Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, Vulturious said:

If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to change their mind once finishing or half way through Phase 3 that they decided to have Phase 4 basically connect with Nassau.

The main issue with it has always been figuring out a way to build the connection that doesn't entail shutting down Nassau and Chrystie St service and destroying the largest park in the area for about two years.

[Wallyhorse]

On 1/24/2021 at 9:54 PM, Vulturious said:

I think it would be a cool idea if they were to go ahead and tunnel towards 125 to connect to the Lexington Av line which could also connect with the MNRR, but that's if they decide to continue west towards the CPW line with a connection onto it at 135 St. It would be very beneficial for them to do that if they plan on doing that so they can have easy reroutes. They don't need to continue running trains from SAS onto CPW, they can just terminate them at St. Nicholas Av-125 St and if something were to happen on 6th Av, they can easily reroute both  and  trains. 

This is EXACTLY why I would do that, plus you can also reroute the and  via 125/SAS, 63rd and 6th Avenue before returning to the 8th Avenue line at West 4th or Jay Street.

Quote

I do have to agree that they should have SAS continue straight into the Bronx. Buses aren't the best replacements for a subway in the long term and I'm pretty sure we can all agree. 

Definitely, and I would have it on the old 3rd Avenue EL route in the Bronx whether an EL or subway, though likely with stations consolidated considerably from the old EL regardless. 

[Wallyhorse]

On 1/25/2021 at 4:06 AM, Trainmaster5 said:

It's been my opinion that the whole 125th St thing was proposed as a sop to gain the approval of the northern suburbs to the whole plan originally.. I know that I'm not the only person who thinks that way.. The NYCT plan should have been focused on NYC  primarily and to me that meant the Bronx. I was born a Brooklynite and am very parochial but what's right is right,  IMO. Before a Utica,  Nostrand,  or SE Queens extension a Bronx replacement for the Third Avenue El should be the focus of any northward extension of the SAS. I consider myself a realist,  rather than just a railfan. Whatever funding comes down the pike should head north,  not west when the line approaches 125th Street. I'm guessing that the focus on LIRR projects like ESA  and the Third and Second track projects made it imperative to throw the northern railroad passengers a bone.  Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

Exactly, as said whether EL or subway, a replacement for that SHOULD be done.

It it could be done as an EL, I would also be looking at adding provisions for later possibly doing a full rebuild of the Third Avenue EL in Manhattan.  While it likely won't be necessary until long after we are gone (due to the pandemic likely seeing Manhattan not returning to pre-pandemic levels until the end of this decade at the earliest), if the pre-pandemic predictions are true, we may eventually need BOTH a full-length SAS AND a rebuild of the Third Avenue EL to handle all the additional people in that general area of Manhattan.  

[Vulturious]

13 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

This is EXACTLY why I would do that, plus you can also reroute the and  via 125/SAS, 63rd and 6th Avenue before returning to the 8th Avenue line at West 4th or Jay Street.

Definitely, and I would have it on the old 3rd Avenue EL route in the Bronx whether an EL or subway, though likely with stations consolidated considerably from the old EL regardless. 

Build both, one line along 125 St to St Nicholas would be the  since its already long as is and the other would be the  into the Bronx. I was mainly thinking it would be an alternative for the  and , I wasn't even thinking about the  and  at all but thank you for adding that, it made it even better. It's probably best if they keep the old 3rd Av line as an EL to reduce costs.

12 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Exactly, as said whether EL or subway, a replacement for that SHOULD be done.

It it could be done as an EL, I would also be looking at adding provisions for later possibly doing a full rebuild of the Third Avenue EL in Manhattan.  While it likely won't be necessary until long after we are gone (due to the pandemic likely seeing Manhattan not returning to pre-pandemic levels until the end of this decade at the earliest), if the pre-pandemic predictions are true, we may eventually need BOTH a full-length SAS AND a rebuild of the Third Avenue EL to handle all the additional people in that general area of Manhattan.  

That's probably the best option since even with SAS built to Phase 3, it wouldn't really help much along the east side of Manhattan, assuming they keep it to a 2 track line and not a 4 track. It would be terrible if they did and most likely would happen. Although, with the whole thing happening with Cuomo, maybe we might have the chance to add express tracks without over-designing the line.

[R10 2952]

An elevated route would be quicker and cheaper, but it is not politically feasible in this day and age.

