Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour 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.

At least 60th Street stops at Queens Plaza so riders actually have a chance to transfer to it if they choose. What's annoying about 63rd is it bypasses Queens Plaza. I might be making it a bigger deal than it has to be, and the more I think about it if you want an  QBLVD service via SAS, you'd prolly need to get rid of the  or  regardless to better deal with interlining.

Also generally both 63rd St tunnel AND SAS have quite poor connectivity to other services which is why I have a problem with sending both expresses down it.

Either way I'm overthinking this rn.

[Wallyhorse]

43 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

At least 60th Street stops at Queens Plaza so riders actually have a chance to transfer to it if they choose. What's annoying about 63rd is it bypasses Queens Plaza. I might be making it a bigger deal than it has to be, and the more I think about it if you want an  QBLVD service via SAS, you'd prolly need to get rid of the  or  regardless to better deal with interlining.

Also generally both 63rd St tunnel AND SAS have quite poor connectivity to other services which is why I have a problem with sending both expresses down it.

Either way I'm overthinking this rn.

Then I eliminate the  in that scenario and move it to Nassau. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

Then I eliminate the  in that scenario and move it to Nassau. 

Yeah the  and  are pretty redundant services in Manhattan, and it could help make 4th Av Local riders happier. It would also slightly simplify operations since the 60th St tunnel wouldn't be such a bottleneck and could solely serve Astoria. Under this scenario,  could become sole Broadway express and  would stay the same but be local in Manhattan and the  would remain to serve Lower Manhattan, possibly continuing Montague into Brooklyn to do smtg.

[Kamen Rider]

The thing about public transit is that not every connection gets made. Sometimes you do have to go out of your way to get somewhere. I mean, you had about, what, 70 years between the unification of the system and having a transfer from the IND to any other part of the system in Downtown Brooklyn, 

 

 

That being said, given the headways the corridor now operates at, back riding to Roosevelt isn't that big a deal. 

[darkstar8983]

16 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Yeah the  and  are pretty redundant services in Manhattan, and it could help make 4th Av Local riders happier. It would also slightly simplify operations since the 60th St tunnel wouldn't be such a bottleneck and could solely serve Astoria. Under this scenario,  could become sole Broadway express and  would stay the same but be local in Manhattan and the  would remain to serve Lower Manhattan, possibly continuing Montague into Brooklyn to do smtg.

The one problem with Broadway Local service being provided only by Astoria service is that you’ll never have more than 14 TPH on the local since the switches at Ditmars Blvd are about 300’ feet from the start of the platform and the terminal ends in a bumper block. The only way to increase service output on the local track is by having some 2 Av service running local, or having some rush-hour trips coming from the Astoria Line originating or terminating at Queensboro Plaza, and using the Astoria Express track. This is possible since between 2004 and 2010, the  had a few rush hour trips that did exactly this. In the morning, two trips would end at Astoria Blvd (via Astoria Express) or Queensboro Plaza, then go to just south of Astoria Blvd via the center track, and would return to Coney Island in the afternoon.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

6 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

The one problem with Broadway Local service being provided only by Astoria service is that you’ll never have more than 14 TPH on the local since the switches at Ditmars Blvd are about 300’ feet from the start of the platform and the terminal ends in a bumper block. The only way to increase service output on the local track is by having some 2 Av service running local, or having some rush-hour trips coming from the Astoria Line originating or terminating at Queensboro Plaza, and using the Astoria Express track. This is possible since between 2004 and 2010, the  had a few rush hour trips that did exactly this. In the morning, two trips would end at Astoria Blvd (via Astoria Express) or Queensboro Plaza, then go to just south of Astoria Blvd via the center track, and would return to Coney Island in the afternoon.

This is a fair concern. Tbh though, I think Broadway Local would be fine with 14tph since generally the place with the worst crowding/most demand on a line is from a branch right before it enters the central business district (in that case that'd be between Queensboro Plaza and Lexington Av 59th St.  Also currently the  sum to about 14tph on Broadway local during rush hours, so the services losses would be on 59th St, Broadway Express, and in Lower Manhattan.

