Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Wallyhorse]

You can forget about an elevated line being built pretty much anywhere nowadays, especially in such a dense area as East Harlem.

I disagree for one big reason:

 

As more and more people coming into New York are from other countries where elevated rail lines are a big part of their lives, these are the kind of people I think would be more supportive of building (or in this case, re-building) elevated lines here.  Sure, you'd have some (in my view, very selfish) NIMBY's, but as more of those types (especially those old enough to remember Robert Moses) pass on, I suspect attitudes will change, especially if building in Manhattan becomes as dense as it is expected to in the next 1-2 decades. 

 

Elevated rail lines don't have to be a blight if done correctly.  The problem is, too many people put their own self-interest ahead of the greater good in many cases. 

[bobtehpanda]

I disagree for one big reason:

 

As more and more people coming into New York are from other countries where elevated rail lines are a big part of their lives, these are the kind of people I think would be more supportive of building (or in this case, re-building) elevated lines here.  Sure, you'd have some (in my view, very selfish) NIMBY's, but as more of those types (especially those old enough to remember Robert Moses) pass on, I suspect attitudes will change, especially if building in Manhattan becomes as dense as it is expected to in the next 1-2 decades. 

 

Elevated rail lines don't have to be a blight if done correctly.  The problem is, too many people put their own self-interest ahead of the greater good in many cases. 

 

Not this trope again...

 

No developed country has built an el in a right-of-way that is as developed or as narrow as the arterial roads in Manhattan. Where els have been built or are being built (Vancouver, Dulles, Honolulu), it is being built in large, six or seven lane roads with full shoulders and medians, and the development comes after the rail line is built. Few of the buildings that were built on Second and Third anticipating SAS were built to withstand vibration and noise from els, particularly any building involving any sort of glass-curtain construction; glass curtain walls are extremely good at transmitting noise and vibrations to upper floors, which is not good for any of the people inside.

 

On top of that, what the hell would you have any sort of el connecting to? There is no space anywhere in this city for elevated-subway transitions; most roads don't have medians, and parkland that is used for development must be replaced with equal acreage nearby according to State law. Els are not practical in this day and age, because with all the trouble, cost, and litigation that building elevated would bring, subway construction would be much more preferable.

 

They also would be terrible blights, particularly at station locations. You would need at least forty feet for a station; twenty feet for a pair of tracks and twenty feet for an island or two side platforms. This is equivalent to about four road lanes, which is fairly wide and blocks large amounts of sunlight to the street. Third Avenue is 80 feet from wall to wall; that would leave approximately 20 feet between a median-placed el line and buildings, which would be far too close to existing buildings. Even in developing countries, els are primarily built in median rights-of-way in large highway-like roads, and it's not as if the experience is pleasant for anyone involved, so your weird notion that immigrants would like els is wishful thinking. Els are not good neighbors, not even the modern ones, and nothing will change that unless rail viaducts somehow magically become as skinny as monorail piers.

[Wallyhorse]

Which is also why I think if our forefathers had a crystal ball and could see how different things would be in 2014-'15 as opposed to say 1934-'35, they might have realized those Els would need to not only be kept, but strengthened and/or re-built and that would have had to be done in addition to subways.

And I do think if the 3rd Avenue El had been re-built for instance, development would still have happened, albeit not necessarily as fast as it was.

[realizm]

Which is also why I think if our forefathers had a crystal ball and could see how different things would be in 2014-'15 as opposed to say 1934-'35, they might have realized those Els would need to not only be kept, but strengthened and/or re-built and that would have had to be done in addition to subways.

 

And I do think if the 3rd Avenue El had been re-built for instance, development would still have happened, albeit not necessarily as fast as it was.

There was never a plan for a SAS connection to the 3rd Ave El. According to the MTA Plan For Action the original plan was to connect it to the MNRR Harlem Line (two tracks modified for subway service.). But FRA regulatory changes halted that. Today, its understood that a subway will have to be built in the Bronx. The only line there that can fully accomidate B division cars with modification if they were to use existing ROWs is the IRT Pelham Bay (Because it is built by the Dual Contracts therefore built to B division specifications) or the IND GC.

 

We will see (maybe) after Phase 4 is built as to what the MTA will do. I dont see much speculation on this in the FEIS reports released so thats all have as info accessible to the public.

Edited July 22, 2014 by realizm

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The IRT Jerome Ave line can also fully handle B-Division cars, but it would require building a new platform at 149th-GC because the existing upper level platform where the stops is much too close to the junction where the joins in, so making a connection to the SAS with trains stopping at the existing upper level platform would be impossible

[Armandito]

Once Phase 4 is completed (if possible), I would propose a new shuttle service between the planned Houston St/2 Av station (currently served by the F train) and the Broad Street J/Z station. That way, T train customers can have direct access to the J/Z trains and the future Fulton St Transit Center where they can have more transfer opportunities. The shuttle will start off at the proposed Houston St T station and then turn at the abandoned Nassau St Loop tracks near Canal St onto the Nassau St J/Z line. (The shuttle, however, will not stop at Canal St.) The planned stops are listed below:

 

Houston St (F, T)

Grand St (B, D, T)

Chambers St (J, Z, 4, 5, 6)

Fulton St (A, C, J, Z, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Broad St (J, Z)

Edited August 11, 2014 by lara8710

[CenSin]

Once Phase 4 is completed (if possible), I would propose a new shuttle service between the planned Houston St/2 Av station (currently served by the F train) and the Broad Street J/Z station. That way, T train customers can have direct access to the J/Z trains and the future Fulton St Transit Center where they can have more transfer opportunities. The shuttle will start off at the proposed Houston St T station and then turn at the abandoned Nassau St Loop tracks near Canal St onto the Nassau St J/Z line. (The shuttle, however, will not stop at Canal St.) The planned stops are listed below:

Houston St (F, T)

Grand St (B, D, T)

Chambers St (J, Z, 4, 5, 6)

Fulton St (A, C, J, Z, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Broad St (J, Z)

You realize that phase 4 includes the tracks to the very tip of Manhattan, right?

[Wallyhorse]

Once Phase 4 is completed (if possible), I would propose a new shuttle service between the planned Houston St/2 Av station (currently served by the F train) and the Broad Street J/Z station. That way, T train customers can have direct access to the J/Z trains and the future Fulton St Transit Center where they can have more transfer opportunities. The shuttle will start off at the proposed Houston St T station and then turn at the abandoned Nassau St Loop tracks near Canal St onto the Nassau St J/Z line. (The shuttle, however, will not stop at Canal St.) The planned stops are listed below:

 

Houston St (F, T)

Grand St (B, D, T)

Chambers St (J, Z, 4, 5, 6)

Fulton St (A, C, J, Z, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Broad St (J, Z)

My plan has for Phase 4 connecting to the Nassau Street line that would become the southern portion of the SAS:

 

My version of it would mean having to re-open the presently-abandoned portions of The Bowery and Canal Streets as part of such a re-do, since for the Nassau connection from the SAS, the would come in on the "local" tracks (current and former tracks) at Bowery and Canal Street while the would come in on the "express" tracks at those stations (meaning the current northbound track between Chambers and Essex would go back to being a southbound track).  After Canal, the would continue to Chambers, which would become the full-time terminal for the while the would take over stopping at Fulton and Broad Street before continuing to Brooklyn, most likely running the old Brooklyn route to the old terminal at Bay Parkway as a 24/7 train (perhaps late nights shortened to 9th Avenue).

 

Still think you could do BOTH the planned Phase 4 and the Nassau Connection with provisions to later have the planned Phase 4 connect to a new tunnel to Brooklyn that would potentially connect to the as-present generally unused tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  In such a scenario, the becomes the full-time Fulton Street local to Euclid and the and BOTH being express trains, with the to Lefferts at all times (except overnights when the would be extended to Lefferts) and the to Far Rockaway as present at all times, with the bulk of the current Lefferts trains running to Rockaway Park instead to eliminate the need for the Rockaway Park .  A side benefit of this is has the elimination of the merging/un-merging with the east of Hoyt, severely reducing the need for using the switches there.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Wallyhorse

[RollOver]

They're not going to run all service to and from the peninsula....Running time between Inwood and either part of the peninsula in both directions is approximately about 85+ minutes tops, and Rock Park doesn't need through service except rush hours and summer weekends. Terminating the other 's at Howard Beach makes alot more sense because it is the same running time to Lefferts and doesn't extend running time/hours for the crews themselves and increasing costs.

 

You wanna send the part-time to/from Lefferts and/or have the serve the Fulton Local, fine, but please no every other 's to/from Rock Park. Leave the Rock Park shuttle alone. You have through Rock Park service with those showcases during rush hours anyway.

[Wallyhorse]

Shortening the 's that I would have go to Rockaway Park to Howard Beach-JFK would work provided Howard Beach were reworked into a three-platform station (including rebuilding the missing track between where the turns from the Liberty El to at least past JFK) in order to make it easier to switch, especially since such can double as a short-turn terninal when needed.  As part of that, however, I would also extend the Rockaway Park shuttle to Howard Beach so riders from Rockaway Park and Broad Channel can transfer to 's that start at Howard Beach in such a scenario.

[RollOver]

Sigh...

[Lance]

Why would the A and C both serve the Fulton line along with the so-called T? I kind of get sending Second Avenue trains down Fulton St, but having both 8th Avenue lines running would be serious overkill.

[bobtehpanda]

Why would the A and C both serve the Fulton line along with the so-called T? I kind of get sending Second Avenue trains down Fulton St, but having both 8th Avenue lines running would be serious overkill.

 

I would assume for lack of a better place to send them. It's not wholly unreasonable, given the amount of branching the does at its outer end; a extension to Lefferts would certainly help. Having both lines run express would also cut down on delays (and would essentially lead to a reverse of the IRT setup in Brooklyn; the East Side trains are local and the West Side trains are express.)

[Wallyhorse]

I would assume for lack of a better place to send them. It's not wholly unreasonable, given the amount of branching the does at its outer end; a extension to Lefferts would certainly help. Having both lines run express would also cut down on delays (and would essentially lead to a reverse of the IRT setup in Brooklyn; the East Side trains are local and the West Side trains are express.)

Exactly, and it would also allow the to have ALL trains serve Howard Beach/JFK and if warranted replace the Rockaway Park with most likely an 8/6 split (eight trains to Far Rockaway and six to Rockaway Park) per 14 trains.  As more and more of NYC gets built up over the next 30-40 years, I suspect this may turn out to be necessary anyway, especially since subway and elevated service in the years ahead I suspect will become more and more crucial to where we see development.   Doing it this way also allows the and to be together once they merge after Canal Street until breaking away in Queens while the handles the local crowd and gives Fulton Street riders east side access via the SAS (and the would as noted be extended overnights to Lefferts when the is not running). 

 

Such also would allow riders in Park Slope if they happen to catch a train first the option to ride to Hoyt and get the there as opposed to taking the to Houston to get the .

[realizm]

I would assume for lack of a better place to send them. It's not wholly unreasonable, given the amount of branching the does at its outer end; a extension to Lefferts would certainly help. Having both lines run express would also cut down on delays (and would essentially lead to a reverse of the IRT setup in Brooklyn; the East Side trains are local and the West Side trains are express.)

I was about to say the same thing. The only other alternative would be the BMT 4th Avenue Line (to add the Brighton Line) but the structure was not designed to handle more than the traffic from the bridge let alone the Montague Street Tunnel. As it is, some major, serious reconstruction will have to take place to make that happen. The current provisions in place were meant for a different purpose and now unusable.

 

So simply build a set of underwater tubes from the tail tracks at Hanover Square to Court St on the Fulton Street Line.

 

I sort of anticipate this actually happening decades from now as there is a revitalization of East New York in particular even now. With the population growth will come passenger demand. It may actually necessitate the full capacity use of the IND Fulton Street Line in a way the IND never imagined.

 

It does sound sort of silly as to why the IND only had the Cranberry Street tubes in place to serve a four track outer borough trunk line...

Edited August 13, 2014 by realizm

[bobtehpanda]

I was about to say the same thing. The only other alternative would be the BMT 4th Avenue Line (to add the Brighton Line) but the structure was not designed to handle more than the traffic from the bridge let alone the Montague Street Tunnel. As it is, some major, serious reconstruction will have to take place to make that happen. The current provisions in place were meant for a different purpose and now unusable.

 

So simply build a set of underwater tubes from the tail tracks at Hanover Square to Court St on the Fulton Street Line.

 

I sort of anticipate this actually happening decades from now as there is a revitalization of East New York in particular even now. With the population growth will come passenger demand. It may actually necessitate the full capacity use of the IND Fulton Street Line in a way the IND never imagined.

 

It does sound sort of silly as to why the IND only had the Cranberry Street tubes in place to serve a four track outer borough trunk line...

 

Depending on which Second System plan you looked at, SAS - Fulton via Court was an option, particularly after they figured out no one was interested in their Manhattan-bound express, within-borough local system.

[Lance]

I would assume for lack of a better place to send them. It's not wholly unreasonable, given the amount of branching the does at its outer end; a extension to Lefferts would certainly help. Having both lines run express would also cut down on delays (and would essentially lead to a reverse of the IRT setup in Brooklyn; the East Side trains are local and the West Side trains are express.)

Yeah, but it's still overkill. Fulton St does not need three lines. Sending the Fulton local to Lefferts isn't the issue. Running about 15 express trains down the line would result in a lot of empty trains unless something drastically changes in terms of ridership. If anything, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but it'd make more sense to just send the C to Church Av on the Culver, rather than this flood of trains that's being thrown about. Of course, this is all based on hypothetical situations that may never see the light of day, so yeah...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I was about to say the same thing. The only other alternative would be the BMT 4th Avenue Line (to add the Brighton Line) but the structure was not designed to handle more than the traffic from the bridge let alone the Montague Street Tunnel. As it is, some major, serious reconstruction will have to take place to make that happen. The current provisions in place were meant for a different purpose and now unusable.

 

So simply build a set of underwater tubes from the tail tracks at Hanover Square to Court St on the Fulton Street Line.

 

I sort of anticipate this actually happening decades from now as there is a revitalization of East New York in particular even now. With the population growth will come passenger demand. It may actually necessitate the full capacity use of the IND Fulton Street Line in a way the IND never imagined.

 

It does sound sort of silly as to why the IND only had the Cranberry Street tubes in place to serve a four track outer borough trunk line...

Technically, the Rutgers St Tunnel also serves the IND Fulton St Line, however a Fulton-Rutgers service also requires four tracks to merge into two before Hoyt-Schermerhorn, then another track switch at Jay St. The train did this for a brief period in 2005, replacing the which got knocked out due to a signal relay room fire at Chambers St. But you can't do that on a normal basis without significantly reducing and service ( service was significantly reduced at that time; it had to be).

 

The Montague Tunnel, once it reopens, will be served only by the , just as it was before it closed for Sandy-related repairs. It can certainly handle another service like the , unless the goal is to run more than 15 trains per hour during the rush. The biggest issue with running the via Montague is deciding where to send it once it's in Brooklyn. There are essentially five services that have direct access to Montague or the Manhattan Bridge. They are the Brighton Express, West End/4th Ave Express, Sea Beach/4th Ave Express, Brighton Local and 4th Ave Local. Extending the via Montague virtually ensures that it will have to go onto one of those routes and either duplicate or displace the existing service on that route. Brighton definitely doesn't need two express services, especially since it doesn't have any express service overnight or weekends. Quite the decision to make - if that day ever comes.

 

At least with Fulton St, it certainly has the capacity for another service, even if it really doesn't need it. The big issue there is that you would need to build another tunnel under the East River leading into the Court St station (the Transit Museum) plus you'd need to tunnel all the way down to the end of Manhattan via Water St, dodging all the existing cross-river subway tunnels. Or you'd have to build some sort of track connection between the Fulton St IND line and the Montague St tunnel somewhere in downtown Brooklyn.

 

A Fulton-Montague connection would save on the huge cost of building another tunnel under the East River and dodging all the existing cross-river tunnels in Lower Manhattan. And - running via Nassau St - it would guarantee that the would have a transfer to all of the lines serving Lower Manhattan, except the and lines. It's quite possible a Water St alignment won't have transfers to any of those lines because the nearest station to Water St on each of them is too far away from Water to make a useful transfer. And you'd still have to tunnel over or under all of them. You also have the advantage of eliminating the merge between the and between Hoyt and Lafayette (both can run express to Queens) and the rush hour three-way split of the . Another advantage would be that the would have direct access to a yard - Pitkin.

 

Yes, there is the issue of overkill on the Fulton St local, given how frequently the  is expected to run. But just as importantly, given how crowded and highly developed downtown Brooklyn is, where could a Fulton-Montague connection be built, where it won't cause a huge inconvenience to people who live, work and commute through there?

Edited August 13, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[realizm]

Technically, the Rutgers St Tunnel also serves the IND Fulton St Line, however a Fulton-Rutgers service also requires four tracks to merge into two before Hoyt-Schermerhorn, then another track switch at Jay St. The train did this for a brief period in 2005, replacing the which got knocked out due to a signal relay room fire at Chambers St. But you can't do that on a normal basis without significantly reducing and service ( service was significantly reduced at that time; it had to be).

Yes I remember the Chambers Street fire. But I do think the Rutgers St Tunnel was intended for Culver Viaduct service. I believe the IND sent the D to Coney Island from the start through the Rutgers St tunnel to the viaduct until the swap that came with the Christie Street connection which had the D reassignd to the Brighton, and the current Brooklyn F service that came along with it.

 

The switch layout even, it was intended that from the Bergen Street interlocking, the Culver Viaduct was built for two feeder services, the ex BMT Culver El, and the never built IND Ft. Hamilton Parkway line.

 

 

The Montague Tunnel, once it reopens, will be served only by the , just as it was before it closed for Sandy-related repairs. It can certainly handle another service like the , unless the goal is to run more than 15 trains per hour during the rush. The biggest issue with running the via Montague is deciding where to send it once it's in Brooklyn. There are essentially five services that have direct access to Montague or the Manhattan Bridge. They are the Brighton Express, West End/4th Ave Express, Sea Beach/4th Ave Express, Brighton Local and 4th Ave Local. Extending the via Montague virtually ensures that it will have to go onto one of those routes and either duplicate or displace the existing service on that route. Brighton definitely doesn't need two express services, especially since it doesn't have any express service overnight or weekends. Quite the decision to make - if that day ever comes.

Well that's why I don't see a South Brooklyn BMT connection to the SAS happening, now that the previous study's examination of a Nassau Street via tunnel option was shelved. Fulton Street is your best bet for a functioning route.

 

 

 

A Fulton-Montague connection would save on the huge cost of building another tunnel under the East River and dodging all the existing cross-river tunnels in Lower Manhattan. And - running via Nassau St - it would guarantee that the would have a transfer to all of the lines serving Lower Manhattan, except the and lines.

Again yes that's why I don't see a BMT SAS access option as feasible, the cost and environmental impact is too high. Better build Phase 3 and 4 with TBMS as planned as of now.

 

Finally the only real way, Nassau Street option aside, that a Brooklyn extension would be most practical and of most use would be the Fulton Street Line. So that's what I mean. No way around it a new tunnel has to be built.

Edited August 13, 2014 by realizm

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I question their reasoning for dropping the Nassau St alignment. While the Water St alignment will bring service to parts of Lower Manhattan that might be considered far from the existing lines, it won't be of any use to people commuting in from Brooklyn, because it will very likely not have transfers to any of the other lines because it will be too far away from them.

[RollOver]

Yeah, but it's still overkill. Fulton St does not need three lines. Sending the Fulton local to Lefferts isn't the issue. Running about 15 express trains down the line would result in a lot of empty trains unless something drastically changes in terms of ridership. If anything, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but it'd make more sense to just send the C to Church Av on the Culver, rather than this flood of trains that's being thrown about. Of course, this is all based on hypothetical situations that may never see the light of day, so yeah...

 

Now at this point, I have to change my mind and agree with you...

 

But damn though Lance, I too can't also believe you simply said it makes alot more sense to send the via Culver to Church Av...and then you'd be holding up both the and , especially the because it only has through service via the local tracks only...

 

Nonetheless though, you're overall right...great posts by the way...

[bobtehpanda]

Yeah, but it's still overkill. Fulton St does not need three lines. Sending the Fulton local to Lefferts isn't the issue. Running about 15 express trains down the line would result in a lot of empty trains unless something drastically changes in terms of ridership. If anything, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but it'd make more sense to just send the C to Church Av on the Culver, rather than this flood of trains that's being thrown about. Of course, this is all based on hypothetical situations that may never see the light of day, so yeah...

 

The thing is, also providing East Side service on Fulton is such a game changer that it leads to all sorts of butterfly effect changes in ridership on the Brooklyn IRT and Fulton IND lines, so no one can really say for sure until it actually happens.

 

Technically, the Rutgers St Tunnel also serves the IND Fulton St Line, however a Fulton-Rutgers service also requires four tracks to merge into two before Hoyt-Schermerhorn, then another track switch at Jay St. The train did this for a brief period in 2005, replacing the which got knocked out due to a signal relay room fire at Chambers St. But you can't do that on a normal basis without significantly reducing and service ( service was significantly reduced at that time; it had to be).

 

The Montague Tunnel, once it reopens, will be served only by the , just as it was before it closed for Sandy-related repairs. It can certainly handle another service like the , unless the goal is to run more than 15 trains per hour during the rush. The biggest issue with running the via Montague is deciding where to send it once it's in Brooklyn. There are essentially five services that have direct access to Montague or the Manhattan Bridge. They are the Brighton Express, West End/4th Ave Express, Sea Beach/4th Ave Express, Brighton Local and 4th Ave Local. Extending the via Montague virtually ensures that it will have to go onto one of those routes and either duplicate or displace the existing service on that route. Brighton definitely doesn't need two express services, especially since it doesn't have any express service overnight or weekends. Quite the decision to make - if that day ever comes.

 

At least with Fulton St, it certainly has the capacity for another service, even if it really doesn't need it. The big issue there is that you would need to build another tunnel under the East River leading into the Court St station (the Transit Museum) plus you'd need to tunnel all the way down to the end of Manhattan via Water St, dodging all the existing cross-river subway tunnels. Or you'd have to build some sort of track connection between the Fulton St IND line and the Montague St tunnel somewhere in downtown Brooklyn.

 

A Fulton-Montague connection would save on the huge cost of building another tunnel under the East River and dodging all the existing cross-river tunnels in Lower Manhattan. And - running via Nassau St - it would guarantee that the would have a transfer to all of the lines serving Lower Manhattan, except the and lines. It's quite possible a Water St alignment won't have transfers to any of those lines because the nearest station to Water St on each of them is too far away from Water to make a useful transfer. And you'd still have to tunnel over or under all of them. You also have the advantage of eliminating the merge between the and between Hoyt and Lafayette (both can run express to Queens) and the rush hour three-way split of the . Another advantage would be that the would have direct access to a yard - Pitkin.

 

Yes, there is the issue of overkill on the Fulton St local, given how frequently the  is expected to run. But just as importantly, given how crowded and highly developed downtown Brooklyn is, where could a Fulton-Montague connection be built, where it won't cause a huge inconvenience to people who live, work and commute through there?

 

According to the 2004 FEIS, the Phase IV section will have tail tracks extending south of Hanover Sq, which is already very far south and would be the basis of any Brooklyn extension.

 

Water St is an extremely dense section of the business district, so even if there weren't transfers there, it would be okay (and it would more than make up for it by providing extremely fast downtown and uptown East Side connections for the B, D, and F.)

 

I would say that a Hanover Sq - Court St tunnel would probably the least disruptive, since all the turning required could be under the Bay (as opposed to weaving through Downtown Brooklyn), and the connections on either end would already have tail tracks.

 

I question their reasoning for dropping the Nassau St alignment. While the Water St alignment will bring service to parts of Lower Manhattan that might be considered far from the existing lines, it won't be of any use to people commuting in from Brooklyn, because it will very likely not have transfers to any of the other lines because it will be too far away from them.

 

Water St was supposed to have more ridership at the stations themselves (which I can believe) and the Broad St option was considered too inconvenient from anything of value, while also extremely disruptive to existing service since it would mean cut-and-cover building a flying junction. The IND also did this when it was constructed, but people also forget the IND involved a lot of demolition when slum-clearing and the like was in vogue. Given that SoHo and the LES are now gentrifying, in 2030 or whenever they build Phase IV that won't be anywhere near acceptable then.

Edited August 13, 2014 by bobtehpanda

[Lance]

I will concede my point since a potential Second Ave-Fulton St line could change things dramatically. I just don't see it now.

 

Regarding Second Ave via Nassau St, I still think it should at least be considered. If anything, it'll make Nassau St actually useful for the first time in a very long time. It gives the line a link to midtown and points north without having to transfer to another line. It's the reason why the M is so damn popular. The added transfers the Second Ave line would gain through a Nassau St connection is simply a bonus in my opinion.

[realizm]

I will concede my point since a potential Second Ave-Fulton St line could change things dramatically. I just don't see it now.

 

None of us does lol. We are all merely hypothesizing on such options for SAS expansion. 

I question their reasoning for dropping the Nassau St alignment. While the Water St alignment will bring service to parts of Lower Manhattan that might be considered far from the existing lines, it won't be of any use to people commuting in from Brooklyn, because it will very likely not have transfers to any of the other lines because it will be too far away from them.

 

Because the environmental impact will be too much as that option will necessitate cut and cover method of construction in the middle of the heart of Manhattan. Relocation of utility lines also may create more problems for a Nassau St connection. So for these reasons the MTA are planning to go along with Phase 3 and 4 using TBMs. Much of the provisions already in place from 1968 on the Lower East Side and Chinatown will not be used.

Edited August 14, 2014 by realizm

[Armandito]

I absolutely disagree with bringing the train back to an express in Manhattan. It should remain as is: a local in Queens and Manhattan via the Manhattan Bridge and express in Brooklyn along 4 Av bypassing DeKalb Av. Once the is rerouted to 2 Av, the should be reborn to be an express in Manhattan, running between Astoria and Whitehall St on weekdays and extending via the Montague St tunnel to Bay Pkwy during rush hours, making all local stops in Brooklyn. That way, you get more consistent and uniform service on the Broadway Line for various times of the day.

 

My service plan is as follows:

Broadway Local between Astoria and Coney Island (as it runs today)

Broadway Express between 96 St/2 Av and Coney Island (local on 2 Av, express on Broadway and local in Brooklyn via Manhattan Bridge, skipping 49 St)

Broadway Local between Forest Hills and 95 St/4 Av (as it runs today)

Broadway Express between Astoria and Whitehall St, extending to Bay Pkwy/86 St via the Montague St tunnel and making all stops in Brooklyn during rush hours, and stopping at 49 St

Edited August 14, 2014 by lara8710