Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Jova42R]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

I'd say have the SE Queens line be the following:

(X) 125th/Bway - 2 Av Exp - Fulton Exp - SE Queens Local

If you want  service not on Astoria Bl, then maybe run it via a new 79 St Tunnel and via 36 Av then Northern, then merging with the , and running to Bayside.

So

 2 Av Local - Randalls Island or 79 St Tun - North Queens Exp - College Point/Whitestone

 Crosstown Local - 21 St - North Queens Local - Flushing

 125 St/Bway - 2 Av Local - 79 St Tun or Randalls Island - Northern Bl - Bayside

(X) 2 Av Exp - Fulton Exp - SE Queens Local

2 Av is 4 tracks the whole line. 79 St, 63 St, and Randalls Island are all 2 tracks. Northern is 2 tracks. North Queens is 4 tracks to Flushing, then each branch (CP/Whitestone and Bayside) is 2 tracks.

Thoughts?

 

Oh, one more note, s run to Fordham. The  is one loop track.

[Jova42R]

@KK 6 Ave Local @Around the Horn @mrsman Another thought with this is to connect the  to Manhattan and have the  only on the N Queens Line. In that case we’d have:

 2 Av Exp / Randalls Island / North Queens Exp / College Point

 125 Crosstown / 2 Av-Randalls Island / North Queens Local / Bayside

Some Rush hour s go via N Queens Exp and the middle track on the Bayside Branch. These are branded as <V>

 Culver Local / Crosstown / 21 St / 79 St Tun / 2 Av Lcl / 125 Crosstown

 2 Av Lcl / 79 St Tun / 36 Av / Northern / Flushing

So the trunk lines are: (Bolded = 4 tracks)

North Queens Line <V>

2 Av Line

 Hanover-72

<V> 125-106

 86-125

 Hanover-96

 63-125

Northern Blvd Line

3 Av Line

And the branches/tunnels/bridges are: (Bolded = 3 tracks)

79 St Tunnel

Randalls Island Viaduct <V>

125 St Crosstown <V>

Bayside Branch <V>

Northeast Queens Branch

LGA Loop

 

Thoughts on this?

Edited March 21, 2020 by Jova42R

[Wallyhorse]

3 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

@Jova42R I would rather have  service via bypass so that we would have QBL and  relief lines, the  and  respectively. Because I wanna keep things 2 tracked past the  junction, I'd route  service via the 63rd Street tunnel until a 79th Street tunnel can be made. Northern Blvd subway would be 3 tracks to Flushing for peak  service, 2 to College Point. Provisions for a 4th track included.

So here would be the full idea:

 from Fordham Road - Coney Island

 from 125th/Bway - 2nd ave express - a southern terminal

 from College Point - 79th - 2nd ave local - a southern terminal

 from Laurelton - 79th - 2nd ave local - a southern terminal

 from Flushing Main Street - Church Ave

Any 79th Street tunnel I would do would have a stop at York-1st Avenue in Manhattan, possibly three tracks so it can also be a short-turn terminal.  That covers one of the most densely populated areas of the entire country and in that area gives those east of 2nd Avenue a station within reasonable walking distance. 

[Jova42R]

29 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Any 79th Street tunnel I would do would have a stop at York-1st Avenue in Manhattan, possibly three tracks so it can also be a short-turn terminal.  That covers one of the most densely populated areas of the entire country and in that area gives those east of 2nd Avenue a station within reasonable walking distance. 

