Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 1/31/2023 at 10:03 PM, darkstar8983 said:

I mean look at the  and  - they had their routes from 1967-2004, but then got swapped after 2004 (1986-1988 and 2001-2004 the southern portion of  did have their 1967 routes despite being Broadway routes).

 

with respect to the , the only issue would be a tighter merge at 5 Av-53 St, but the run through the 53 St tunnel and past 36 St should be smooth sailing.

 

also remember that the IRT  have had their southern terminals switch on and off until finally being stationed in 1983

Ik this starts to merge a bit off topic and maybe we should move to another thread, but I think the way subway nomenclature works is a route's identity is defined by the branch of the system it serves most independently.

For the IRT, identities are basically given by what they do in the Bronx. For instance,  has always gone to Woodlawn.

For the BMT/IND it's a bit more complicated, but generally I think this is how it works:

 - Primary Lefferts/Rockaway/Fulton

 - Norwood

 - QBLVD express via 8th

 - QBLVD express via 6th

 - Crosstown

 - Rockaway shuttle

 - Primary Archer Ave Service

 - Canarsie

 - Middle Village

 - Sea Beach

 - Brighton

 - Bay Ridge

Services like the  and  are much more fluid because they're never served a distinct independent community and have changed quite a bit since the MTA was founded (or just didn't exist at first). The closest might be the  which has sort of defined itself as the Fulton Local.  These routes are really "extras" and really just serve whatever is leftover after the lines above have their routes.

We can see this historically.

First if you go back to when the MTA was first created and you had double letter lines, you saw merger lines like the  which ran via Brighton and via Archer, and the  which ran down to Bay Ridge and via Archer.

Another example would be how they still called the  the  even when it went via 6th Avenue

Also, the MTA's decision to rename the  and  to the  and  respectively during the Manhattan Bridge Reconstruction showed that only one end of a line defines it's identity (unless it's a fully Independent line like the ). 

Also think about the  and  merger. From a signage perspective, keeping the new service as the  would've been technically easier, but the MTA didn't do that because the had a distinct identity compared to the  which was just an extra 6th av service.

If SAS Phase II caused a situation where the goes up SAS full time, and the becomes the sole service to serve Astoria, then the 's identity would prolly become whatever the dominant Astoria route is going forwards. However, I think it's more likely the MTA would run a Bay-Ridge to Astoria service as the  and the  would be the "extra" that goes from Whitehall St to Forest Hills.

[BreeddekalbL]

44 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

If SAS Phase II caused a situation where the goes up SAS full time, and the becomes the sole service to serve Astoria, then the 's identity would prolly become whatever the dominant Astoria route is going forwards. However, I think it's more likely the MTA would run a Bay-Ridge to Astoria service as the  and the  would be the "extra" that goes from Whitehall St to Forest Hills.

If you send the R to Astoria what would be their yard since that was the problem that pulled them off astoria the first time

[darkstar8983]

7 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

If you send the R to Astoria what would be their yard since that was the problem that pulled them off astoria the first time

Coney Island Yard likely

[T to Dyre Avenue]

11 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

If you send the R to Astoria what would be their yard since that was the problem that pulled them off astoria the first time

 

3 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Coney Island Yard likely

Coney Island is where the  was based when it ran to/from Astoria. Lots of  /  trains deadheading over the Sea Beach Line in those days. It would make the most sense to base any future Bay Ridge-Astoria  service at CI.

Edited February 2, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[darkstar8983]

11 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

Coney Island is where the  was based when it ran to/from Astoria. Lots of  /  trains deadheading over the Sea Beach Line in those days. It would make the most sense to base any future Bay Ridge-Astoria  service at CI.

Yes, the main issue with the Astoria-Bay Ridge route was the long deadheading towards Coney Island via Sea Beach and in the 70s and 80s, the subway fleet had pretty abysmal MDBFs  (or alternatively West End), but if the Bay Ridge-Astoria route is re-instated (either as the  or ) , it will need to utilize Coney Island Yard again and have a higher spare factor to account for lost mileage because of deadheading. Im not sure about the progress and thoughts of converting 36 St Yard for revenue train storage, especially since trains would only be able to leave one a time and platform at 9 Av  Station, then turn around to go to 36 St-4 Av and start service north. 

 

I guess if you think about it, the  deadheads to Coney Island yard in a way so its cars can get maintenance, but externally, this is done by running 86 St trips or swapping that consist at Ditmars Blvd to the  for a southbound trip, and switching the next arriving  to a . The layups that occur on the Astoria Express during weekends (not sure about overnights weekdays), but can be interchangeable between the two routes.

