Jump to content

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Well yes, if you keep the (R) on QBL and run the (M) up 2nd Ave, then that would make it difficult to deinterline Broadway. But you don’t have to. Better to have the V replace the (R) on the Queens Blvd local. Then either reroute the (R) to Astoria in place of the (N)(W) (at a comparable frequency), or run the the (R) via Nassau like you suggested and run the (W) as the sole Astoria service (again, on a frequency comparable to the current (N)(W)). However, with a deinterlined Broadway plus an operational SAS Phase 3, fitting the (N), (Q) and (T) on only two tracks above 63rd might be a tight squeeze. It’s likely that the (N) and (Q) would have to run in Manhattan as if they were one service, which would limit the amount of rush hour service each of them can provide in Brooklyn.

It’s true that the (T) coming in, will complicate things with deinterlining. But it’s not totally unsolvable. And it would be a crime to spend tens of billions of dollars on SAS Phases 3 and 4, only to be forced into running that part of the line at half-capacity.

A lot  of this can be worked on over time. 

The main thing for now is to as much as possible de-interline Broadway, which is why I'd be looking to most likely have the (R) on Nassau, the (Q) replace the (R) as the Broadway Local (and most likely running to Astoria), with the (W) replacing the (R) on QBL to keep Broadway service on that line, but with a much shorter route.  It's not perfect, but with the (N) to 96th instead of the (Q) and the (Q) the main Broadway Local (supplemented by the (W) as noted), that would minimize issues there.  

As for when the (T) comes along, then we can look at additional options, but I do like the idea of connecting the SAS to the Willy B as that would make Houston before Phase 4 much more useful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
15 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

A lot  of this can be worked on over time. 

The main thing for now is to as much as possible de-interline Broadway, which is why I'd be looking to most likely have the (R) on Nassau, the (Q) replace the (R) as the Broadway Local (and most likely running to Astoria), with the (W) replacing the (R) on QBL to keep Broadway service on that line, but with a much shorter route.  It's not perfect, but with the (N) to 96th instead of the (Q) and the (Q) the main Broadway Local (supplemented by the (W) as noted), that would minimize issues there.  

As for when the (T) comes along, then we can look at additional options, but I do like the idea of connecting the SAS to the Willy B as that would make Houston before Phase 4 much more useful. 

I was responding to @Porter’s post about post-Phase 2 service. Of course, a lot of this can be worked on over time. 

Many of us would like to see the subway system be untangled so that it can run more trains per hour. However it has been said that the introduction of the (T) into the mix, could totally mess it up, due to the (MTA)’s poor design of the SAS as a whole. Even if it’s only three or four of the proposed stops in Phase 3 that get built, it’s not such a bad thing to speculate how a (T) (and possibly also a V service via Queens and SAS) would interact with the existing services.

As for your plan to deinterline Broadway, the (Q) part is a non-starter. As has been previously explained, it will create a new merge at DeKalb and it will result in Brighton riders crowding the (B) for Midtown service. There is really no reason to run the (Q) this way. Not when you can simply run both the (N) and (Q) via 2nd Avenue, the (R) from Bay Ridge to Astoria and the (W) from Whitehall to Forest Hills (or possibly Howard Beach/Rockaway Park if RBB actually gets rebuilt).

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

29 minutes ago, Porter said:

@T to Dyre Avenue

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. What would the (R) route be in that scenario where the yD35xgl.png serves Forest Hills instead?

The (R) can serve Astoria and the (M) can remain on QBL. I’ve previously suggested doing this as part of deinterlining Broadway. It can still be done even after the (T) and V services are introduced. 

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

  • 2 months later...
On 10/25/2019 at 6:05 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I was responding to @Porter’s post about post-Phase 2 service. Of course, a lot of this can be worked on over time. 

Many of us would like to see the subway system be untangled so that it can run more trains per hour. However it has been said that the introduction of the (T) into the mix, could totally mess it up, due to the (MTA)’s poor design of the SAS as a whole. Even if it’s only three or four of the proposed stops in Phase 3 that get built, it’s not such a bad thing to speculate how a (T) (and possibly also a V service via Queens and SAS) would interact with the existing services.

