I personally don't see it.  

 

Having phases 3 and 4 be served by just the (T) train would not be a good idea, because without a Queens-2nd Avenue service, the SAS would be stuck running well below capacity. Transfers to the (7) and (E)(M) via long corridors and lack of transfers to the (N)(R)(W) in Midtown and the (A)(C)(J)(Z)(2)(3)(4)(5), while either crossing over or under most of them or being just out of reach, will also not do the SAS any favors. But the actual building of phases 3 and 4 is a good idea. They just need to run as much, or nearly as much, service as the combined (Q)(T) on the northern part of the line. And the line needs to go into the other boroughs.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Having phases 3 and 4 be served by just the (T) train would not be a good idea, because without a Queens-2nd Avenue service, the SAS would be stuck running well below capacity. Transfers to the (7) and (E)(M) via long corridors and lack of transfers to the (N)(R)(W) in Midtown and the (A)(C)(J)(Z)(2)(3)(4)(5), while either crossing over or under most of them or being just out of reach, will also not do the SAS any favors. But the actual building of phases 3 and 4 is a good idea. They just need to run as much, or nearly as much, service as the combined (Q)(T) on the northern part of the line. And the line needs to go into the other boroughs.

What really would be needed would be for the (T) (and possibly a Queens SAS) to go through a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would it emerge at what presently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) and from there become the Fulton Street local to Euclid Avenue, allowing the (A) and (C) to both run as express services at all times along Fulton (with the (C) going to Lefferts at all time, except late nights when the (T) can be extended for that). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

What really would be needed would be for the (T) (and possibly a Queens SAS) to go through a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would it emerge at what presently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) and from there become the Fulton Street local to Euclid Avenue, allowing the (A) and (C) to both run as express services at all times along Fulton (with the (C) going to Lefferts at all time, except late nights when the (T) can be extended for that). 

Well, that’s something that we could consider in the future. But if we really were to focus on building such a tunnel, then the best candidate would be to extend the (R) from Whitehall Street. This alternative would be done much more Quickly rather than waiting for Phase 4 to finish. 

 

On a side note, I got to visit the community center in Harlem today for SAS Phase 2. It was quite fun. I got to play with the simulator that they had over there and, learned something new I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well, that’s something that we could consider in the future. But if we really were to focus on building such a tunnel, then the best candidate would be to extend the (R) from Whitehall Street. This alternative would be done much more Quickly rather than waiting for Phase 4 to finish. 

 

On a side note, I got to visit the community center in Harlem today for SAS Phase 2. It was quite fun. I got to play with the simulator that they had over there and, learned something new I guess.

Actually, that might be an incentive to start Stage 4 with a connection to the Fulton line first (with Chatham Square or Houston serving as a temporary/short turn terminal) and make that Stage 3 followed by what would become Stage 4, going from Chatham Square or Houston to 63rd.  That would fix a lot of problems on the Fulton line (possibly with the (E) and (C) even swapping lines with the (E) becoming a full-time (except late night) 8th Avenue/Fulton express to Lefferts Boulevard (local late nights)) that would potentially allow for some serious de-interlining of the 8th Avenue and Fulton Street lines with the SAS taking up local duties on Fulton.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Actually, that might be an incentive to start Stage 4 with a connection to the Fulton line first (with Chatham Square or Houston serving as a temporary/short turn terminal) and make that Stage 3 followed by what would become Stage 4, going from Chatham Square or Houston to 63rd.  That would fix a lot of problems on the Fulton line (possibly with the (E) and (C) even swapping lines with the (E) becoming a full-time (except late night) 8th Avenue/Fulton express to Lefferts Boulevard (local late nights)) that would potentially allow for some serious de-interlining of the 8th Avenue and Fulton Street lines with the SAS taking up local duties on Fulton.  

Phases 3 and 4 are poorly designed. Build them in a way that remotely resembles the current plan, and you're ensuring reverse branching to eternity.

I'm on the fence as to 2nd vs 3rd (yes, job density decreases as you head eastwards, but if you build closer to the current core you're duplicating already-served areas, so you'll be garnering less ridership/creating less of a time saving per dollar spent), but one thing I'm certain of is the fact we don't leverage what we have enough. Fixing said disconnect, and making investments that facilitate that, should be priority 1 now -- which is why I'm such a fan of things like (R) to Euclid. That idea, while certainly not the smallest investment that falls into that category, connects a Brooklyn corridor with a need for true local service to a Manhattan entry route currently hindered in its potential by the fact that its express partner on either end is a) the same and b) 12 mins faster across the river than it. Truly, a match made in heaven. 

