Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Wallyhorse]

14 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Given it'll probably be at least 25 years after the original study before Phase 3 starts, I think it'd be worth at least doing a minor "re-study" before constructing Phase III cause needs may have changed within that time.

Exactly.  Given how even the lower east side has been built up AND given how far east the lower east side actually goes, having the SAS on 1st avenue south of 23rd street might very well make sense, especially given it would likely be easier to have two new branches of the line with one off Culver (to.from Brooklyn south of Houston and one coming off the Willy B, both via Essex-Delancey) from there. 

[CenSin]

East 37 Street to East 35 Street is the only area without the weight of skyscrapers to do a diagonal cut through from 2 Avenue. While on the surface it seems like a good idea, because the catchment area is enlarged, south of Houston Street the alignment gets tantalizingly close to three existing stations, but would be just far enough to make a connection non-viable—at least not without incurring the expense of building a passageway à la Times Square–42 Street.

Together, you would get the crappy blocks-long transfer passageways both north and south of 63 Street, with the and being the only routes with nothing to lose from the shift.

[40 to 241st]

I just thought a little bit about it and thought why don't we find a way to put the  in the Bronx instead of having it be a line just in Manhattan.   

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

2 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

I just thought a little bit about it and thought why don't we find a way to put the  in the Bronx instead of having it be a line just in Manhattan.   

Yeah, the current plans do call for provisional "storage tracks" heading up as far north as 128th St which could one day become a connection to the Bronx. The 2 main ideas are to make a 3rd Av replacement or to do a Throggs Neck subway, and tbh I've been leaning more towards Throggs Neck the more I think about it cause there are easier ways to fix the transit desert of the 3rd Av El. Unless you had express tracks though, you wouldn't want to do both a Throggs Neck Subway and a 3rd Av Subway cause that would mean SAS would have 3 branches.

Edited June 7, 2023 by ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 6/5/2023 at 1:49 PM, Wallyhorse said:

Some thoughts on this:

Connecting to Nassau, I would do it where the SAS would come in on what (with the northbound platforms at Canal Street and Bowery re-activated for this) coming in on the outer tracks of both platforms between Chambers and Bowery while the / would use the inner tracks between those stations (as the inner tracks at Chambers are actually relay tracks).

The in this would run as it eventually would in lower Manhattan with the intent of then continuing to Brooklyn via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would come in on the Brooklyn side at the current transit museum (with that obviously moved) and then at Hoyt-Schermerhorn come in what is actually the local (unused) track there before going to Euclid as the Fulton Local (extended late nights to Lefferts) while the and  both run express on Fulton.

The in this could be supplemented by a Nassau SAS that could actually wind up as a "Teal " that would move to the SAS, running via Montague and Nassau to the Bowery station (as part of this, as much as possible those stations are lengthened to allow for at least nine-car trains if not 10) and then joins the SAS at Houston and if there is the connector to QBL from  the SAS at 63rd runs via that to QBL, possibly replacing the on the QBL express to Parsons-Archer with the becoming a full-time local to 71-Continental (with this IR) a full-time express to Parsons-Archer).  

Yeah I think looking into ways to connect SAS to the Nassau St line would be a smart idea and would be a good chance to do a lot of needed work at those stations.

One challenge they'd need to figure out is how they'd actually connect SAS to the Nassau St line without some sort of sharp S-curve; Chinatown is dense.

They'd also need to do some track reconfiguration since currently, the 4 tracks at Bowery and Canal merge into 2, but 2 additional tracks come from what used to connect Nassau St Line to the Manhattan Bridge.

Having the  use the inner tracks and terminate at Chambers St while SAS uses the outer tracks and can run down to Broad St, via Montague, or via a whole new tunnel into Brooklyn would be the best. You could also try to revitalize the BMT's original plans and have Nassau trains run over the Brooklyn Bridge, but that's logistically more complicated and would be very unlikely to happen for a variety of reasons. In this scenario, SAS would use the 2 westernmost tracks and go via Brooklyn Bridge while  would use the eastern tracks and would run down to Broad street as they do today, but this would require some track reconfiguration just South of Chambers St.