Study local history and you'll see that wholesale opposition to els has existed since the 1920s.  Much as I think it would be easier, there's a reason no new elevated line has gone up since the IND viaduct across Newtown Creek 85+ years ago.

Edited March 10, 2021 by R10 2952

[Wallyhorse]

On 3/8/2021 at 2:41 PM, Vulturious said:

Build both, one line along 125 St to St Nicholas would be the  since its already long as is and the other would be the  into the Bronx. I was mainly thinking it would be an alternative for the  and , I wasn't even thinking about the  and  at all but thank you for adding that, it made it even better. It's probably best if they keep the old 3rd Av line as an EL to reduce costs.

That's probably the best option since even with SAS built to Phase 3, it wouldn't really help much along the east side of Manhattan, assuming they keep it to a 2 track line and not a 4 track. It would be terrible if they did and most likely would happen. Although, with the whole thing happening with Cuomo, maybe we might have the chance to add express tracks without over-designing the line.

What you mentioned also made me think, perhaps down the road you could extend the 63rd Street connection to 8th Avenue, with such a connection joining the 8th Avenue line on the lower level of 50th Street-8th that the currently uses.  It would allow for even more operational flexibility, including (in theory anyway) an SAS line via 8th Avenue but of greater importance (especially if the SAS on 125 were extended all the way across town) additional flexibility for the if 53rd needs to be closed down at all for example. 

[Mtatransit]

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

An elevated route would be quicker and cheaper, but it is not politically feasible in this day and age.

Study local history and you'll see that wholesale opposition to els has existed since the 1920s.  Much as I think it would be easier, there's a reason no new elevated line has gone up since the IND viaduct across Newtown Creek 85+ years ago.

Back then when the current Jamaica Line was built, I think the residents along the route wanted the route and the BMT was like hell no, and they built the elevated anyways

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Back then when the current Jamaica Line was built, I think the residents along the route wanted the route and the BMT was like hell no, and they built the elevated anyways

On the other hand, plans for the have been around since the 1910s, but the original plans were blocked because they were an el.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/8/2021 at 2:41 PM, Vulturious said:

Build both, one line along 125 St to St Nicholas would be the  since its already long as is and the other would be the  into the Bronx. I was mainly thinking it would be an alternative for the  and , I wasn't even thinking about the  and  at all but thank you for adding that, it made it even better. It's probably best if they keep the old 3rd Av line as an EL to reduce costs.

That's probably the best option since even with SAS built to Phase 3, it wouldn't really help much along the east side of Manhattan, assuming they keep it to a 2 track line and not a 4 track. It would be terrible if they did and most likely would happen. Although, with the whole thing happening with Cuomo, maybe we might have the chance to add express tracks without over-designing the line.

You could build both, but then the 3rd Ave Line would have to run lower than 30 tph. I guess if you do an uneven split between the  and , it could work. 

On 3/10/2021 at 6:08 PM, Wallyhorse said:

What you mentioned also made me think, perhaps down the road you could extend the 63rd Street connection to 8th Avenue, with such a connection joining the 8th Avenue line on the lower level of 50th Street-8th that the currently uses.  It would allow for even more operational flexibility, including (in theory anyway) an SAS line via 8th Avenue but of greater importance (especially if the SAS on 125 were extended all the way across town) additional flexibility for the if 53rd needs to be closed down at all for example. 

Why can’t the  just divert over the  line like it does now? In fact, it’s been doing just that on weekends and late evenings for quite some time while work is being done in the Rutgers St Tunnel. And given the complex series of flyover ramps that the Central Park West Line has immediately north of the Columbus Circle station - whose platforms end nearly at 61st St - extending the 63rd St Tunnels into that mess will likely be a very challenging - and thus very expensive - endeavor. Not to mention all the fighting the MTA will get from the residents of one of the most expensive streets to live on in the entire country...especially that particular stretch of Central Park West.

[Wallyhorse]

On 3/11/2021 at 9:43 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

You could build both, but then the 3rd Ave Line would have to run lower than 30 tph. I guess if you do an uneven split between the  and , it could work. 

Why can’t the  just divert over the  line like it does now? In fact, it’s been doing just that on weekends and late evenings for quite some time while work is being done in the Rutgers St Tunnel. And given the complex series of flyover ramps that the Central Park West Line has immediately north of the Columbus Circle station - whose platforms end nearly at 61st St - extending the 63rd St Tunnels into that mess will likely be a very challenging - and thus very expensive - endeavor. Not to mention all the fighting the MTA will get from the residents of one of the most expensive streets to live on in the entire country...especially that particular stretch of Central Park West.