As for your plan to deinterline Broadway, the (Q) part is a non-starter. As has been previously explained, it will create a new merge at DeKalb and it will result in Brighton riders crowding the (B) for Midtown service. There is really no reason to run the (Q) this way. Not when you can simply run both the (N) and (Q) via 2nd Avenue, the (R) from Bay Ridge to Astoria and the (W) from Whitehall to Forest Hills (or possibly Howard Beach/Rockaway Park if RBB actually gets rebuilt).

The only way I can see a (T) being introduced and not further intermingling would be to force all 2nd Ave trains to stay on 2nd Ave and not push trains onto Broadway BMT.  Of course, for this to be successful, the (T) must have easy connections to all the Lexington stations of the crosstown lines (63, 60, 53, 42).  Something like this might also remedy the transferring ability between 63/Lex and 60/Lex.

A very quick primer on deinterlining is that every northern portal (CPW exp, CPW loc, 2 Ave, 63 tunnel, 60 tunnel, 53 tunnel) should be connected to one trunk line each (8 Ave exp/loc, 6 Ave exp/loc, Broadway exp/loc) and then connected to a southern portal (M Br N, M Br S, Rutgers, Cranberry, Montague).  Currently, there are 6 northern portals, 6 trunk lines, and 5 southern portals.  The sixth southern portal is the WTC terminal, which has limited capacity.  (Williamsbug Bridge is not considered a portal for my discussion since the 6th Ave locals can serve both RUtgers or the W Bridge, so one trunk line serving two crossings - so I count this as one portal serving both Rutgers and Williamsburg not two.)

The introduction of a 2nd Ave line thru Midtown provides a seventh trunk line, but we still have six northern portals, and five southern portals (but connections can be made to better connect to the Williamsburg bridge).  Regardless, the introduction of 2nd Ave will create a superfluous trunk line.

The current system could be deinterlined in the following way, not perfect but possible:

CPW exp - 8 Ave exp - Cranberry

CPW loc - 6 Ave exp - M Br N

Upper 2 Ave - Bwy exp - M Br S

63 tunnel - 6 Ave loc - Rutgers/Willy Bridge

60 tunnel - Bwy loc - Montague tunnel

53 tunnel - 8 Ave loc - WTC 

Now if we introduce 2 Ave, we can rearrange this a little bit, but it would still leave one of the existing trunks as largely superfluous:

CPW exp - 8 Ave exp - Cranberry

CPW loc - 6 Ave exp - M Br N

Upper 2 Ave - 2 AVE - MONTAGUE TUNNEL???

63 tunnel - BWY EXP - M BR S

60 tunnel - Bwy loc - Montague tunnel

53 tunnel - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Rutgers/Williamsburg

57/6 Av - 6 Ave loc - W4 switch - WTC

By tying in the 2nd Ave as one line and having the Bwy expresses connect to 63rd street tunnel to Queens, we can maintain some semblance of deinterlining.  (The sole exception is at the Montague tunnel.  I envision 2nd Ave servicing Grand Street and then tunneling to take over the Nassua line somewhere between Canal and Chambers, so that it also feeds Montague.  Bwy locals and 2 Ave  trains will both feed into the tunnel, but half of each line will terminate in manhattan at Whitehall or Broad.  JZ trains will terminate at Canal.)  By making use of the W4 swich, 8 Ave locals can now outlet to Rutgers or Williamsburg.  What this all means is that the 6 Ave locals are largely superfluous as they no longer connect to a northern poral or a southern portal, and they no longer need to.  They are now a midtown-downtown train and could simply be deleted from service.  If this 6 Ave Manhattan train is deleted from service, new switches should be put in place so that 8 Ave express can service the Spring St station and the single CPW local-6 Ave -Man Br line can service 14th and 23 rd. 