I think having SAS replace the  on QBLVD is generally a bad idea though cause it'd make it more difficult for QBLVD express riders to get to the far East Side, and the  would likely see severe overcrowding by nature of having far more connections than SAS and going through the heart of midtown. If SAS were to run on QBLVD, I'd have it run as a local, but again you wanna be careful cause you don't want the a mega "" merge that causes delays

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

How will yard access work for the  service? They plan on including quite a few storage tracks that could probably store most of the  fleet, but would the  have to deadhead to Jamacia yard every time it needs maintenance? Jamacia yard is already known for being overcrowded. Ik the MTA vaugue general plans to expand the yard, so they'd probably have to if a  ever enters service

[Vulturious]

2 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

How will yard access work for the  service? They plan on including quite a few storage tracks that could probably store most of the  fleet, but would the  have to deadhead to Jamacia yard every time it needs maintenance? Jamacia yard is already known for being overcrowded. Ik the MTA vaugue general plans to expand the yard, so they'd probably have to if a  ever enters service

Do what the / and / currently do, crews from the  on whatever train will be swapped out for the crew working the  taking that train in for service along that route. It's a better solution than having to deadhead all the way to Jamaica, especially with how far of a distance it is to/from there. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

There is absolutely no way the MTA can reach 19 tph on the  without dramatic service changes. Tbf though the  never ended up running 14 tph when phase I opened and things have been ok, but that's in part because supplemental  and  trains have made up the gap.

Also I kind of doubt the  and  would split the passenger load roughly equally given the  goes more into the heart of midtown and just has a ton of better transfers, but we shall see.

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

There is absolutely no way the MTA can reach 19 tph on the  without dramatic service changes.

I’ve been questioning this since the plan came out. Looking at Coney Island, it’s clear that they wouldn’t be able to turn trains fast enough to hit 19 TPH. Some of them are physical constraints (switches being far from the terminal). Others are logistical (train crew being often late to man the departing trains).

There is nowhere along Broadway or Brighton that they could short-turn trains since all the times they would run 19 TPH are also when the is running at its peak. Astoria’s going to have to give up some more or they’ll have to siphon off the (after building a local track connection to 63 Street).

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

17 hours ago, CenSin said:

I’ve been questioning this since the plan came out. Looking at Coney Island, it’s clear that they wouldn’t be able to turn trains fast enough to hit 19 TPH. Some of them are physical constraints (switches being far from the terminal). Others are logistical (train crew being often late to man the departing trains).

There is nowhere along Broadway or Brighton that they could short-turn trains since all the times they would run 19 TPH are also when the is running at its peak. Astoria’s going to have to give up some more or they’ll have to siphon off the (after building a local track connection to 63 Street).

I've thought about this a lot. Best way IMO would be to send both the  and  up SAS, have  take over  for Forest Hills Local, and have the  be dedicated Astoria and 4th Av locals. This would deinterline Broadway and hopefully put more pressure on the MTA to run decent  service since it'd have to be more frequent to keep up with Astoria demand, and the  being shorter and less interlined should give QBLVD local riders a more consistent local.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 6/6/2023 at 9:50 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think having SAS replace the  on QBLVD is generally a bad idea though cause it'd make it more difficult for QBLVD express riders to get to the far East Side, and the  would likely see severe overcrowding by nature of having far more connections than SAS and going through the heart of midtown. If SAS were to run on QBLVD, I'd have it run as a local, but again you wanna be careful cause you don't want the a mega "" merge that causes delays

If QB express riders from Jamaica specifically want the 8th Ave corridor, then yes, the  should stay as is. Otherwise, I really don’t see why the Queens-SAS service shouldn’t be express in Queens. Making it local while running it alongside the  in the 63rd St would create more merging in an area (36th St in LIC) that’s already got more than enough merge-related delays. And without building super-express tracks like in the 1968 MTA Program for Action, there is really not enough room for a useful fifth service on QBL.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

4 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If QB express riders from Jamaica specifically want the 8th Ave corridor, then yes, the  should stay as is. Otherwise, I really don’t see why the Queens-SAS service shouldn’t be express in Queens. Making it local while running it alongside the  in the 63rd St would create more merging in an area (36th St in LIC) that’s already got more than enough merge-related delays. And without building super-express tracks like in the 1968 MTA Program for Action, there is really not enough room for a useful fifth service on QBL.

There's honestly no perfect solution. Ignore the 60th St tunnel connection for now:

If you have locals via 63rd and expresses via 53rd, then that would mean local riders between 36th St and 65th St would not be able to access 53rd or the east side of Manhattan without going backwards to Jackson Heights Roosevelt Av. Also the expresses would likely be way too heavily favored and overcrowded.

If you have expresses go via 63rd and locals via 53rd, you have the opposite problem. Local riders wouldn't be able to access 63rd and express riders who want to go via 53rd would have to transfer to the local at Jackson Heights Roosevelt Av which would add quite a bit of time to their commutes.

Finally, you can have the combo with some combination of expresses and locals via either tunnel which gives everyone options, but causes more interlining reducing tph.

Deinterlining QBLVD isn't just a case of making riders do an extra cross-platform transfer, cause in some cases that transfer can't be made without going backwards or dealing with one of those long and inconvenient corridors in midtown. You're in the end adding significant time to a ton of people's commutes even if you're running more tph.

The ridership imbalance between the  and an SAS  service can't be understated for an already crowded corridor. 6th Av goes right through the heart of midtown Manhattan and has a ton of connections to other lines, whereas SAS runs on the border of midtown and no matter what will have worse connectivity. It'd be similar to how pre-2010, the  did far more work along West End than the Brown . The difference here is since QBLVD express needs as much capacity as it can get during rush hours, balancing the loads between the services you do provide is key. The current  and  for instance balance the load relatively well with a slight favoritism towards the , but given the current circumstances it's really the best possible service pattern imo.

[Wallyhorse]

On 6/6/2023 at 9:50 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think having SAS replace the  on QBLVD is generally a bad idea though cause it'd make it more difficult for QBLVD express riders to get to the far East Side, and the  would likely see severe overcrowding by nature of having far more connections than SAS and going through the heart of midtown. If SAS were to run on QBLVD, I'd have it run as a local, but again you wanna be careful cause you don't want the a mega "" merge that causes delays

As I noted, the  would still be on QBL, but as a local from/to 71st-Continental.  An SAS version of the  would replace the  as the QBL Express and run to Jamaica Center while a "Teal " would run via Montague, Nassau and the SAS also to 71st-Continental as a QBL local.  

The if it goes via a new tunnel to Schermerhorn and the Fulton Street Line would be based out of Pitkin Yard and become the full-time Fulton local to Euclid (late nights to Lefferts in place of the that would be express on Fulton with the with the  split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (with the current Rockaway only running from say 8:30 PM-6:00 AM when the would be to Far Rockaway only). 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 6/8/2023 at 12:11 AM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

There's honestly no perfect solution. Ignore the 60th St tunnel connection for now:

If you have locals via 63rd and expresses via 53rd, then that would mean local riders between 36th St and 65th St would not be able to access 53rd or the east side of Manhattan without going backwards to Jackson Heights Roosevelt Av. Also the expresses would likely be way too heavily favored and overcrowded.

If you have expresses go via 63rd and locals via 53rd, you have the opposite problem. Local riders wouldn't be able to access 63rd and express riders who want to go via 53rd would have to transfer to the local at Jackson Heights Roosevelt Av which would add quite a bit of time to their commutes.

Finally, you can have the combo with some combination of expresses and locals via either tunnel which gives everyone options, but causes more interlining reducing tph.

Deinterlining QBLVD isn't just a case of making riders do an extra cross-platform transfer, cause in some cases that transfer can't be made without going backwards or dealing with one of those long and inconvenient corridors in midtown. You're in the end adding significant time to a ton of people's commutes even if you're running more tph.

The ridership imbalance between the  and an SAS  service can't be understated for an already crowded corridor. 6th Av goes right through the heart of midtown Manhattan and has a ton of connections to other lines, whereas SAS runs on the border of midtown and no matter what will have worse connectivity. It'd be similar to how pre-2010, the  did far more work along West End than the Brown . The difference here is since QBLVD express needs as much capacity as it can get during rush hours, balancing the loads between the services you do provide is key. The current  and  for instance balance the load relatively well with a slight favoritism towards the , but given the current circumstances it's really the best possible service pattern imo.

I agree with the first two paragraphs. The rest I don't and I'll tell you why.

For one thing, local riders between 36th and 65th already can't directly access the 63rd St corridor without riding backwards to Roosevelt because neither the  nor  use that tunnel except in emergency reroutes (which aren't that much of a rare occurrence, thanks in some part to the current convoluted QBL service pattern). Now, if the  were rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel (as it was rumored the MTA was actually considering it back in 2019), then that wouldn't be an issue. 

Hillside express riders who want 53rd already have to transfer from the  to the  (they didn't have to prior to December 2001).

As for a potential Queens-SAS service running express vs the , how would the 2nd Ave be on the "border" of Midtown any more so than 8th Ave? Large commercial real estate drops off significantly west of 8th Ave. 

Having a Queens-SAS service also mitigates the need for long and costly passageways that everyone speculates the  will have in order to connect to any line that intersects it, other than the  at 2nd Ave/Houston St and the  at 14th.

Edited June 9, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[nightmare402]

55 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I agree with the first two paragraphs. The rest I don't and I'll tell you why.