This is something that should have been included with the 63rd Street tunnel in the first place.  It would not be practical to build a new level of 59th station for it, hence why I would it go to a tunnel below that station where it then goes directly from 63rd/Lex to 50th/8th, coming in on the lower level where the  currently stops.  

This would be more about having an SAS via 8th Avenue if Phase 3 can't be built.  It can be the  that would in this scenario run with the to 63rd/Lex, then continue to a new tunnel west of 7th Avenue towards 8th and run on a lower level to the lower level of 50th/8th, giving those on the UES in the process a one-seat ride to Penn Station without having to walk outside Penn Station.  If you coupled that with extending Phase 2 to where it connects to the 8th Avenue line on 125 towards St. Nicholas, it would allow for the 8th Avenue line when needed to run via the SAS/63rd Street to/from 50th/8th to/from 125th/St. Nicholas when needed.  You could also doing this have the (and in theory, the  as well) run to 145th/8th or 168th/8th or to Bedford Parx in the Bronx.  

[bobtehpanda]

On 3/11/2021 at 6:43 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

You could build both, but then the 3rd Ave Line would have to run lower than 30 tph. I guess if you do an uneven split between the  and , it could work. 

This is not a big deal as you might think.

15 trains per hour each holding 2000+ people is still way more capacity than a 60 foot bus holding 120 people at the same or slightly better frequency.

[Lex]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is not a big deal as you might think.

15 trains per hour each holding 2000+ people is still way more capacity than a 60 foot bus holding 120 people at the same or slightly better frequency.

Not only that, but if you wanted to, you could still run a small number of Bronx-only trains with a three-track station at 138th Street (149th Street might make a bit more sense for that, but connectivity would be slightly worse). Hell, I'd the Third Avenue portion to go beyond Fordham Road so it could eventually run across Gun Hill Road (and Bartow Avenue upon reaching it) to a Bay Plaza terminus.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is not a big deal as you might think.

15 trains per hour each holding 2000+ people is still way more capacity than a 60 foot bus holding 120 people at the same or slightly better frequency.

That’s definitely true. You would be moving far more people per hour and that would go a long way on 3rd Ave.

7 hours ago, Lex said:

Not only that, but if you wanted to, you could still run a small number of Bronx-only trains with a three-track station at 138th Street (149th Street might make a bit more sense for that, but connectivity would be slightly worse). Hell, I'd the Third Avenue portion to go beyond Fordham Road so it could eventually run across Gun Hill Road (and Bartow Avenue upon reaching it) to a Bay Plaza terminus.

That would be an interesting operation. But I’d be surprised if the Manhattan-oriented NYC Transit would do it.

Edited March 16, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That would be an interesting operation. But I’d be surprised if the Manhattan-oriented NYC Transit would do it.

To me, it sounds like it'll be as successful as the old intra-borough Queens Blvd or Fulton locals.

[bobtehpanda]

13 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s definitely true. You would be moving far more people per hour and that would go a long way on 3rd Ave.

Personally, I think there is a time and a place for capacity restriction, but with the exception of the Queens Blvd Line and bypass I don't think most places in the outer boroughs need the full 30 at least for the decade after it opens.

Where I am more concerned is SAS Phases III and IV, because Manhattan *is* busy enough to need all that capacity.

[Lex]

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

To me, it sounds like it'll be as successful as the old intra-borough Queens Blvd or Fulton locals.

I mean, I wouldn't rule that out, but there are a few caveats to your statement.

1. While the former was technically an interborough route, it didn't really have anything of importance beyond Downtown Brooklyn (LIC lost its relevance with the direct Manhattan connections and the rise of Midtown until just a few years ago, whereas Williamsburg was never all that relevant until recent years), and using one of the expresses would come with faster trips of similar distances and better access.
2. Fulton Street technically never had its own intraborough local, as it was always either broken up into a Manhattan-bound local and a shuttle or simply a Manhattan-bound local.
3. A Third Avenue branch would have access to both Fordham Plaza and the Hub, the latter of which has relatively easy access (by bus and subway) to the area around Hostos.
4. I wouldn't consider running the service without it also serving Bay Plaza.
5. It's not intended to be anything more than augmentation of the Bronx service, so it wouldn't need anything more than 5 tph unless there's enough intraborough ridership to warrant more (which I highly doubt, especially with trains larger than IRT rolling stock).