Having a train about every 10 minutes in Lower Manhattan isn't great but from my experience the   currently carry air in Lower Manhattan as is so even if people have to wait longer, there's not a real capacity concern. However, you would want to make sure that service is pretty reliable because once you start dealing with 10 minute headways, a single missed train can start to make a big difference. Pre-SAS when the  handled lower Manhattan by itself things were generally ok, and the  would hopefully be more reliable than the  in this scenario because of less interlining and a shorter route.

Given Broadway express isn't a huge timesaver and the  would still go via Bridge on my service pattern, I don't worry the  being the sole express would be terribly problematic, especially since in this hypothetical the  would probably see more tph, possibly ~5 minute headways. Pre-SAS  being only Broadway express was fine.

59th St would probably be my bigger concern as it's quite a busy corridor, but given by the time Astoria trains reach Lexington Avenue 59th St they're already dumping off more people than board, I think it'd be ok; a train every 4 minutes isn't that bad either.

The main issue I see generally with this type of service pattern is that if something goes wrong on any one of the , there's less redundancy and people might have to start waiting for like 10-15+ minutes for a train.

How easy would it be to reconstruct the switches at Astoria to be more efficient? The biggest problem is you might have to shut down the entire Astoria line since there's nowhere trains can short turn on Astoria. If an Astoria line extension to La Guardia is ever revived then the LaGuardia terminal could be more efficient and then you wouldn't have to worry about Astoria.

 

[CenSin]

8 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

That being said, given the headways the corridor now operates at, back riding to Roosevelt isn't that big a deal.

I can’t imagine any normal (or reasonable fantasy) scenario where backtracking to Roosevelt Avenue is a better option than taking the local in the right direction and just transferring in Manhattan.

[Wallyhorse]

4 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The one problem with Broadway Local service being provided only by Astoria service is that you’ll never have more than 14 TPH on the local since the switches at Ditmars Blvd are about 300’ feet from the start of the platform and the terminal ends in a bumper block. The only way to increase service output on the local track is by having some 2 Av service running local, or having some rush-hour trips coming from the Astoria Line originating or terminating at Queensboro Plaza, and using the Astoria Express track. This is possible since between 2004 and 2010, the  had a few rush hour trips that did exactly this. In the morning, two trips would end at Astoria Blvd (via Astoria Express) or Queensboro Plaza, then go to just south of Astoria Blvd via the center track, and would return to Coney Island in the afternoon.

As I've noted before, putting the  on Nassau, ending at Canal Street most of the time on weekdays via a setup where the abandoned northbound tracks at Canal and Bowery are re-activated and this  would terminate on the current northbound track at Canal that would become the "southbound terminal" track (during rush hours, a few  trains would terminate on the "northbound terminal" track and relay north of Canal and return on the "southbound terminal" track) would make things easier on the Broadway Line and would give pols in Bay Ridge that wanted a split  what they want (nights and weekends, this  would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue and absorb the current night and weekend shuttles and as also previously noted as this  would be based out of East New York, there would be in-service yard runs from and to Broadway Junction on the ).  

As for the :

That would run 71-Continental to Whitehall with during rush hours, some  trains ending and beginning at Canal Street on the tunnel level (and would run 19/7).

The and  would be unchanged from what they do now.

There also would be a "Yellow " train that would run from 9th Avenue on the  to Astoria via 4th Avenue local and the tunnel.  This would also cover those specifically going from Downtown Brooklyn to lower Manhattan that would supplement the to Astoria and usually be no more than 5 TPH.  

[Kamen Rider]

another day, another attempt at making things "better" by making them worse/more complicated. 

[mrsman]

I definitely see as a short term measure, improvements in deinterlining Broadway would be very helpful.  A slight adjustment to the service pattersn could produce the following:

 96/2 Av - Broadway Express - Brighton local [current pattern]

 96/2 Av - Broadway Express - 4 Ave express - Sea Beach

 71/Continental - QBL local - 60th st - Broadway local - Whitehall

 Astoria - 60th St - Broadway local - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge

 

Then, as we explore the idea of SAS Phase three and the need to accommodate more trains.  SAS connections to Queens are absolutely essential to make sure that full capacity is used in the new subway

 125th - SAS in Upper East Side - Broadway Express - Brighton local

 125th - SAS - Hanover Sq

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 63rd - SAS south of 63rd - Hanover Sq

 179th Street - QBL express - 63rd - Broadway Express - 4 Ave express - Sea Beach

 Astoria - 60th St - Broadway local - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge

eliminated

 57/6Av - 6 Av local - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle - Metropolitan Ave

 71/Continental - QBL local - 53rd - 8th Ave local - WTC

 71/Continental - QBL local - 53rd - 6th Ave local - Culver

 

So what is going on?  Utilizing the expansion of the SAS subway south of 63rd as a relief valve for teh QBL in order to ensure that the capacity of SAS is fully utilized, QBL is deinterlined to maximize the number of trains, and maintain a decent level of deinterlinign on Broadway as well.  So route all QBL expresses to 63rd and all QBL locals to 53rd.  53rd has the connections to 8th Ave and 6th Ave which can service the  and  trains.  trains will still have access to 6th Ave but will no longer access 6th Ave and will terminate at 57th/6th and that will be set up as a terminal in normal service.

THe QBL expresses will be connected to 63rd which will have access to both Broadway and SAS.  [There is also access to 6th Ave but it won't be used. Broadway needs more service to accommodate more traffic to Brighton and Sea Beach.]  Conceptually, this means that Upper East Side and QBL express both have access to SAS and Broadway express.  Technically,  goes directly on SAS,  goes directly on 63rd, and and trains will be used as go betweens between the two corridors.  As trains leave upper SAS to go to 63rd, it leaves some capacity for trains to go from Queens to lower SAS and vice versa.  [The geometry is a little difficult, but it is functionally similar to the existing BDNQ interactions north of DeKalb.  BD from 6th and NQ from Broadway carefully intermingle to lead to BQ to Brighton adn DN to 4th Ave.]    

And why should the QBL local go to 53rd and the express to 63rd?  The other way around is propbaly easier to understand as we are continuing the basic historic patterns of E and F trains as expresses.  But I think there is a great value in allowing the local QBL stations to have access to Long Island City, so they need to maintain the connection to 53rd.  This forces E and F to be QBL locals, and the other trains (leading to Broadway and SAS) as expresses.

So and will emanate from 125th Street (and northern extensions of SAS).  

 will service QBL, the first two express, the last two local.  QBL will have a direct train to every BMT/IND Manhattan trunk line.

 will be an isloated deinterlined local line from Astoria to Bay Ridge, where out of service trains will merge with the N line to reach the Coney Island Yards as necessary.

 will still provide the popular connection between Williamsurg Bridge and midtown on 6th Ave, but will not longer continue into the QBL line.

 

 

 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

3 hours ago, mrsman said:

I definitely see as a short term measure, improvements in deinterlining Broadway would be very helpful.  A slight adjustment to the service pattersn could produce the following:

 96/2 Av - Broadway Express - Brighton local [current pattern]

 96/2 Av - Broadway Express - 4 Ave express - Sea Beach

 71/Continental - QBL local - 60th st - Broadway local - Whitehall

 Astoria - 60th St - Broadway local - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge

 

Then, as we explore the idea of SAS Phase three and the need to accommodate more trains.  SAS connections to Queens are absolutely essential to make sure that full capacity is used in the new subway

 125th - SAS in Upper East Side - Broadway Express - Brighton local

 125th - SAS - Hanover Sq

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 63rd - SAS south of 63rd - Hanover Sq

 179th Street - QBL express - 63rd - Broadway Express - 4 Ave express - Sea Beach

 Astoria - 60th St - Broadway local - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge

eliminated

 57/6Av - 6 Av local - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle - Metropolitan Ave

 71/Continental - QBL local - 53rd - 8th Ave local - WTC

 71/Continental - QBL local - 53rd - 6th Ave local - Culver

 

So what is going on?  Utilizing the expansion of the SAS subway south of 63rd as a relief valve for teh QBL in order to ensure that the capacity of SAS is fully utilized, QBL is deinterlined to maximize the number of trains, and maintain a decent level of deinterlinign on Broadway as well.  So route all QBL expresses to 63rd and all QBL locals to 53rd.  53rd has the connections to 8th Ave and 6th Ave which can service the  and  trains.  trains will still have access to 6th Ave but will no longer access 6th Ave and will terminate at 57th/6th and that will be set up as a terminal in normal service.

THe QBL expresses will be connected to 63rd which will have access to both Broadway and SAS.  [There is also access to 6th Ave but it won't be used. Broadway needs more service to accommodate more traffic to Brighton and Sea Beach.]  Conceptually, this means that Upper East Side and QBL express both have access to SAS and Broadway express.  Technically,  goes directly on SAS,  goes directly on 63rd, and and trains will be used as go betweens between the two corridors.  As trains leave upper SAS to go to 63rd, it leaves some capacity for trains to go from Queens to lower SAS and vice versa.  [The geometry is a little difficult, but it is functionally similar to the existing BDNQ interactions north of DeKalb.  BD from 6th and NQ from Broadway carefully intermingle to lead to BQ to Brighton adn DN to 4th Ave.]    

And why should the QBL local go to 53rd and the express to 63rd?  The other way around is propbaly easier to understand as we are continuing the basic historic patterns of E and F trains as expresses.  But I think there is a great value in allowing the local QBL stations to have access to Long Island City, so they need to maintain the connection to 53rd.  This forces E and F to be QBL locals, and the other trains (leading to Broadway and SAS) as expresses.

So and will emanate from 125th Street (and northern extensions of SAS).  

 will service QBL, the first two express, the last two local.  QBL will have a direct train to every BMT/IND Manhattan trunk line.

 will be an isloated deinterlined local line from Astoria to Bay Ridge, where out of service trains will merge with the N line to reach the Coney Island Yards as necessary.

 will still provide the popular connection between Williamsurg Bridge and midtown on 6th Ave, but will not longer continue into the QBL line.

 

 

 

I generally like your idea, but one main issue I see is how you could actually get the  on 4 minute headways and at regular enough intervals to adequately serve as a QBLVD express (and likely the busier of the 2 QBLVD expresses). DeKalb junction as is really limits this, so for your plan to work you either have to remove a service from DeKalb junction, reconstruct it, or have another service supplement QBLVD express.

[Chris89292]

16 hours ago, mrsman said:

I definitely see as a short term measure, improvements in deinterlining Broadway would be very helpful.  A slight adjustment to the service pattersn could produce the following:

 96/2 Av - Broadway Express - Brighton local [current pattern]

 96/2 Av - Broadway Express - 4 Ave express - Sea Beach

 71/Continental - QBL local - 60th st - Broadway local - Whitehall

 Astoria - 60th St - Broadway local - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge

 

Then, as we explore the idea of SAS Phase three and the need to accommodate more trains.  SAS connections to Queens are absolutely essential to make sure that full capacity is used in the new subway

 125th - SAS in Upper East Side - Broadway Express - Brighton local

 125th - SAS - Hanover Sq

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 63rd - SAS south of 63rd - Hanover Sq

 179th Street - QBL express - 63rd - Broadway Express - 4 Ave express - Sea Beach

 Astoria - 60th St - Broadway local - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge

eliminated

 57/6Av - 6 Av local - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle - Metropolitan Ave

 71/Continental - QBL local - 53rd - 8th Ave local - WTC

 71/Continental - QBL local - 53rd - 6th Ave local - Culver

 

So what is going on?  Utilizing the expansion of the SAS subway south of 63rd as a relief valve for teh QBL in order to ensure that the capacity of SAS is fully utilized, QBL is deinterlined to maximize the number of trains, and maintain a decent level of deinterlinign on Broadway as well.  So route all QBL expresses to 63rd and all QBL locals to 53rd.  53rd has the connections to 8th Ave and 6th Ave which can service the  and  trains.  trains will still have access to 6th Ave but will no longer access 6th Ave and will terminate at 57th/6th and that will be set up as a terminal in normal service.

THe QBL expresses will be connected to 63rd which will have access to both Broadway and SAS.  [There is also access to 6th Ave but it won't be used. Broadway needs more service to accommodate more traffic to Brighton and Sea Beach.]  Conceptually, this means that Upper East Side and QBL express both have access to SAS and Broadway express.  Technically,  goes directly on SAS,  goes directly on 63rd, and and trains will be used as go betweens between the two corridors.  As trains leave upper SAS to go to 63rd, it leaves some capacity for trains to go from Queens to lower SAS and vice versa.  [The geometry is a little difficult, but it is functionally similar to the existing BDNQ interactions north of DeKalb.  BD from 6th and NQ from Broadway carefully intermingle to lead to BQ to Brighton adn DN to 4th Ave.]    

And why should the QBL local go to 53rd and the express to 63rd?  The other way around is propbaly easier to understand as we are continuing the basic historic patterns of E and F trains as expresses.  But I think there is a great value in allowing the local QBL stations to have access to Long Island City, so they need to maintain the connection to 53rd.  This forces E and F to be QBL locals, and the other trains (leading to Broadway and SAS) as expresses.

So and will emanate from 125th Street (and northern extensions of SAS).  

 will service QBL, the first two express, the last two local.  QBL will have a direct train to every BMT/IND Manhattan trunk line.

 will be an isloated deinterlined local line from Astoria to Bay Ridge, where out of service trains will merge with the N line to reach the Coney Island Yards as necessary.

 will still provide the popular connection between Williamsurg Bridge and midtown on 6th Ave, but will not longer continue into the QBL line.

 

 

 

Here we go again with the exaggerating subway fantasy plans, changing terminals of the  is impossible, QBL is fine the way it is, it does need a bit of rework, but that doesn’t mean deleting the  of the branch 

[Wallyhorse]

6 hours ago, Chris89292 said:

Here we go again with the exaggerating subway fantasy plans, changing terminals of the  is impossible, QBL is fine the way it is, it does need a bit of rework, but that doesn’t mean deleting the  of the branch 

And one of the reasons I move the  to Nassau (with the northbound tracks between Chambers and Essex re-activated with the northbound  moved to those tracks) is to make things easier by making the the full-time line between Whitehall and 71-Continental (obviously using Jamaica Yard as its base with in rush hours some trains terminating at Canal on the tunnel level and turning there).  This   would be based out of East New York, terminating on weekdays at Canal Street, using what currently is the northbound track used by the  that would become the "southbound terminal" track (the "northbound terminal" track would only be used for a handful of rush-hour trains terminating there that would then turn north of Canal and come back on the "southbound terminal" track).  As previously noted, this  would have in-service yard runs from/to Broadway Junction and late nights and weekends run from/to Metropolitan and absorb the current night and weekend  shuttles (and also run from/to Metropolitan in situations where the would currently run from/to Chambers).  As noted the  would end at Chambers (Canal Street southbound and Chambers Street northbound would be the transfer points between the  /  and this ) and use the terminal tracks there to turn. 

I make no changes on the or  with both lines running as they are now.

As noted, the would be supplemented by a new "Yellow " line from 9th Avenue on the  to Astoria (yard runs would be from/to CI via West End in-service).

This mostly solves the problems the  currently has with a shorter-route  running as a QBL local).

Once Phase Three comes along (and for Phase 3, I would strongly consider moving the SAS one block east to 1st Avenue south of 23rd like the 2nd Avenue EL used to be), I would build a connection off the Willy B that would allow the SAS to operate on the Broadway-Brooklyn Line.  In that scenario, and especially if a Queens connector is also done, perhaps the  could then run via the SAS in Manhattan though that would mean it would skip Queens Plaza but otherwise run its regular route (and as part of such a connection to the Willy B, I would look to extend all platforms on the  so they can handle at least nine-car trains if not 10).  

[Wallyhorse]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Once Phase Three comes along (and for Phase 3, I would strongly consider moving the SAS one block east to 1st Avenue south of 23rd like the 2nd Avenue EL used to be), I would build a connection off the Willy B that would allow the SAS to operate on the Broadway-Brooklyn Line.  In that scenario, and especially if a Queens connector is also done, perhaps the  could then run via the SAS in Manhattan though that would mean it would skip Queens Plaza but otherwise run its regular route (and as part of such a connection to the Willy B, I would look to extend all platforms on the  so they can handle at least nine-car trains if not 10).  

Adding:

I would also be looking with the SAS on 1st Avenue south of 23rd to build a connector to the Rutgers Street Tunnel.  That could allow for a new "Teal " to run up the SAS with the  and if you also have the  off the Willy B running on the SAS you could look at going with four tracks on the SAS south of 63rd and maybe have express tracks that would continue after that on a new lower level of 72nd Street (with further stops after that at 86th and 116th Street) that could continue to The Bronx via the former 3rd Avenue EL route to Gun Hill Road (either as subway or an EL with if an EL coming out of a portal after the main SAS tracks turn to go to 125th Street and Lexington Avenue (that I would look to have go all the way across 125th to Broadway with transfers to all other lines on the SAS) with a stop at 127th Street-2nd Avenue before continuing to the Bronx with if subway such a stop at 126th/2nd).  If the Willy B, Rutgers  and Queens connectors were all built, we could see it done like this:

: Metropolitan Avenue to 71st/Continental via SAS local, Queens connector and QBL Local.

: Houston Street (eventually South Ferry when Phase 4 is built) to Gun Hill Road via SAS Express with stops at Houston/1st Streets-1st Avenue, 14th Street-1st Avenue, 42nd Street-2nd Avenue, 55th Street, 72nd Street, 86th Street, 116th Street, 126th or 127th Street-2nd Avenue (depending on EL or Subway, then in the Bronx 138th Street (Transfer to ), 149th Street (Transfer to ), 161st Street, Clearmont Parkway, 173rd and with other stops from the old 3rd Avenue El consolidated until 205th Street (Transfer to ) and Gun Hill Road (Transfer to ).

: Church Avenue or Coney Island in Brooklyn via Culver Express (including rebuilding the lower level of Bergen Street to serve trains and if necessary building an underpass to allow transfers between north and south trains), the Rutgers Tunnel and SAS Local to 125th Street with the .   

[mrsman]

On 6/11/2023 at 9:37 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I generally like your idea, but one main issue I see is how you could actually get the  on 4 minute headways and at regular enough intervals to adequately serve as a QBLVD express (and likely the busier of the 2 QBLVD expresses). DeKalb junction as is really limits this, so for your plan to work you either have to remove a service from DeKalb junction, reconstruct it, or have another service supplement QBLVD express.

Thanks.

THe idea presented was meant to preserve the lines in Brooklyn running as they do now, especially the pre-SAS phase 3 plan.  I am a proponent of more deinterlining, including deinterlining the DeKalb junction, but that is not strictly necessary to get better Broadway service now.  My idea is simply to reroute to  96th, to avoid the merging along the Broadway BMT and then doing my best within existing system constraints to preserve Astoria service and QBL local service.  One key problem is that (i believe) only 21 TPH can run through the lower Manhattan portion of the Broadway local (due to the tight turns) so conceivably, once can run 14 TPH trains to preserve existing frequencies to Astoria and improve frequencies along 4th Ave local.  This means 7 TPH for the  serving as the qBL- Broadway link.  As Forest Hills is also limited to 20 or 21 TPH, this leaves the balance of QBL local service to be served by 14 TPH  service.  A slight decrease in QBL local - Broadway trains that is met with a slight increase in QBL local - 6th Ave trains to maintain the frequency along QBL local route. 

 

A lot more changes, of course, for the SAS era, but I thought it was very important to somehow produce more trains on the SAS below 63rd, which means trains coming from Queens, so the can no longer run to 96th, allowing for all the other changes as noted.  Of course, on top of everything we can have both  and serve Brighton [leaving  and  to 4th Ave] or vice versa, thereby eliminating the DeKalb bottleneck, but that is not strictly necesssary for the discussion.  I do agree that the deinterlining would allow for even more trains to flow on hte Broadway express and 6th Ave express lines.

 

On 6/12/2023 at 10:08 AM, Chris89292 said:

Here we go again with the exaggerating subway fantasy plans, changing terminals of the  is impossible, QBL is fine the way it is, it need a bit of rework, but that doesn’t mean deleting the  of the branch 

The rework is done to accommodate more service on SAS.  Given the design of the exiting SAS above 63rd, the only way that a full service south of 63rd can be accomplished would be if at least one of the QBL services served SAS.  Here is another alternative, but I feel is somewhat worse, since it has more interlining than my earlier proposal:

125th - SAS in Upper East Side - Broadway Express - Brighton local 

125th - SAS - Hanover Sq 

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave local - WTC

179th Street - QBL express - 53rd - 6th Ave local - Culver 

Astoria - 60th St - Broadway local/express- 4 Ave express - Sea Beach 

eliminated 

57/6Av - 6 Av local - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle - Metropolitan Ave

71/Continental - QBL local - 60th - Broadway local - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge 

71/Continental - QBL local - 63rd - SAS - Hanover Sq

 

[mrsman]

^^^^^

If the "Canal flip" were implemented, the above can be handled even better.

"Canal flip" basically routes the Broadway express to Montague tunnel and Broadway local to the Manhattan Bridge.  It is not a small project, but it has been looked at as a way to provide express service from SAS to the Broadway express to Lower Manhattan.

All of the above is the same, except for:

125th - SAS in Upper East Side - Broadway Express - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge

Astoria - 60th St - Broadway local - Manhattan Bridge - 4 Ave express - Sea Beach  

  71/Continental - QBL local - 60th - Broadway local - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local  

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

"Canal flip" basically routes the Broadway express to Montague tunnel and Broadway local to the Manhattan Bridge.  It is not a small project, but it has been looked at as a way to provide express service from SAS to the Broadway express to Lower Manhattan.

For a much lower cost and increased flexibility, would it not be much cheaper to just install switches north of 57 Street–7 Avenue? A lot less excavation (if any) and the SAS-Broadway connection is no longer locked to a particular pair of tracks.

[Chris89292]

If y’all haven’t noticed yet, the MTA released a page called “Outreach for Phase 2 of the Second Avenue Subway Project” if I’m correct, they’re bidding for a contractor for design build services, hopefully the project could start anytime this year or next year, this is a big step forward

[Vulturious]

6 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

If y’all haven’t noticed yet, the MTA released a page called “Outreach for Phase 2 of the Second Avenue Subway Project” if I’m correct, they’re bidding for a contractor for design build services, hopefully the project could start anytime this year or next year, this is a big step forward

Doubtful this year, but if they do or begin next year, let's hope they keep a tight grip on their f**king money and not overpay like they normally do.

[CenSin]

Since I haven’t looked at the phase 2 plans for a while, a recap and update was due. None of this will be news to those who already follow the development closely.

• The tail tracks will cross the Lenox Avenue branch. (Sauces: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2022-01/NY-New-York-Second-Avenue-Subway-Phase-2-Eng-Profile.pdf; https://www.cb11m.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CB11-4.14.21-SAS-2-Update-final2.pdf)
  
  
• Placing platforms where 116 Street’s middle track would have been appears to be the current plan still.
• 
  
• 125 Street still had a middle track in old plans. A repeat of what happened to 72 Street is set in stone. (Sauce: https://new.mta.info/document/22416)
  

[Wallyhorse]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

Since I haven’t looked at the phase 2 plans for a while, a recap and update was due. None of this will be news to those who already follow the development closely.

• The tail tracks will cross the Lenox Avenue branch. (Sauces: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2022-01/NY-New-York-Second-Avenue-Subway-Phase-2-Eng-Profile.pdf; https://www.cb11m.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CB11-4.14.21-SAS-2-Update-final2.pdf)
  
  
• Placing platforms where 116 Street’s middle track would have been appears to be the current plan still.
• 
  
• 125 Street still had a middle track in old plans. A repeat of what happened to 72 Street is set in stone. (Sauce: https://new.mta.info/document/22416)
  

I wonder if they would consider extending the to Lenox Avenue using the planned storage area and make that the terminal so the SAS can have transfers to the and  there? 

I would at the very least extend Phase 2 to St. Nicholas Avenue with connections to the 8th Avenue line there (using the extra tracks between 125 and 145 on 8th Avenue) at least initially to allow for emergency use of the SAS by the and  if something goes FUBAR on CPW (using the switch to the tracks at 63rd and for the south of West 4th to get back on regular route), also allowing for an SAS line to go to 207 or on the Concourse Line.  

[ArchytectAnthony]

I noticed all three stations seems to have extra white spaces beyond the platforms just for the ancillary and entrances for some. I remember reading something on how the mta built the phase 1 stations with overly long station caverns or station boxes (like 1000 to 1100ft long or something), which contributed to the high price tag. Is there a good reason for these giant spaces? Because if not, then it seems like they're just repeating the same mistakes and wondering why the price tag is so high imo.

Edited June 25, 2023 by ArchytectAnthony

[Chris89292]

7 hours ago, ArchytectAnthony said:

I noticed all three stations seems to have extra white spaces beyond the platforms just for the ancillary and entrances for some. I remember reading something on how the mta built the phase 1 stations with overly long station caverns or station boxes (like 1000 to 1100ft long or something), which contributed to the high price tag. Is there a good reason for these giant spaces? Because if not, then it seems like they're just repeating the same mistakes and wondering why the price tag is so high imo.

the big huge space isn’t necessary, the MTA just wants to make its new stations look “modern” 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 6/24/2023 at 10:14 PM, Wallyhorse said:

I wonder if they would consider extending the to Lenox Avenue using the planned storage area and make that the terminal so the SAS can have transfers to the and  there? 

I would at the very least extend Phase 2 to St. Nicholas Avenue with connections to the 8th Avenue line there (using the extra tracks between 125 and 145 on 8th Avenue) at least initially to allow for emergency use of the SAS by the and  if something goes FUBAR on CPW (using the switch to the tracks at 63rd and for the south of West 4th to get back on regular route), also allowing for an SAS line to go to 207 or on the Concourse Line.  

They might do what they did with 10th Av on the  where the purposely build it in a way so a station can be added later, but I doubt they add any new stations onto Phase II at this point.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

13 hours ago, ArchytectAnthony said:

I noticed all three stations seems to have extra white spaces beyond the platforms just for the ancillary and entrances for some. I remember reading something on how the mta built the phase 1 stations with overly long station caverns or station boxes (like 1000 to 1100ft long or something), which contributed to the high price tag. Is there a good reason for these giant spaces? Because if not, then it seems like they're just repeating the same mistakes and wondering why the price tag is so high imo.

Generally, the station box for new deep level metro stations should be about 10-20% longer than the actual train itself for adequate storage and facility space, but anything beyond that is excessive. Here, the train length is 600ft, so you'd prolly want a station box around 720ft. Some of these station boxes are being built to be double the length of the actual train which is very excessive. Some reasons why this occurred during Phase 1 was:

- They needed underground places to store dirt since there's some stupid rule you can't truck away dirt at certain times

- The MTA had a ton of different contractors, but none of them wanted to share storage/maintenance space for their equipment

- Where they got the land to build the ancillary buildings; some of the buildings are a couple-hundred feet north/south of the platform

- This is America and bigger is better

Honestly from that diagram, might as well just connect the 106th and 116th station boxes and create one giant station lol.

What makes me particularly frustrated is all this extra money that went to making these excessively long station boxes probably could've gotten us a quad track line for the same cost, which long term would have far more benefit to NYers and the city. However, I think there's a lot of blame to go around; it's not just the MTA's fault.