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.

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Running the (N) between Astoria and Bay Ridge will cause the (N) to have the same issue that the (R) had when it ran between Astoria and Bay Ridge prior to May 1987. The issue was that the (R) lacked a yard anywhere along its route while (N) had two. You don't want that to be the case again. So how about this:

(N) - 96th & 2nd to Coney Island via Broadway Express, Manhattan Bridge and 4th Ave Express all times except nights. Nights shuttle between 36th & CI.

(Q) - 96th & 2nd to CI via Broadway Express, Bridge and Brighton Local. All times.

(R) - Same as now, except no night service. See below for substitute service.

(W) - Astoria to Whitehall via Broadway Local. All times. During rush hours, every other (W) would turn at Canal to avoid backups from (W)s turning at Whitehall's center track. The (W) would replace the (R) to Bay Ridge late nights.

 

Don't forget, there is a wild card in this, that being the potential Queens Boulevard connection to the former LIRR Rockaway Branch, which, especially if it happened by the time the SAS also opened (and could if Aqueduct Casino operator Genting helped pay for it to). With that in mind, what could wind up happening is this (and this also assumes Genting would want a connection via the QB-Rockaway branch to Aqueduct and JFK to stop in lower Manhattan and the Financial District):

 

(Q) runs as scheduled to 96th Street-2nd Avenue (later 125th-Lex).

 

(R) moves to the West End branch and Coney Island yard and is a local from 36th-Atlantic/Pacific, running from there to Astoria as a 24/7 line (done to prevent the yard issue noted above).

 

(D) replaces the (R) all times from 95th-36th (eliminating the overnight shuttle) and also runs local to DeKalb before going over the Manhattan Bridge and on its normal route (as it currently does from 36th-DeKalb overnights).

 

(N) also continues to run to Astoria, but as an express to 57th from 5:30 AM-10:00 PM Monday-Friday. 10:00 PM-5:30 AM weeknights and all day on weekends, (N) runs with the (Q) to 96th/2nd to bolster service on the Upper East Side (with select (N) trains on weekends to Astoria as warranted).

 

(W) runs local from Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park using the Queens Boulevard-Rockaway connection (and obviously replacing the (R) on Queens Boulevard to 63rd Drive) with stops at Aqueduct and Howard Beach-JFK. This also eliminates the Rockaway Park (S) since the (W) would be a 24/7 line.

 

(G) returns to running to 71st-Continental, but on weekdays the (G) and (M) would both during rush hours go with the (F) to 179th (while the (F) ran express at those times all the way on QB) in order to prevent backups at 71-Continental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

 

(W) runs local from Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park using the Queens Boulevard-Rockaway connection (and obviously replacing the (R) on Queens Boulevard to 63rd Drive) with stops at Aqueduct and Howard Beach-JFK. This also eliminates the Rockaway Park (S) since the (W) would be a 24/7 line.

 

(G) returns to running to 71st-Continental, but on weekdays the (G) and (M) would both during rush hours go with the (F) to 179th (while the (F) ran express at those times all the way on QB) in order to prevent backups at 71-Continental.

 

How in the world would the (W) do that, now this is getting to the point where your thoughts are stuck in fantasy map collection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hows about the (Q) does the same thing the (A) does in Southern Queens and splits into 2 different terminals? I heard the (Q) was supposed to double service anyway, so I think that would be a good idea.

 

though since its the (MTA) (and its been said a thousand times already), the best to do is to wait and see. You never know, the (MTA) might be dumb and eliminate (Q) service to Astoria alltogether, or they could do something crazy such as put a 6 Av line up 2 Av. Who knows, just see what hapens.

 

I was thinking that the (Q) will go there at all times and the <Q> would go to Astoria at All except late nights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would do the following

(N) Normal Service

(Q) Lexington-125 street to Coney Island

(R) Bay Ridge to 71 Avnue

(W) Between Bay Ridge and Astoria

 

Impossible also. It would mean an increase in (R) service and we don't want that, because the (W) would never be brought back. We can't have the (W) run to Coney Island either. It can't handle it. The only three places that can even handle the (W) as a terminal is Whitehall Street, Ninth Avenue, and Bay Parkway. That is why the best idea would be to have the (W) run from Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard to Whitehall Street, but to Bay Parkway during rush hours which is the only time I see the (W) needed. Most of the time the (D) line can handle the West End Line on it's own except during rush hours when it gets a little crowded and on the Fourth Avenue Line to help back up the slower (R).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hows about the (Q) does the same thing the (A) does in Southern Queens and splits into 2 different terminals? I heard the (Q) was supposed to double service anyway, so I think that would be a good idea.

 

though since its the (MTA) (and its been said a thousand times already), the best to do is to wait and see. You never know, the (MTA) might be dumb and eliminate (Q) service to Astoria alltogether, or they could do something crazy such as put a 6 Av line up 2 Av. Who knows, just see what hapens.

Astoria and the UES are not the same as Lefferts and the Rockaways combined. So that example is terrible.

 

Why would they 'eliminate' the (Q)? The (Q) only goes there because it seems Astoria demands more service than what the (N) can offer. When the segment to 96th is opened, then the (Q)(N) will be split and likely the (W) will return to Astoria as that 2nd line.

 

Look at the track maps: the 6th av line would have to cross in front of the Broadway line to get to 2nd av. So why would they do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the world would the (W) do that, now this is getting to the point where your thoughts are stuck in fantasy map collection.

 

The idea of a (W) from Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park is IF the former LIRR Rockaway Branch is connected to the Queens Boulevard line as is now looking like could happen (and may wind up being seriously pushed for) since Genting may be building a new Convention Center, as we discussed quite a bit in this earlier thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a (W) from Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park is IF the former LIRR Rockaway Branch is connected to the Queens Boulevard line as is now looking like could happen (and may wind up being seriously pushed for) since Genting may be building a new Convention Center, as we discussed quite a bit in this earlier thread.

 

How the hell can the (W) do that if it has no way to connect to the IND Queens Boulevard Line or the 63rd Street Line? It's stupidity at a whole new level. Can you stop being so arrogant and just listen for once? I am not trying to be mean, but everyone has had enough of your subway lines of impossibility here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, I meant 63rd Drive-Rego Park in my last post.

 

And the keyword in what I said there was IF. That is far from a done deal, but one that does have to be looked at because it is now possible in a way that we never would have expected even a month or two ago before the Convention Center at Aqueduct came into play (even though I said previously I'd be looking to pay for such anyway even before that came into the mix).

 

My point was, the possibility of there being a connection from the Queens Boulevard Local to the former LIRR Rockaway Branch could very well wind up making for more changes on the Broadway line than had been thought (with a new (W) from Whitehall-Rockaway Park to me the most likely route if such a connection actually came to be). For now, that is simply a wild card that likely would not open at the earliest until the same time the first part of the SAS does, if it does at all.

 

I said it was a potential wild card in all of this, and for now, that is ALL it is, a wild card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, I meant 63rd Drive-Rego Park in my last post.

 

And the keyword in what I said there was IF. That is far from a done deal, but one that does have to be looked at because it is now possible in a way that we never would have expected even a month or two ago before the Convention Center at Aqueduct came into play (even though I said previously I'd be looking to pay for such anyway even before that came into the mix).

 

My point was, the possibility of there being a connection from the Queens Boulevard Local to the former LIRR Rockaway Branch could very well wind up making for more changes on the Broadway line than had been thought (with a new (W) from Whitehall-Rockaway Park to me the most likely route if such a connection actually came to be). For now, that is simply a wild card that likely would not open at the earliest until the same time the first part of the SAS does, if it does at all.

 

I said it was a potential wild card in all of this, and for now, that is ALL it is, a wild card.

 

Well it can't happen since there is no connection to the Rockaway Beach Branch, and the only thing any (W) can even be extended to is LaGuardia Airport, but even that is impossible since the community won't allow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as I said earlier, the (W) would be needed mainly rush hours. Afterward Broadway can get away with the current 3 lines.

 

The problem is the (N) would then have to completely run local. I don't think many people like that. Even now I hear complaints all over with the (N) running local. It's best that the (W) return full time to the Broadway Line and Astoria Line, but part time on the Fourth Avenue Line and the West End Line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, before the (W) was canned, the (N) ran express and didn't need to switch just north of Canal. Basically keeping the (W) rush hours would bring back that 2010 service, but middays when the (W) doesn't run, the (N) will run local as it does now.

I dunno how big an impact 2nd av will have, but I don't see there being a big need for the (W) during the middays. Even if the UES uses the sas (in large numbers) to Broadway, by the time the (W) gets to Canal, most people would've switched to other lines by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call Throggs Neck low income, now (outside of the housing projects by the end of the Bx42). As was stated in other thread, the simplest thing to do is just tunnel it up to 159 and 3 Av, there's vacant land there for a portal, and have it piggyback the MNR ROW as structure up to Fordham. The MNR Harlem line stations below between Fordham and 125 can then be closed, as they're low ridership and often bypassed anyway. TA should owns all that land and airspace anyway, including that bus layover area in Fordham Plaza over which a terminal can be built. Then you're really seeing progress.

 

See page 30 of this report: http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA_tomorrows_transit.pdf

 

5 block groups within Throgs Neck are defined as having a high population density and low-income. Their definition of a low-income block group is one in which the poverty rate exceeeds 20%. (A portion of the Throgs Neck Houses is in another block group defined as low-income and low-density, because there are no other dwellings in the block group, so make that 6 low-income block groups)

 

Out of those 5 block groups, 3 consist entirely of buildings in the Throgs Neck Houses. The other two are mostly rowhouses, and the poverty rate is lower (often the areas around housing projects tend to have a lot of poverty as well, just not as much as within the projects themselves. So in this case, the poverty rates are just barely above 20%, whereas within the projects, the poverty rate is over 45%)

 

Here is a close analysis of the Throgs Neck neighborhood: Throgs Neck neighborhood in Bronx, New York (NY), 10465 subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, streets

 

One of the block groups has a poverty rate of 17%, but at the time of the report, perhaps the poverty rate exceeded 20%. I think the RPA report uses 2000 Census numbers, whereas city-data uses more current numbers (maybe from the 5-year Community Surveys, though those are a random sample rather than the entire population)

 

I'm reading the RPA's 1998 report, and it does show large areas of low income between the Pelham line and Throggs Neck. Maybe not at the tip of Throggs Neck, but there are 4 islands of high density along the way within the low income area stretching from southeast Bronx to Throggs Neck. Maybe 14 years made a difference in the demographics. We'll have to locate new statistical figures to find out :\

 

Are you referring to my report? I thought it was written in 2008, but I could be wrong.

 

I personally don't feel that they are really low-incomed, maybe lower-middle income the minimal because the community's environment looks like it is somewhere in the range of lower-middle to upper-middle class depending on how you look it. Personally, 14 years may have made some difference, but IDK about the RPA's report.

 

Like I said, the areas immediately around housing projects often have higher-than-average poverty rates. It doesn't necessarily make them low-income neighborhoods, though. It's just that this particular report defines them as such.

 

The U.S. Census does not look at how nice the house looks. It looks at numbers. Either way, I'd trust the classification used in the publication; I'm sure they chose the correct thresholds for the "low-income" category.

 

Like I said above, low-income is defined as having a poverty rate that exceeds 20%. There are other standards (median per capita income, average per capita income, etc), that can affect which neighborhoods qualify as low-income but the RPA chose the 20% standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is the (N) would then have to completely run local. I don't think many people like that. Even now I hear complaints all over with the (N) running local. It's best that the (W) return full time to the Broadway Line and Astoria Line, but part time on the Fourth Avenue Line and the West End Line.

 

First of all, hello everyone, I am a new member but I have been here for a long time as a guess.

It seems like you always want a second service to the West End. By looking at the ridership statistics , I never think it is necessary. Yes, the Fourth Avenue Line does need more service, but not for the West End Line. If a second local service is coming to the Fourth Avenue Line and it can be extended 10 more stops south of 36th ST, the Sea Beach would be a better choice than the West End since this service pattern serves more potential riders. (Do the math...)

Running the (N) local in Manhattan isn't that bad. What I hate the most is when south bound (N) and (Q) meet at Union Square. When this happens, most of the time the (N) will be held at Prince St for a few minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, hello everyone, I am a new member but I have been here for a long time as a guess.

It seems like you always want a second service to the West End. By looking at the ridership statistics , I never think it is necessary. Yes, the Fourth Avenue Line does need more service, but not for the West End Line. If a second local service is coming to the Fourth Avenue Line and it can be extended 10 more stops south of 36th ST, the Sea Beach would be a better choice than the West End since this service pattern serves more potential riders. (Do the math...)

Running the (N) local in Manhattan isn't that bad. What I hate the most is when south bound (N) and (Q) meet at Union Square. When this happens, most of the time the (N) will be held at Prince St for a few minutes.

 

The problem is there isn't any room available for the (W) to terminate on the Sea Beach Line. Again the (W) can't run to Coney Island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it can't happen since there is no connection to the Rockaway Beach Branch, and the only thing any (W) can even be extended to is LaGuardia Airport, but even that is impossible since the community won't allow it.

 

If Gov. Cuomo is behind it and Genting is willing to pay for it as part of a new Convention Center (which in both cases could very well be what winds up happening), then whatever opposition there would be to building the QB-Rockaway connection and re-activating the old LIRR Rockaway branch would be blown away and then some.

 

Like I said, for now, it's simply a wild card, but one that could actually wind up happening that if it does likely alters Broadway service much more than as of now likely will happen when the SAS opens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMH!!! What would serve 67th Ave. and Forest Hills - 71st now? The (R) can't go!

 

The (G) (all times) and (M) (weekdays), as noted back when I wrote about this being a potentially huge wild card as to how Broadway service could be altered if we actually did have the connection built and in operation. This is something I had said I would have paid for anyway if I were at Genting BEFORE the Convention Center came into play and now could be possible after looking like a pipe dream even a couple of months ago.

 

And it would be a new (W) line that would serve this branch as part of a whole bunch of changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh jeez its happening already smh...

 

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...
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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