Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[CenSin]

A few things wrong with this...

 

1. Rockaway Blvd is too important of a stop to be skipped.

2. The swtiches that go to the middle is between 80 & 88 so all trains would have to stop at 80 St regardless.

3. Lefferts trains can't use that track to skip as it directly leads to the Rockaways lead.

4. That middle track is also a yard lead for trains to/from Pitkin yard.

And to add to that, someone posted track maps of the Fulton Street elevated line before it was reduced to the sorry state it is in today. That middle track does not appear to have been intended for revenue service use when the line was first built. It stays the same today.

[Wallyhorse]

That's why I said could.

Obviously, if they did use the middle track to skip stations, you'd probably see work done to the middle track to bring it up to snuff for revenue service.  This would include building new connections coming out of the tunnel after Grant Avenue to get to the express track and perhaps converting Rockaway Boulevard to a two-island platform station as an express stop.

[CenSin]

That's why I said could.

 

Obviously, if they did use the middle track to skip stations, you'd probably see work done to the middle track to bring it up to snuff for revenue service.  This would include building new connections coming out of the tunnel after Grant Avenue to get to the express track and perhaps converting Rockaway Boulevard to a two-island platform station as an express stop.

So you're promoting a one-way express that skips 80 Street, 88 Street, 104 Street, and 111 Street—a grand total of 4 stations.

1. This express is not going to be well-used given that express trains generally make a bunch of stops towards the end of its run to increase its usefulness. 104 and 111 Streets are too close to the end of the line to be skipping stops. If we look to the IND for inspiration elsewhere (including proposed plans that were never built), the idea has always been to pick up passengers at 5~7 stations before skipping stops to save time. You'll find exceptions in the current system where lines are incomplete (Flushing, Hillside Avenue, Eastern Parkway) or where track takeovers altered how the line functions (Brighton).
2. The yard leads ramp up from one level lower than the revenue tracks currently. The tracks aren't at the same level until 80 Street with no room for switches west of that. Without extensive work, and service outage, there's nothing that can be done over a weekend to let trains skip 80 Street.
3. To make Rockaway Boulevard an express station and to have express trains continue to Lefferts Boulevard, you will need to take the entire junction out of service for a while to rebuild the entire thing. The current structure makes it very difficult to make your plan work.

Unless there's an overwhelming number of people boarding/getting off at Lefferts Boulevard versus the skipped stops, the value of such an express is dubious—especially after knowing the kind of work required to make it possible.

[Fresh Pond]

That's why I said could.

 

Obviously, if they did use the middle track to skip stations, you'd probably see work done to the middle track to bring it up to snuff for revenue service. This would include building new connections coming out of the tunnel after Grant Avenue to get to the express track and perhaps converting Rockaway Boulevard to a two-island platform station as an express stop.

That middle track directly leads to Pitkin yard. Not every 3 track line deserves peak direction express service.

 

Before the Rockaway branch opened, the middle yard lead connected directly to the middle track on the Lefferts branch. There were no express stops and the only switches were the ones outside of 80 St and the one outside of Lefferts. There was never any intention of express service.

[Wallyhorse]

That middle track directly leads to Pitkin yard. Not every 3 track line deserves peak direction express service.

 

Before the Rockaway branch opened, the middle yard lead connected directly to the middle track on the Lefferts branch. There were no express stops and the only switches were the ones outside of 80 St and the one outside of Lefferts. There was never any intention of express service.

Ah, that makes sense then.  That was a completely different time as that express track is obviously a holdover from the Fulton El days.  

[Eric B]

There may have once been intention of express service, if the section of the el between 80th and Pennsylvania Ave. had been rebuilt. (That's where the rebuilt section going down to Nostrand ended, after passing through the huge Atlantic Ave. transfer station). 

But once tied to the IND (with the exp. now leading to the yard), and the Rockaway junction added, it doesn't make sense to have express on these short stretches that only skip two stations each. The time taken to operate slow over the switches would more that take up whatever time gained.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Eric B

[CenSin]

There may have once been intention of express service, if the section of the el between 80th and Pennsylvania Ave. had been rebuilt. (That's where the rebuilt section going down to Nostrand ended, after passing through the huge Atlantic Ave. transfer station). 

But once tied to the IND (with the exp. now leading to the yard), and the Rockaway junction added, it doesn't make sense to have express on these short stretches that only skip two stations each. The time taken to operate slow over the switches would more that take up whatever time gained.

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/46374-fulton-street-brooklyn-l-track-plans-1912/

 

It doesn't seem that way on the track map though. It's double-tracked most of the length, and the third track only shows itself from Grant Avenue eastward.

[Eric B]

That's what I mean. The double track is the unrebuilt portion. If the BRT/BMT hadn't gone bankrupt (and I guess they still had financial problems the two remaining decades until the city takeover), they would have upgraded those sections, and I'm not sure if any more express stations would have been added in between there, but you would have had a substantial express run.

 

Edit: in fact, that's 1912, and so NONE of the rebuilding had even been done yet. That's the original line to "City Line", and it ends there when it looks like it's fanning out to thre tracks past grant. (So the whole line to Leffers is not even built yet).

Edited November 26, 2015 by Eric B

[CenSin]

That's what I mean. The double track is the unrebuilt portion. If the BRT/BMT hadn't gone bankrupt (and I guess they still had financial problems the two remaining decades until the city takeover), they would have upgraded those sections, and I'm not sure if any more express stations would have been added in between there, but you would have had a substantial express run.