Yes! I was going to add that in, but too late to edit.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

Here's a new plan

 Bway 125 Street - 9 Ave/Bay Parkway  via 2nd Ave, Manhattan Bridge, West End

(P) College Point - Euclid Ave  via Northern Blvd Lcl, 2nd Ave, Fulton Street Lcl

 Bell Blvd - Atlantic Av via Northern Blvd Exp, 2nd Ave, Jamaica Line, Canarsie 

(Y) Jamaica/179th Street  - Lefferts Blvd via Hillside, Bypass, 2nd Ave, Fulton Street Exp

 Flushing Main Street  - Church Ave via Northern Blvd Local, Crosstown

 Gun Hill Rd - Coney Island via 3rd Ave, rest of  route

[KK 6 Ave Local]

23 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Here's a new plan

 Bway 125 Street - 9 Ave/Bay Parkway  via 2nd Ave, Manhattan Bridge, West End

(P) College Point - Euclid Ave  via Northern Blvd Lcl, 2nd Ave, Fulton Street Lcl

 Bell Blvd - Atlantic Av via Northern Blvd Exp, 2nd Ave, Jamaica Line, Canarsie 

(Y) Jamaica/179th Street  - Lefferts Blvd via Hillside, Bypass, 2nd Ave, Fulton Street Exp

 Flushing Main Street  - Church Ave via Northern Blvd Local, Crosstown

 Gun Hill Rd - Coney Island via 3rd Ave, rest of  route

That was a large scale plan, here I'll make it a bit less expensive

SAS Lines:

 Bway 125th Street - Bay Parkway  Note this is a temporary terminal. The  could also run via the Atlantic Branch to Jamaica Center and Cambria Heights.

 Jamaica 179th Street - Atlantic Ave  via Bypass and Jamaica Line

(Y) Francis Lewis Blvd - Jackson Heights via Astoria Line extension, Jamaica Line, Myrtle Line extension

 extended to Gun Hill Rd

[Jova42R]

20 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Here's a new plan

 Bway 125 Street - 9 Ave/Bay Parkway  via 2nd Ave, Manhattan Bridge, West End

(P) College Point - Euclid Ave  via Northern Blvd Lcl, 2nd Ave, Fulton Street Lcl

 Bell Blvd - Atlantic Av via Northern Blvd Exp, 2nd Ave, Jamaica Line, Canarsie 

(Y) Jamaica/179th Street  - Lefferts Blvd via Hillside, Bypass, 2nd Ave, Fulton Street Exp

 Flushing Main Street  - Church Ave via Northern Blvd Local, Crosstown

 Gun Hill Rd - Coney Island via 3rd Ave, rest of  route

Your  is my (Y), so I agree with that.

Your (P): Change it so that the end in Queens is Fresh Meadows, and truncate it to Hanover Sq. (That’s my ) This is via 79 St Tunnel, correct?

I’d say cut your . Change it to Bayside - Astoria Blvd Local - Randalls Island - 2 Av/125 St

Your (Y) would carry air. Just use the  to

 should cross at 79th Tunnel then 2 Av/125 St

 should be a Bronx Crosstown (Throgs Neck-Highbridge, then down to Harlem), IMO. If we do  via 2nd, then maybe have  to Gun Hill and  to Throgs Neck.

Also, add an  Whitestone - Astoria Bl Exp - 2 Av Exp.

2 Av is quadruple-tracked, correct?

Edited March 22, 2020 by Jova42R

[KK 6 Ave Local]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Your  is my (Y), so I agree with that.

Your (P): Change it so that the end in Queens is Fresh Meadows, and truncate it to Hanover Sq. (That’s my ) This is via 79 St Tunnel, correct?

I’d say cut your . Change it to Bayside - Astoria Blvd Local - Randalls Island - 2 Av/125 St

Your (Y) would carry air. Just use the  to

 should cross at 79th Tunnel then 2 Av/125 St

 should be a Bronx Crosstown (Throgs Neck-Highbridge, then down to Harlem), IMO. If we do  via 2nd, then maybe have  to Gun Hill and  to Throgs Neck.

Also, add an  Whitestone - Astoria Bl Exp - 2 Av Exp.

2 Av is quadruple-tracked, correct?

Below 72nd it's 4 tracks. My Northern Blvd is basically your Astoria Blvd carrying the SAS services.