Another improvement is a direct connection from Broadway local to Williamsburg Bridge.  Under the above plan, we will now have a perfect match of 6 northern portals, 6 southern portals, and 6 trunk lines:

CPW exp - 8 Ave exp - Cranberry

CPW loc - 6 Ave line  - M Br N

Upper 2 Ave - 2 Ave - Montague tunnel

63 tunnel - Bwy exp - M Br S

60 tunnel - Bwy loc - Willy Br

53 tunnel - 8 Ave loc - Rutgers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carrying the above one step further, you can now see how all the lines do connect:

Conc exp/Inwood exp - CPW exp - 8 Ave exp - Cranberry - Fulton lines (loc to Euclid, exp to Lefferts, exp to Far Rockaway) [A,C,H] BLUE

Conc loc/W Hts - CPW loc - 6 Ave line  - Grand St station - M Br N - Brighton exp/loc [B,D] ORANGE

Dyre Ave Bx/ 125th Street line - Upper 2 Ave - 2 Ave - Grand St station - Nassau line - Montague tunnel - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge [T,V] LIGHT BLUE* (some trains terminate at Broad)

179 loc/179 exp/ J Ctr - QB exp - 63 tunnel - Bwy exp - M Br S - 4 Ave exp - West End/Sea Beach [N,Q,R] YELLOW

Astoria - 60 tunnel - Bwy loc - Willy Br- Myrtle/Jamaica [J,M,Z] YELLOW

Forest Hills - QB local - 53 tunnel - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Rutgers - Culver [E,F] BLUE

* Alternatively, T and V can take on the brown color, as Willy Br trains are now yellow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

@mrsman

Interesting plan you got there. By any chance, could you map this out? I’m confused as to how you’d connect Williamsburg/Jamaica with the Broadway Local Tracks. Wouldn’t this leave a lot of abandoned infrastructure in Downtown Manhattan?

I haven't mapped this out completely - not too good with graphic skills.  But I think the best routing would be along White or Franklin Street, a connection from Broadway to Centre.  It will be a small u-turn.  Doing this would allow for the trains to reach Canal Street and all of the transfer opportunities there to Bwy exp and (6) .  Of course, no need for the trains to stop at the same station twice, so I would probably abandon the platrforms along Centre Street.

You are correct about the problem of abandoning a lot of the Broadway BMT between Canal and Whitehall, so either we leave a few TPH to go down there, or perhaps not connect Bwy locals to Willy Br.  IT would be nice to have a direct connection for J/Z trains to Midtown, but I guess those people will have to either transfer to the M or make some other transfer.

 

In that case, go back to the previous proposal:

CPW exp - 8 Ave exp - Cranberry

CPW loc - 6 Ave line - M Br N

Upper 2 Ave - 2 AVE - Montague Tunnel*

63 tunnel - BWY EXP - M BR S

60 tunnel - Bwy loc - Montague tunnel*

53 tunnel - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Rutgers/Williamsburg

Consttuct switches so 8 Ave express can reach Spring, and 6 Ave "express" can reach 14th and 23rd.

*Montague tunnel will be reverse branched, 1/2 of the 2nd Ave trains and 1/2 of the Broadway locals will terminate at Broad or Whitehall and the rest will merge into the tunnel to service Brooklyn.  Fewer Rutgers trains,so no CUlver express.  M train will migrate from 8 Ave local to bridge to Myrtle.  J/Z will still service Nassau Street line, but ternimate at Canal or Chambers, and not go all the way to Broad, as the SAS wil merge in and take up all the capacity of the line between Chambers and Broad.  I believe that if the SAS merges into the line north of Chambers, tracks will still allow for J/Z service to terminate at Chambers and not interfere with SAS.  In that case, J/Z will still have connections to 4-5-6 and SAS at Chambers, connections to 6, Bwy locals, and Bwy expresses at Canal, and all of the 8 Ave locals at Essex.  That seems quite reasonable to me.

 

In my view, SAS should be constructed to connect to grand st for the transfer to Manhattan Bridge, and then hit Chambers and Fulton, with all of the connections there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A follow up qn to the above is what to do about the 6 Ave local?  I don't believe there is a need for the train, as the only service left is a local train from 57/6 to WTC.   The 6 Ave express can utilize the local track to service 23 and 14.  The local platforms at 34, 42, 47, and 57 should IMO be used for a PATH extension.   Ideally, pATH should be a free transfer into the system, but I would not recommend a track tie in.  But the existing track and tunnels there can be used to bring more NJ folks into the heart of Midtown, especially as it will no longer be needed for NYC subway trains as the 6 Ave local is superfluous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2020 at 12:45 PM, mrsman said:

Carrying the above one step further, you can now see how all the lines do connect:

Conc exp/Inwood exp - CPW exp - 8 Ave exp - Cranberry - Fulton lines (loc to Euclid, exp to Lefferts, exp to Far Rockaway) [A,C,H] BLUE

Conc loc/W Hts - CPW loc - 6 Ave line  - Grand St station - M Br N - Brighton exp/loc [B,D] ORANGE

Dyre Ave Bx/ 125th Street line - Upper 2 Ave - 2 Ave - Grand St station - Nassau line - Montague tunnel - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge [T,V] LIGHT BLUE* (some trains terminate at Broad)

179 loc/179 exp/ J Ctr - QB exp - 63 tunnel - Bwy exp - M Br S - 4 Ave exp - West End/Sea Beach [N,Q,R] YELLOW

Astoria - 60 tunnel - Bwy loc - Willy Br- Myrtle/Jamaica [J,M,Z] YELLOW

Forest Hills - QB local - 53 tunnel - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Rutgers - Culver [E,F] BLUE

* Alternatively, T and V can take on the brown color, as Willy Br trains are now yellow.

It took a while, but now I can (sort of) see it. But I feel like some parts of this plan have too much service, namely QB with E, F, N, Q and R and Astoria with J, M and Z. And then you’d have the J, M, N, Q, R and Z all on Broadway? None of the services will be able to run very frequently and it’s very likely going to confuse the bejesus out of the occasional subway rider who uses the Broadway Line. On 6th Avenue, you’d have to keep the B, D and PATH services completely separate from 34 to Rockefeller, (i.e., sever the switches between express and local tracks) given that PATH uses much smaller trains than the lettered subway lines do. The connection from 57th and 6th to the 63rd St Tunnel would have to be severed as well.

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

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It took a while, but now I can (sort of) see it. But I feel like some parts of this plan have too much service, namely QB with E, F, N, Q and R and Astoria with J, M and Z. And then you’d have the J, M, N, Q, R and Z all on Broadway? None of the services will be able to run very frequently and it’s very likely going to confuse the bejesus out of the occasional subway rider who uses the Broadway Line. On 6th Avenue, you’d have to keep the B, D and PATH services completely separate from 34 to Rockefeller, (i.e., sever the switches between express and local tracks) given that PATH uses much smaller trains than the lettered subway lines do. The connection from 57th and 6th to the 63rd St Tunnel would have to be severed as well.

My first comment is that it is important to keep in mind that lines is not the same as number of trains.  If a service branches out to three terminals, it should have three letters.  If a service branches out to two terminals, it should have two letters.  But don't assume tha each line has the same number of trains.

Ideally, each full service can carry 30 TPH.  If the service (i.e. 6th Ave) divides into two lines (((B) , (D)  ) each line carries 15 TPH.  If the service (i.e. Cranberry Tunnel) divides into three lines ( (A)(C)(H) ) each line carries 10 TPH.  And I don't believe it would be confusing - it's actually less confusing to have each separate terminal represented by a different line designation.

In today's system, I cannot fathom why it's a good idea to have (A)  trains go to both Lefferts and Far Rockaway.  It's one thing to have an occasional short-line train, like (R) that terminates at Whitehall instead of going to Bay Ridge.  But (A) to Lefferts is a different terminal, and it's especially confusing to tourists who are headed to JFK.  Simply re-desingating the (A) to Lefferts as (H) does not mean that we are increasing the number of trains, we are just changing the designation.

Thank you for your comments and sorry for taking this a little off topic.  I just wanted to demonstrate that if you connect SAS as one train, you can have a deinterlined SAS with a deinterlined subway system.  The basic thing is that in order for that to work, 2nd Ave trains have to go straight down and no longer connect to Broadway express - but a transfer should be put in place to the extent possible.  There are so many connections possible out of Broadway that it is a good train to connect to

And I agree with earlier commenters that it may be a good idea to shift trains in some way south of 72nd to 3rd Ave.   The key is that SAS must provide good connections to the crosstown subways at (63rd, 60th, 53rd, and 42nd) which will provide connection to (4)(5)(6)(7)  and also connects to Broadway trains, 8th Ave trains, and possibly depending upon the realignment 6th Ave trains (my system doesn't route 6th Ave on either 63rd or 53rd but it's possible to do so, if desired.)  For SAS to be successful it has to  have good transfer connections.  If it ran on 3rd from 66th to 34th, it will be very close to the existing Lex stations on the crosstown subways and promote easy connections.  If it stayed on 2nd, transfers are possible, but it will have a necessarily longer walk.  This is also the reason why I favor bringing SAS to the Nassau line.  SAS can transfer to 6th Ave at Grand St, and then reach all of the available trains at Chambers and Fulton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 2/1/2020 at 8:37 PM, Jova42R said:

I originally proposed having the (Q) go to a station (possibly elevated) at Broadway-12th Avenue but that is not realistic.  Any such line across 125th would have to end at Broadway unless you go with a high elevated station (though going elevated in that part might not be a bad idea due to the topography of that area). 

Four tracks would require a new lower level.  I have myself in the past proposed having a new lower level at 72nd Street that would go to a new tunnel to Queens at 79th Street with a stop on 79th at York-1st Avenue on the way.  If you going to have a new lower level as you describe, perhaps that level is a straight express from 125th-Lex or 116th-2nd to 72nd Street.  For your proposed (H) line to/from LGA, I would look at such a new lower level (express from 72nd-116th) having a stop at 124th Street from 1st to 2nd Avenue before heading to Randalls Island and then Queens.

As for 60th Street, I believe because of track layout its impossible to add a station there let alone a walkway to 3rd Avenue to transfer to the Broadway and Lexington line.  That's I believe why the 2nd Avenue stop is at 55th Street.

You mentioned Waterside Plaza in your proposed plans.  Does that mean moving the (T)(H) to 1st Avenue south of 34th?  I did propose myself previously having the SAS go to 1st Avenue the way the 2nd Avenue EL did south of 23rd, mainly to allow for a possible new Culver Express to come from the SAS, possibly via new tunnels.  

As for an SAS-Brooklyn line, I previously proposed having such operate via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would have such an SAS line come into what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) with that converted back to a subway station (and the TM moved elsewhere) and then coming in on the as-current unused track and platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, then operating as the Fulton Local to Euclid Avenue, allowing the (A) and (C) to both run express full-time to Brooklyn.  Also like the idea of adding a new SAS connection to the Williamsburg Bridge, allowing for either the (M) to move to 2nd Avenue OR perhaps the (Z) becoming its own full-time line and running via the Willy B and SAS or perhaps THAT becoming the SAS line to LGA instead of your (H).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

If we connected the Willy B to SAS, I’d propose the following line:

:M: ((M) would be re-lettered to (V))

125 St/Bway (1)

125 St/St Nicholas (A)(B)(C)(D)

125/Lenox (2)(3)

125/Lex (4)(5)(6)(MTA) MNRR (T)(Q)

         Via a new lower level express to

96 St (T)(Q)

         Via LL Exp to

72 St (T)(Q)

57 St (T)(N)(R)(W)(4)(5)(6)

51 St (T)(E)(M)(6)

42 St (T)(4)(5)(6)(7)

34 St-1 Av (T)

26 St-Waterside (T)

14 St-Av C (T)

8 St (T)

Houston St (T)

Delancey-Essex (T)(F)(V)(J)

RUSH HOURS: replaces (Z) - makes all express stops to Jamaica

NON-RUSH: makes all (V) stops to Metro Av.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2020 at 7:54 AM, Jova42R said:

If we connected the Willy B to SAS, I’d propose the following line:

:M: ((M) would be re-lettered to (V))

125 St/Bway (1)

125 St/St Nicholas (A)(B)(C)(D)

125/Lenox (2)(3)

125/Lex (4)(5)(6)(MTA) MNRR (T)(Q)

         Via a new lower level express to

96 St (T)(Q)

         Via LL Exp to

72 St (T)(Q)

57 St (T)(N)(R)(W)(4)(5)(6)

51 St (T)(E)(M)(6)

42 St (T)(4)(5)(6)(7)

34 St-1 Av (T)

26 St-Waterside (T)

14 St-Av C (T)

8 St (T)

Houston St (T)

Delancey-Essex (T)(F)(V)(J)

RUSH HOURS: replaces (Z) - makes all express stops to Jamaica

NON-RUSH: makes all (V) stops to Metro Av.

Thoughts?