If Phases 3/4 are ever actually built, I again am an advocate for a variation on Vanshnook's plan: SAS to Manhattan bridge north, (B)(D) to Jamaica, Nassau to 4th Ave, (R) to Euclid. That creates the most diversity in connections, and gives each Brooklyn line cluster a good spread of Manhattan options. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Phases 3 and 4 are poorly designed. Build them in a way that remotely resembles the current plan, and you're ensuring reverse branching to eternity.

I'm on the fence as to 2nd vs 3rd (yes, job density decreases as you head eastwards, but if you build closer to the current core you're duplicating already-served areas, so you'll be garnering less ridership/creating less of a time saving per dollar spent), but one thing I'm certain of is the fact we don't leverage what we have enough. Fixing said disconnect, and making investments that facilitate that, should be priority 1 now -- which is why I'm such a fan of things like (R) to Euclid. That idea, while certainly not the smallest investment that falls into that category, connects a Brooklyn corridor with a need for true local service to a Manhattan entry route currently hindered in its potential by the fact that its express partner on either end is a) the same and b) 12 mins faster across the river than it. Truly, a match made in heaven. 

If Phases 3/4 are ever actually built, I again am an advocate for a variation on Vanshnook's plan: SAS to Manhattan bridge north, (B)(D) to Jamaica, Nassau to 4th Ave, (R) to Euclid. That creates the most diversity in connections, and gives each Brooklyn line cluster a good spread of Manhattan options. 

Perhaps the (R) to Euclid could be done in conjunction with connecting the SAS to Nassau and have the (T) replace the (R) to 95th-Bay Ridge (while the (J)(Z) is cut back to Chambers).  This would involve re-opening the abandoned platforms at Bowery and Canal (since the  (J)(Z) would use the "express" tracks and (T) the "local" tracks there and at Chambers) and doing long-needed work that would make those stations 600 feet for 10-car trains (and most of those stations would actually only need to be lengthened by 65 feet or so since they used to handle eight-car Standard trains that were 67 feet per car. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Perhaps the (R) to Euclid could be done in conjunction with connecting the SAS to Nassau and have the (T) replace the (R) to 95th-Bay Ridge (while the (J)(Z) is cut back to Chambers).  This would involve re-opening the abandoned platforms at Bowery and Canal (since the  (J)(Z) would use the "express" tracks and (T) the "local" tracks there and at Chambers) and doing long-needed work that would make those stations 600 feet for 10-car trains (and most of those stations would actually only need to be lengthened by 65 feet or so since they used to handle eight-car Standard trains that were 67 feet per car. 

Yes, because what we really want on the southern end of our newest trunk is a flat junction across 10 mile per hour switches...

Now, it should be noted that there are ways to make SAS-Nassau work operationally (tunnel/SAS to the current ‘uptown’ tracks; (J) terminates on current ‘downtown’) but I’m still not so much of a fan. Yes, it gets you Lower Manhattan (politically necessary, amiright Wally?) but I doubt it’d do too much to change travel patterns in Brooklyn. The Manhattan Bridge is *fast*; I’d imagine a good chunk of BMT south would use the (B)(D) as a bridge to Grand for SAS. This, and the fact that SAS-MannyB allows you to send Midtown trains to the Jamaica/Myrtle lines, is why I’m such a fan of that config. It’s “so much winning,” as our president would say... 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RR503 said:

Phases 3 and 4 are poorly designed. Build them in a way that remotely resembles the current plan, and you're ensuring reverse branching to eternity.

I'm on the fence as to 2nd vs 3rd (yes, job density decreases as you head eastwards, but if you build closer to the current core you're duplicating already-served areas, so you'll be garnering less ridership/creating less of a time saving per dollar spent), but one thing I'm certain of is the fact we don't leverage what we have enough. Fixing said disconnect, and making investments that facilitate that, should be priority 1 now -- which is why I'm such a fan of things like (R) to Euclid. That idea, while certainly not the smallest investment that falls into that category, connects a Brooklyn corridor with a need for true local service to a Manhattan entry route currently hindered in its potential by the fact that its express partner on either end is a) the same and b) 12 mins faster across the river than it. Truly, a match made in heaven. 

If Phases 3/4 are ever actually built, I again am an advocate for a variation on Vanshnook's plan: SAS to Manhattan bridge north, (B)(D) to Jamaica, Nassau to 4th Ave, (R) to Euclid. That creates the most diversity in connections, and gives each Brooklyn line cluster a good spread of Manhattan options. 

 

11 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yes, because what we really want on the southern end of our newest trunk is a flat junction across 10 mile per hour switches...

Now, it should be noted that there are ways to make SAS-Nassau work operationally (tunnel/SAS to the current ‘uptown’ tracks; (J) terminates on current ‘downtown’) but I’m still not so much of a fan. Yes, it gets you Lower Manhattan (politically necessary, amiright Wally?) but I doubt it’d do too much to change travel patterns in Brooklyn. The Manhattan Bridge is *fast*; I’d imagine a good chunk of BMT south would use the (B)(D) as a bridge to Grand for SAS. This, and the fact that SAS-MannyB allows you to send Midtown trains to the Jamaica/Myrtle lines, is why I’m such a fan of that config. It’s “so much winning,” as our president would say... 