For one thing, local riders between 36th and 65th already can't directly access the 63rd St corridor without riding backwards to Roosevelt because neither the  nor  use that tunnel except in emergency reroutes (which aren't that much of a rare occurrence, thanks in some part to the current convoluted QBL service pattern). Now, if the  were rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel (as it was rumored the MTA was actually considering it back in 2019), then that wouldn't be an issue. 

Hillside express riders who want 53rd already have to transfer from the  to the  (they didn't have to prior to December 2001).

As for a potential Queens-SAS service running express vs the , how would the 2nd Ave be on the "border" of Midtown any more so than 8th Ave? Large commercial real estate drops off significantly west of 8th Ave. 

Having a Queens-SAS service also mitigates the need for long and costly passageways that everyone speculates the  will have in order to connect to any line that intersects it, other than the  at 2nd Ave/Houston St and the  at 14th.

what tunnel between 36 and 65 st?

[Chris89292]

14 minutes ago, nightmare402 said:

what tunnel between 36 and 65 st?

I’ll assume it’s the express tunnel where the  runs between 65th street and 36th street

[T to Dyre Avenue]

22 minutes ago, nightmare402 said:

what tunnel between 36 and 65 st?

The 63rd St Tunnel.

[darkstar8983]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The 63rd St Tunnel.

The express tunnel for the  that runs under Northern Blvd while the  (and late night  run under Broadway and Steinway St)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Quote

I’ll assume it’s the express tunnel where the  runs between 65th street and 36th street 

48 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

The express tunnel for the  that runs under Northern Blvd while the  (and late night  run under Broadway and Steinway St)

But I'm not talking about that tunnel. I know exactly which tunnel is used by the . I was talking about the 63rd Street Tunnel under the East River that connects Queens and Manhattan. I was specifically addressing an earlier post by @ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ about how QB local riders cannot directly get to the 63rd St Tunnel without backtracking to Roosevelt Ave and transferring to the . I'm not really sure where all this confusion over tunnels is coming from.

Edited June 9, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[CenSin]

Is anyone complaining about 60 Street not having access to both Queens Boulevard local and express? Or 63 Street not having access to both Queens Boulevard express and local?

Which combinations are nonnegotiable, because “all of the above” calls for 6 different routes to cover all the combinations?

The SAS branch on Queens Boulevard express doesn’t seem like a big loss to the local stations. It’s not like they’re starved of options given that the both have pretty easy transfers to the Lexington Avenue line while the is the sole Queens Boulevard express to have an in-station transfer to the —and only the . It would seem fair that an SAS connection runs express.

Edited June 9, 2023 by CenSin

[Chris89292]

25 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Is anyone complaining about 60 Street not having access to both Queens Boulevard local and express? Or 63 Street not having access to both Queens Boulevard express and local?

Which combinations are nonnegotiable, because “all of the above” calls for 6 different routes to cover all the combinations?

The SAS branch on Queens Boulevard express doesn’t seem like a big loss to the local stations. It’s not like they’re starved of options given that the both have pretty easy transfers to the Lexington Avenue line while the is the sole Queens Boulevard express to have an in-station transfer to the —and only the . It would seem fair that an SAS connection runs express.

Seems ridiculous to see SAS connected to QBL, all these ideas are ridiculous imo

[Reptile]

5 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

Seems ridiculous to see SAS connected to QBL, all these ideas are ridiculous imo

I'd rather it be connected to something new in Queens, Northern Blvd, LIE, Eastern Queens, all growing areas. If they have transfers to QBL in Long Island City I don't think there will be any issue.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Reptile

[LGA Link N Train]

7 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

Seems ridiculous to see SAS connected to QBL, all these ideas are ridiculous imo

The Connections to the 63rd Street Tunnel are still planned to be built. But until then, the only confirmed information about them is that they’ll be used for Deadheads to/from Jamaica

[CenSin]

22 minutes ago, Reptile said:

I'd rather it be connected to something new in Queens, Northern Blvd, LIE, Eastern Queens, all growing areas. If they have transfers to QBL in Long Island City I don't think there will be any issue.

The fact that any track connection is planned is more than any fantasy R.O.W. that’s been discussed.

[CenSin]

29 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

Seems ridiculous to see SAS connected to QBL, all these ideas are ridiculous imo

  

On 4/9/2023 at 9:25 PM, Kamen Rider said:

On 4/9/2023 at 6:33 PM, Chris89292 said:

at this point the  line should convert into BMT, to operate 60ft R160’s, R179’s full 10 car set, this will make the switch track at Queensboro plaza very useful, when  trains are delayed in Manhattan, BMT  trains could switch over to Astoria to reduce crowds, both astoria and flushing lines will be able to operate on any lane 

The Steinway Tube is laughing at your right now.