It would have to be consistent at all times on the Southern End.  More than likely, this :M: would be the sole line to Metropolitan at all times, especially with capacity limited on the Willy B as I have been reminded with my prior idea of an "Orange (T)" that would be a supplement to the (M) on weekdays and full-blast nights and weekends.

Also, you would likely see after 72nd going south it going to a stop at 55th as is supposed to be the case for the (T).  Perhaps you go four tracks across south of around 60th that also potentially would allow for a Queens Boulevard line on the SAS at a later time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

It would have to be consistent at all times on the Southern End.  More than likely, this :M: would be the sole line to Metropolitan at all times, especially with capacity limited on the Willy B as I have been reminded with my prior idea of an "Orange (T)" that would be a supplement to the (M) on weekdays and full-blast nights and weekends.

Also, you would likely see after 72nd going south it going to a stop at 55th as is supposed to be the case for the (T).  Perhaps you go four tracks across south of around 60th that also potentially would allow for a Queens Boulevard line on the SAS at a later time.

I didn’t know about capacity — this could also theoretically be a light rail running high-floor trams on the upper deck of the Willy B (now abandoned) to Brooklyn, and then through Bushwick to the Lower Montauk Branch, where it’d go to Woodhaven Blvd to connect with those buses (or maybe to 121 St (J)(Z))


Thoughts?

Edited by Jova42R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

I didn’t know about capacity — this could also theoretically be a light rail running high-floor trams on the upper deck of the Willy B (now abandoned) to Brooklyn, and then through Bushwick to the Lower Montauk Branch, where it’d go to Woodhaven Blvd to connect with those buses (or maybe to 121 St (J)(Z))


Thoughts?

Capacity is key. The more routes that have to share a two- or three-track line, the less frequently each route can run. But I’m a bit confused here. Are you suggesting running this :M: service as a light rail route? Because you don’t really have to do that. The :M: can be like @Wallyhorse suggested. It would be overkill to have both :M: and (V) services to/from Metropolitan and neither would be able to run very frequently, which would cause crowding problems elsewhere along both routes. 

Now, where would it not be overkill to have both :M: and (V) services? Queens Blvd. But even then, you’d have to remove the (R) from Queens Blvd to fit both services. This :M: could then run via the 63rd St Tunnel and be the second SAS service below 63rd and connect to the Willy B, while the (V) goes via 53rd and 6th Ave Local, then continues to South Brooklyn via the (F) line. But then again, I’m not really a big fan of merging both Queens Blvd local and express services at 36th St. We already have that at Queens Plaza and it’s not a very reliable way to run what is the second busiest subway line in the system.

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

It would have to be consistent at all times on the Southern End.  More than likely, this :M: would be the sole line to Metropolitan at all times, especially with capacity limited on the Willy B as I have been reminded with my prior idea of an "Orange (T)" that would be a supplement to the (M) on weekdays and full-blast nights and weekends.

Also, you would likely see after 72nd going south it going to a stop at 55th as is supposed to be the case for the (T).  Perhaps you go four tracks across south of around 60th that also potentially would allow for a Queens Boulevard line on the SAS at a later time.

I certainly think if we ever do get to Phase 3, we should take another look at going to four tracks. It’s too late for Phases 1 and 2 unless we put two new tracks below the existing ones. 

Personally, I’d much rather do the Queens Blvd-SAS service first, with four tracks south of the 63rd St Tunnel, before trying to figure out how we’re going to fit two new tracks below the two already deeply tunneled tracks currently used by the (Q).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2020 at 9:16 AM, mrsman said:

The only way I can see a (T) being introduced and not further intermingling would be to force all 2nd Ave trains to stay on 2nd Ave and not push trains onto Broadway BMT.  Of course, for this to be successful, the (T) must have easy connections to all the Lexington stations of the crosstown lines (63, 60, 53, 42).  Something like this might also remedy the transferring ability between 63/Lex and 60/Lex.

A very quick primer on deinterlining is that every northern portal (CPW exp, CPW loc, 2 Ave, 63 tunnel, 60 tunnel, 53 tunnel) should be connected to one trunk line each (8 Ave exp/loc, 6 Ave exp/loc, Broadway exp/loc) and then connected to a southern portal (M Br N, M Br S, Rutgers, Cranberry, Montague).  Currently, there are 6 northern portals, 6 trunk lines, and 5 southern portals.  The sixth southern portal is the WTC terminal, which has limited capacity.  (Williamsbug Bridge is not considered a portal for my discussion since the 6th Ave locals can serve both RUtgers or the W Bridge, so one trunk line serving two crossings - so I count this as one portal serving both Rutgers and Williamsburg not two.)

