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


  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Sorry, that was unintentional. It's simply when the discussion of the Broadway line came up and with what else is possible, that's what happened.

 

Didn't intend for it to get to where it was.

 

Now, getting back to the (Q) as that was what originally was asked, as noted the likely scenario there is the (Q) first does go to 96th and then 125th (which I did assume in the other scenarios as well) while the (N) either goes back to being the sole line to Astoria or is supplemented by another line in some manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its difficult to really pin what ridership demands will want over there on SAS. Clearly those east of 2Av will gravitate toward it, its really about whether you try to make a play for those between 2Av and Lex or not. The one-seat ride to midtown will appeal to many, but for lower Manhattan its a tossup between more frequent express service on Lex vs which is actually a closer walk for that given person vs whatever ends up 2Av will not be a one seater to lower Manhattan (all that's certain is whatever is up there is going over the bridge) vs how much frequency is really warranted up there.

 

The only other battle to wage is whether anything coming from 60st will be express with it (if so, a punch box must be installed at 5Av, and can a train even afford to wait for a crossover at that juncture of the railroad the way the 60st congo line runs). Right now, the signal leaving 5Av s/b is either red or green. It stays red until it clears to green, and it does well spacing out trains nicely from 57th going south. Conventional wisdom says everything coming from 60st is local (otherwise a bottleneck at 5Av would result), but at the same time, whatever comes north from Sea Beach must be express on 4Av (which suggests over the bridge and express in Manhattan too). So really, its what one would prioritize over the next (2Av gets two services or one, what's a fair headway for 2Av, still gonna give Astoria express service or a one seat ride to lower Manhattan, and the turning capacity at Whitehall).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Someone didn't get the memo… Genting will only be willing to pay for "improved" (A) service to the Rockaways, and not build any new lines. This was yesterday's news. I apologize for not putting up a link to the article (because I'm tipsy/drunk from Friday night), but if you want the link to the news article, I will look for it and put it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone didn't get the memo… Genting will only be willing to pay for "improved" (A) service to the Rockaways, and not build any new lines. This was yesterday's news. I apologize for not putting up a link to the article (because I'm tipsy/drunk from Friday night), but if you want the link to the news article, I will look for it and put it up.

 

When I actually visited the Renorth world website, it's big advertising mantre is basically a hop skip and a jump from Times Sq. Now we all know that's a stretch lol, but basically all Genting wants is normal systemwide based headways to the Rockaways, and express (which is basically a decent 10 min headway with express). Of course, during the midday, that headway is roughly 15mns, it only drops below 10 in the rush hour, and peak direction at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone didn't get the memo… Genting will only be willing to pay for "improved" (A) service to the Rockaways, and not build any new lines. This was yesterday's news. I apologize for not putting up a link to the article (because I'm tipsy/drunk from Friday night), but if you want the link to the news article, I will look for it and put it up.

 

And we know that's not going to easily happen OR if it does, to me a condition would have to be that they ALSO have to fund the Rockaway-QB connection that also would provide service to Aqueduct (my original post on this in the other thread).

 

For those who never read that other thread, that is essentially a revival of the old (JFK), which I simply don't see happening.

 

Anyway, as said, I had no intention of this becoming entirely about that other than to note that a potential wild card was the QB-Rockaway connection and how that could affect what happens with the Broadway line and potentially the SAS if it were to happen, which it won't if at all until at least the SAS finally is in operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this:

 

8 tph (N) 125 St to Coney Island via Sea Beach all times. Express in Manhattan and on 4 Av. Nights full local.

8 tph (Q) 125 St to Coney Island via Brighton. Express in Manhattan, local in Brooklyn.

8 tph (R) Current service.

8 tph (W) Astoria to Whitehall or Canal. Local.

8 tph (_) Some other train. Astoria to 9 Av. Express in Manhattan, over the bridge, 4 Av Local.

 

OR

 

8 tph (N) Astoria to Coney Island via Sea Beach. Broadway and 4 Av Express via the bridge.

10 tph (Q) 125 St to Coney Island via Brighton. Broadway Express via the bridge. 10 tph all day.

8 tph (R) Current service.

8 tph (W) Astoria to Whitehall or Canal. Local all day. Middays every 10 minutes.

6 tph (V) Church Av (F)(G) to 125 St rush hours only.

 

I'm not trying to foam here or anything. I'm just assuming that both Astoria and 2 Av need a train every 4 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 tph (V) Church Av (F)(G) to 125 St rush hours only.

 

The (V) as a rush hour-only line from Church-96th/125th is a very good idea if they can handle the crossover at 63rd. A side benefit of such a line is that select (F) trains can go express in Brooklyn during those hours and the (V) would be much less crowded in Park Slope (especially if you can do more than 6 TPH with such a (V)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A side benefit of such a line is that select (F) trains can go express in Brooklyn during those hours and the (V) would be much less crowded in Park Slope (especially if you can do more than 6 TPH with such a (V)).

 

I thought I shouldn't have mentioned the (V)...:P:tdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Exactly. There were only 3 (W) trains that went to Kings Highway. Not exactly reason enough to send the (W) there. West End line at 9th av or Bay Pkwy makes more sense because the middle tracks allows for the train to relay back north without affecting the (D).

 

I am not asking for a second service to the Sea Beach. In fact, neither the Sea Beach nor the West End needs a second service. What I wanted to convey in the previous post was that extending to the Sea Beach serve more people than doing so to the West End.

 

BTW, in response to your posts, it seems like 86th St can serve as a terminal since it has direct access to the CI Yard. (12 stops, I know...)

I am not good at reading track map, current me if I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lance25

86 St-Gravesend is a terrible place for a terminal because any train that terminates there will still have to go to Coney Island to relay. The yard lead-ins are northbound from the Manhattan-bound track between 86 St & Stillwell Av. That's why the only reason the (N) ended there was during the time when Stillwell Terminal was being rebuilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

86 St-Gravesend is a terrible place for a terminal because any train that terminates there will still have to go to Coney Island to relay. The yard lead-ins are northbound from the Manhattan-bound track between 86 St & Stillwell Av. That's why the only reason the (N) ended there was during the time when Stillwell Terminal was being rebuilt.

 

Now I got it. Thank You.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. There were only 3 (W) trains that went to Kings Highway. Not exactly reason enough to send the (W) there. West End line at 9th av or Bay Pkwy makes more sense because the middle tracks allows for the train to relay back north without affecting the (D).

If they did bring the (W) back, maybe that could be the new Bay Pkwy service, since they've apparently been tossing around the idea of sending a greatly increased (J) there. Any Nassau service out there should be a banker's special (which probably could be handled by 95th like it used to be from the beginning of the BMT subway) rather than a full fledged line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (V) as a rush hour-only line from Church-96th/125th is a very good idea if they can handle the crossover at 63rd. A side benefit of such a line is that select (F) trains can go express in Brooklyn during those hours and the (V) would be much less crowded in Park Slope (especially if you can do more than 6 TPH with such a (V)).
I thought I shouldn't have mentioned the (V)...:P:tdown:

Anything out of the ordinary (relative to current service patterns) or uses track connections that should probably be left alone will seem like a good idea.

 

How about this:

 

8 tph (N) 125 St to Coney Island via Sea Beach all times. Express in Manhattan and on 4 Av. Nights full local.

8 tph (Q) 125 St to Coney Island via Brighton. Express in Manhattan, local in Brooklyn.

8 tph (R) Current service.

8 tph (W) Astoria to Whitehall or Canal. Local.

8 tph (_) Some other train. Astoria to 9 Av. Express in Manhattan, over the bridge, 4 Av Local.

 

OR

 

8 tph (N) Astoria to Coney Island via Sea Beach. Broadway and 4 Av Express via the bridge.

10 tph (Q) 125 St to Coney Island via Brighton. Broadway Express via the bridge. 10 tph all day.

8 tph (R) Current service.

8 tph (W) Astoria to Whitehall or Canal. Local all day. Middays every 10 minutes.

6 tph (V) Church Av (F)(G) to 125 St rush hours only.

 

I'm not trying to foam here or anything. I'm just assuming that both Astoria and 2 Av need a train every 4 minutes.

Putting the (V) in like that is going to cause extra delays from merging in both directions.

 

Just curious… what headways do you propose for the other 6 Avenue locals if the (V) runs? ((F)(M))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting the (V) in like that is going to cause extra delays from merging in both directions.

The (F) runs every 4 minutes and the (Q) runs every 6 (under my plan). That shouldn't cause too much delay.

 

Just curious… what headways do you propose for the other 6 Avenue locals if the (V) runs? ((F)(M))

They would stay as they are: the (F) every 4 minutes (15 tph) and the (M) every 7 minutes (8 tph). That should balance out to a bit less than 30 tph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that the (Q) will still be running via 2 Av to125th street. They put it to Astoria just to help make up some of that lost (W) service. I am sure that they are slowly putting more (N)'s in, and by the time the subway is complete, there will be plenty more (N) service [Maybe even a <N>].

Link to comment
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!

I live in Co-op City and I want the subway to come up here period, end of discussion. Metro North is cute, but the subway would be a better deal IMO. Just my 2 cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Co-op City and I want the subway to come up here period, end of discussion. Metro North is cute, but the subway would be a better deal IMO. Just my 2 cents

 

im sure many of your neighbors feel the same.

 

IMO, how about looking at it this way as far as the alignment for the BX:

the majority of express bus routes go where? pelham bay, co op city, parkchester, morris park......see a pattern? somewhere near the nec. so as a commuter in these economic times, would a new subway line there be more logical?

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.

 

I was always under the impression that the West End Line had higher ridership than the Sea Beach Line and that's why from 1986 to 2010 the West End had two lines - ( B )/(Mx) (1986-1988); (:P/(Mx) (1988-2001); (W)/(Mx) (2001-2004) and finally (D)/(Mx) from 2004 to 2010, when the (Mx) and (V) became the current (M) service. During that 24-year period the Sea Beach Line had just the (N), except for the seven weeks after 9/11/01 when the (N) was suspended and the (Mx) replaced it in Brooklyn and the three (W) trains that ran to/from Kings Highway in the 2004-2010 period. No need to send a full second service to the Sea Beach, but there may be a good reason to send one to the West End. "May" is the key word here as I've read that the (D) seems to be handling the West End decently on its own.

 

The (N) local is not a great solution. It is that bad. It ties up the junction at Prince Street and holds up both (Q) and (R) service in that area. It was made local because the (R) doesn't run frequently enough to serve 49th, 28th, 23rd, 8th and Prince on its own. The MTA could just run more (R) trains, but they claim they don't have the money to do so. But then again, they could have done that all along (i.e. back in 2004) before they got hit with that huge funding crisis, courtesy of our friends in the State Legislature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they did bring the (W) back, maybe that could be the new Bay Pkwy service, since they've apparently been tossing around the idea of sending a greatly increased (J) there. Any Nassau service out there should be a banker's special (which probably could be handled by 95th like it used to be from the beginning of the BMT subway) rather than a full fledged line.

Really? I thought the increased, extended (J) was just being tossed around here and on "the other message board." Not sure I like the idea of the West End Line being referred to as "the (D)/(J) line" (you know somebody's going to :P ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not put a few commuter stops there instead? It'll be a lot cheaper than a whole new subway.

They don't link up to the rest of the system though. Transfers are a must since they don't integrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not put a few commuter stops there instead? It'll be a lot cheaper than a whole new subway.

 

cheaper, possibly. but look at the current commuter stations within the bronx. with the exceptions of fordham and yankee stadium, those stops are almost never used. then theres the issue of wanting a seat. someone here said that people would rather walk to the 6. i bet if someone was to do a survey asking" would you pay an average $5 one way for no seat for either penn station or gct, or 2.25 for no seat but access to the rest of the system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (F) runs every 4 minutes and the (Q) runs every 6 (under my plan). That shouldn't cause too much delay.

 

 

They would stay as they are: the (F) every 4 minutes (15 tph) and the (M) every 7 minutes (8 tph). That should balance out to a bit less than 30 tph.

 

Combined (F)/(M)/(V) service in your place would be 29 tph (15 (F) + 8 (M) + 6 (V) = 29 total). Better hope that no one ever gets sick on a train, no signals ever go dark and no switches ever malfunction or you're looking at total meltdown on the 6th Avenue Local.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combined (F)/(M)/(V) service in your place would be 29 tph (15 (F) + 8 (M) + 6 (V) = 29 total). Better hope that no one ever gets sick on a train, no signals ever go dark and no switches ever malfunction or you're looking at total meltdown on the 6th Avenue Local.

 

With both the 8 Av Local and the 6 Av Express having extra space, it shouldn't be so bad.

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.