Jump to content

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Thank you for bringing up Nassau St, if the (MTA) 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 (J)(Z) from Chambers to Broad St. The (T) 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 (C) trains to takeover Lefferts Branch as the (A) can take all of the Rockaways and maybe even get rid of the Rockaway (S)

All you have to do is figure out a way to build that Nassau St connection without shutting off Willy B, Rutgers, and Manhattan Bridge service for 5-10 years. And also extend all the platforms on Nassau St to 10 cars, and make all the stations ADA accessible. 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

All you have to do is figure out a way to build that Nassau St connection without shutting off Willy B, Rutgers, and Manhattan Bridge service for 5-10 years. And also extend all the platforms on Nassau St to 10 cars, and make all the stations ADA accessible. 🙄

I don't see how Manhattan Bridge or Rutgers would be affected by any construction to Nassau.  (J)(Z) trains may be reduced in frequency and will probably need to terminate at Canal for the duration of construction.  (M) should still run normally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

All you have to do is figure out a way to build that Nassau St connection without shutting off Willy B, Rutgers, and Manhattan Bridge service for 5-10 years. And also extend all the platforms on Nassau St to 10 cars, and make all the stations ADA accessible. 🙄

Yes but I said earlier removing the (B)(D) from the Manhattan bridge would cause Coney Island riders to lose access to the 6th Avenue Central Park West and Grand Concourse and removing the (J)(Z) from Williamsburg Bridge would cause riders to lose access to Nassau st line AKA the only connecting to lower Manhattan. That plan would pisses off many riders. Why can’t we just connect the 2nd Avenue line to Williamburg bridge instead (but again not worth if it at the expense losing access to lower Manhattan) Williamburg is a much lower priority compared to the rest of 2nd Avenue line plan. My plan for Williamburg would either be to route a SAS K train to eastern parkway down via a new tunnel and subway line Bedford ave in Williamburg Brooklyn or via a new tunnel to Williamburg Brooklyn via south 3rd st Scholes st Morgan ave and Wilson Avenue 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

All you have to do is figure out a way to build that Nassau St connection without shutting off Willy B, Rutgers, and Manhattan Bridge service for 5-10 years. And also extend all the platforms on Nassau St to 10 cars, and make all the stations ADA accessible. 🙄

 

Just now, Amiri the subway guy said:

Yes but I said earlier removing the (B)(D) from the Manhattan bridge would cause Coney Island riders to lose access to the 6th Avenue Central Park West and Grand Concourse and removing the (J)(Z) from Williamsburg Bridge would cause riders to lose access to Nassau st line AKA the only connecting to lower Manhattan. That plan would pisses off many riders. Why can’t we just connect the 2nd Avenue line to Williamburg bridge instead (but again not worth if it at the expense losing access to lower Manhattan) Williamburg is a much lower priority compared to the rest of 2nd Avenue line plan. My plan for Williamburg would either be to route a SAS K train to eastern parkway down via a new tunnel and subway line Bedford ave in Williamburg Brooklyn or via a new tunnel to Williamburg Brooklyn via south 3rd st Scholes st Morgan ave and Wilson Avenue 

PS And BMT eastern division cannot handle 75 foot long trains trains

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

 

PS And BMT eastern division cannot handle 75 foot long trains trains

By the time Phase 3 opens. The system will probably have phased out all 75 footers from passenger service. (I personally think that whatever replaces the 68/68A’s is going to be a 60 footer train model similar to the 143, 160, 179 and 211) The issue with a Williamsburg Extension is the lack of Connections to other subway routes. The most you’d get is the (A)(C)(F)(G) and (L) trains and a few SBS routes whereas an SAS-South Brooklyn Connection provides much more from Atlantic Alone. I’m personally on the fence about a (B)(D) Williamsburg (T) West End/Brighton idea but the network benefits of such an idea are undeniably present. 
 

Now to stray a little bit from SAS, what are your thoughts on upgrading the BMT Eastern Division to widen curves, remove bottlenecks and accommodate 10 Car Trains?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

By the time Phase 3 opens. The system will probably have phased out all 75 footers from passenger service. (I personally think that whatever replaces the 68/68A’s is going to be a 60 footer train model similar to the 143, 160, 179 and 211) The issue with a Williamsburg Extension is the lack of Connections to other subway routes. The most you’d get is the (A)(C)(F)(G) and (L) trains and a few SBS routes whereas an SAS-South Brooklyn Connection provides much more from Atlantic Alone. I’m personally on the fence about a (B)(D) Williamsburg (T) West End/Brighton idea but the network benefits of such an idea are undeniably present. 
 

Now to stray a little bit from SAS, what are your thoughts on upgrading the BMT Eastern Division to widen curves, remove bottlenecks and accommodate 10 Car Trains?

Well here’s how to improve BMT Eastern Division, let’s start with the L train since that route NEEDS THE TRAIN CAR EXPANSION THE MOST. So we should start off with the elevated stations since it would be easier. Then we can move on to underground sections. Now let’s move on to the myrte ave and Jamaica lines. The M train will be lengthen first Since the M train has a higher ridership runs via 6th ave and queens blvd it would be a MUCH HIGHER PRIORITY to lengthen it to 10 cars last but not least we would lengthen the J/Z trains to 10 cars.  We would finish off with the lower Manhattan part. Oh and Marcy ave would be covered into an island station and since Lorimer st and hewes st are way too close to each other I believe we should abandon them entirely and build one new station at Union ave with a connection to the G train. And Norwood ave and Cleveland st should also be close and replace by a new station at Shepherd ave. Next to eliminate the bottleneck problem at myrte ave building a new flying junction between the Flushing Av station and Myrtle Ave station. The current local tracks would be moved outward so that two new tracks can be added between. These two new tracks would connect to both the local and express tracks. As they approach Myrtle Ave the new tracks would rise up and a new upper level station would be built over the existing Myrtle Ave station, though slightly to the west. I propose having myrte ave converted into a duel level station. Oh and another proposal I have in mind is building a third track for peak way express service so the J train would make all stops and the Z train would be converted into a Peak way express service. I was going to eliminate the Z train entirely and replace it with <J> service but I figured Z would be even better since it would reduce confusion the express track would be build between 121 st and crescent st. And we must also expand the Train yards of each BMT eastern division lines. I don’t know how much people would benefit but by looking at vanshnookenraggen Twitter post here the estimate 
L train 8 cars: 46,656
L train 10 cars: 58,320
M train 8 cars: 17,496
M train 10 cars: 24,300
J/Z train 8 cars: 21,384
J/Z train 10 cars: 36,450

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mrsman said:

I don't see how Manhattan Bridge or Rutgers would be affected by any construction to Nassau.  (J)(Z) trains may be reduced in frequency and will probably need to terminate at Canal for the duration of construction.  (M) should still run normally.

The Chrystie St connection has the (M) and the (B)(D) running through it. And then you're now weaving the (T) with a lot of level changes as well.

The (F) is less directly affected, but if you lose the (M) then Delancey-Essex once again becomes one of the most congested stations in the system. It's the entire reason why the 6th Av (M) is never going to go away.

9 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

By the time Phase 3 opens. The system will probably have phased out all 75 footers from passenger service. (I personally think that whatever replaces the 68/68A’s is going to be a 60 footer train model similar to the 143, 160, 179 and 211) The issue with a Williamsburg Extension is the lack of Connections to other subway routes. The most you’d get is the (A)(C)(F)(G) and (L) trains and a few SBS routes whereas an SAS-South Brooklyn Connection provides much more from Atlantic Alone. I’m personally on the fence about a (B)(D) Williamsburg (T) West End/Brighton idea but the network benefits of such an idea are undeniably present. 

I mean, the platforms are also not 600 ft long, no?

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

No they're not, but I think we can both agree that extending them to 600' would be a good investment

But also potentially more costly and complicated than just building the dumb simple straight ROW down Water St with new platforms.

Like, if there wasn't a crapton of work involved, maybe Nassau would save money, but I really don't think it would, and it's also not a great ROW even if it has connections to Brooklyn; after all, you're then limited by the (R) also going through Montague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

But also potentially more costly and complicated than just building the dumb simple straight ROW down Water St with new platforms.

Like, if there wasn't a crapton of work involved, maybe Nassau would save money, but I really don't think it would, and it's also not a great ROW even if it has connections to Brooklyn; after all, you're then limited by the (R) also going through Montague.

Thats true. Also it seems like I misunderstood as I thought we were talking about the BMT Eastern Division EAST of the Williamsburg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

But also potentially more costly and complicated than just building the dumb simple straight ROW down Water St with new platforms.

Like, if there wasn't a crapton of work involved, maybe Nassau would save money, but I really don't think it would, and it's also not a great ROW even if it has connections to Brooklyn; after all, you're then limited by the (R) also going through Montague.

Water is straighter, but with far fewer transfers than Nassau. I’ve long wondered if it’s viable to have some sort of “compromise” alignment that uses the Water alignment down to Chatham Square, then turns onto Park Row and merges into the Nassau Line between Chambers and Fulton, so you can still have the transfers between the lines at Fulton, rather than passing under all of them with no transfers. Granted, you’d still have to lengthen Fulton and Broad. Lengthening Fulton would definitely not be an easy task.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Thats true. Also it seems like I misunderstood as I thought we were talking about the BMT Eastern Division EAST of the Williamsburg

You’d still have to lengthen the platforms on the Manhattan side, too. Though I have a sinking feeling, doing that at Fulton would be especially difficult.

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

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Water is straighter, but with far fewer transfers than Nassau. I’ve long wondered if it’s viable to have some sort of “compromise” alignment that uses the Water alignment down to Chatham Square, then turns onto Park Row and merges into the Nassau Line between Chambers and Fulton, so you can still have the transfers between the lines at Fulton, rather than passing under all of them with no transfers. Granted, you’d still have to lengthen Fulton and Broad. Lengthening Fulton would definitely not be an easy task.

You’d still have to lengthen the platforms on the Manhattan side, too. Though I have a sinking feeling, doing that at Fulton would be especially difficult.

That seems like an interesting routing.  From Chatham Square follow Park Row and link into the Nassau line somewhere south of the Chambers station.  The digging on Park Row should be easier than on other portions of the route because much of the street is closed to regular traffic.

While it would be nice to connect SAS to Chambers (either by routing it into the station or by building a new station at Police Plaza and providing a transfer), it does not seem to be a critical need.  SAS trains can transfer to (4)(5) at Fulton and presumably if SAS trains will run into the Grand Street station a transfer could (and should) be provided to Bowery (J)(Z) .  So the only train that SAS will miss without a Chambers connection would be (6) .  

So with the supposed routing, some SAS trains can continue into Brooklyn via the Montague tunnel and make all the transfers that the (R) can make in Brooklyn.  (2)(3)(4)(5) at Boro Hall, (A)(C)(F) at Jay, and of course DeKalb and Atlantic.  I imagine that half of the SAS trains will go in the tunnel and half will terminate at Broad.  Likewise, half of the Broadway locals will terminate at Whitehall and half will continue into the tunnel.  Both (R) and the SAS service can then continue south as some form of 4th Ave local, perhaps to Bay Ridge and/or the West End line.

Lengthening Fulton and Broad platforms is not necessarily cheap, but would it be cheaper than a brand new tunnel on Water Street in the lowest portions of Manhattan?  Would it be cheaper than a brand new tunnel to Brooklyn?  Would a transfer from Fulton/Water be as convenient to (A)(C) trains as it would be if the platform were under Fulton/Nassau?

IMO, the connections at Fulton alone, even without an extension to Brooklyn, and even without any other tansfers south of Grand, would fully integrate SAS into the system.  And is the only remaining issue the feasibility of platform lengthening at two stations?  We all know that platform lengthening was done in the past on the original IRT subway.  Doing so here would be a good investment as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

Lengthening Fulton and Broad platforms is not necessarily cheap, but would it be cheaper than a brand new tunnel on Water Street in the lowest portions of Manhattan?  Would it be cheaper than a brand new tunnel to Brooklyn?  Would a transfer from Fulton/Water be as convenient to (A)(C) trains as it would be if the platform were under Fulton/Nassau?

IMO, the connections at Fulton alone, even without an extension to Brooklyn, and even without any other tansfers south of Grand, would fully integrate SAS into the system.  And is the only remaining issue the feasibility of platform lengthening at two stations?  We all know that platform lengthening was done in the past on the original IRT subway.  Doing so here would be a good investment as well.

Well for starters, nothing is in the way of a ten car platform on Water St because nothing is there yet. The same cannot be said of the Nassau Line, which like the rest of the subway has a lot of columns supporting everything that would have to be dealt with, and Fulton St itself is ultra-constrained given the double stacking of the platforms that was deemed necessary when it was built. Also, you would then be removing Fulton access from Jamaica; Fulton has only two tracks. This is a huge negative.

There are other ways to skin the connections cat. One I've heard is to swap the Sixth and Second Avenue lines at Grand, so Second Avenue goes over the bridge (getting all the connections) and Sixth goes down Water St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Well for starters, nothing is in the way of a ten car platform on Water St because nothing is there yet. The same cannot be said of the Nassau Line, which like the rest of the subway has a lot of columns supporting everything that would have to be dealt with, and Fulton St itself is ultra-constrained given the double stacking of the platforms that was deemed necessary when it was built. Also, you would then be removing Fulton access from Jamaica; Fulton has only two tracks. This is a huge negative.

There are other ways to skin the connections cat. One I've heard is to swap the Sixth and Second Avenue lines at Grand, so Second Avenue goes over the bridge (getting all the connections) and Sixth goes down Water St.

Just build phase 4 with provision for a new tunnel to Fulton st why it that so complicated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mrsman said:

That seems like an interesting routing.  From Chatham Square follow Park Row and link into the Nassau line somewhere south of the Chambers station.  The digging on Park Row should be easier than on other portions of the route because much of the street is closed to regular traffic.

While it would be nice to connect SAS to Chambers (either by routing it into the station or by building a new station at Police Plaza and providing a transfer), it does not seem to be a critical need.  SAS trains can transfer to (4)(5) at Fulton and presumably if SAS trains will run into the Grand Street station a transfer could (and should) be provided to Bowery (J)(Z) .  So the only train that SAS will miss without a Chambers connection would be (6) .  

So with the supposed routing, some SAS trains can continue into Brooklyn via the Montague tunnel and make all the transfers that the (R) can make in Brooklyn.  (2)(3)(4)(5) at Boro Hall, (A)(C)(F) at Jay, and of course DeKalb and Atlantic.  I imagine that half of the SAS trains will go in the tunnel and half will terminate at Broad.  Likewise, half of the Broadway locals will terminate at Whitehall and half will continue into the tunnel.  Both (R) and the SAS service can then continue south as some form of 4th Ave local, perhaps to Bay Ridge and/or the West End line.

Lengthening Fulton and Broad platforms is not necessarily cheap, but would it be cheaper than a brand new tunnel on Water Street in the lowest portions of Manhattan?  Would it be cheaper than a brand new tunnel to Brooklyn?  Would a transfer from Fulton/Water be as convenient to (A)(C) trains as it would be if the platform were under Fulton/Nassau?

IMO, the connections at Fulton alone, even without an extension to Brooklyn, and even without any other tansfers south of Grand, would fully integrate SAS into the system.  And is the only remaining issue the feasibility of platform lengthening at two stations?  We all know that platform lengthening was done in the past on the original IRT subway.  Doing so here would be a good investment as well.

Just build phase 4 with provision for a new tunnel to Fulton st why it that so complicated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Just build phase 4 with provision for a new tunnel to Fulton st why it that so complicated

It's complicated because it would be very expensive to build a new tunnel from Hanover Square on Fulton. It is even more expensive when we got people in charge that want to spend extra money to make it look fancy, something that the first phase screwed up on. The infrastructure and design alone was a lot of money, the first phase was the most expensive subway line in the world last I checked. Just for 3 new stations and one station redesign. If they were smart about their approach, they might've been able to at least have one or maybe two more tracks with just as much money spent. I could be getting some of the details wrong or missing a few, but regardless my point is that it would be very expensive.

Having connections to other lines such as Nassau would be very beneficial. Sure a connection to Fulton is just as beneficial, but the connection to Nassau at least allows for more connection into Brooklyn, you could easily have another route from South Brooklyn be rerouted along SAS which the (Q) can take advantage of. The connection to Fulton would have more perks for trains coming Fulton, if Grand St conversion does actually happen (which it would), (A) and (C) trains can easily be rerouted along it and (F) trains wouldn't get so screwed every time something happens south of West 4 St along 8 Av line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

It's complicated because it would be very expensive to build a new tunnel from Hanover Square on Fulton. It is even more expensive when we got people in charge that want to spend extra money to make it look fancy, something that the first phase screwed up on.

To be quite clear, the tail tracks for the tunnel for Phase IV will reach to under the South Ferry building. There wouldn't be additional stations between Hanover and Fulton, mostly because you need to get a certain depth to clear the river. So there's nothing really to make fancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Vulturious said:

It's complicated because it would be very expensive to build a new tunnel from Hanover Square on Fulton. It is even more expensive when we got people in charge that want to spend extra money to make it look fancy, something that the first phase screwed up on. The infrastructure and design alone was a lot of money, the first phase was the most expensive subway line in the world last I checked. Just for 3 new stations and one station redesign. If they were smart about their approach, they might've been able to at least have one or maybe two more tracks with just as much money spent. I could be getting some of the details wrong or missing a few, but regardless my point is that it would be very expensive.

Having connections to other lines such as Nassau would be very beneficial. Sure a connection to Fulton is just as beneficial, but the connection to Nassau at least allows for more connection into Brooklyn, you could easily have another route from South Brooklyn be rerouted along SAS which the (Q) can take advantage of. The connection to Fulton would have more perks for trains coming Fulton, if Grand St conversion does actually happen (which it would), (A) and (C) trains can easily be rerouted along it and (F) trains wouldn't get so screwed every time something happens south of West 4 St along 8 Av line.

When where the phase 1 and 2 additional two tracks would’ve gone anyway 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

When where the phase 1 and 2 additional two tracks would’ve gone anyway 

Nice english, almost had a stroke trying to read that no offense, but how do you not know what the additional tracks would go anyway? It would've been the express tracks for SAS, something that many people that have taken it complained about not having and even sued the (MTA) for it. I don't know what happened after that to be honest, but I can definitely say it would've been beneficial. I get that the line was meant to alleviate crowding from Lexington to SAS, but what about those wanting express service? I highly doubt people from Lexington that is taking the (4) and (5) would want to take the (Q) or (T). It definitely would help alleviate passengers from the (6) and I could see it maybe running faster than it since it's not as many stops compared to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Nice english, almost had a stroke trying to read that no offense, but how do you not know what the additional tracks would go anyway? It would've been the express tracks for SAS, something that many people that have taken it complained about not having and even sued the (MTA) for it. I don't know what happened after that to be honest, but I can definitely say it would've been beneficial. I get that the line was meant to alleviate crowding from Lexington to SAS, but what about those wanting express service? I highly doubt people from Lexington that is taking the (4) and (5) would want to take the (Q) or (T). It definitely would help alleviate passengers from the (6) and I could see it maybe running faster than it since it's not as many stops compared to it. 

I was thinking the express tracks can go underneath phase 1 and 2 while they rise up on 55th street 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

I was thinking the express tracks can go underneath phase 1 and 2 while they rise up on 55th street 

36 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

The express train would skip 116th 106th 96th and 86th streets 

 

96th street would have provisions to be converted into an express stop just in case

Oh that's what you meant. Wording is very important, but I personally don't got a problem with the express tracks running underneath. The downside is that there's already room for express service for phase 2, but they want to get rid of that and have it like phase 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Oh that's what you meant. Wording is very important, but I personally don't got a problem with the express tracks running underneath. The downside is that there's already room for express service for phase 2, but they want to get rid of that and have it like phase 1.

Well wasn’t phase 2 just for 3 tracks. If it was meant for 4 tracks the express tracks would likely have to go below between 106th and 96th streets. So having it it underneath would be better and it also makes it easier for the Q train to branch out from the upper level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Well wasn’t phase 2 just for 3 tracks. If it was meant for 4 tracks the express tracks would likely have to go below between 106th and 96th streets. So having it it underneath would be better and it also makes it easier for the Q train to branch out from the upper level. 

Well yeah it was 3 tracks, but they're getting rid of that and keeping it 2 tracks the whole way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.