The introduction of a 2nd Ave line thru Midtown provides a seventh trunk line, but we still have six northern portals, and five southern portals (but connections can be made to better connect to the Williamsburg bridge).  Regardless, the introduction of 2nd Ave will create a superfluous trunk line.

The current system could be deinterlined in the following way, not perfect but possible:

CPW exp - 8 Ave exp - Cranberry

CPW loc - 6 Ave exp - M Br N

Upper 2 Ave - Bwy exp - M Br S

63 tunnel - 6 Ave loc - Rutgers/Willy Bridge

60 tunnel - Bwy loc - Montague tunnel

53 tunnel - 8 Ave loc - WTC 

Now if we introduce 2 Ave, we can rearrange this a little bit, but it would still leave one of the existing trunks as largely superfluous:

CPW exp - 8 Ave exp - Cranberry

CPW loc - 6 Ave exp - M Br N

Upper 2 Ave - 2 AVE - MONTAGUE TUNNEL???

63 tunnel - BWY EXP - M BR S

60 tunnel - Bwy loc - Montague tunnel

53 tunnel - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Rutgers/Williamsburg

57/6 Av - 6 Ave loc - W4 switch - WTC

By tying in the 2nd Ave as one line and having the Bwy expresses connect to 63rd street tunnel to Queens, we can maintain some semblance of deinterlining.  (The sole exception is at the Montague tunnel.  I envision 2nd Ave servicing Grand Street and then tunneling to take over the Nassua line somewhere between Canal and Chambers, so that it also feeds Montague.  Bwy locals and 2 Ave  trains will both feed into the tunnel, but half of each line will terminate in manhattan at Whitehall or Broad.  JZ trains will terminate at Canal.)  By making use of the W4 swich, 8 Ave locals can now outlet to Rutgers or Williamsburg.  What this all means is that the 6 Ave locals are largely superfluous as they no longer connect to a northern poral or a southern portal, and they no longer need to.  They are now a midtown-downtown train and could simply be deleted from service.  If this 6 Ave Manhattan train is deleted from service, new switches should be put in place so that 8 Ave express can service the Spring St station and the single CPW local-6 Ave -Man Br line can service 14th and 23 rd. 

Another improvement is a direct connection from Broadway local to Williamsburg Bridge.  Under the above plan, we will now have a perfect match of 6 northern portals, 6 southern portals, and 6 trunk lines:

CPW exp - 8 Ave exp - Cranberry

CPW loc - 6 Ave line  - M Br N

Upper 2 Ave - 2 Ave - Montague tunnel

63 tunnel - Bwy exp - M Br S

60 tunnel - Bwy loc - Willy Br

53 tunnel - 8 Ave loc - Rutgers

 

If you want really good connections for SAS, you can link it to Manhattan Br N. My preferred deinterlining looks like

 

CPW EXP - 6 AV EXP - Willy B

CPW LCL - 8 AV LCL 

QBL LCL - 53 - 8 AV EXP - CRANBERRY

QBL EXP - 63 - 6AV LCL

2 AV (UPTOWN) - BWAY EXP - MAN BR S

ASTORIA - BWAY LCL - WHITEHALL/MONTAGUE

2 AV (LOWER) - MANHATTAN BR N

 

Under this plan no trains run the full length of 2 AV. 55 St is the terminal, with connections to 53 and 59 Lex. Future provisions for extension to a new Queens tunnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Under this plan no trains run the full length of 2 AV. 55 St is the terminal, with connections to 53 and 59 Lex. Future provisions for extension to a new Queens tunnel.

You could terminate it more North, connecting to 59th and 63rd, which would also function as a passageway for a transfer between the two

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

You could terminate it more North, connecting to 59th and 63rd, which would also function as a passageway for a transfer between the two

The reason I don't, is because IMO one of the better options for a new cross-river tunnel is 57th. 

You could build a two-level tunnel like the 63rd St one and one level could head west and make all those crosstown connections.

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.