Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
CenSin

Second Avenue Subway Discussion

Recommended Posts

Yeah, it appears to be the cheapest option (which is why its discussed so much), too bad it does nothing to solve issues on the (4)(5) as the (6) is a mere two-three blocks away from most of the NEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was mistaken, no one ever suggested any subway go over Hell's Gate, the connection was to be made nearby, but there shouldn't even be any subways over there as the (6) (again) is nearby, and the area is purely industrial until one reaches Hunts Point. Leave it for what it was meant to do, which is to bring Metro North trains into Penn Station someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they hadn't cut out the third track in the station. Since they're still doing the deep boring at that point, how much did they really save by making the cavern a little narrower?

This would be a good time for them to make one of those kind of mistakes that always happens when t's not wanted, where they mistakenly build it according to the original plan.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they'd still have to bore tunnels under the Bronx in order to connect to the ROW, despite all these, the (MTA) still have to put up a fence so it would be safer and the line won't require FRA approval, this is in comparison with other systems nationwide that parallel Commuter/Freight Lines and doesn't have FRA Approval.
Nobody said there would be no tunnel at all. If you think about it, any option that's not a full tunnel is cheaper than part tunnel and part at-grade/depressed/elevated. And the fence is not going to make any difference in the budget.

 

Either way a Subway Line along the NEC is not what I think will work out well because the (6) already service around this area, you just need a better signaling perhaps to add more trains on the (6) Line.
The other purpose of using the NEC is adding capacity (though I would agree that it's adding capacity in the wrong way). You can only add so many (6) trains before you can't add anymore, but by connecting a new corridor to a new trunk line, you automatically double the capacity of that region (assuming the line isn't split in the Bronx).

 

I believe another study also explicitly admitted that such a route would be close to existing routes, but would serve a large population further away from any routes. This would be akin to building the Queens super-express bypass. It's paralleling the Queens Boulevard line, but it adds capacity.

 

The only spots that need some sort of Subway Service is on 3rd Ave. and Fordham Rd./Pelham Parkway. but it would be proven too pricey to build such a service so Select Bus Service with Bus Lane enforcement would probably take care of stuff.

It's already quite pricey to build the Second Avenue Subway, and there is also SBS there. Yet, they're doing it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was as I said in prior threads, that NEC line screams MNR, not a subway. Not everything has to be a SUBWAY. Most of the Lex congestion comes from the BRP on westward (there's enough service east of Parkchester to meet demand, and NEC doesn't help "express bus ville" as the line stays heading northeasterly. It's nice to help out the (6), but Co-op would rather speed to Manhattan, and they will pay for it, than just a direct line and a discount). They've paid for express buses for decades, they can afford MNR to get them downtown way faster than a direct subway ever can. Remember the original goal of the SAS which was to improve access of ALL the Lex lines, not just a couple communities near the (6) andd perhaps the (5) (the latter which has no ridership problems at all).

 

A line extended up 3Av or Park Av (to at least Fordham) will assist the (2)(4)(5)(6)(D)(:( and will solve problems on each of those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the original plans the (Q) was supposed to be extended up to 125 st along 2nd ave. Now that the (Q) was extended to Astoria... What now? Are they just abandoning the idea all together? Because it seems lie a very good idea to have two trains under 2nd ave, especially one going down 7th, so people won't have to transfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I heard the (Q) will travel along 2 Av first, and this might revive the (W) since Astoria can't handle just one line going thru there (unless they have more (N) train service).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there was a lot of talk in an old thread about this (which lead to subsequent harassing and flaming), but one option is the (Q) and (T) run up to 125th via 2nd Av and the (W) returns to Astoria.

 

At least thats what I hope happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phase 1 will be the only phase completed for the Second Avenue Subway any time in our lifetime. The (Q) will go up to 96th Street via 2nd Avenue. The (T) train, which is supposed to run the entire length of 2nd Avenue, will never come into existence.

 

PS: In b4 some nut posts some fantasy plan about the Bronx and Brooklyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the (W) coming back. Just hold up on that. IT COULD, but no one is saying it WILL. So chances are flat. Just saying this, because then it ill end up into a rumor (like it is now) and then lead to problems.