My reasoning behind keeping SAS to Northern/79th is that an  or  (deinterlining) extension can be the Astoria Blvd service, just to Flushing. Gets you to Manhattan and the M60.

Later on a shuttle between LaGuardia and 125/Lex  can be constructed. Preferably an Airtrain.

Northern Blvd is really the only corridor where maximum relief for the  can be put into effect. Bypass probably isn't worth it if QBL gets CBTC + deinterlining + more accessible LIRR as someone said on the proposals thread.  

100% on the  to Throgs Neck. Could also be a light rail.

LIE is another good corridor, potentially connecting to a South 4th Street Subway. I'll think about this.

 service is best used as a supplementary local on Northern, but it would probably not get high ridership so i'll cut it to Sunnyside so it can at least connect.  will be the primary local.

 

[Jova42R]

1 minute ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Below 72nd it's 4 tracks. My Northern Blvd is basically your Astoria Blvd carrying the SAS services.

My reasoning behind keeping SAS to Northern/79th is that an  or  (deinterlining) extension can be the Astoria Blvd service, just to Flushing. Gets you to Manhattan and the M60.

Later on a shuttle between LaGuardia and 125/Lex  can be constructed. Preferably an Airtrain.

Northern Blvd is really the only corridor where maximum relief for the  can be put into effect. Bypass probably isn't worth it if QBL gets CBTC + deinterlining + more accessible LIRR as someone said on the proposals thread.  

100% on the  to Throgs Neck. Could also be a light rail.

LIE is another good corridor, potentially connecting to a South 4th Street Subway. I'll think about this.

 service is best used as a supplementary local on Northern, but it would probably not get high ridership so i'll cut it to Sunnyside so it can at least connect.  will be the primary local.

 

My main plan is here:

In my plan, SAS has a different layout, so the track setup would be different.

Ah, true, I never thought about extending the  to Flushing, that could work, so I'm all ok with Northern. Maybe an  to Whitestone,  to Flushing, Northern Exp to Bayside, and Northern Lcl to Fresh Meadows.

Lower Montauk-Bushwick Branch-South 4th could work, but then no Midtown service.

See my plan for the .

Thoughts about my plan?

[Jova42R]

Here’s a thought for 2nd Av to Lower Montauk service:

Runs via my  from 61 St-Riverside South to 79 St-Lex, then merges with 2 Av, going south on 2 Av to Houston, then via a new South 4th Tunnel to the Bushwick Branch to Lower Montauk Branch, terminating at Jamaica. Thoughts @KK 6 Ave Local @mrsman @Wallyhorse

Edited March 24, 2020 by Jova42R

[Union Tpke]

With the MTA in such a bad financial state, Phase 2 needs to be cancelled. The 2020-2024 capital program was already an unrealistic wishlist. I would much rather have 70 more stations be ADA-accessible than a short extension of the Second Avenue Stubway.

Screen Shot 2020-07-19 at 9.58.56 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

@RR503 Given that the signaling limits capacity on the line to 20 TPH, is it correct that not building this substation in now won't hurt capacity further? 

Screen Shot 2020-07-19 at 9.59.28 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2020-07-19 at 9.59.39 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2020-07-19 at 9.59.57 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

[Union Tpke]

Screen Shot 2020-07-19 at 10.07.11 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2020-07-19 at 10.07.36 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2020-07-19 at 10.07.41 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

 

[R10 2952]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

With the MTA in such a bad financial state, Phase 2 needs to be cancelled. The 2020-2024 capital program was already an unrealistic wishlist. I would much rather have 70 more stations be ADA-accessible than a short extension of the Second Avenue Stubway.

Gonna have to disagree with you there; of all the phases of the Second Avenue Line, Phase 2 is easiest to build because of the already-existing infrastructure.  They'd be shooting themselves in the foot (and the residents of East Harlem in the head) if they chose to cancel it.  If the line is destined to remain a stubway for the , then they should at least extend it since the tunnels are already there.