If you're that concerned about the service not really working and 2nd Avenue south of 72nd Street being woefully underserved, then the only thing I can recommend is retrofitting the existing phase and modifying the next with four tracks. It may be more expensive, but if capacity is really the issue, then this would drastically reduce the capacity losses, even if the actual service provided looks a bit more like what's happening on 8th Avenue along/north of Central Park's western edge.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

I mean, I wouldn't rule that out, but there are a few caveats to your statement.

1. While the former was technically an interborough route, it didn't really have anything of importance beyond Downtown Brooklyn (LIC lost its relevance with the direct Manhattan connections and the rise of Midtown until just a few years ago, whereas Williamsburg was never all that relevant until recent years), and using one of the expresses would come with faster trips of similar distances and better access.
2. Fulton Street technically never had its own intraborough local, as it was always either broken up into a Manhattan-bound local and a shuttle or simply a Manhattan-bound local.
3. A Third Avenue branch would have access to both Fordham Plaza and the Hub, the latter of which has relatively easy access (by bus and subway) to the area around Hostos.
4. I wouldn't consider running the service without it also serving Bay Plaza.
5. It's not intended to be anything more than augmentation of the Bronx service, so it wouldn't need anything more than 5 tph unless there's enough intraborough ridership to warrant more (which I highly doubt, especially with trains larger than IRT rolling stock).

If you're that concerned about the service not really working and 2nd Avenue south of 72nd Street being woefully underserved, then the only thing I can recommend is retrofitting the existing phase and modifying the next with four tracks. It may be more expensive, but if capacity is really the issue, then this would drastically reduce the capacity losses, even if the actual service provided looks a bit more like what's happening on 8th Avenue along/north of Central Park's western edge.

I would be concerned if the  is the only SAS service south of 72nd Street. Quite concerned. Either they go back to the drawing board and redesign phases 3 and 4 with four tracks, so that two or more services can operate frequently both on SAS and in Queens, or bring in a second SAS service via the 63rd Street tunnel - perhaps via a Queens Blvd bypass or as a new QB local, replacing the  or  - perhaps call the new SAS-Queens Blvd service the  or ( R ) .

A  serving 3rd Ave, Fordham Road/Pelham Parkway and Bay Plaza would indeed be very popular. I would be very happy to see such service become a reality.

Edited March 16, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Lex said:

If you're that concerned about the service not really working and 2nd Avenue south of 72nd Street being woefully underserved, then the only thing I can recommend is retrofitting the existing phase and modifying the next with four tracks. It may be more expensive, but if capacity is really the issue, then this would drastically reduce the capacity losses, even if the actual service provided looks a bit more like what's happening on 8th Avenue along/north of Central Park's western edge.

There is another way.

All Phase III and IV service has a northern terminal at 55 St, or moving up to 57 St for an additional connection to Lex-59. Future extensions swing it east to Queens, probably not via the 63 St tunnel since it could be full with some rearranging of services.

If you swap the Chrystie St tracks to link Second Avenue to the bridge, that gives a relatively quick South Brooklyn-East Side ride.

[Lex]

29 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

There is another way.

All Phase III and IV service has a northern terminal at 55 St, or moving up to 57 St for an additional connection to Lex-59. Future extensions swing it east to Queens, probably not via the 63 St tunnel since it could be full with some rearranging of services.

If you swap the Chrystie St tracks to link Second Avenue to the bridge, that gives a relatively quick South Brooklyn-East Side ride.

Segment it like that and you ruin any potential it has to actually relieve Lexington Avenue to any appreciable degree (and it needs the relief from both directions), not to mention that intraborough Manhattan riders are extremely unlikely to take a north-south train from a non-CBD station to another when both stations are south of 125th Street.

Sure, you could establish that sort of connection, but most people using Lexington Avenue trains in Brooklyn are on either the  or  no later than Franklin Avenue, and the further away from the IRT this connection is, the more you'd be relying on the areas it does serve. If you must have it, the best place for it to go would be Brighton, and even then, Fulton Street would be more effective.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Segment it like that and you ruin any potential it has to actually relieve Lexington Avenue to any appreciable degree (and it needs the relief from both directions), not to mention that intraborough Manhattan riders are extremely unlikely to take a north-south train from a non-CBD station to another when both stations are south of 125th Street.

