Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
CenSin

Second Avenue Subway Discussion

Recommended Posts

This was probably mentioned but I strongly feel the SAS should extend to the Hub at E 149th St and 3rd Ave with a stop at E 138th St before swinging west through Harlem.

The DOT could make 125th St a busway or run the lanes down the center greatly improving bus service. It's a short stretch.

Buses coming over from the Bronx have to deal with the bridges and limited approaches.

The existing subways coming from the Bronx are very crowded.

It's also more likely people would transfer to the SAS further upstream.

And the redevelopment potential in Mott Haven/Melrose is greater than it is in Central Harlem, with more robust zoning and potential for upzoning.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Phase 2 sounds like a go... :blink:

 

Did one of yall hack into his twitter account. There are plenty of better things that you could say if you hacked it.

  • LMAO! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 9:18 AM, Around the Horn said:

Phase 2 sounds like a go... :blink:

 

 

On 8/24/2019 at 10:23 AM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If he can help get it done faster and more efficiently, then that’s a good thing.

Is it "infrastructure week" again? We've heard this song and dance before. See: Gateway

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

Is it "infrastructure week" again? We've heard this song and dance before. See: Gateway

You have to be one dumb person to believe anything that the Idiot-in-chief says about anything,  period.  Does anyone inhale the crap he spews?  He's going to help Prince Andrew like I'm going to have a threesome with Alicia Keys and Rihanna tonight. I know kittens and puppies that have higher IQs than the clown in DC. He's still trying to con the public.  Carry on. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5
  • LMAO! 8
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/24/2019 at 12:18 PM, Around the Horn said:

Phase 2 sounds like a go... :blink:

 

Either the Master Troll’s at it again, or he failed to remember when April Fools’ Day is. I’ll take the former. 

On 8/25/2019 at 6:59 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

You have to be one dumb person to believe anything that the Idiot-in-chief says about anything,  period.  Does anyone inhale the crap he spews?  He's going to help Prince Andrew like I'm going to have a threesome with Alicia Keys and Rihanna tonight. I know kittens and puppies that have higher IQs than the clown in DC. He's still trying to con the public.  Carry on. 

Sadly, I think some people do inhale his crap. The Master Troll is just at it again. Even if he and Transportation Sec. Elaine Chao (who seems to have put New York in her rear view mirror long ago) really did have Federal funding available for an extension to East 125, I’m sure there would be some kind of catch involved.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they should restore the V train but to 96 street second avenue and the M train can go back to its old previous service back to bay parkway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vioreen said:

Maybe they should restore the V train but to 96 street second avenue and the M train can go back to its old previous service back to bay parkway

Why do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phase 2,and to a much lesser extent, Phase 1, as we can all agree, are gimped versions of the potential core capacity that could've been gained with a 4-track trunk line, with the excuse given that "stop spacing is further, therefore faster." The curve towards 125 limits potential Bronx capacity and potential ridership siphoned off of all the Bronx IRT lines with the exception of the (1).

The forced reverse branching limits lower 2nd Avenue, if it's ever built, to 15 TPH on the (T). ANy additional capacity would require the completion of the Queens Boulevard Bypass, another project which would require quite a bit of construction, time, and cost. This also limits potential Brooklyn capacity to 15TPH for Fulton Street, and precludes the creation of new Brooklyn and Queens trunks (Northern Boulevard, Horace Harding Expressway, Union Turnpike) because they would also be very limited in throughput. This also doesn't account for the increased travel time of what's essentially a Lexington Avenue relief line with no alternatives in case of something going wrong (as is traditon on the subway). Maybe if someone wrote a well-thought-out editorial with such concerns, it would become a common refrain somewhere...

All they had to do was not blow it on planning for the future in order to save money, and guess what they did.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jcb said:

Phase 2,and to a much lesser extent, Phase 1, as we can all agree, are gimped versions of the potential core capacity that could've been gained with a 4-track trunk line, with the excuse given that "stop spacing is further, therefore faster." The curve towards 125 limits potential Bronx capacity and potential ridership siphoned off of all the Bronx IRT lines with the exception of the (1).

The forced reverse branching limits lower 2nd Avenue, if it's ever built, to 15 TPH on the (T). ANy additional capacity would require the completion of the Queens Boulevard Bypass, another project which would require quite a bit of construction, time, and cost. This also limits potential Brooklyn capacity to 15TPH for Fulton Street, and precludes the creation of new Brooklyn and Queens trunks (Northern Boulevard, Horace Harding Expressway, Union Turnpike) because they would also be very limited in throughput. This also doesn't account for the increased travel time of what's essentially a Lexington Avenue relief line with no alternatives in case of something going wrong (as is traditon on the subway). Maybe if someone wrote a well-thought-out editorial with such concerns, it would become a common refrain somewhere...

All they had to do was not blow it on planning for the future in order to save money, and guess what they did.

There’s a whole blog from Vanshnookenraggen about that:

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2017/05/the-future-of-the-2nd-avenue-subway/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 9:59 PM, Jcb said:

Phase 2,and to a much lesser extent, Phase 1, as we can all agree, are gimped versions of the potential core capacity that could've been gained with a 4-track trunk line, with the excuse given that "stop spacing is further, therefore faster." The curve towards 125 limits potential Bronx capacity and potential ridership siphoned off of all the Bronx IRT lines with the exception of the (1).