However, if the agency does choose to modify the project, I could possibly seem them dropping the extension along 125th Street to Lexington, and hopefully finding a way to bring down the projected costs for the 116th Street station. 

[Union Tpke]

53 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Gonna have to disagree with you there; of all the phases of the Second Avenue Line, Phase 2 is easiest to build because of the already-existing infrastructure.  They'd be shooting themselves in the foot (and the residents of East Harlem in the head) if they chose to cancel it.  If the line is destined to remain a stubway for the , then they should at least extend it since the tunnels are already there.

However, if the agency does choose to modify the project, I could possibly seem them dropping the extension along 125th Street to Lexington, and hopefully finding a way to bring down the projected costs for the 116th Street station. 

An expansion project that costs billions should not be a priority when the agency is in the worst financial state it has ever been in.

[R10 2952]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

An expansion project that costs billions should not be a priority when the agency is in the worst financial state it has ever been in.

You're forgetting the Great Depression; that didn't stop the building of the IND, did it?  Just imagine where we'd be if construction had halted on everything the day the stock market crashed in 1929.  We'd be stuck with rickety wooden cars running on ramshackle iron trestles on 9th, 6th, and Fulton instead of what we have today.  As they say on Broadway, the show must go on.

Doesn't mean there's no room for improvement; the MTA definitely needs to look at lowering costs and re-designing infrastructure for Phase 2 to make it more practical than what's on the drawing board currently.  But to drop it entirely? If they drop it now, then it will never get built.

[Union Tpke]

3 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

You're forgetting the Great Depression; that didn't stop the building of the IND, did it?  Just imagine where we'd be if construction had halted on everything the day the stock market crashed in 1929.  We'd be stuck with rickety wooden cars running on ramshackle iron trestles on 9th, 6th, and Fulton instead of what we have today.  As they say on Broadway, the show must go on.

Doesn't mean there's no room for improvement; the MTA definitely needs to look at lowering costs and re-designing infrastructure for Phase 2 to make it more practical than what's on the drawing board currently.  But to drop it entirely? If they drop it now, then it will never get built.

The IND was saved with federal funds. We are not going to get federal funds so we have to use the funding to make sure that our system does not fall apart and become "rickety".

[R10 2952]

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

The IND was saved with federal funds. We are not going to get federal funds so we have to use the funding to make sure that our system does not fall apart and become "rickety".

A lot can happen between now and November.

[Union Tpke]

Just now, R10 2952 said:

A lot can happen between now and November.

We are not getting federal funds until January at the earliest, and that is if Biden wins. The whole Capital Program is still not going to happen, and something needs to be cut. It should be SAS, which at its ridiculously high cost is not worth it.

[R10 2952]

25 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

We are not getting federal funds until January at the earliest, and that is if Biden wins. The whole Capital Program is still not going to happen, and something needs to be cut. It should be SAS, which at its ridiculously high cost is not worth it.

Then they should just lower the cost, instead of cutting it entirely.  Cutting off the nose to spite the face is simply bad policy for long-term planning.

If I recall correctly, the feds threatened to cut off funding for Archer and 63rd sometime in the mid-1980s, but the MTA lobbied hard for the money and the issue was eventually resolved.  Personally, I'd hate to think where we'd be if the was still slogging along 53rd, the along Hillside, and the was still ending at that crappy, makeshift stub-end terminal that they made out of 121st.

Edited July 20, 2020 by R10 2952

[Union Tpke]

12 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Then they should just lower the cost, instead of cutting it entirely.  Cutting off the nose to spite the face is simply bad policy for long-term planning.

If I recall correctly, the feds threatened to cut off funding for Archer and 63rd sometime in the mid-1980s, but the MTA lobbied hard for the money and the issue was eventually resolved.  Personally, I'd hate to think where we'd be if the was still slogging along 53rd, the along Hillside, and the was still ending at that crappy, makeshift stub-end terminal that they made out of 121st.