 

For the (T), that wont even come in until at least Phase 3 of the 2nd Avenue Subway, which god knows when that ill happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was as I said in prior threads, that NEC line screams MNR, not a subway. Not everything has to be a SUBWAY. Most of the Lex congestion comes from the BRP on westward (there's enough service east of Parkchester to meet demand, and NEC doesn't help "express bus ville" as the line stays heading northeasterly. It's nice to help out the (6), but Co-op would rather speed to Manhattan, and they will pay for it, than just a direct line and a discount). They've paid for express buses for decades, they can afford MNR to get them downtown way faster than a direct subway ever can. Remember the original goal of the SAS which was to improve access of ALL the Lex lines, not just a couple communities near the (6) andd perhaps the (5) (the latter which has no ridership problems at all).

 

A line extended up 3Av or Park Av (to at least Fordham) will assist the (2)(4)(5)(6)(D)(:( and will solve problems on each of those lines.

 

Thank You!

 

The NEC begins to leave the (6) north of Westchester Avenue (IRT Whitlock) by a few and more blocks. This doesn't serve anyone south of the (6). I HIGHLY doubt a subway would even end up on that structure, especially with Metro-North already planned for that. No need for a Subway to run on the Corridor.

 

I'd rather see the 2nd Avenue Subway head along 3rd Avenue, to help out in that area. But thats yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs from now. For now im just worried about whats going on to help relief those on the IRT Lex Line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if the (W) came back. The (N) is not enough to serve Astoria on its own especially with its headways. I go to school in Astoria and live in Manhattan (I get on at Union Square and get off at Ditmars, but i will be moving to Springfield Gardens by the Q85 in March so I will be getting on at Queensboro instead). The trains (Manhattan-bound) are SRO by Astoria Blvd or 30th Avenue in the morning and are always SRO before even getting to Queens (Astoria-bound) in the afternoons/evenings and that is with the (N) AND (Q). If the MTA doesn't bring back the (W) or increase (N) service when the (Q) goes up 2nd Avenue, service to/from Astoria will definetly get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this doesn't turn into another one of those "why the (W) should be brought back" then somehow turns into one of those "the (V) should come back" blah blah blah threads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason the (W) was canned was for budget cuts. I don't see why it can't be brought back especially since the (Q) [i still say it should be the (N)] gets sent north via 2nd av. Astoria does need the 2nd line serving it.

As is now, the (Q) is the only express, (N) holds up traffic by going over the 'slow switch' north of Canal, (R) is the only Lower Manhattan line. I still maintain the thought about keeping the (W) as rush hours only being a far better service than what's going on now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the NEC spends large portions of its run not near housing, and those that are nearby does generally have faster options.

 

Couple hypotheticals: Why would Parkchester hop on a (T) or (Q) whatever is there to go down 2Av local that came from Co-op and is already full when they can still catch a <6> at Parkchester and take it to express services on the east side at 125 or an empty (6) at Parkchester itself?

 

Would Co-op bare not having express service on its new one-seat ride (that they have to go to section 5 to access, its not like its convenient to ALL of Co-op) when express buses already get them downtown faster and section 1 and 2 can walk to Baychester (5) and catch express trains from there? I bet if you poll them, they would rather Metro North trains that cost the price of an express bus, originate from Co-op or New Rochelle, and only make a stop in Parkchester, then straight to Penn Station!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Replies in Teal.

 

*=LIRR and Metro-North could by special and trimmed down version EMU on this $5.50 Intra-City Train on weekdays.

 

Also agreed with Two Timer and Mark1447, 3rd Ave. in the Bronx need some kinda Rail Rapid Transit Service, that's where the (T) stands in, I'd still end the (Q) in Manhattan @ 125th.

 

I totally agree, sure the (D) is longer, but there's no need to send the (Q) or whatever Broadway line into the Bronx. The (T) {if it is just as is to Lower Manhattan} is short enough to be justified in being extended further north. any longer for the (Q) and frequency will just decrease or become delayed prone. Plus if the line extends to CPW/125th, then that would be just fine for the (Q).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't ever think the (Q) will end up in the Bronx. It will be a (T). Also, I don't think there ever will be constuction below 63rd, hence no (T). Put two and two together...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's often thrown about is whether the (N) can handle Astoria by itself at current levels (answer is no, in rush hour anyways). No one seldom brings up whether the (Q) can handle 2Av by itself, I mean it will be the only trunk line that runs by itself N-S in Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's often thrown about is whether the (N) can handle Astoria by itself at current levels (answer is no, in rush hour anyways). No one seldom brings up whether the (Q) can handle 2Av by itself, I mean it will be the only trunk line that runs by itself N-S in Manhattan.

 

Cuz everyone is worried about their precious (W)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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