The problem with express tracks is

  • the cost; boring 4 tracks is a lot more expensive than doing it cut and cover
  • the utility; an express would be useless pretty much until Phase I-IV was built out and extensions even farther, and possibly an even longer timeframe; it took a few decades for Sixth Avenue's express tracks to be put into service.

At this point, I only think Lower Second Avenue is useful as part of a new two-track line eventually heading down Northern, or the Queens Boulevard Bypass, separate from 63 St.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 4:58 PM, bobtehpanda said:

The problem with express tracks is

  • the cost; boring 4 tracks is a lot more expensive than doing it cut and cover
  • the utility; an express would be useless pretty much until Phase I-IV was built out and extensions even farther, and possibly an even longer timeframe; it took a few decades for Sixth Avenue's express tracks to be put into service.

At this point, I only think Lower Second Avenue is useful as part of a new two-track line eventually heading down Northern, or the Queens Boulevard Bypass, separate from 63 St.

You make good points, although the use of deep bore construction to minimize surface disruption is emblematic of the problem with SAS, I think. They decided to avoid dealing with the community as much as possible in order to slap down something that fits today's needs, with no real eye to the future. It didn't have to be some overbuilt mess like the Second System provisions, but I would think I should expect forward thinking out of a new trunk line. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A temporary White background with black description with the (M) line has been added on Second Av subway stations on the (Q) . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2019 at 10:44 AM, Calvin said:

A temporary White background with black description with the (M) line has been added on Second Av subway stations on the (Q) . 

Photos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 8:50 AM, vioreen said:

Maybe they should restore the V train but to 96 street second avenue and the M train can go back to its old previous service back to bay parkway

That got me thinking... What if the (M) were to run from Middle Village–Metropolitan Avenue to 96th Street at all times, and then the original (V) service could be restored as it was before being discontinued? That would be a fairly equitable division of routes with minimal confusion.

Edited by Porter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Porter said:

That got me thinking... What if the (M) were to run from Middle Village–Metropolitan Avenue to 96th Street at all times, and then the original (V) service could be restored as it was before being discontinued? That would be a fairly equitable division of routes with minimal confusion.

There isn't enough capacity on the 6th Avenue local tracks. (And the track layout does not allow the (M) to run via 6th Avenue express).

The theoretical limit on the local tracks is 30 tph without CBTC; the (F) runs 14, and the current (M) runs 10. So there's theoretically 6 left, which would underserve Queens Boulevard and make all three services unreliable. Not to mention, 6th Avenue local doesn't really need 30 trains per hour.

You can take a look at the track map here: https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NYC_full_trackmap_194.pdf

Edited by P3F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, P3F said:

There isn't enough capacity on the 6th Avenue local tracks. (And the track layout does not allow the (M) to run via 6th Avenue express).

I doubt that Forest Hills and Middle Village would want their services cut in half, I suppose.

Once Phase 3 of the SAS is complete, how about running a yD35xgl.png between Forest Hills and Houston Street (ultimately Hanover Square)? There's a way for it to serve 36th Street with the (R) before sharing Queensbridge and Roosevelt Island with the (F), ultimately taking a southerly turn short of Lexington–63rd and heading down Second Avenue with the (T). I'm not sure whether that would force the (M) up 96th or otherwise a restoration of the (brownM), but perhaps serving Bay Ridge with the (R) this time instead of Bay Parkway.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Porter said:

I doubt that Forest Hills and Middle Village would want their services cut in half, I suppose.

Once Phase 3 of the SAS is complete, how about running a yD35xgl.png between Forest Hills and Houston Street (ultimately Hanover Square)? There's a way for it to serve 36th Street with the (R) before sharing Queensbridge and Roosevelt Island with the (F), ultimately taking a southerly turn short of Lexington–63rd and heading down Second Avenue with the (T). I'm not sure whether that would force the (M) up 96th or otherwise a restoration of the (brownM), but perhaps serving Bay Ridge with the (R) this time instead of Bay Parkway.

I would not do that because that would make it more difficult to de-interline Broadway.  Main part of doing THAT is to have the (R) run its old (RJ) route between 95th Street-Bay Ridge and Essex with in-service yard runs to/from Broadway Junction. 

Perhaps when Phase 3 is done, they should look to have a Willy B connection to/from the SAS that could have the (J) run in place of the (T) north of 55th while the (T) becomes the second QB line OR have the (M) become an SAS line (all of which would for now be TBD).  That can include Essex rebuilt into a four-track station that would serve as a terminal for the old  (RJ) (now (R) ) that would run as noted and with all stations along Broadway-Brooklyn and Nassau lengthened to handle 600' trains.  Such a connection could perhaps be done as part of an extended Phase 3.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

I’d rather have SAS to South Brooklyn and (B)(D) to Willamsburg

SAS to South Brooklyn is part of my SAS expansion plan for my modified Nassau-8th Avenue Connection proposal. It also includes modified connections to Queens. However, here, I am conflicted on how I should go about it. One of my options is to create trunk pairings on the Brighton Line and the 4th Avenue Line (this Service would take over the West End Line). One of the advantages is that customers on both lines would have access to both the west side and east side of Manhattan. This plan is also closer to the Vanshnookenraggen proposal from 2016. The second option is to have all of the SAS trains on Brighton and all the Broadway Trains to 4th a Avenue. This alternative would deinterline DeKalb Avenue, possibly allowing for more even headways, but there could be less direct access. Given that I want to have uniform headways of 12 trains per hour on these lines, what should be my best course of action?

Share this post


Link to post
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.