Sure, you could establish that sort of connection, but most people using Lexington Avenue trains in Brooklyn are on either the  or  no later than Franklin Avenue, and the further away from the IRT this connection is, the more you'd be relying on the areas it does serve. If you must have it, the best place for it to go would be Brighton, and even then, Fulton Street would be more effective.

Peak loading on the Lex is between 42-GC and 125th; Phases I and II + the Bronx would divert a *lot* of people to the Second Avenue Subway, including some transferring passengers who are going to the West Side via 59th or 53rd. The northern portion of SAS is the busier half anyways.

Intra-borough riders aren't likely to be taking a full-length SAS over Lexington anyways. It's not that fast because it makes more stops than the express. Relieving the Lex doesn't necessarily mean you have to copy everything that it's doing.

To be clear, what I am advocating for is the SAS to take over the current West End and Brighton expresses. It wouldn't be that far (at least the Brighton line wouldn't be), the transfer at Atlantic isn't that crazy, and it'd have a big speed advantage over the Lex given that it bypasses Downtown completely.

Edited March 17, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[Vulturious]

5 hours ago, Lex said:

I mean, I wouldn't rule that out, but there are a few caveats to your statement.

1. While the former was technically an interborough route, it didn't really have anything of importance beyond Downtown Brooklyn (LIC lost its relevance with the direct Manhattan connections and the rise of Midtown until just a few years ago, whereas Williamsburg was never all that relevant until recent years), and using one of the expresses would come with faster trips of similar distances and better access.
2. Fulton Street technically never had its own intraborough local, as it was always either broken up into a Manhattan-bound local and a shuttle or simply a Manhattan-bound local.
3. A Third Avenue branch would have access to both Fordham Plaza and the Hub, the latter of which has relatively easy access (by bus and subway) to the area around Hostos.
4. I wouldn't consider running the service without it also serving Bay Plaza.
5. It's not intended to be anything more than augmentation of the Bronx service, so it wouldn't need anything more than 5 tph unless there's enough intraborough ridership to warrant more (which I highly doubt, especially with trains larger than IRT rolling stock).

If you're that concerned about the service not really working and 2nd Avenue south of 72nd Street being woefully underserved, then the only thing I can recommend is retrofitting the existing phase and modifying the next with four tracks. It may be more expensive, but if capacity is really the issue, then this would drastically reduce the capacity losses, even if the actual service provided looks a bit more like what's happening on 8th Avenue along/north of Central Park's western edge.

This is something that should be happening anyways, not having an express service while also over-designing everything and making more unnecessary decisions shouldn't have been the tradeoff. Retrofitting Phase I and modifying it with 4 tracks should in all honesty happen. Express service would be the  going into the Bronx while the local being the  and terminating in Harlem, but the reason I say this is because the  shouldn't be extended any further as it's already a long line. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, the  could run towards St. Nicholas Av and terminate at a new lower level along 125 St and have a new connection towards the layup tracks around 135 St.

32 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Peak loading on the Lex is between 42-GC and 125th; Phases I and II + the Bronx would divert a *lot* of people to the Second Avenue Subway, including some transferring passengers who are going to the West Side via 59th or 53rd. The northern portion of SAS is the busier half anyways.

Intra-borough riders aren't likely to be taking a full-length SAS over Lexington anyways. It's not that fast because it makes more stops than the express. Relieving the Lex doesn't necessarily mean you have to copy everything that it's doing.

To be clear, what I am advocating for is the SAS to take over the current West End and Brighton expresses. It wouldn't be that far (at least the Brighton line wouldn't be), the transfer at Atlantic isn't that crazy, and it'd have a big speed advantage over the Lex given that it bypasses Downtown completely.

I like the idea of the SAS running along West End, but what's going to happen with the  and  if that is the case? Wouldn't building a new tunnel towards Fulton St be a better benefit?

[bobtehpanda]

15 hours ago, Vulturious said:

This is something that should be happening anyways, not having an express service while also over-designing everything and making more unnecessary decisions shouldn't have been the tradeoff. Retrofitting Phase I and modifying it with 4 tracks should in all honesty happen. Express service would be the  going into the Bronx while the local being the  and terminating in Harlem, but the reason I say this is because the  shouldn't be extended any further as it's already a long line. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, the  could run towards St. Nicholas Av and terminate at a new lower level along 125 St and have a new connection towards the layup tracks around 135 St.

I like the idea of the SAS running along West End, but what's going to happen with the  and  if that is the case? Wouldn't building a new tunnel towards Fulton St be a better benefit?