When you say "to Jamaica/Myrtle lines," where is that room on Jamaica supposed to come from unless we shutter services west of Marcy? The (J)(M)(Z) are a tight fit on the existing lines as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

When you say "to Jamaica/Myrtle lines," where is that room on Jamaica supposed to come from unless we shutter services west of Marcy? The (J)(M)(Z) are a tight fit on the existing lines as it is.

I don’t follow the question. The (B)(D) would replace the (J)(M)(Z) — (J) would take over 4th, (M) to 2nd Ave or Culver, and any skip stop (Z) would be absorbed into the (D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RR503 said:

I don’t follow the question. The (B)(D) would replace the (J)(M)(Z) — (J) would take over 4th, (M) to 2nd Ave or Culver, and any skip stop (Z) would be absorbed into the (D)

I'm confused about what the service pattern would look like or where such a connection would even happen. The (B)(D) is somehow hitting Grand, presumably tunneling under the East River, and then you have to make the ground to elevated transition somewhere in Brooklyn? And then during the peak we're restricting 6th Av express to 66% of a single track pair's capacity (Jamaica) and slashing service to Nassau, since (B)(D) goes to 6th and (J) goes to 4th on the same pair of tracks.

Prior to Chrystie St, the 6th Av Express ran to Culver and the local terminated at 2nd. I don't know how hard it would be to restore those track connections if they don't exist anymore, but that would be the ideal service pattern:

(J)(M)(Z) - untouched

(F) - terminates at 2nd av

(D) - Culver local

(B) - Weekdays Culver express

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'm confused about what the service pattern would look like or where such a connection would even happen. The (B)(D) is somehow hitting Grand, presumably tunneling under the East River, and then you have to make the ground to elevated transition somewhere in Brooklyn? And then during the peak we're restricting 6th Av express to 66% of a single track pair's capacity (Jamaica) and slashing service to Nassau, since (B)(D) goes to 6th and (J) goes to 4th on the same pair of tracks.

Prior to Chrystie St, the 6th Av Express ran to Culver and the local terminated at 2nd. I don't know how hard it would be to restore those track connections if they don't exist anymore, but that would be the ideal service pattern:

(J)(M)(Z) - untouched

(F) - terminates at 2nd av

(D) - Culver local

(B) - Weekdays Culver express

(B)(D) doesn’t serve Grand anymore. The BJ tracks are reconfigured to hit 6th exp instead of 6th local, and the (B)(D) use them to get to the outer tracks at Essex. On the middle track, you have (J) trains turning from 4th Avenue—which, to be absolutely clear, means it and the (B)(D) never interact. If you want more than 15tph on 4th local (remember, (R) goes to Euclid), you can reconfigure the Bowery area so you can relay extra trains on the middle tracks there, or you can spill Essex into the trolley terminal to give the (J) two terminal tracks. 

Then, SAS takes over Grand, and then runs over the Manhattan Bridge to Brooklyn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, RR503 said:

(B)(D) doesn’t serve Grand anymore. The BJ tracks are reconfigured to hit 6th exp instead of 6th local, and the (B)(D) use them to get to the outer tracks at Essex. On the middle track, you have (J) trains turning from 4th Avenue—which, to be absolutely clear, means it and the (B)(D) never interact. If you want more than 15tph on 4th local (remember, (R) goes to Euclid), you can reconfigure the Bowery area so you can relay extra trains on the middle tracks there, or you can spill Essex into the trolley terminal to give the (J) two terminal tracks. 

Then, SAS takes over Grand, and then runs over the Manhattan Bridge to Brooklyn. 

Oh, so the (J) is removed from Jamaica in this plan. That's what I wasn't too familiar with.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Prior to Chrystie St, the 6th Av Express ran to Culver and the local terminated at 2nd. I don't know how hard it would be to restore those track connections if they don't exist anymore, but that would be the ideal service pattern:

(J)(M)(Z) - untouched

(F) - terminates at 2nd av

(D) - Culver local

(B) - Weekdays Culver express

This idea doesn’t sound that bad at all. In fact, I really like this. Theoretically (in an alternate reality) the (F) would be more Reliable for sure. The (B) and (D) would be better utilized along Culver. The (J)(M)(Z) wouldn’t be that different, and I assume that the (T) along with a secondary SAS route take over the Manhattan Bridge. I don’t know if this would still be possible today because you’d have to create a flying junction between Broadway-Lafayette and 2nd Avenue, while having to Alter the  Chrystie Street connection to allow for SAS.  That’s worth considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.