As much as I love the Archer Avenue and 63rd Street Lines, they were mistakes to build. If the agency hadn't gone gung ho for expansion in the 1970s, they would have spent the money to keep the agency from falling apart. Instead of spending the last 40 years trying to achieve a state of good repair, the system could have been kept in a good state, and then expansion could have begun.

[MHV9218]

I have a hard time arguing against capital projects – true expansions are so economically beneficial to the regions they go through that they ought to be considered for their net benefit to the area. East Harlem has been screwed over for so long and the notion that we would build the UES expansion but not the far simpler East Harlem one is very difficult to swallow, particularly considering the social justice implications of that sort of denial. Not to mention that the economic benefits of such expansion in covid-era recession are a real and necessary stimulus, and should perhaps be better reflected on the balance sheet for these projects. Hell, Bloomberg's cutesy funding with the synthetic-TIF of Hudson Yards was essentially a statement of that, and frankly that's a model that the MTA could probably push for when it comes to future expansions. And generally, Keynesian policy: when recession hits, you build – austerity might sound tempting, but it hurts everyone. We'll see if Congress listens.

[them26]

No capital projects should be cut. Not when Congress is considering its 5 year renewal of the Surface Transportation Authorization (albeit on the backburner).

With the right language in that reauthorization, the MTA could get favorable funding formulas that could see it having the federal government pay 80% of the costs of major capital projects. Think that's crazy? The interstate highway system was constructed with an 80-20 formula. It's not that politically unrealistic an idea either as many congressmen from blue/purple/red states are keenly aware of the fiscal damage done to state DOTs by the virus.

Edited July 20, 2020 by them26

[LGA Link N Train]

17 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Then they should just lower the cost, instead of cutting it entirely.  Cutting off the nose to spite the face is simply bad policy for long-term planning.

If I recall correctly, the feds threatened to cut off funding for Archer and 63rd sometime in the mid-1980s, but the MTA lobbied hard for the money and the issue was eventually resolved.  Personally, I'd hate to think where we'd be if the was still slogging along 53rd, the along Hillside, and the was still ending at that crappy, makeshift stub-end terminal that they made out of 121st.

I think the subway system would've been a little bit better since the money used on Archer Avenue, 63rd Street and SAS Phase 1 could've been used on Modernizing the system. Albeit, we'd be stuck with the  on Queens Blvd and the probably would've terminated at 57th Street. Heck, if we skipped out on any Program for Action proposal, Phase 1 of SAS could've turned out a lot better. 

[RR503]

On 7/19/2020 at 11:10 AM, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 Given that the signaling limits capacity on the line to 20 TPH, is it correct that not building this substation in now won't hurt capacity further? 

I had always assumed that SAS2 would include CBTC signals for the line. Everything was built CBTC ready. 

Broken record here, but prioritizing resource-intensive system expansion projects is not wise in a time when budgetary and, more importantly, human resources are stretched thin. Back to basics, and then build from there. There's also a ton of uncertainty about what ridership will look like post-COVID. Whether peaks (whose intensity on Lex were the driving force behind this entire effort) will be as pointy as before is an open question on

[Wallyhorse]

On 7/19/2020 at 1:58 PM, R10 2952 said:

Gonna have to disagree with you there; of all the phases of the Second Avenue Line, Phase 2 is easiest to build because of the already-existing infrastructure.  They'd be shooting themselves in the foot (and the residents of East Harlem in the head) if they chose to cancel it.  If the line is destined to remain a stubway for the , then they should at least extend it since the tunnels are already there.

However, if the agency does choose to modify the project, I could possibly seem them dropping the extension along 125th Street to Lexington, and hopefully finding a way to bring down the projected costs for the 116th Street station. 

For 116th, perhaps that is done using what is existing and if necessary building two side platforms (and if necessary, an underpass to go back and forth between the two).  

If that is required to at least get part of Stage 2 done, then that may be necessary.