IIRC I think @RR503 has proposed the following Chrystie St Connection style reconfiguration before

• West End & Brighton Express to 2nd Av
• Jamaica and Myrtle Lines to 6th Av Express
• 6th Av Local to Culvers Local and Express

Personally I think there would be better connectivity to connect today's with the Fulton Local.

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC I think @RR503 has proposed the following Chrystie St Connection style reconfiguration before

• West End & Brighton Express to 2nd Av
• Jamaica and Myrtle Lines to 6th Av Express
• 6th Av Local to Culvers Local and Express

Personally I think there would be better connectivity to connect today's with the Fulton Local.

I would assume it would be something similar to this map? https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NYC_full_trackmap_2Av-prop.pdf

[RR503]

Yeah, all credit to Vanshnook for that idea (which is great and I still support)

I see the fundamental issue with SAS 3/4 as being that they cement interlining across the entire B division and don't actually add any core capacity. Any comprehensive route simplification scheme requires routing the  to 96; there is not space for the  and  to run up SAS today at full service levels. Similarly, there is no way to fill lower SAS (assuming  continues to upper SAS) without interlining a train onto 63 St -- which blocks an  reroute there. 

This is all a fancy way of making the capacity point. Today, there are 6 B division track pairs in Manhattan's core (8th local/express, Bway local/express, 6th local/express), and 6 track pairs leaving the core to the north (CPW local/express, 53, 60, 63, SAS). Thus, any addition of capacity in the core without addition of other northern routes constitutes a redistribution of capacity away from tracks which already exist -- this is what SAS does today. I have yet to find a fix for this problem which I really love, but I think it's fair to say that as proposed, SAS 3/4 have low-to-negative network ops value. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

5 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I would assume it would be something similar to this map? https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NYC_full_trackmap_2Av-prop.pdf

That’s likely one of the most feasible ways it can be done. Although that reconfiguration of the southbound  at Broadway-Lafayette to go over the Willy B and the SAS lines to go over the Manny B will likely be one hell of a project. Oddly enough, Vanshnook’s  train is a QB-SAS service, with the RBB thrown in for good measure. I’m not really sure how the  and  will all fit on the express tracks, especially with the  still merging at 36th AND merging with the  at 36th. I’d reimagine his  train as an  train that runs the same service as the current  in Queens. This  would join the  at 63rd. The  and  would head over the Manny B after Grand with the  replacing the  on Brighton and the  replacing the  on West End/New Utrecht Ave. 

Elsewhere, I’d leave the  as is and have the  run peak express via the  line with a third track. Maybe that can be the service that can siphon riders off the  in Jamaica. The  would replace the  to/from Metropolitan. I’d also leave the  on Fulton, but express alongside the , while running the  local. I wouldn’t run the  via the Montague tunnel; it would be overkill alongside the  and .

But that plan is from four years ago. Maybe he modified it since then. But, it is a good template to work off of. 

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yeah, all credit to Vanshnook for that idea (which is great and I still support)

I see the fundamental issue with SAS 3/4 as being that they cement interlining across the entire B division and don't actually add any core capacity. Any comprehensive route simplification scheme requires routing the  to 96; there is not space for the  and  to run up SAS today at full service levels. Similarly, there is no way to fill lower SAS (assuming  continues to upper SAS) without interlining a train onto 63 St -- which blocks an  reroute there. 

This is all a fancy way of making the capacity point. Today, there are 6 B division track pairs in Manhattan's core (8th local/express, Bway local/express, 6th local/express), and 6 track pairs leaving the core to the north (CPW local/express, 53, 60, 63, SAS). Thus, any addition of capacity in the core without addition of other northern routes constitutes a redistribution of capacity away from tracks which already exist -- this is what SAS does today. I have yet to find a fix for this problem which I really love, but I think it's fair to say that as proposed, SAS 3/4 have low-to-negative network ops value. 

It’s true. But without some serious additional infrastructure (starting with 2nd Ave), we have no choice but to interline across the B-Division once the  train enters the picture. Interlining has been a part of NYC subway operations almost right from the start. Getting transit planners and to see that in a different light would require breaking with more than a century’s worth of city transit planning. 

This is why I’ve suggested having the QB-SAS service replace the  or , not join them. There just isn’t the capacity for five QBL services. But a completely separate Queens-SAS service will cost way more.

Edited March 17, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue