Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[CenSin]

6 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I would just do 72nd St and prolly116th St as express stops. One thing I dislike about the IND 6th and 8th Avenue line is the express stops are too frequent imo so the express trains sort of lose their benefit.

72 Street to 138 Street with no stops in between sounds nicer though. People will finally have a compelling reason to ditch the  even if all the stops below 72 Street are local.

[Reptile]

8 hours ago, CenSin said:

72 Street to 138 Street with no stops in between sounds nicer though. People will finally have a compelling reason to ditch the  even if all the stops below 72 Street are local.

True. The amount of travel from East Harlem to the Bronx or East Harlem to Midtown (I might be wrong) isn't as heavy as travel from the Bronx to Midtown at least on the

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

16 hours ago, CenSin said:

72 Street to 138 Street with no stops in between sounds nicer though. People will finally have a compelling reason to ditch the  even if all the stops below 72 Street are local.

I think even if the  theoretically made every stop on SAS, it'd still be a compelling alternative to the  because SAS already has decent station spacing to begin with, and because the line is just newer to handle higher speeds and presumably won't have to deal with terrible junctions, travel time may be comparable. However, in the average commuters minds, they may still see the  as faster cause they're labelled as expresses. 

If the  jumped all the way from 138th to 72nd St, it'd be like CPW but on the east side of Manhattan, and would offer a very desirable trip at least to 72nd St (where many would transfer to the  to get to western midtown, this might also take some load off the  coming from the Bronx which has seen overcrowding issues before).

The only bad thing about the  jumping all the way from 138th to 72nd St is anyone coming from the Bronx who needs to get off in Manhattan north of 72nd St would have to take the train to 72nd St and backtrack or just take the .

[CenSin]

8 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

The only bad thing about the  jumping all the way from 138th to 72nd St is anyone coming from the Bronx who needs to get off in Manhattan north of 72nd St would have to take the train to 72nd St and backtrack or just take the .

That is a much smaller market, isn’t it? And it’s what the locals are for.

[TMC]

On 6/28/2023 at 12:13 PM, Kamen Rider said:

then where's St. John's University's subway extension? Or Queens College? Why should Colombia get MORE service on top of the options that already exist... when these two don't have rail transit right at their door step? 

 

"Upper west side riders have easy access to" blah blah blah...

 

It's only just occurred to me that you just don't care about the outer boroughs.

You want Manhattanites to be chauffeured every which way from Sunday, meanwhile not a single person on the island of Manhattan is more than a 20 minute walk away from a subway station.

Meanwhile...

There are massive swaths of Brooklyn and queens with only buses.

Let's pick a spot on goggle maps... let's go with the intersection of Linden Blvd and Sutphin Blvd in South Jamaica. That's a 26-minute walk from Jamaica Station/ Supthin-Archer. and before you mention the LIRR stops at St. albins or Locus Manor... that's still longer no matter which way you go. 

 

Which should be more important... adding capacity where it's not needed... or adding capacity where it doesn't exist, period! 

St. John’s could do with a LRT along Union Tpke, a subway extension along Hillside pencils on a positive cost:benefit ratio, but is lower priority due to LIRR being parallel.

A line along the LIE to serve Queens College does not pencil at globally average construction costs. For such a line, it would have to as cheap as subway expansion in Southern Europe, which is not likely. 
 

For the record, just because residents don’t have rail service, while others have plenty, isn’t a reason to criticize that proposal. Adding capacity where it already exists is justified in New York’s case. Crowding on Manhattan trunks is high enough to justify two new trunks through the borough. I propose one on 3rd Avenue (replacing SAS 3 & 4) going N-S, and another on 50th Street going E-W. 

For areas without subway service, Paris-esque tramways could suffice on the busiest bus corridors, along with (actually good) regional rail service that can be used as a “big fast subway” so-to-speak. 

[Wallyhorse]

15 hours ago, TMC said:

For the record, just because residents don’t have rail service, while others have plenty, isn’t a reason to criticize that proposal. Adding capacity where it already exists is justified in New York’s case. Crowding on Manhattan trunks is high enough to justify two new trunks through the borough. I propose one on 3rd Avenue (replacing SAS 3 & 4) going N-S, and another on 50th Street going E-W.

Not sure you can do a subway on 50th Street,  I have proposed many revivals of the old 3rd Avenue EL but that would likely never happen.

My point on 125 is extending it to Broadway would give access on the upper east side to Columbia, which has greatly expanded over time.  This as I have also noted would include connections to the 8th Avenue line at St, Nicholas, using the tracks between the local and express from north of 125-north of 135 to connect to/from the SAS.  That would allow access to 207 and Concourse yards with perhaps in that scenario the and  both going on the SAS across 125 with one to Broadway-125 and the other replacing the on the Concourse to Bedford Park Boulevard 24/7 with the returned to running to 168. 

[Wallyhorse]

Adding since I can't edit:

I have already noted this, the  becomes full-time to Astoria (with some trains during peak hours ending and beginning on the tunnel level of Canal Street), supplemented by a new "Yellow " that also goes to Astoria starting at 9th Avenue on the , possibly during peak hours extended to/from Bay Parkway on the West End.  

[Kamen Rider]

Columbia has not expanded to the point of justifying building an entire extension cross town, having to re design and redo the environmental impact statement from scratch. They have the 1.

they have B and C if they don’t mind cutting through Morningside Park.
 

They have the M60SBS.

there are MASSIVE transit deserts in other parts of the city that deserve service way more than Columbia does.

 

the University is NOT the traffic generator YOU think it is.

[TMC]

57 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

there are MASSIVE transit deserts in other parts of the city that deserve service way more than Columbia does.

I’d rank a 125th Street Crosstown higher than lines and extensions in Eastern Queens and the the Bronx, but below Utica and Nostrand in terms of where priorities should be.

 

125th Street is too valuable to not build, and it isn’t just about Columbia. It is one of the busiest bus corridors on the continent, and it being a crosstown, could take some of the stress off of transfer points in the Bronx and Midtown.

[TMC]

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Not sure you can do a subway on 50th Street,  I have proposed many revivals of the old 3rd Avenue EL but that would likely never happen.

- You can, there’s no reason why it’s impossible. I have it as a double-track line running along Northern Blvd in Queens (Terminates at Crocheron Avenue, for a transfer to regional rail service), running along 50th Street, then across the Hudson to Port Imperial, taking over the tunnel used by HBLR (that portion of HBLR should be abandoned, cut back to Port Imperial, running from Hoboken), then out to Secaucus (the city, not the station), MetLife, then traveling to Paterson along the old Erie Main Line (the one that was abandoned). In Queens, it relieves both Flushing (allowing it to be extended further northeast to Whitestone) and Queens Blvd. it adds new E-W core capacity through Manhattan that is sorely needed. In New Jersey, it uses essentially a free RoW in dense development, serves Passaic better than NJT does, and adds capacity to Paterson, a fairly large edge city of NYC (population of 166K according to the most recent census) 

 

- The 3rd Avenue Line exists for one main reason, it replaces Phases 3 & 4 of SAS to get a better hit on East Midtown jobs, and it also prevents reverse-branching with SAS 1 & 2. This will be a double-track line starting in Paterson, running east along NJ-4 to Fort Lee, another large edge city that is growing very rapidly with dense development, just across the GWB. The line heads across the GWB, turns south onto 174th Street Yard, and replaces the  through 145th Street, after which, it heads onto tracks A5/A6 past 135th Street, and diverges off of CPW south of 125th Street, heading down Frederick Douglass Blvd, stopping 110th Street, then nonstop cutting through Central Park’s eastern half, and zig-zagging onto 3rd Avenue around 68th Street, making at stop at 63rd Street. The line then heads down 3rd Avenue until Houston Street, where it turns east, stopping at Avenue C, then heading to Williamsburg along Metropolitan Avenue, cutting across East Williamsburg to go south on Bushwick Avenue, then east on Broadway, then south on Malcolm X Blvd and Utica Avenue to Avenue U. The New Jersey segment of the line serves dense development in Fort Lee, and opens up the opportunity for TOD along NJ-4, while adding capacity to Paterson. The super-express portion through the UES and Central Harlem is due to a lack of destinations not already well served. In Brooklyn, it relieves the , the only overcrowded Brooklyn subway line (nothing in Brooklyn comes close to it), which will continue to get worse as development continues in Williamsburg, spreading even further north and east. It also opens up Southeast Brooklyn to more dense development, by providing a trunk’s worth of capacity, rather than a branch off of Eastern Pkwy. 

[Kamen Rider]

53 minutes ago, TMC said:

I’d rank a 125th Street Crosstown higher than lines and extensions in Eastern Queens and the the Bronx, but below Utica and Nostrand in terms of where priorities should be.

 

125th Street is too valuable to not build, and it isn’t just about Columbia. It is one of the busiest bus corridors on the continent, and it being a crosstown, could take some of the stress off of transfer points in the Bronx and Midtown.

125th has rail transit. Loads of areas have NOTHING.

the priority after the authorized phases of SAS is expanding the system to areas that are NOT served, not making things easier for areas that already have service.

the IBX, for example. That’s much more important than a 125th street crosstown line, because it will bring train service to areas where it not only doesn’t exist, but some places where it NEVER has.

 

To me, it feels you you’re saying it’s more important that someone traveling in Manhattan save a 10 minutes or less than a person in other areas of the city save 30-40 minutes…

Edited July 19, 2023 by Kamen Rider

[TMC]

5 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

To me, it feels you you’re saying it’s more important that someone traveling in Manhattan save a 10 minutes or less than a person in other areas of the city save 30-40 minutes…

I am saying it is more important, because the projects in Manhattan generally have better cost:benefit ratios, inflated costs or not. 
 

For the record, if we could build these projects at the same time, that would be great, but require a lot of reform higher up.

Sure, 125th and most of Manhattan has a lot, while other places have no rail service, but that’s not the important thing. 
 

The important thing is whether the capacity issues we are trying to solve are being addressed. Core capacity is likely going to be a priority over outer-borough branches, except for IBX because that is free RoW that should be stupid easy to construct. Coverage doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have robust enough infrastructure in the core to support it, that could make things worse.

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, TMC said:

I’d rank a 125th Street Crosstown higher than lines and extensions in Eastern Queens and the the Bronx, but below Utica and Nostrand in terms of where priorities should be.

 

125th Street is too valuable to not build, and it isn’t just about Columbia. It is one of the busiest bus corridors on the continent, and it being a crosstown, could take some of the stress off of transfer points in the Bronx and Midtown.

Exactly!

Even if you only go to St. Nicholas and have a connection to the 8th Avenue/Concourse lines, it is worth it because of yard access to Concourse and 207.  While Columbia is a big reason for going to Broadway, it's not the ONLY one, especially with Metro-North at some point expected to have a station on 125/12th as well.

[Mtatransit]

32 minutes ago, TMC said:

The important thing is whether the capacity issues we are trying to solve are being addressed. Core capacity is likely going to be a priority over outer-borough branches, except for IBX because that is free RoW that should be stupid easy to construct. Coverage doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have robust enough infrastructure in the core to support it, that could make things worse.

You keep mentioning core, but not every subway needs to go to Manhattan. You mention cost:benefit ratio based on existing ridership pattern, not potential ridership pattern.

Like I said previously, if the service between outerboros are terrible you can't expect people to use the service

 

You mention high bus ridership along 125th Street yet when I mention ridership along Woodhaven Blvd, you call it not that impressive

Here is the 2021 weekday MTA numbers for bus routes

All route along 125th: 38,000

All routes along Woodhaven: 17,000

125th routes include the M101, Bx15 and M100 which have ridership generators well outside the 125th Street corridor. I suspect that bus ridership along 125th proper will be at or lower than the level along Woodhaven Blvd, when you take out the non 125th street segment

[TMC]

34 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

You keep mentioning core, but not every subway needs to go to Manhattan. You mention cost:benefit ratio based on existing ridership pattern, not potential ridership pattern.

Like I said previously, if the service between outerboros are terrible you can't expect people to use the service

 

You mention high bus ridership along 125th Street yet when I mention ridership along Woodhaven Blvd, you call it not that impressive

Here is the 2021 weekday MTA numbers for bus routes

All route along 125th: 38,000

All routes along Woodhaven: 17,000

125th routes include the M101, Bx15 and M100 which have ridership generators well outside the 125th Street corridor. I suspect that bus ridership along 125th proper will be at or lower than the level along Woodhaven Blvd, when you take out the non 125th street segment

Ridership patterns don’t change very quickly, the only major change in ridership patterns was when FiDi became less important, in favor of Midtown. Those took decades to change, and even now, the highest concentration of destinations remains in Manhattan, its not that hard to understand. That’s generally where all of the trains should go and connect with each other. 

 

Ridership patterns have changed, but where you’re wrong is how they have changed. What has changed is that more people are commuting outside of rush hour, rather than traditional peak-focused commutes. 
 

You also can’t expect to build good outer-borough transit beyond IBX and improving the Crosstown Line, jobs are spread too thin for rapid transit to effectively serve those markets. 
 

Regardless of the technicalities of bus ridership on 125th Street, it is different than Woodhaven. It is a better circumferential corridor, and is higher density. 

[Mtatransit]

1 hour ago, TMC said:

Ridership patterns don’t change very quickly, the only major change in ridership patterns was when FiDi became less important, in favor of Midtown. Those took decades to change, and even now, the highest concentration of destinations remains in Manhattan, its not that hard to understand. That’s generally where all of the trains should go and connect with each other. 

 

Ridership patterns have changed, but where you’re wrong is how they have changed. What has changed is that more people are commuting outside of rush hour, rather than traditional peak-focused commutes. 
 

You also can’t expect to build good outer-borough transit beyond IBX and improving the Crosstown Line, jobs are spread too thin for rapid transit to effectively serve those markets. 
 

Regardless of the technicalities of bus ridership on 125th Street, it is different than Woodhaven. It is a better circumferential corridor, and is higher density. 

Under the current system, yes most of the growth in ridership is off peak, both traveling earlier and on weekend. I am not denying that. I didn't say anything changed currently, I am saying they have the potential to change when we expand the system

The change from FIDI to Midtown was spurred by the growth of subway service out there, and New York Central/PRR.

Again if we didn't expand subway service out there, most of the development will remain in FIDI, and your argument will apply to Midtown as well (most of the jobs are in FIDI so demand are low)

[TMC]

9 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

Again if we didn't expand subway service out there, most of the development will remain in FIDI, and your argument will apply to Midtown as well (most of the jobs are in FIDI so demand are low)

Yes, but the reason for the high job concentrations in Midtown and FiDi is the fact that almost all lines interconnect there. Midtown was already growing before the subway, jobs just shifted north because Midtown was closer to Queens and the Bronx, and not that much farther away from Brooklyn than FiDi. It also attracted different, more modern jobs, while FiDi remained the financial hub of the city, and is now starting to lose its place as that even. 
 

The outer boroughs dwarfing Midtown would be a bad thing, because we would then end up with a situation like LA. A weak core, with heavy job sprawl difficult to serve by transit. Transit depends on job centralization to work effectively. 
 

There is also no chance LIC, DTBK, or Flushing would have a chance at competing with Midtown, because the system has already matured around serving Midtown effectively. It’s essentially a mold that’s impossible to break. 

[Wallyhorse]

On 7/19/2023 at 2:02 PM, TMC said:

- You can, there’s no reason why it’s impossible. I have it as a double-track line running along Northern Blvd in Queens (Terminates at Crocheron Avenue, for a transfer to regional rail service), running along 50th Street, then across the Hudson to Port Imperial, taking over the tunnel used by HBLR (that portion of HBLR should be abandoned, cut back to Port Imperial, running from Hoboken), then out to Secaucus (the city, not the station), MetLife, then traveling to Paterson along the old Erie Main Line (the one that was abandoned). In Queens, it relieves both Flushing (allowing it to be extended further northeast to Whitestone) and Queens Blvd. it adds new E-W core capacity through Manhattan that is sorely needed. In New Jersey, it uses essentially a free RoW in dense development, serves Passaic better than NJT does, and adds capacity to Paterson, a fairly large edge city of NYC (population of 166K according to the most recent census) 

 

- The 3rd Avenue Line exists for one main reason, it replaces Phases 3 & 4 of SAS to get a better hit on East Midtown jobs, and it also prevents reverse-branching with SAS 1 & 2. This will be a double-track line starting in Paterson, running east along NJ-4 to Fort Lee, another large edge city that is growing very rapidly with dense development, just across the GWB. The line heads across the GWB, turns south onto 174th Street Yard, and replaces the  through 145th Street, after which, it heads onto tracks A5/A6 past 135th Street, and diverges off of CPW south of 125th Street, heading down Frederick Douglass Blvd, stopping 110th Street, then nonstop cutting through Central Park’s eastern half, and zig-zagging onto 3rd Avenue around 68th Street, making at stop at 63rd Street. The line then heads down 3rd Avenue until Houston Street, where it turns east, stopping at Avenue C, then heading to Williamsburg along Metropolitan Avenue, cutting across East Williamsburg to go south on Bushwick Avenue, then east on Broadway, then south on Malcolm X Blvd and Utica Avenue to Avenue U. The New Jersey segment of the line serves dense development in Fort Lee, and opens up the opportunity for TOD along NJ-4, while adding capacity to Paterson. The super-express portion through the UES and Central Harlem is due to a lack of destinations not already well served. In Brooklyn, it relieves the , the only overcrowded Brooklyn subway line (nothing in Brooklyn comes close to it), which will continue to get worse as development continues in Williamsburg, spreading even further north and east. It also opens up Southeast Brooklyn to more dense development, by providing a trunk’s worth of capacity, rather than a branch off of Eastern Pkwy. 

As noted before:

If I were going to do ANY new connection, it would be from Queens AND I would have it come across 79th Street with the first Manhattan stop at York-1st Avenues on 79th, which covers a gap in the SAS in what is arguably one of the most densely populated areas of the entire country (and with more high-rises in the future, likely to become worse in that regard).  You could make this part of your planned 3rd Avenue Subway that could then run on 3rd with a stop at 76th-79th Street before turning on 79th, then 60th-63rd that would likely be the busiest station on the entire such line with transfers on such a line at 60th Street for the  and 63rd for the  and 53rd for the , then 42nd for the  with other stops at 34th, 23rd, 14th (transfer to ) and then to lower Manhattan along the old 3rd Avenue EL route to Chatham Square (transfer to ) .  As others have noted, I don't know if a connection from New Jersey is possible, but if it is, then I would do it as you noted as much as possible, however, I would have the SAS connection I previously proposed with perhaps your new line running on Amsterdam Avenue to 110th Street and then stopping on 110/Frederick Douglas Boulevard and then as you mentioned except I would have this line go across 86th to a stop at 3rd/Lexington Avenues (transfer to ) and then stop otherwise as noted.

[mrsman]

On 7/21/2023 at 3:09 PM, Wallyhorse said:

As noted before:

If I were going to do ANY new connection, it would be from Queens AND I would have it come across 79th Street with the first Manhattan stop at York-1st Avenues on 79th, which covers a gap in the SAS in what is arguably one of the most densely populated areas of the entire country (and with more high-rises in the future, likely to become worse in that regard).  You could make this part of your planned 3rd Avenue Subway that could then run on 3rd with a stop at 76th-79th Street before turning on 79th, then 60th-63rd that would likely be the busiest station on the entire such line with transfers on such a line at 60th Street for the  and 63rd for the  and 53rd for the , then 42nd for the  with other stops at 34th, 23rd, 14th (transfer to ) and then to lower Manhattan along the old 3rd Avenue EL route to Chatham Square (transfer to ) .  As others have noted, I don't know if a connection from New Jersey is possible, but if it is, then I would do it as you noted as much as possible, however, I would have the SAS connection I previously proposed with perhaps your new line running on Amsterdam Avenue to 110th Street and then stopping on 110/Frederick Douglas Boulevard and then as you mentioned except I would have this line go across 86th to a stop at 3rd/Lexington Avenues (transfer to ) and then stop otherwise as noted.

 

A 3rd Ave subway with a stop at 60th-63rd would be a huge improvement for transit connections basically connecting all of the Upper East Side and good parts of Queens all in one station.  The 3rd Ave platform would provide an in-system transfer between the 59th street station on the  (and its connections to the Broadway trains that head to Queens via 60th street) and the 63rd street station that currently provides connections to  (63rd street tunnel to Queens and the connection to SAS.

The question becomes how to route such a line so that it makes sense, what to connect it to, and how to possibly reroute some of the existing B division trains in the area to limit unnecessary congestion due to interlining.

I agree that 3rd Ave is a better corridor than 2nd to provide all of the transfers at 60th-63rd as well as meeting the other nearby crosstown services (namely the  and ) that hit this part of Midtown.

So I would hve the   and trains servicing the upper parts of 2nd Ave.    should go west on 125th street and terminate at Broadway providing a 125th street crosstown service.   should continue straight north into the Bronx, following Bronx's Third Ave to Fordham Plaza (and providing transfers to  and  in the Bronx).

South of 72nd,  and should use 68th street to shift over from 2nd Ave to 3rd Ave and then continue south on 3rd Ave with stops at 60th-63rd, 51st-54th, 42nd, This will provide  and with better connections to all subways serving East Midtown.   The subway will follow 3rd to 34th (stop at 2nd/34th), and then follow 1st Ave southward to the East Village.   will make its way back towards the Grand St station and follow Bowery/St James/Pearl/Water to Hanover Square and then connect with the Montague tunnel to follow existing trackage (4th Ave local and West End line) to Coney Island.   will merge with north  of Delancey and supplement Culver line service to at least Church Ave.

 and  trains will provide service along the QBL local lines from Forest Hills, connect to the 63rd street tunnel, and thence to the Broadway express.   and  will continue existing routings in Brooklyn, N to Sea Beach and Q to Brighton local.

 will service the Astoria line, 60th street tunnel, and Broadway local trains.  [Some trains may originate/terminate at Queensboro Plaza (uitlizing the middle Astoria track for turning) and/or Whitehall to increase service in Manhattan.]  Trains will continue into Brooklyn following the 4th Ave local and the West End line to Bay Parkway (and serviced by Coney Island Yard).

 are largely the same, except that trains in Brooklyn will utilize a switch (to be added) to shift from the 4th Ave express to the 4th Ave local tracks south of 36th street. and terminate in Bay Ridge.  The Bay Ridge trains will be service by the Concourse Yard.

 and  are largely the same in Queens.  will follow 53rd street tunnel to 6th Ave local and continue to Culver.   will originate at 57th/6th and provide service on the 6th Ave local and to the Myrtle Ave line.   will terminate at WTC.

 

From the perspective of portals, this better utilizes trackage to service trains to the CBD.  All B division East River tunnels are better utilized.

Northern portals:

CPW express:  

CPW local:  

SAS:  

53rd:  

60th:  

63rd:  

Trunk lines:

3rd Ave: TU;  Broadway: NQ express, R local; 6th Ave: BD express, FM local; 8th Ave: A express, CE local

Southern portals:

Manhattan Bridge:  B-D-N-Q

Williamsburg Bridge: M-J-Z

Montague Tunnel: R-T

Rutgers Tunnel: F-U

Cranberry Tunnel: A-C

 

 

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

A 3rd Ave subway with a stop at 60th-63rd would be a huge improvement for transit connections basically connecting all of the Upper East Side and good parts of Queens all in one station.  The 3rd Ave platform would provide an in-system transfer between the 59th street station on the  (and its connections to the Broadway trains that head to Queens via 60th street) and the 63rd street station that currently provides connections to  (63rd street tunnel to Queens and the connection to SAS.

The question becomes how to route such a line so that it makes sense, what to connect it to, and how to possibly reroute some of the existing B division trains in the area to limit unnecessary congestion due to interlining.

I don’t know if the structure of the tunnels would allow shoehorning another diverging tunnel from the curve coming out of 72 Street, but it already exists and gets trains halfway to 3 Avenue.

But while the transfers would be very convenient from 60 Street down to 14 Street, the trains do need a way to get back to 2 Avenue for the transfers at Houston Street () and Grand Street (). The block between 36 and 37 Streets appears to be the least developed area with just a parking facility, a lot of road, and a low-rise building on the northwest corner.

But it could also very well continue down 3 Avenue and Bowery, connecting to 2 Avenue () via a slightly longer passageway and Bowery () before continuing along its original planned R.O.W. along St. James Place, Pearl Street, and Water Street. This would definitely rule out a track connection with the Manhattan Bridge, but doesn’t prevent an indirect transfer to the and via the Bowery platforms if such a connection were to be built.

EDIT: Actually, one could be built if the vestiges of the bridge tunnels were to be reused as follows:

• The Manhattan-bound Broadway track and Brooklyn-bound 6 Avenue track are connected to the Bowery R.O.W.
• Where the ridiculously large mezzanine would have been would instead host the bridge tracks and platform.
• The lower level would be reserved for a future extension down to Chatham Square and beyond.
• Obviously, the tracks would be on the “wrong side” for the direction of traffic they’d be serving. North of the Grand Street station, the trackways would have to cross à la 59 Street Columbus Circle.

Edited July 23, 2023 by CenSin

[TMC]

6 hours ago, mrsman said:

 should continue straight north into the Bronx, following Bronx's Third Ave to Fordham Plaza (and providing transfers to  and  in the Bronx).

The Bronx doesn’t need a new subway line, especially along 3rd Avenue. Even at non-inflated costs, it has a low cost:benefit ratio.

 

Do the math, currently, the 93 TPH entering Manhattan from the Bronx during rush hour can handle 180K riders per hour. There are 330K workers working in the outer boroughs, not all are taking the subway, but the vast majority of them can pack inside of a train for the first 2 hours of rush hour. This is assuming every one of those workers is riding as well.

 

De-Interlining + regional rail expansion would add capacity, without building a multi-billion $ subway line through the Bronx, saving money for more important projects, like expanding core capacity (which your service patterns fail to maximize with 3rd Avenue, which is funny, as it is a proposal entirely built on expanding core capacity) and running service out to areas that will benefit more from new subway service, such as portions of Eastern Queens, SE Brooklyn, and Hudson/Essex/Bergen Counties in New Jersey.

 

The 3rd Avenue Line (The Bronx one, the Manhattan one is infinitely better), is an overrated, wasteful proposal by railfans who have held a 50 year grudge against the demolition of an outdated and underperforming (in its heyday) elevated rail line that has no business being brought back from the grave, even underground. 

[TMC]

5 hours ago, CenSin said:

I don’t know if the structure of the tunnels would allow shoehorning another diverging tunnel from the curve coming out of 72 Street, but it already exists and gets trains halfway to 3 Avenue.

But while the transfers would be very convenient from 60 Street down to 14 Street, the trains do need a way to get back to 2 Avenue for the transfers at Houston Street () and Grand Street (). The block between 36 and 37 Streets appears to be the least developed area with just a parking facility, a lot of road, and a low-rise building on the northwest corner.

But it could also very well continue down 3 Avenue and Bowery, connecting to 2 Avenue () via a slightly longer passageway and Bowery () before continuing along its original planned R.O.W. along St. James Place, Pearl Street, and Water Street. This would definitely rule out a track connection with the Manhattan Bridge, but doesn’t prevent an indirect transfer to the and via the Bowery platforms if such a connection were to be built.

The ideal alignment should run under the eastern edge of Central Park cut-and-cover to save on tunneling costs, and run super-express out to Central and West Harlem. It would shift onto 3rd Avenue around 68th Street, and run down it until Houston Street, where it should turn east towards the LES and under the East River to Williamsburg. Leave SAS Phases 1 & 2 as-is, save for running the  in addition to the , as well as the  up Astoria, replacing the , detangling Broadway off of Queens Blvd. 
 

SAS below Houston is wasteful, especially if we’re planning on adding new rail capacity (except for regional rail, that pencils) between FiDi and Downtown Brooklyn, because that is unnecessary. All of those tunnels are chronically under-full, and have lots of leftover capacity. This is because of South Brooklyn’s low density along its branch lines.
 

Tunneling to Williamsburg, however, adds a relief line for the L, which is the most crowded Brooklyn subway line (though should be upgraded to run more frequently, tail tracks, upgraded electronics), and will only continue to overcrowd as gentrification intensifies and spreads through North Brooklyn neighborhoods. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 7/24/2023 at 12:54 AM, TMC said:

The Bronx doesn’t need a new subway line, especially along 3rd Avenue. Even at non-inflated costs, it has a low cost:benefit ratio.

 

Do the math, currently, the 93 TPH entering Manhattan from the Bronx during rush hour can handle 180K riders per hour. There are 330K workers working in the outer boroughs, not all are taking the subway, but the vast majority of them can pack inside of a train for the first 2 hours of rush hour. This is assuming every one of those workers is riding as well.

 

De-Interlining + regional rail expansion would add capacity, without building a multi-billion $ subway line through the Bronx, saving money for more important projects, like expanding core capacity (which your service patterns fail to maximize with 3rd Avenue, which is funny, as it is a proposal entirely built on expanding core capacity) and running service out to areas that will benefit more from new subway service, such as portions of Eastern Queens, SE Brooklyn, and Hudson/Essex/Bergen Counties in New Jersey.

 

The 3rd Avenue Line (The Bronx one, the Manhattan one is infinitely better), is an overrated, wasteful proposal by railfans who have held a 50 year grudge against the demolition of an outdated and underperforming (in its heyday) elevated rail line that has no business being brought back from the grave, even underground. 

The main thing I would want to do in the Bronx would be to extend the train to Co-Op city. This has the benefit of not only serving Co-Op city which is pretty dense, but also solving the issue with Pelham Bay Parkway being a bad terminal and having to turn local trains at Parkchester creating a mess in the morning rush. 

Long term if I were to extend SAS to the Bronx, I'd start it under 3rd Avenue and have it run to the Throggs Neck neighborhood which would basically fill all the remaining transit deserts. I would do it as a modern day quieter elevated line, but for political reasons that is unlikely to be considered anytime soon.

The issue with extending SAS to the Bronx is the Bronx line will either be running at half capacity, or you'll have to add express tracks in Manhattan which would be difficult and insanely expensive.

[TMC]

5 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

The main thing I would want to do in the Bronx would be to extend the train to Co-Op city. This has the benefit of not only serving Co-Op city which is pretty dense, but also solving the issue with Pelham Bay Parkway being a bad terminal and having to turn local trains at Parkchester creating a mess in the morning rush. 

Long term if I were to extend SAS to the Bronx, I'd start it under 3rd Avenue and have it run to the Throggs Neck neighborhood which would basically fill all the remaining transit deserts. I would do it as a modern day quieter elevated line, but for political reasons that is unlikely to be considered anytime soon.

The issue with extending SAS to the Bronx is the Bronx line will either be running at half capacity, or you'll have to add express tracks in Manhattan which would be difficult and insanely expensive.

-  to Co-Op City is good, I like this.

 

- Throgs Neck is where I disagree, even long-term. I think 2nd Avenue should run exclusively across 125th Street, with Phase 3 being an entirely separate trunk line along 3rd Avenue, running super-express north of Midtown towards the GWB and New Jersey. The question with Throgs Neck is: Is there a better place to put the train? In this case, I believe both 125th Street and NJ-4 in New Jersey are more compelling than Throgs Neck. The areas served on a Throgs Neck Line are not very dense, and if bus crowding is high, I don’t think it’s because the buses are insufficient as a mode. Density and the opportunity for higher density is much higher in New Jersey along the NJ-4 corridor than the Southeast Bronx as well, so the TOD argument doesn’t work too. 

[Nitro]

Second Avenue should be mostly light rail instead if the costs are so god dam high