Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Wallyhorse]

14 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

They have studied it.

There are zero Alphabet City alignments that are constructible without slowing down everyone passing through Alphabet City, so it's never been a realistic option. Duplicating the Lex is kind of the point of providing relief to it.

It is, but I was talking about putting it on 1st Avenue south of 23rd like the 2nd Avenue EL was, with the idea at 1st Street-1st Avenue of being able to build a connection to the Rutgers line and allow a branch of the SAS to run via that (that in turn could become the express line through Park Slope).  1st Avenue is at the westernmost end of Alphabet City and there was a reason the 2nd Avenue EL back in the day used to be on 1st Avenue south of 23rd Street. 

[bobtehpanda]

11 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

It is, but I was talking about putting it on 1st Avenue south of 23rd like the 2nd Avenue EL was, with the idea at 1st Street-1st Avenue of being able to build a connection to the Rutgers line and allow a branch of the SAS to run via that (that in turn could become the express line through Park Slope).  1st Avenue is at the westernmost end of Alphabet City and there was a reason the 2nd Avenue EL back in the day used to be on 1st Avenue south of 23rd Street. 

Same problem still applies; the fastest path between two points is a straight line. 

Also, given that most of the expense of Phase 2 is the property taking for the curve, two curves on either end is not a good idea, on top of how slow it would be.

[Lex]

4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Same problem still applies; the fastest path between two points is a straight line. 

Also, given that most of the expense of Phase 2 is the property taking for the curve, two curves on either end is not a good idea, on top of how slow it would be.

The only way I can see it being remotely feasible is by having trains effectively strafe between the two streets. There would still be curves, but they'd be (fairly) gentle, allowing for higher speeds.

Naturally, it would make Phase 2 look cheap.

[randomnewyorker23]

I've heard some people say the  should be extended to 96 St permanently, we have the  on the way though. Then again, nobody takes the  the whole route. 

[randomnewyorker23]

and you can walk or drive a car from Middle Village to Forest Hills faster than taking the train so it makes no sense.

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 3/18/2021 at 9:56 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

Once I get going I can't stop

I got to thinking if the last plan could be made better and I came up with this. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle are the same as they are now and the  connects to the Montague Tunnel while the runs via a new tunnel to Fulton St. I have the :V: no longer branching in Brooklyn but instead has the option of terminating at Chambers St or continuing as the West End peak express. What I like about this plan is there are even fewer moving parts, less interlining AND now Brighton Beach Line riders have at least one place to now transfer to 2nd Ave where as before they couldn't. The trade off is that now Myrtle riders lose a 2nd Ave connection. However it might be possible to have a new mezzanine connection between Grand St and Bowery stations so that at least Jamaica Line riders could have a connection to 2nd Ave. Myrtle riders will have to have a 3 seat ride... or just take the L instead?

The reason for the switch, or the switch in the first place, is that the famous Atlantic Ave provisions south of Whitehall station in the Montague Tunnel are in a tricky location from a construction point of view.
 

This nifty schematic shows how the tunnels from Broadway and Broad St merge underwater. In the drawing to the right you can see the provisions in checked lines at the bottom left. The issue is that these provisions are sandwiched in between the two South Ferry Terminal buildings (old and new).

I bring this up because it creates expensive technical difficulties. Engineers today want to build tunnels as easy as possible. This is why the current "design" of Phase 4 of 2nd Ave has a tunnel up to 100' below lower Manhattan so to simply avoid all off this above. The issue is that these proposed DEEP stations end up costing $1b or so. The whole point of rerouting 2nd Ave down Nassau St is to avoid all of this cost. But doing this eats up all the space in the Montague Tunnel, space which will conflict with the . The nice thing is that you still don't immediately need a new tunnel. But when you do it gets tricky.

If you built the new tunnel off the Montague provisions you'd have to shut down Slip 3 at South Ferry and that miiiight be a problem. So the alternative is that a new tunnel connects to Broad St instead. As you can see there is nothing there so cordoning off the area for a cofferdam dam is simpler. But this forces all 2nd Ave trains to use Fulton St. Not the end of the world but having the  run down 4th Ave gives the borough better balance in terms of Manhattan service.  via 4th Ave allows transfers to every other downtown Brooklyn service ( - the  of course  ) where as the  via Fulton gives riders fewer options to transfer. An added bonus here is that you can build new switches at Grand St and give the B/D a redundant connection to Brooklyn, one which they lack now.

The reverse problem is true on the Brooklyn side: a tunnel off of Broad St then has to snake around the existing tunnels to reach Court St station on the Fulton Line where as a tunnel off of the Montague provisions has a more space to run straight into Court St. So, as I see it, the Montague provisions offer an overall better connection but have a tricky construction job at Whitehall.

But you know, this is so far off in the future maybe we will have a new South Ferry building at that point and the whole issue will be moot.

Hey van

 

On 3/18/2021 at 9:56 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

Once I get going I can't stop

I got to thinking if the last plan could be made better and I came up with this. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle are the same as they are now and the  connects to the Montague Tunnel while the runs via a new tunnel to Fulton St. I have the :V: no longer branching in Brooklyn but instead has the option of terminating at Chambers St or continuing as the West End peak express. What I like about this plan is there are even fewer moving parts, less interlining AND now Brighton Beach Line riders have at least one place to now transfer to 2nd Ave where as before they couldn't. The trade off is that now Myrtle riders lose a 2nd Ave connection. However it might be possible to have a new mezzanine connection between Grand St and Bowery stations so that at least Jamaica Line riders could have a connection to 2nd Ave. Myrtle riders will have to have a 3 seat ride... or just take the L instead?

The reason for the switch, or the switch in the first place, is that the famous Atlantic Ave provisions south of Whitehall station in the Montague Tunnel are in a tricky location from a construction point of view.
 

This nifty schematic shows how the tunnels from Broadway and Broad St merge underwater. In the drawing to the right you can see the provisions in checked lines at the bottom left. The issue is that these provisions are sandwiched in between the two South Ferry Terminal buildings (old and new).

I bring this up because it creates expensive technical difficulties. Engineers today want to build tunnels as easy as possible. This is why the current "design" of Phase 4 of 2nd Ave has a tunnel up to 100' below lower Manhattan so to simply avoid all off this above. The issue is that these proposed DEEP stations end up costing $1b or so. The whole point of rerouting 2nd Ave down Nassau St is to avoid all of this cost. But doing this eats up all the space in the Montague Tunnel, space which will conflict with the . The nice thing is that you still don't immediately need a new tunnel. But when you do it gets tricky.

If you built the new tunnel off the Montague provisions you'd have to shut down Slip 3 at South Ferry and that miiiight be a problem. So the alternative is that a new tunnel connects to Broad St instead. As you can see there is nothing there so cordoning off the area for a cofferdam dam is simpler. But this forces all 2nd Ave trains to use Fulton St. Not the end of the world but having the  run down 4th Ave gives the borough better balance in terms of Manhattan service.  via 4th Ave allows transfers to every other downtown Brooklyn service ( - the  of course  ) where as the  via Fulton gives riders fewer options to transfer. An added bonus here is that you can build new switches at Grand St and give the B/D a redundant connection to Brooklyn, one which they lack now.

The reverse problem is true on the Brooklyn side: a tunnel off of Broad St then has to snake around the existing tunnels to reach Court St station on the Fulton Line where as a tunnel off of the Montague provisions has a more space to run straight into Court St. So, as I see it, the Montague provisions offer an overall better connection but have a tricky construction job at Whitehall.

But you know, this is so far off in the future maybe we will have a new South Ferry building at that point and the whole issue will be moot.

Vanshnookeraggen I like what your doing but you won’t actually need to build a new tunnel to Brooklyn for Fulton st connection How to do this. First connect 2nd Ave phase 4 to the montague st tunnel than relocate the transit museum somewhere else with the 2nd ave line build with a connection to the Fulton st line have the  train would than take over local service for the  train and run to Euclid Avenue and this frees up the train to be moved to the express tracks along side the  train this which would also trains to be extended to Lefferts blvd without creating YET ANOTHER interlocking issue that way all  train would can be diverted to the Rockways. Alternatively the  could be routed to bay ridge 95th st via 4th Ave local while the  train get rerouted to Euclid Avenue via Fulton st local. This plan gives 4th Ave Coney Island and southern Brooklyn riders better access to the east side to Manhattan.  what do you think of this plan. Note this plan is for the interline system, I have more proposals to include the 2nd ave line into a deinterline system. What proposal would you prefer. I prefer the first one since it would be smoother to put into effect. As bay ridge and 4th Ave line rider might lose access to Broadway line if the  train get rerouted to the Fulton st line and the deinterling plan to comes to effect. But then again customers could still use the  and/or  trains instead but that just me. But anyways what do you think 

 

[mrsman]

^^^^

There are several ways to go about making a new connection btwn Brooklyn and Lower manhattan.  One set involves making a new tunnel and one set involves routing more trains through the existing tunnels.  If you restrict yourself to using only the existing tunnels, then that necessarily will mean impacting the capacity of the lines that feed the tunnel.  One of the benefits of a general deinterlining system is that it maximizes capacity by removing the crossing and merging interference among the train lines.

Currerntly, both the Broadway local and the Nassau local tracks feed into the Montague tunnel.  There is no regular Nassau service into the tunnel, but if there was (and it did exist back in the days of the rush hour brown M to Brooklyn), it would necessarily mean that Broadway local would have to run fewer trains.  But it may not be necessary for Broadway local to be at full capacity - Broadway local will probably meet its demand at a lower capaicty given the existence of Broadway express and other train routes that parallel much of the Broadway local line.

So if Broadway local and 2nd Ave (via Nassau) both feed into the Montague tunnel, neither Broadway local nor 2nd Ave can run at full capacity.  This means short turning some of the trains at City Hall, Whitehall, or Broad St, or diverting some trains onto other lines (and causing more intermingling).  But if this is OK with you, then you are correct that you can run half of the Broadway locals and half of the 2nd Ave trains into the Montague tunnel, and then split the trains in Brooklyn, with half going to 4th Ave local and half going to Fulton local by way of the Transit museum stop.

Here is another possibility:  Vanshnookenraggen's deinterlining with 2nd Ave plan that you quoted above truncates the Broadway express at 57th.  There is no place for the Broadway express to go north of there since every "portal" further uptown or to Queens is occupied by another trains route.  So let's say we cancel the Broadway express, and we run an Astoria-Broadway local-Manhattan Bridge-Brighton line train.  This would mean that the stations on the Broadway local south of Canal do not get served.  Much of this section could get served if the 8th Ave local trains south of WTC were connected into this line to service the Rector and Whitehall stations [City Hall and Cortlandt would close].  Terminate the 8th Ave local at Whitehall, and provide that all 2nd Ave trains have exclusive access to the Montague tunnel and then in Brooklyn split the 2nd Ave trains with half going to the Fulton local and half going to the 4th Ave local on its way to the West End line.

 

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

Here is another possibility:  Vanshnookenraggen's deinterlining with 2nd Ave plan that you quoted above truncates the Broadway express at 57th.  There is no place for the Broadway express to go north of there since every "portal" further uptown or to Queens is occupied by another trains route.  So let's say we cancel the Broadway express, and we run an Astoria-Broadway local-Manhattan Bridge-Brighton line train.  This would mean that the stations on the Broadway local south of Canal do not get served.  Much of this section could get served if the 8th Ave local trains south of WTC were connected into this line to service the Rector and Whitehall stations [City Hall and Cortlandt would close].  Terminate the 8th Ave local at Whitehall, and provide that all 2nd Ave trains have exclusive access to the Montague tunnel and then in Brooklyn split the 2nd Ave trains with half going to the Fulton local and half going to the 4th Ave local on its way to the West End line.

The times to have done this would have been in 1966-'67 when the World Trade Center was first built and immediately after 9/11 when the streets were closed anyway.  MAYBE it can be done now since it would I believe be a straight shot between the Chambers/WTC and Cortlandt Street stations (one of which likely would be closed if this were done) as such would allow 6th and 8th Avenue trains to access 4th Avenue that way.  The Broadway Line could actually in this scenario go to how it was supposed to be originally, with express service over the bridge and locals servicing City Hall as the terminal, with in this case the lower level of City Hall built into a full station as well.  Perhaps as part of this it also can revert to the original plan of the lower level of City Hall continuing south and having a connection as well to the Montague section in addition to the 8th Avenue line at Cortlandt using mostly the existing track (save for some new tunnel/track that replaces the upper level of City Hall on the Broadway Line doing so as that would become the terminal) between City Hall and Cortlandt.  This is something that really should have been considered when the WTC was first being built.

That said, assuming the 8th Avenue Local Line replaced the Broadway line through the Montague tunnel, what I could see happening is this (assuming no SAS connection to Montague and 8th Avenue fully replacing the Broadway Line):

The staying on the local track, running at all times and continuing via the new connection and running to 95th Street-Bay Ridge (with the express at all times on 8th Avenue and also Fulton).

The becoming a full-time 8th Avenue express, running with the on Fulton like it used to (in rush hours back then) as a local on Fulton to Euclid Avenue (extended late nights to Lefferts).

The becoming City Hall-71st Continenal at all times (possibly late nights: City Hall to Times Square).

The becoming a full-time line and operating from Broadway Junction (or a rebuilt Atlantic Avenue station that would allow it to be used as a terminal) to 95th Street-Bay Ridge, running via the old  route (/Brown  route from Chambers southward).  WIth this, the  could terminate full-time at Chambers Street save for a handful of rush-hour trains that would continue to Broad Street or run with the  via Montague and 4th Avenue to the 9th Avenue station where such would end at/begin from. 

This to me could work. 

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

^^^^

There are several ways to go about making a new connection btwn Brooklyn and Lower manhattan.  One set involves making a new tunnel and one set involves routing more trains through the existing tunnels.  If you restrict yourself to using only the existing tunnels, then that necessarily will mean impacting the capacity of the lines that feed the tunnel.  One of the benefits of a general deinterlining system is that it maximizes capacity by removing the crossing and merging interference among the train lines.

Currerntly, both the Broadway local and the Nassau local tracks feed into the Montague tunnel.  There is no regular Nassau service into the tunnel, but if there was (and it did exist back in the days of the rush hour brown M to Brooklyn), it would necessarily mean that Broadway local would have to run fewer trains.  But it may not be necessary for Broadway local to be at full capacity - Broadway local will probably meet its demand at a lower capaicty given the existence of Broadway express and other train routes that parallel much of the Broadway local line.

So if Broadway local and 2nd Ave (via Nassau) both feed into the Montague tunnel, neither Broadway local nor 2nd Ave can run at full capacity.  This means short turning some of the trains at City Hall, Whitehall, or Broad St, or diverting some trains onto other lines (and causing more intermingling).  But if this is OK with you, then you are correct that you can run half of the Broadway locals and half of the 2nd Ave trains into the Montague tunnel, and then split the trains in Brooklyn, with half going to 4th Ave local and half going to Fulton local by way of the Transit museum stop.

Here is another possibility:  Vanshnookenraggen's deinterlining with 2nd Ave plan that you quoted above truncates the Broadway express at 57th.  There is no place for the Broadway express to go north of there since every "portal" further uptown or to Queens is occupied by another trains route.  So let's say we cancel the Broadway express, and we run an Astoria-Broadway local-Manhattan Bridge-Brighton line train.  This would mean that the stations on the Broadway local south of Canal do not get served.  Much of this section could get served if the 8th Ave local trains south of WTC were connected into this line to service the Rector and Whitehall stations [City Hall and Cortlandt would close].  Terminate the 8th Ave local at Whitehall, and provide that all 2nd Ave trains have exclusive access to the Montague tunnel and then in Brooklyn split the 2nd Ave trains with half going to the Fulton local and half going to the 4th Ave local on its way to the West End line.

 

I don't really see what the benefit of any of this is supposed to be given that it results in no net new trains under the river.

Nassau was rejected not only because of the capacity constraints (the deinterlining is not the only one; remember that the Eastern Division can only handle 8 cars, and is not ADA accessible) but because it would be a massive headache to construct and heavily impact Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridge operations for years, which is a nonstarter.

[Theli11]

29 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

The staying on the local track, running at all times and continuing via the new connection and running to 95th Street-Bay Ridge (with the express at all times on 8th Avenue and also Fulton).

 

32 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

The becoming a full-time line and operating from Broadway Junction (or a rebuilt Atlantic Avenue station that would allow it to be used as a terminal) to 95th Street-Bay Ridge, running via the old  route (/Brown  route from Chambers southward).  WIth this, the  could terminate full-time at Chambers Street save for a handful of rush-hour trains that would continue to Broad Street or run with the  via Montague and 4th Avenue to the 9th Avenue station where such would end at/begin from

Can’t run both  and  trains if you also have  trains running, you’d hurt service to Nassau, Whitehall, And Rector Sts.  Plus all 3 trains only run 8 cars meaning  trains are going to be really crowded.  trains are also going to be limited by the  train on Williamsburg bridge, running only  trains would mean only 3-4 trains will be able to run full route to Broadway Junction (which probably has limited terminal capacity if you’re only using one track.)

43 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:
The becoming a full-time 8th Avenue express, running with the on Fulton like it used to (in rush hours back then) as a local on Fulton to Euclid Avenue (extended late nights to Lefferts).

The becoming City Hall-71st Continenal at all times (possibly late nights: City Hall to Times Square).

Stop extending trains to Lefferts, the capacity isn’t there and you’re merging the  with the  at Euclid (late nights), Hoyt and 50th St. since the  and  run frequently there’s probably going to be some cut service on way or another. The  is another merge to worry about and you can’t just cut it or lower service for the sake of  service among Broadway and 53 St.  trains ending at Times Square for what?  and  service is just as long a local route as each other the difference is that the  just has better turning capabilities at 168 vs Forest Hills. Honestly if you’d drop the  service change and replaced it with some 2nd Avenue service it’d be much better. 

[Wallyhorse]

On 6/23/2021 at 3:41 PM, Theli11 said:

 

Can’t run both  and  trains if you also have  trains running, you’d hurt service to Nassau, Whitehall, And Rector Sts.  Plus all 3 trains only run 8 cars meaning  trains are going to be really crowded.  trains are also going to be limited by the  train on Williamsburg bridge, running only  trains would mean only 3-4 trains will be able to run full route to Broadway Junction (which probably has limited terminal capacity if you’re only using one track.)

Stop extending trains to Lefferts, the capacity isn’t there and you’re merging the  with the  at Euclid (late nights), Hoyt and 50th St. since the  and  run frequently there’s probably going to be some cut service on way or another. The  is another merge to worry about and you can’t just cut it or lower service for the sake of  service among Broadway and 53 St.  trains ending at Times Square for what?  and  service is just as long a local route as each other the difference is that the  just has better turning capabilities at 168 vs Forest Hills. Honestly if you’d drop the  service change and replaced it with some 2nd Avenue service it’d be much better. 

The as I would do it here would be limited to 8 TPH max.  The only time the would be extended at all is in rush hours, and then only to a max of 4 TPH to keep service going to Broad Street, and 12 TPH total between the two (all other trains would end at Chambers).  If it's not feasible to have the four  trains per hour that would be extended from Chambers terminate at Broad without delaying the , then those trains would be extended to 9th Avenue in Brooklyn on the , which would only go there because such would have a track to terminate there on.  The would still run as it does now, though possibly with 1-2 TPH in peak hours starting/ending at 2nd Avenue, but otherwise not really affected. 

The would ONLY be extended to Lefferts late nights, during an hour where it would be rare for both it and the to be approaching merge points at the same time so easily if scheduled correctly.    It would be done specifically to eliminate the need for the Lefferts shuttle late nights. 

As for the , that would be specifically if the 8th Avenue local () line took over Montague and the Broadway Line was cut off south of City Hall, which in this scenario would indeed become the terminal for what would be currently the "tunnel" trains.   The City Hall-Times Square running would be a late-night shuttle to accommodate those mainly at City Hall and the upper level (current "tunnel" level) of Canal Street (otherwise, it would run to 71-Continental as it does now but from City Hall instead of 95th).  In theory, that can be served mostly by the and  (in late nights) a block away between 14th Street and City Hall but not entirely. 

[mrsman]

On 6/23/2021 at 3:17 PM, bobtehpanda said:

I don't really see what the benefit of any of this is supposed to be given that it results in no net new trains under the river.

Nassau was rejected not only because of the capacity constraints (the deinterlining is not the only one; remember that the Eastern Division can only handle 8 cars, and is not ADA accessible) but because it would be a massive headache to construct and heavily impact Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridge operations for years, which is a nonstarter.

The idea is whether or not you can make smaller connection changes to the system, without forcing a new East River tunnel.  A new east river tunnel would be extremely costly.  So instead, you route the SAS into Nassau.  This is done by the construction of a new tunnel between Grand St (SAS,  ) and Chambers ( ) . The Chambers station has a lot of tracks, the station can be realigned so that the  and  terminate at Chambers and the SAS trains continue through Chambers to reach Fulton, Broad, and the Montague tunnel.

The question then remains about what should run in the Montague tunnel.  Right now, the default is that the tunnel is exclusively for use by Broadway locals, and not even every Broadway local uses it as  trains terminate at Whitehall.  One possibility is that you continue leaving Montague tunnel to be under the exclusive (revenue) use by Broadway locals.  One train can continue under existing trackage as the 4th Ave local in Brooklyn, and with a little bit of new construction under Brooklyn land, the other trai can be run thru the Transit museum to serve as the Fulton local to Euclid.  Doing this would mean terminating all SAS trains in Lower Manhattan at Broad Street

Anothe possibilty is to terminate all (revenue) Broadway locals at Whitehall and give over the exclusive use of the Montague tunnel to SAS trains.  As in the previous paragraph, the Montague tunnel trains (now being SAS instead of Broadway locals) could run as 4th Ave locals or Fulton locals, with construction of a tunnel in Brooklyn from the Montague tunnel mouth to the Transit Museum stop. One benefit of doing this would be to provide more connections in Brooklyn for the SAS, but it would be at the expense of Broadway local service and possibly keeping Broadway local service from reaching a yard in Brooklyn.

Another possibility is a hybrid approach.  1/2 of Broadway locals and 1/2 of SAS trains terminate in Lower Manhattan (Whitehall or Broad) with the other half of trains continuing into the Montague tunnel.  

Currently, both the Rutgers tunnel and the Montague tunnel are not running at capacity.  More trains should be routed through those tunnels before a new Manhattan-Brooklyn tunnel is contemplated.

 

[NewFlyer 230]

On 6/21/2021 at 3:30 AM, randomnewyorker23 said:

I've heard some people say the  should be extended to 96 St permanently, we have the  on the way though. Then again, nobody takes the  the whole route. 

I was one of those people who wanted the  to go to 96th street on the weekends. This would allow 6th Ave to have a 3rd service which I feel it needs and Brooklyn and south western Queens residents could have a one seat ride through midtown instead of having to transfer to the  or any other train line via the .

Those  trains weren’t exactly empty back then. Granted it was over served because of the  train project but I really think a  along 6th Ave on the weekend should happen. Every other line that runs through Midtown North and South gets to have 3 services. 

[CenSin]

On 3/26/2021 at 9:01 PM, Caelestor said:

That said, 3 Ave / Bowery is a good candidate for another trunk line; the transfers to the Nassau St, Houston St, 14 St, 42 St, 53 St, 59 St, and 63 St crosstown lines are all better there than 2 Ave, and it could turn east under 72 St to connect to SAS before heading into Queens. 

Houston Street/2 Avenue is actually the only station that has an inferior connection if done from Bowery instead of 2 Avenue since the existing station spans 1 to 2 Avenue. A 2 Avenue alignment overlaps with its platforms while a Bowery alignment does not.

It actually is pretty interesting that all of the crosstown stations at Lexington Avenue also touch 3 Avenue. I wonder if this is some legacy of the 3 Avenue elevated line having once existed.

[Trainmaster5]

7 hours ago, CenSin said:

Houston Street/2 Avenue is actually the only station that has an inferior connection if done from Bowery instead of 2 Avenue since the existing station spans 1 to 2 Avenue. A 2 Avenue alignment overlaps with its platforms while a Bowery alignment does not.

It actually is pretty interesting that all of the crosstown stations at Lexington Avenue also touch 3 Avenue. I wonder if this is some legacy of the 3 Avenue elevated line having once existed.

We actually kicked that last thought of yours around in a refresher course once. The consensus was that the original IRT was an interesting idea but the Second, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Avenue elevated lines were more important to the business, commercial, and residential interests back then. The subway, by making that turn on 42nd St. towards the west , pretty much ignored the entire East Side and the Bronx ridership, actual and potential. Even when the Lenox line was extended to the Bronx it was connected to the Second and Third Avenue els initially. Brook ( St. Ann’s) , Freeman St. , and 219th St. towers were a legacy of those connections in my career. Something to ponder. Carry on.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Trainmaster5
Additional thought

[bobtehpanda]

On 6/27/2021 at 3:34 PM, CenSin said:

Houston Street/2 Avenue is actually the only station that has an inferior connection if done from Bowery instead of 2 Avenue since the existing station spans 1 to 2 Avenue. A 2 Avenue alignment overlaps with its platforms while a Bowery alignment does not.

It actually is pretty interesting that all of the crosstown stations at Lexington Avenue also touch 3 Avenue. I wonder if this is some legacy of the 3 Avenue elevated line having once existed.

I would imagine it has a bit more to do with stop spacing.

Generally, the E-W subways stop every two avenue blocks or so. Most lines have 7th Av and 5th Av (14th has 8 & 6). 3rd fits in with that pattern better than Lexington, since Lexington is technically 3 1/2. And honestly even today I would imagine subway entrances on Park itself (4th) would be a nonstarter. And then there's the issue of clearing the river; some of the Lexington stations are very deep to clear it, and a 2nd station would be even more so.

[subwaykid256]

One idea I was thinking was to send the  via 2nd Av then after 42 St. Link up with 53 St tunnel and continue to Forest Hills

 

Or send the  to 2nd Av then go via 63 Street. Then go via 21 St to Astoria Park

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 3/17/2021 at 12:32 PM, 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.

Well I disagree with rerouting the B and D to Williamburg I don’t think it a good idea because Brooklyn riders would lose access to the 6th ave line and if reroutings are needed on 6th ave service the entire service would be screwed since at least the current lay out for rerouting allow for trains to go to Coney Island either way. Further more many riders would piss because they don’t want to lose 6th Ave service to Coney Island or lose access to lower Manhattan Nassau in Williamsburg. Not to mention that Jamaica line can’t handle 75 foot long train cars If necessary we should extend a 2nd ave line via a new tunnel to Williamburg. That would require multiple shut downs. And you be pissing off a lot of grand Concourse riders trying to get to Coney Island. And Williamburg trying to get to lower Manhattan Williamburg is a low priority for the SAS. The L and M are crowded, but are not that overwhelmed therefore do not justify letting riders suffer. Just build a new Williamburg subway connected to a 2nd Ave line

[Vulturious]

31 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Well I disagree with rerouting the B and D to Williamburg I don’t think it a good idea because Brooklyn riders would lose access to the 6th ave line and if reroutings are needed on 6th ave service the entire service would be screwed since at least the current lay out for rerouting allow for trains to go to Coney Island either way. Further more many riders would piss because they don’t want to lose 6th Ave service to Coney Island or lose access to lower Manhattan Nassau in Williamsburg. Not to mention that Jamaica line can’t handle 75 foot long train cars If necessary we should extend a 2nd ave line via a new tunnel to Williamburg. That would require multiple shut downs. And you be pissing off a lot of grand Concourse riders trying to get to Coney Island. And Williamburg trying to get to lower Manhattan Williamburg is a low priority for the SAS. The L and M are crowded, but are not that overwhelmed therefore do not justify letting riders suffer. Just build a new Williamburg subway connected to a 2nd Ave line

You do realize trains can easily swap equipment at any time if needed. Even if a train swap doesn't happen, you could have station lengths extended for that reason and reconstruct the entire line. Of course it's not the best approach, but it's not like the Eastern Division is in the best shape anyway. Many people avoid it because of many things, being too slow, no actual express service, and trains getting in the way of each other. Sooner or later, something is going to need to happen with the Eastern Division. There are a lot of benefits to having the  and  running along the Eastern Division. For starters, you got direct midtown service from Williamsburg, you got direct express service, and 24/7 service into midtown compared to just the Weekdays Only kind of service which is the . Even if they wanted to create a new tunnel into Williamsburg, they might as well have that replace the current Broadway-Brooklyn line. There was an idea creating the South 4 St Subway back in the 30s. 

As for SAS service in South Brooklyn, if the  decides to go with a different approach and go for what they originally had (not sure if it was the original idea, but it was one of them anyway), they can just go and convert Grand St station from being side platforms into island platforms with cross-platform transfers. If people along Concourse are trying to get to Coney Island, they can easily transfer to the  and  at 34 St-Herald Square or transfer to the  at Houston St. I would've included the , but honestly I find taking anything other than the  to Coney faster. 

[Amiri the subway guy]

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

You do realize trains can easily swap equipment at any time if needed. Even if a train swap doesn't happen, you could have station lengths extended for that reason and reconstruct the entire line. Of course it's not the best approach, but it's not like the Eastern Division is in the best shape anyway. Many people avoid it because of many things, being too slow, no actual express service, and trains getting in the way of each other. Sooner or later, something is going to need to happen with the Eastern Division. There are a lot of benefits to having the  and  running along the Eastern Division. For starters, you got direct midtown service from Williamsburg, you got direct express service, and 24/7 service into midtown compared to just the Weekdays Only kind of service which is the . Even if they wanted to create a new tunnel into Williamsburg, they might as well have that replace the current Broadway-Brooklyn line. There was an idea creating the South 4 St Subway back in the 30s. 

As for SAS service in South Brooklyn, if the  decides to go with a different approach and go for what they originally had (not sure if it was the original idea, but it was one of them anyway), they can just go and convert Grand St station from being side platforms into island platforms with cross-platform transfers. If people along Concourse are trying to get to Coney Island, they can easily transfer to the  and  at 34 St-Herald Square or transfer to the  at Houston St. I would've included the , but honestly I find taking anything other than the  to Coney faster. 

But the N and Q trains  will be overcrowded basically screwing over 34 st and that plan basically cuts off Williamburg from lower Manhattan and the shut downs will be a total pain.  That’s why I’m staying better to leave the Manhattan branch unchanged. And wouldn’t be better to just route the T and additional 2nd Ave train on the Williamburg bridge 

Other reasons why I oppose this

1. coney island Riders would lose access to the 6th ave lines AKA the heart of midtown  making Broadway even more crowded then before. PS that plan completely CUTS OFF riders from Central Park West and Grand Concourse the transfer would be too complex. You stated If people along Concourse are trying to get to Coney Island, they can easily transfer to the  and  at 34 St-Herald Square or transfer to the  at Houston St. (Yeah…. Try telling that to the many riders that would be pissed off by these propose changes) you also said that There are a lot of benefits to having the  and  running along the Eastern Division. For starters, you got direct midtown service from Williamsburg, you got direct express service, and 24/7 service into midtown compared to just the Weekdays Only kind of service which is the . (It’s not justifiable or worth it if it’s at the expense of losing lower Manhattan access via the J/Z) 

2. Riders made oppose this serve change this is definitely Guarantee to receive Backlash

3. If major rerouted are needed on the 6th ave line like the rebuilding project the service would be SCREWED. For example the F train could be routed to west end and the D train could be routed to culver in case of emergencies. The Broadway wouldn’t be able to be rerouted to 6th Ave if the B/D gets rerouted. So that plan does FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD. 

 

in conclusion just route 2nd Ave lines on the Williamsburg bridge instead if necessarily but Williamburg is a much lower priority compared to the rest of 2nd Avenue line 

The L M J/Z got it covered pretty fine

[Amiri the subway guy]

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

You do realize trains can easily swap equipment at any time if needed. Even if a train swap doesn't happen, you could have station lengths extended for that reason and reconstruct the entire line. Of course it's not the best approach, but it's not like the Eastern Division is in the best shape anyway. Many people avoid it because of many things, being too slow, no actual express service, and trains getting in the way of each other. Sooner or later, something is going to need to happen with the Eastern Division. There are a lot of benefits to having the  and  running along the Eastern Division. For starters, you got direct midtown service from Williamsburg, you got direct express service, and 24/7 service into midtown compared to just the Weekdays Only kind of service which is the . Even if they wanted to create a new tunnel into Williamsburg, they might as well have that replace the current Broadway-Brooklyn line. There was an idea creating the South 4 St Subway back in the 30s. 

As for SAS service in South Brooklyn, if the  decides to go with a different approach and go for what they originally had (not sure if it was the original idea, but it was one of them anyway), they can just go and convert Grand St station from being side platforms into island platforms with cross-platform transfers. If people along Concourse are trying to get to Coney Island, they can easily transfer to the  and  at 34 St-Herald Square or transfer to the  at Houston St. I would've included the , but honestly I find taking anything other than the  to Coney faster. 

I got a better plan
 

Phase 1 reroute the M train down to a new tunnel on Houston st stopping at cinton Pitt sts then build new 2nd Ave express K train to east Broadway and Montgomery st and build the new tunnel.

 

Phase 2 connect both to new elevated line at south 4th st and connect Williamburg brigade J/Z trains to the new elevated line the south 4th st would be 4 track line. Since majority wants to get to midtown the J/Z would be the express and K/M would be the local. All 4 trains would stop at Havemeyer st. The local only stops would be S 4th st Broadway with transfer to the G train. 

 

Phase 3 Flushing ave when the Z train would then split up to go to a new super express subway down flushing ave line at myrtle ave Broadway the M train go to the myrtle ave line at forest ave the m train would head off down fresh pond rd where while the Z train terminates at fresh pond rd flushing ave the M train continues 69 st queens blvd. 

 

Phase 4 rebuild the Jamaica Williamburg line from myrtle ave to Broadway junction as four track lines the J being express and K being local. Next the Alabama ave cypress hills part would be demolished and replaced by a new straight elevated line at Jamaica ave Airlington ave highland blvd would be local stops cypress hills would be express stops 75th st 85th st  would be local stops woodhaven blvd would then the terminal for the K train. The J train would then continue to Jamaica center and then extended phase 5 to Jamaica Hollis blvd. What do you think?

 

Alternative plan would be to sent the T train to Jamaica line reroute the Z train down to 2nd Avenue line and reroute the Z train to 2nd Avenue line and with the 2nd Avenue lines connections to midtown this frees up the M train to be rerouted back downtown. 

Phase 1 both the T and Z trains would be connected to a new train tunnel to Williamburg after running on the 2nd ave local. Phase 2 connect the tunnel to new elevated line at south 4th st and connect Williamburg brigade J/M trains to the new elevated line the south 4th st would be 4 track line. The J/M would be the local and T/Z would be the express. All 4 trains would stop at Havemeyer st. The local only stops would be S 4th st Broadway with transfer to the G train. 

Phase 3 Flushing ave when the T train would then split up to go to a new super express subway down flushing ave line at myrtle ave Broadway the M train go to the myrtle ave line at forest ave the M train would head off down fresh pond rd meeting up with the T train the M train terminates at fresh pond rd flushing ave the T train continues to CUNY queens college Kissena blvd. 

Phase 4 rebuild the Jamaica Williamburg line from myrtle ave to Broadway junction as four track lines the J being local and Z being express. Next the Alabama ave cypress hills part would be demolished and replaced by a new straight elevated line at Jamaica ave Airlington ave highland blvd would be local stops cypress hills would be express stops 75th st 85th st  would be local stops woodhaven blvd would then the terminal for the Z train. The J train would then continue to Jamaica center and then extended phase 5 to Jamaica Hollis blvd.

Which plan do you like better

[Vulturious]

10 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

But the N and Q trains  will be overcrowded basically screwing over 34 st and that plan basically cuts off Williamburg from lower Manhattan and the shut downs will be a total pain.  That’s why I’m staying better to leave the Manhattan branch unchanged. And wouldn’t be better to just route the T and additional 2nd Ave train on the Williamburg bridge 

Other reasons why I oppose this

1. coney island Riders would lose access to the 6th ave lines AKA the heart of midtown  making Broadway even more crowded then before. PS that plan completely CUTS OFF riders from Central Park West and Grand Concourse the transfer would be too complex. You stated If people along Concourse are trying to get to Coney Island, they can easily transfer to the  and  at 34 St-Herald Square or transfer to the  at Houston St. (Yeah…. Try telling that to the many riders that would be pissed off by these propose changes) you also said that There are a lot of benefits to having the  and  running along the Eastern Division. For starters, you got direct midtown service from Williamsburg, you got direct express service, and 24/7 service into midtown compared to just the Weekdays Only kind of service which is the . (It’s not justifiable or worth it if it’s at the expense of losing lower Manhattan access via the J/Z) 

2. Riders made oppose this serve change this is definitely Guarantee to receive Backlash

3. If major rerouted are needed on the 6th ave line like the rebuilding project the service would be SCREWED. For example the F train could be routed to west end and the D train could be routed to culver in case of emergencies. The Broadway wouldn’t be able to be rerouted to 6th Ave if the B/D gets rerouted. So that plan does FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD. 

 

in conclusion just route 2nd Ave lines on the Williamsburg bridge instead if necessarily but Williamburg is a much lower priority compared to the rest of 2nd Avenue line 

The L M J/Z got it covered pretty fine

The , , , and  do not cover pretty fine actually. Have you ridden the  before? I haven't but I always here something bad happening with the . The  for the most part is a very isolated line with nothing to interfere with it at all. It's a good thing too because it allows for maximum service to run  trains. While that might be a good thing, it is also a bad thing at the same time. Because the  is an isolated line, that also means if something were to happen, the  is pretty much screwed entirely. Whether it would be something happening with a train, signal issues, or track maintenance, the whole line gets screwed. The  is a very packed line, I cannot stress that enough. There isn't any extra tracks like a middle express tracks to allow some trains to run express, the whole thing is all local and two tracks only. Then you also got the fact that it is 60 feet of 8 cars long.

The  is pretty much the alternative to the , but there is an issue with that line as well, not only is it all local, but it is also only 8 cars long as well. Williamsburg Bridge cannot handle that many trains running in and out of Brooklyn and Manhattan. Adding an SAS line while keeping the current  and  lines would be hell for everyone. You would have no choice but to get rid of one line, that might as well be the . But then now you got the issue as you said of no direct service into the heart of midtown. How many people want service into Lower Manhattan compared to people that want service into Midtown?

And speaking of direct service, there's always going to be an issue of running direct service. There are multiple threads talking that can relate to direct service one way or another, whether it's directly about direct service or indirectly. Unfortunately, having direct service can bring in a lot of drawbacks. Look at how service runs today or at least pre-COVID, there are a lot of delays. Of course, a good chunk of it can be blamed on other factors like signals, track defects, train issues, etc. However, if all of that was completely fine, you would still experience delays. Where exactly are those said delays then?

Let's take a look at the , currently the  would have to deal with 3 different lines, the , , and . Starting from Coney Island, only delays would be getting the lineup to depart, from there it's completely fine up until 36 St. If a  and  are about to arrive at the same time, one of them will have no choice and be delayed while another passes on by, lets say it's the  that pass through first. Of course that is just one delay, continue on down along 4 Av towards Dekalb Junction,  trains would then be delayed again waiting for the lineup onto the north side of the Manhattan Bridge because an  train is trying to pass through on the south side, but a  might also get in the way of the  which leads to further delays. Then the  finally passes, but the  reaches first and passes on by which is even further delay because both run together along the Manhattan Bridge all the way until 59 St-Columbus Circle where both splits off running on separate tracks. However, an  can get in the way of the  trying to get through because both runs along the same tracks along CPW until 145 St which forces  trains to wait until that passes by. Now it all depends on what the time of day it is of whether or not  trains are running to Bedford Park Blvd or terminating at 145 St.  trains wouldn't really be hurt if they're still continuing express along Concourse, but during the AM Rush, they would be running express towards Manhattan, which means both trains would merge again. You see what I'm talking about. Now you're wondering what does this have to do with anything, well having both  and  trains running into Williamsburg while replacing  and  trains actually work. For starters, the amount of merging the  would have would be reduced which allows for both trains to increase the amount of trains per hour.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is these are proposals and all these proposals will always have their cons. While do not mind sticking with our current service, SAS being brought in should bring in ideas that can help better our current service. Currently, bringing the SAS has brought on more problems than solutions, while it helps relieve service along the Lexington Av line, no express tracks and tons of money wasted upon design and infrastructure.

[Amiri the subway guy]

22 hours ago, Vulturious said:

The , , , and  do not cover pretty fine actually. Have you ridden the  before? I haven't but I always here something bad happening with the . The  for the most part is a very isolated line with nothing to interfere with it at all. It's a good thing too because it allows for maximum service to run  trains. While that might be a good thing, it is also a bad thing at the same time. Because the  is an isolated line, that also means if something were to happen, the  is pretty much screwed entirely. Whether it would be something happening with a train, signal issues, or track maintenance, the whole line gets screwed. The  is a very packed line, I cannot stress that enough. There isn't any extra tracks like a middle express tracks to allow some trains to run express, the whole thing is all local and two tracks only. Then you also got the fact that it is 60 feet of 8 cars long.

The  is pretty much the alternative to the , but there is an issue with that line as well, not only is it all local, but it is also only 8 cars long as well. Williamsburg Bridge cannot handle that many trains running in and out of Brooklyn and Manhattan. Adding an SAS line while keeping the current  and  lines would be hell for everyone. You would have no choice but to get rid of one line, that might as well be the . But then now you got the issue as you said of no direct service into the heart of midtown. How many people want service into Lower Manhattan compared to people that want service into Midtown?

And speaking of direct service, there's always going to be an issue of running direct service. There are multiple threads talking that can relate to direct service one way or another, whether it's directly about direct service or indirectly. Unfortunately, having direct service can bring in a lot of drawbacks. Look at how service runs today or at least pre-COVID, there are a lot of delays. Of course, a good chunk of it can be blamed on other factors like signals, track defects, train issues, etc. However, if all of that was completely fine, you would still experience delays. Where exactly are those said delays then?

Let's take a look at the , currently the  would have to deal with 3 different lines, the , , and . Starting from Coney Island, only delays would be getting the lineup to depart, from there it's completely fine up until 36 St. If a  and  are about to arrive at the same time, one of them will have no choice and be delayed while another passes on by, lets say it's the  that pass through first. Of course that is just one delay, continue on down along 4 Av towards Dekalb Junction,  trains would then be delayed again waiting for the lineup onto the north side of the Manhattan Bridge because an  train is trying to pass through on the south side, but a  might also get in the way of the  which leads to further delays. Then the  finally passes, but the  reaches first and passes on by which is even further delay because both run together along the Manhattan Bridge all the way until 59 St-Columbus Circle where both splits off running on separate tracks. However, an  can get in the way of the  trying to get through because both runs along the same tracks along CPW until 145 St which forces  trains to wait until that passes by. Now it all depends on what the time of day it is of whether or not  trains are running to Bedford Park Blvd or terminating at 145 St.  trains wouldn't really be hurt if they're still continuing express along Concourse, but during the AM Rush, they would be running express towards Manhattan, which means both trains would merge again. You see what I'm talking about. Now you're wondering what does this have to do with anything, well having both  and  trains running into Williamsburg while replacing  and  trains actually work. For starters, the amount of merging the  would have would be reduced which allows for both trains to increase the amount of trains per hour.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is these are proposals and all these proposals will always have their cons. While do not mind sticking with our current service, SAS being brought in should bring in ideas that can help better our current service. Currently, bringing the SAS has brought on more problems than solutions, while it helps relieve service along the Lexington Av line, no express tracks and tons of money wasted upon design and infrastructure.

How many people want service into Lower Manhattan compared to people that want service into Midtown? A whole bunch (aka the same amount) of people who ride the  from Jamaica who ride the train straight to Canal, Chambers, Fulton and Broad St. It's funny how people talk about the (J)/(Z) but don't use it daily.I see videos of the J and Z crowded during rush hours lower Manhattan and seen the ridership grow with the WTC construction. 

[mrsman]

On 7/16/2021 at 10:09 PM, Vulturious said:

You do realize trains can easily swap equipment at any time if needed. Even if a train swap doesn't happen, you could have station lengths extended for that reason and reconstruct the entire line. Of course it's not the best approach, but it's not like the Eastern Division is in the best shape anyway. Many people avoid it because of many things, being too slow, no actual express service, and trains getting in the way of each other. Sooner or later, something is going to need to happen with the Eastern Division. There are a lot of benefits to having the  and  running along the Eastern Division. For starters, you got direct midtown service from Williamsburg, you got direct express service, and 24/7 service into midtown compared to just the Weekdays Only kind of service which is the . Even if they wanted to create a new tunnel into Williamsburg, they might as well have that replace the current Broadway-Brooklyn line. There was an idea creating the South 4 St Subway back in the 30s. 

As for SAS service in South Brooklyn, if the  decides to go with a different approach and go for what they originally had (not sure if it was the original idea, but it was one of them anyway), they can just go and convert Grand St station from being side platforms into island platforms with cross-platform transfers. If people along Concourse are trying to get to Coney Island, they can easily transfer to the  and  at 34 St-Herald Square or transfer to the  at Houston St. I would've included the , but honestly I find taking anything other than the  to Coney faster. 

 When thinking about the SAS phases to Downtown, there are two main goals that the new constructions should achieve: 1) connect SAS into the lower Manhattan area, and 2) integrate further extensions of SAS better into Brooklyn.  A big problem with the current plans for SAS is that there are too few opportunities to connect with the rest of the system.

A plan to have the SAS meet the 6th Ave express trains at a cross-platform transfer would be very good.  It will allow an easy transfer to the south Brooklyn trains, while still maintaing a connection to Downtown along Water Street.  IMO, it would be even more ideal, if SAS trains could run in the Nassau street lines.  This would allow some SAS service directly into Southern Brooklyn via Montague tunnel.

Having all the SAS service connect to the Willamsburg Bridge would not be ideal, because the trains following that rail pattern would avoid all of those connection points in Lower Manhattan.

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

 When thinking about the SAS phases to Downtown, there are two main goals that the new constructions should achieve: 1) connect SAS into the lower Manhattan area, and 2) integrate further extensions of SAS better into Brooklyn.  A big problem with the current plans for SAS is that there are too few opportunities to connect with the rest of the system.

A plan to have the SAS meet the 6th Ave express trains at a cross-platform transfer would be very good.  It will allow an easy transfer to the south Brooklyn trains, while still maintaing a connection to Downtown along Water Street.  IMO, it would be even more ideal, if SAS trains could run in the Nassau street lines.  This would allow some SAS service directly into Southern Brooklyn via Montague tunnel.

Having all the SAS service connect to the Willamsburg Bridge would not be ideal, because the trains following that rail pattern would avoid all of those connection points in Lower Manhattan.

Thank you for bringing up Nassau St, if the  is still planning to connect SAS service along 63 St into Queens, they should make it so one service continues to operate down what is currently planned for SAS going uptown and the other service from QBL would run along Nassau St replacing the  from Chambers to Broad St. The  from Harlem continuing down its current planned routing towards Hanover Square would continue further into Brooklyn and will run along a new tunnel into the Old Court St station (Transit Museum) and run to Euclid as the Fulton Local. This would allow for  trains to takeover Lefferts Branch as the  can take all of the Rockaways and maybe even get rid of the Rockaway .