Edited February 2, 2023 by darkstar8983

[BreeddekalbL]

6 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Coney Island Yard likely

 

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

Coney Island is where the  was based when it ran to/from Astoria. Lots of  /  trains deadheading over the Sea Beach Line in those days. It would make the most sense to base any future Bay Ridge-Astoria  service at CI.

 

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Yes, the main issue with the Astoria-Bay Ridge route was the long deadheading towards Coney Island via Sea Beach and in the 70s and 80s, the subway fleet had pretty abysmal MDBFs  (or alternatively West End), but if the Bay Ridge-Astoria route is re-instated (either as the  or ) , it will need to utilize Coney Island Yard again and have a higher spare factor to account for lost mileage because of deadheading. Im not sure about the progress and thoughts of converting 36 St Yard for revenue train storage, especially since trains woulalternatively  to leave one a time and platform at 9 Av  Station, then turn around to go to 36 St-4 Av and start service north. 

 

I guess if you think about it, the  deadheads to Coney Island yard in a way so its cars can get maintenance, but externally, this is done by running 86 St trips or swapping that consist at Ditmars Blvd to the  for a southbound trip, and switching the next arriving  to a . The layups that occur on the Astoria Express during weekends (not sure about overnights iswappingparkwayweekdays), but can be interchangeable between the two routes.

At that rate i would rather send the to do the job rather than swapping with the

I proposed a while back the  and to sas and be the broadway express trains, on weekdays the will supplement the and go to either bay parkway on the or 86th street 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

If this Broadway "de-interline" sort of occurs where all Broadway expresses go up to SAS and all Broadway locals go to via 60th st to Queens, is there really a need for the  actually going all the way up to 125th? Once you de-interline something you're not going to not to want to re-interline it, and having the  and  all sharing 2 tracks would not be good.

I almost think they should build a lower level at 2nd Av 72nd Street and just have the  go from Hangover Square to 72nd St with provisions for a tunnel into Queens to eventually try and help alleviate crowding on the  and . That way, the  could also be a fully independent line with no merging which long term is prolly desirable.

Such as:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/718993823753175186/1070883350673379408/image.png

[darkstar8983]

12 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

If this Broadway "de-interline" sort of occurs where all Broadway expresses go up to SAS and all Broadway locals go to via 60th st to Queens, is there really a need for the  actually going all the way up to 125th? Once you de-interline something you're not going to not to want to re-interline it, and having the  and  all sharing 2 tracks would not be good.

I almost think they should build a lower level at 2nd Av 72nd Street and just have the  go from Hangover Square to 72nd St with provisions for a tunnel into Queens to eventually try and help alleviate crowding on the  and . That way, the  could also be a fully independent line with no merging which long term is prolly desirable.

Such as:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/718993823753175186/1070883350673379408/image.png

I think after the  comes online, the  would then shift fully back to Astoria, and even the  might get a frequency reduction to the same headways as the  so that way there will be more  trains (probably a 2-1 split of  to  trains) so the line south of 72 St can have a decent service frequency: I.e 26 TPH from 72 St north, and 17 TPH south of 72 St via 2 Av.

 

otherwise, just have the  serve 2 Av on its own and cut the  train back to 57 St-7 Av

Edited February 3, 2023 by darkstar8983

[Kamen Rider]

There are two factors here that you need to remember. 

 

1: the system was designed to be interlined. Core capacity is dependent on there being multiple routes, because the terminals do not actually meet the needs to turn back enough trains quick enough. 

2: Ridership wants and needs don't line up with what makes sense to you on paper. Take ANY service away from Astoria and the locals WILL riot. They don't want just Broadway locals. They want an express. It might not seem like it, but there is logic behind these service patterns. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

54 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

There are two factors here that you need to remember. 

 

1: the system was designed to be interlined. Core capacity is dependent on there being multiple routes, because the terminals do not actually meet the needs to turn back enough trains quick enough. 

2: Ridership wants and needs don't line up with what makes sense to you on paper. Take ANY service away from Astoria and the locals WILL riot. They don't want just Broadway locals. They want an express. It might not seem like it, but there is logic behind these service patterns. 

1. That's def a fair point, but what makes SAS weird is this case is that under the current MTA proposal, the northern part of the line will get more service than the part actually running directly through the CBD. Furthermore, if we go off of Dark Star's idea that you'll have a rough breakdown of 2  trains for every  train, that's going to be extremely problematic as the  is going to be the more popular line just from the fact it has far more connections and goes directly through the heart of midtown; it'd be like if the There's also more potential  and  both served as Forest Hills Local today, the  would be overcrowded while the  is just vibing despite sharing the same tracks. Finally, there are more riders who'd stick with the  than  riders who stick with just because the is only 2 Avs over from Lexington basically it's entire route.

2. Sometimes you have to make changes in benefit of the larger system; there are so many examples of times where the MTA reduced service, eliminated a line, or eliminated express service to some community. And this isn't a CPW situation where express service makes a huge difference; the  doesn't skip a stop the  makes until 28th and 23rd streets. By 14th Street I'm pretty sure 90% of Astoria  riders have gotten off or transferred to another train.

Any decision with re-routing lines is going to make someone unhappy, but ultimately, lines should be routed taking into account the system as a whole and what benefits the largest number of folks possible. This is what gets me frustrated about SAS is it seems like MTA went in to the design with a tunnel-vision of what it was going to be, instead of evaluating all the options of how it might also be able to say go to the Bronx or Queens.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

I think after the  comes online, the  would then shift fully back to Astoria, and even the  might get a frequency reduction to the same headways as the  so that way there will be more  trains (probably a 2-1 split of  to  trains) so the line south of 72 St can have a decent service frequency: I.e 26 TPH from 72 St north, and 17 TPH south of 72 St via 2 Av.

 

otherwise, just have the  serve 2 Av on its own and cut the  train back to 57 St-7 Av

It'd be lowkey kinda sad if Phase I brought the  back and Phase III ends the  and B-way goes back to it's old config.

[darkstar8983]

10 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

It'd be lowkey kinda sad if Phase I brought the  back and Phase III ends the  and B-way goes back to it's old config.

The configuration of SAS that a previous poster above noted about the need for some interlining would likely save the  after phase 3, to not only have some redundancy but also flexibility if there is a problem along the line

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

Here's another theoretical example for how SAS could work (obv a very loose proposal). Basically "super express" tracks are made under 3rd Avenue for Trains that directly go from the Bronx to midtown, and then switch over the 2nd Avenue at some point between 72nd and 55th street. The line below 55th street would have provisions for 4 tracks, but in this service proposal 2 tracks should be fine.

In the Bronx, the SAS tries to provide Bronx commuters much faster commutes into the city. The  goes up 3rd Av to Gun Hill Road, largely mirroring the old 3rd Av El, but with stations spaced further apart for efficiency. The new "V" service basically functions as a true Pelham Express using the Metro North ROW, and could possibly go all the way up to serve CO-OP city and could even host a Throggs Neck Branch is service demands it.

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Here's another theoretical example for how SAS could work (obv a very loose proposal). Basically "super express" tracks are made under 3rd Avenue for Trains that directly go from the Bronx to midtown, and then switch over the 2nd Avenue at some point between 72nd and 55th street. The line below 55th street would have provisions for 4 tracks, but in this service proposal 2 tracks should be fine.

In the Bronx, the SAS tries to provide Bronx commuters much faster commutes into the city. The  goes up 3rd Av to Gun Hill Road, largely mirroring the old 3rd Av El, but with stations spaced further apart for efficiency. The new "V" service basically functions as a true Pelham Express using the Metro North ROW, and could possibly go all the way up to serve CO-OP city and could even host a Throggs Neck Branch is service demands it.

A lot of this sounds EXACTLY what I would do:

Your version of the  I would do by having possibly that portion of the line become elevated after 116th Street (portal around 122nd Street) with a new stop on second avenue covering 125th-128th Streets (possibly three tracks to serve as a short-turn terminal and/or allow for express trains) and then going over a new, rail-only bridge (two or three tracks to allow for peak-direction express trains), stopping at in the Bronx:

138th Street (express, Transfer to , possibly three tracks so it can serve as a short-terminal from Gun Hill Road if the SAS in Manhattan is out)
149th Street (express, Transfer to , this area would be three tracks as it also would serve as a short-turn terminal from Manhattan and/or Shuttle from Gun Hill Road)
161st Street (local only)
Claremont Parkway (local only)
180th Street (local only)
Fordham Road (express)
Bronx Park (local only)
205th Street (express, MetroCard/OMNY Transfer to ) 
210th Street (local only)
Gun Hill Road (Terminal, transfer to )

Same with the , as I would it go all the way across 125 to Broadway-12th Avenue to the  and the new Metro-North station there.  Columbia's expansion is a big reason why I'd do that.  One thing I'd also do is at St. Nicholas build a connection to the 8th Avenue Line that would allow for the to possibly continue via the Concourse with the  to Bedford Park Boulevard and allow the to run with the to 168 like the  used to before it and the were switched years ago (the  could run on the middle track of the six-track setup along the portion of the 8th Avenue line between 125th and 145th in that scenario).  This would also allow when needed for the and  to run via the SAS if CPW has problems.

Your idea for the if it can be done would be interesting.  

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

A lot of this sounds EXACTLY what I would do:

Your version of the  I would do by having possibly that portion of the line become elevated after 116th Street (portal around 122nd Street) with a new stop on second avenue covering 125th-128th Streets (possibly three tracks to serve as a short-turn terminal and/or allow for express trains) and then going over a new, rail-only bridge (two or three tracks to allow for peak-direction express trains), stopping at in the Bronx:

138th Street (express, Transfer to , possibly three tracks so it can serve as a short-terminal from Gun Hill Road if the SAS in Manhattan is out)
149th Street (express, Transfer to , this area would be three tracks as it also would serve as a short-turn terminal from Manhattan and/or Shuttle from Gun Hill Road)
161st Street (local only)
Claremont Parkway (local only)
180th Street (local only)
Fordham Road (express)
Bronx Park (local only)
205th Street (express, MetroCard/OMNY Transfer to ) 
210th Street (local only)
Gun Hill Road (Terminal, transfer to )

Same with the , as I would it go all the way across 125 to Broadway-12th Avenue to the  and the new Metro-North station there.  Columbia's expansion is a big reason why I'd do that.  One thing I'd also do is at St. Nicholas build a connection to the 8th Avenue Line that would allow for the to possibly continue via the Concourse with the  to Bedford Park Boulevard and allow the to run with the to 168 like the  used to before it and the were switched years ago (the  could run on the middle track of the six-track setup along the portion of the 8th Avenue line between 125th and 145th in that scenario).  This would also allow when needed for the and  to run via the SAS if CPW has problems.

Your idea for the if it can be done would be interesting.  

 (or another SAS service) connecting to 8th Av/Concorse Line is an interesting idea I never really considered. IMO, as long as there is a transfer at 125th street, there's not really a need for the  on CPW beyond if the  and  have problems. Regardless, might be smart to build the connection even if it's not used in regular service.

 

[7-express]

Looks like they're cutting back on mezzanine sizes and office space for the Phase 2 stations: https://nypost.com/2023/02/16/mta-shaves-back-station-plans-for-second-avenue-extension/

[Vulturious]

19 minutes ago, 7-express said:

Looks like they're cutting back on mezzanine sizes and office space for the Phase 2 stations: https://nypost.com/2023/02/16/mta-shaves-back-station-plans-for-second-avenue-extension/

Son of a... I'd finish that sentence, but I need to have some decency, I don't know what else I expected with that price tag. On one hand, that's "$500 Million saved", on the other, it's still over $6 billion. They still can't keep a tight grip on their money, we're still almost certain to spend at least $8 billion.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

25 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Son of a... I'd finish that sentence, but I need to have some decency, I don't know what else I expected with that price tag. On one hand, that's "$500 Million saved", on the other, it's still over $6 billion. They still can't keep a tight grip on their money, we're still almost certain to spend at least $8 billion.

I'm actually glad their cutting the mezzanines back a bit at 106 and 116th. 106 and 116th should be much lower ridership than the current 3 stations which imo are overbuilt for only having 2 tracks.

On the other hand, I would have hoped this would save more than $500 million.

Srs though, why is the MTA obsessed with these large mezzanines in new stations that don't even have any retail or seating, just a bit of art? Drives up the cost a lot; money which could've been used to perhaps make provisions for express tracks.

[Caelestor]

The MTA should focus on maximizing the capacity of the existing Broadway trunk line and its branches, including SAS. That means running more, if not all  trains up to 96 St (and a corresponding increase in  trains from Astoria). Down the road, the SAS needs to not only be extended to Lex Ave/125 St, but also crosstown to Broadway. The tail tracks at the Broadway terminal might not be very long due to the proximity of the Hudson River, so it would be worth looking into building the extremely cost-effective extension to 3 Ave - 149 St. The inevitable extension to Fordham would be deferred until the ideal route (3 Ave, Webster Ave, or MNR ROW) is determined.

Constructing the SAS south of 72 St also needs to be deferred, as it actually reduces the maximum capacity of the existing Broadway express tracks. Conversely, there is capacity along the Montague St and Rutgers St tunnels, so I lean towards building that section as an extension of some East River crossing from Brooklyn, e.g. Montague Street or Manhattan Bridge north. The  can terminate below the existing 72 St station, allowing for a future extension to 116 St (express), and further into the Bronx as previously discussed. Alternatively, the  can take over upper SAS, and the  can be rerouted to the lower level platforms at 72 St in preparation for a 79 St - Astoria Blvd extension to LGA / College Point, but that's a proposal for another day.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Caelestor

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

6 hours ago, Caelestor said:

The MTA should focus on maximizing the capacity of the existing Broadway trunk line and its branches, including SAS. That means running more, if not all  trains up to 96 St (and a corresponding increase in  trains from Astoria). Down the road, the SAS needs to not only be extended to Lex Ave/125 St, but also crosstown to Broadway. The tail tracks at the Broadway terminal might not be very long due to the proximity of the Hudson River, so it would be worth looking into building the extremely cost-effective extension to 3 Ave - 149 St. The inevitable extension to Fordham would be deferred until the ideal route (3 Ave, Webster Ave, or MNR ROW) is determined.

Constructing the SAS south of 72 St also needs to be deferred, as it actually reduces the maximum capacity of the existing Broadway express tracks. Conversely, there is capacity along the Montague St and Rutgers St tunnels, so I lean towards building that section as an extension of some East River crossing from Brooklyn, e.g. Montague Street or Manhattan Bridge north. The  can terminate below the existing 72 St station, allowing for a future extension to 116 St (express), and further into the Bronx as previously discussed. Alternatively, the  can take over upper SAS, and the  can be rerouted to the lower level platforms at 72 St in preparation for a 79 St - Astoria Blvd extension to LGA / College Point, but that's a proposal for another day.

This seems to be the general consensus amongst NYC Subway nerds at this point; either just don't have the  run uptown or have it run on separate express tracks perhaps under or parallel to the current SAS tracks.

Just having all Broadway Express services going via 2nd Avenue would solve a lot of problems, mainly that annoying  train crossover. The only real problem from this is that Broadway Locals via Montague and 60th Street tend to not have great yard access but that can be worked out.

Does anyone know how feasible it would be to build a lower level for 72nd Street, and then have the express tracks just run under the existing SAS? It might actually be easier just because the MTA already has that ROW, and the raw boring of tunnels is relatively cheap, but it'd have to be deeper and you wouldn't want to disrupt existing SAS service.

Long term having SAS locals ()  go 125th Street Crosstown while expresses () provide direct service to the Bronx seems like it'd be quite an effective combo to increase connectivity and make the Bronx less dependent on Lexington Avenue services.

[Vulturious]

33 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

This seems to be the general consensus amongst NYC Subway nerds at this point; either just don't have the  run uptown or have it run on separate express tracks perhaps under or parallel to the current SAS tracks.

Just having all Broadway Express services going via 2nd Avenue would solve a lot of problems, mainly that annoying  train crossover. The only real problem from this is that Broadway Locals via Montague and 60th Street tend to not have great yard access but that can be worked out.

Does anyone know how feasible it would be to build a lower level for 72nd Street, and then have the express tracks just run under the existing SAS? It might actually be easier just because the MTA already has that ROW, and the raw boring of tunnels is relatively cheap, but it'd have to be deeper and you wouldn't want to disrupt existing SAS service.

Long term having SAS locals ()  go 125th Street Crosstown while expresses () provide direct service to the Bronx seems like it'd be quite an effective combo to increase connectivity and make the Bronx less dependent on Lexington Avenue services.

It's funny now that I think about it, practically all express for B division would continue going uptown in Manhattan while the locals would run into Queens (with the exception of the  of course).

An even lower level 72 St is probably asking too much, then again the MTA has been persistent keeping projects such as expansions deep down in the ground. It's very unlikely to almost impossible that we'll ever get anything like an express service along 2 Av or some sort of bypass.

Personally speaking, I'd rather swap the  and  around where the  run into the Bronx while the  runs crosstown. This is due to the  being not as attractive compared to lines like the  and  already having transfers to almost practically all lines in Manhattan. Allowing the  to the Bronx is better because of how attractive it is to a lot of major areas and direct transfers along with alternatives unlike the . Especially since at that point,  trains would have to miss a transfer at 125 St which misses a transfer to the  unfortunately. It wouldn't be that bad either for the  and  since the  already makes a trip from deep in the Bronx all the way to Coney, it would basically provide more alternatives as well.

 

[Kamen Rider]

“Consensus among subway nerds”.

 

great, then we know to do the exact opposite since armchair consensus usually is the exact wrong thing to do.

 

rhe purposes of the SAS is not to help Broadway. The purpose is to run under Second Avenue. Broadway service on the SAS is secondary.

You all have this mindset that all the lines must be running at absolute maximum capacity… when we can’t do that. We don’t have enough people, enough cars, enough resources, to provide the levels of service you seem to think are required.

nevermind this is not the service the riding public desires. Astoria does not want just the W (which, need I remind you, doesn’t actually exist) while ram rodding both the N and Q up to 96 is more service than the line needs and more of a risk.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

It's funny now that I think about it, practically all express for B division would continue going uptown in Manhattan while the locals would run into Queens (with the exception of the  of course).

An even lower level 72 St is probably asking too much, then again the MTA has been persistent keeping projects such as expansions deep down in the ground. It's very unlikely to almost impossible that we'll ever get anything like an express service along 2 Av or some sort of bypass.

Personally speaking, I'd rather swap the  and  around where the  run into the Bronx while the  runs crosstown. This is due to the  being not as attractive compared to lines like the  and  already having transfers to almost practically all lines in Manhattan. Allowing the  to the Bronx is better because of how attractive it is to a lot of major areas and direct transfers along with alternatives unlike the . Especially since at that point,  trains would have to miss a transfer at 125 St which misses a transfer to the  unfortunately. It wouldn't be that bad either for the  and  since the  already makes a trip from deep in the Bronx all the way to Coney, it would basically provide more alternatives as well.

 

I feel like who goes to the Bronx and who goes across 125th in this hypothetical scenario depends.

If the  are local and  is express I'd send the  to the Bronx and the  across 125th.

If the  are express and  is local, then I'd run the  across 125th and the  to the Bronx.

If everything is local, I'd probably send the  across 125th and the  to the Bronx, for the reasons you state.

The 2 biggest issue for Bronx commuters IMO is being heavily reliant on just Lexington Av Branches as well as commutes generally being slow into midtown, which is why I believe whatever the express service is (if there is one) should go to the Bronx.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

37 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

“Consensus among subway nerds”.

 

great, then we know to do the exact opposite since armchair consensus usually is the exact wrong thing to do.

 

rhe purposes of the SAS is not to help Broadway. The purpose is to run under Second Avenue. Broadway service on the SAS is secondary.

You all have this mindset that all the lines must be running at absolute maximum capacity… when we can’t do that. We don’t have enough people, enough cars, enough resources, to provide the levels of service you seem to think are required.

nevermind this is not the service the riding public desires. Astoria does not want just the W (which, need I remind you, doesn’t actually exist) while ram rodding both the N and Q up to 96 is more service than the line needs and more of a risk.

I think that's the issue with the proposed  service in the MTA's current plan though; it runs under 2nd Avenue and really serves no other purpose; it has relatively poor connectivity to other lines, so unless you're traveling from the upper east side to the east side of midtown, it's not a very helpful service. Between the  and , the  would just be overwhelmingly favored because it not only goes directly through midtown, but also provides tons of connections.

I agree that as things stand right now, the can serve SAS on it's own, but ridership on these stations is still growing, and with phase II adding 3 new stations, the will need help, and getting more tph on the current service patterns for the  is hard because of the  crossover limiting service. I do agree that just the  alone serving Astoria would be insufficient as is, but you can adjust service patterns, and perhaps make the truly it's own service that actually does smtg in Brooklyn. Also this argument that Broadway Express service would be a huge loss for Astoria is just BS, especially since indoor cross platform transfer are really easy and the doesn't even skip a  stop until 28th street, by which point most people have prolly gotten off or transfered anyways. Plus, even if it is a small loss for Astoria, it's to the benefit of the entire system; good comparison would be losing rush-hour  service along 4th Av and West End may have been a loss for those customers, but the  merge has proven to be an effective and popular service so the tradeoff was worth it.

[Kamen Rider]

I just spent three days working the N and Q lines as a conductor. 2 days on the N and one on the Q.

that is why I know this will not work, it will not make the system better. I have actually been a cog in this machine. I am not looking at numbers on a screen and thinking I know better.

 

also the M/V was and is a terrible idea because 6th Avenue and QB should not have to deal with 480’ trains. Sure, it’s “popular” but it’s also the first thing cut the moment something goes wrong. We’re making shuttle trips to Essex street  by 8:30 every night and it’s not even going to run at all next week.