 

Edit: in fact, that's 1912, and so NONE of the rebuilding had even been done yet. That's the original line to "City Line", and it ends there when it looks like it's fanning out to thre tracks past grant. (So the whole line to Leffers is not even built yet).

I'd love to see any old photos of the structure before it was torn down. Did you mean the structure was built like the New Lots Avenue line with space in the middle?

[Trainmaster5]

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/46374-fulton-street-brooklyn-l-track-plans-1912/

 

It doesn't seem that way on the track map though. It's double-tracked most of the length, and the third track only shows itself from Grant Avenue eastward.

What the map shows seems to be a proposal and not the finished product. I've actually ridden the section from Hinsdale St to Rockaway Avenue which was the western terminal in 1956. There were at least 3 tracks at Hinsdale St IIRC. The remaining structural stub section over Pitkin Avenue, before it's removal, actually showed 3+1(n/b local) if my memory is correct. Notice the map shows a Belmont Avenue Yard which I can assure you was never constructed. Fulton Els were assigned to East New York Yard. There were yard leads from Atlantic Avenue used by the Fulton and Canarsie trains into East New York Yard that remained for years after the El was torn down. I'd also point out that if one looks closely at the section of the map south of Atlantic Avenue you can see a station labeled Eastern Parkway. Before anyone gets confused let me point out that in a post about the IRT relays at Utica Avenue I mentioned that the relay tracks pointed to Pitkin Avenue( which is where Eastern Parkway ended back then) and the numbering system on Pitkin is a continuation of the Eastern Parkway system. Eastern Parkway on the line was called Manhattan Junction back then. The street at the n/b western end of today's station  was called Eastern Parkway Extension.  When I grew up in Brownsville in the late '50s the old folks always called the section around Rockaway-Saratoga Eastern Parkway extension much like the old folks called the section of downtown Brooklyn from Fulton to the Manny B Flatbush extension. The BMT stopped at DeKalb Avenue and Myrtle Avenue and Flatbush Avenue Extension. Today people say DeKalb and Flatbush and let it go. Today's history lesson. Carry on.

[Grand Concourse]

Personally, I find the down the IND Fulton to be the best option. It's the original plan (I think?) and will do much good for a growing population along that corridor. It will also send the to Lefferts, and will improve headways along the entire line.

But even if you tied the sas into the ind fulton line, you may as well build the utica av spur and run the T or C there to maybe kings plaza. People are not going to agree to the C replacing the A. Why would anyone give up a one seat express for a local? People are just going to get off at rockaway blvd and cram onto the A. That would just mean more empty C trains heading to euclid. The A should have one branch renamed as a different letter and for the most part left alone. Edited November 26, 2015 by Grand Concourse

[Wallyhorse]

But even if you tied the sas into the ind fulton line, you may as well build the utica av spur and run the T or C there to maybe kings plaza. People are not going to agree to the C replacing the A. Why would anyone give up a one seat express for a local? People are just going to get off at rockaway blvd and cram onto the A. That would just mean more empty C trains heading to euclid. The A should have one branch renamed as a different letter and for the most part left alone.

In this case, if the were the Fulton Local to Euclid (with the SAS connected to Fulton via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel), the can join the as a Fulton Express since the would handle the local stops (and be extended to Lefferts late nights to eliminate the shuttle on that line).  The can then go to Lefferts as an express.

[bobtehpanda]

That's assuming it was for the sole benefit of the . It's still not quite certain where the will end up at the southern end. A connection to the Nassau Street line was one of the options. In such a scenario, a reroute down the bridge would be preferable to a detour from 72 Street down Broadway or 6 Avenue.

 

Or perhaps much like the Chrystie Street connection, the MTA will find it useful somewhere in the future.

 

Realistically speaking, if a peak-time service is going to use a connection at Grand St, it's going to have to replace a 6th Av Express service, which I don't see happening; there aren't that many good places to end a 6th Av Express service in the south.

[LOQV]

IMO phase 3 and phase 4 aren't necessary. Just complete phase 2 and have the last stop be 125 street and 2nd avenue. What the mta should do is build a entrance/exit on 125 street and 3rd avenue and create a out of station transfer to the 125 street and Lexington avenue station. This type of transfer already exist with the 63rd street and Lexington avenue station and the 59 street and Lexington avenue station.

[Fresh Pond]

IMO phase 3 and phase 4 aren't necessary. Just complete phase 2 and have the last stop be 125 street and 2nd avenue. What the mta should do is build a entrance/exit on 125 street and 3rd avenue and create a out of station transfer to the 125 street and Lexington avenue station. This type of transfer already exist with the 63rd street and Lexington avenue station and the 59 street and Lexington avenue station.

Why build a block long exit? Makes no sense whatsoever

[LOQV]

In this case it makes sense because it will encourage people to use the second avenue subway line over the Lexington avenue line.

[Fresh Pond]

In this case it makes sense because it will encourage people to use the second avenue subway line over the Lexington avenue line.

That's the whole point of the direct transfer at Lex. No need to arbitrarily stop 2 blocks away, build an exit that stretches a block and have people walk another block.

[LOQV]

People will be willing and able to make the 1 block walk. It's not that far of a walk to be honest. The walk from 59th and lex to 63rd and lex is a longer walk.

[LTA1992]

That very transfer at Lex is what makes me think that people will skip it all together since at that point, the train will already be going express. I know it's more expensive, but I do think that the more effective terminal would have been at 3rd Avenue-149th Street.

[CenSin]

That very transfer at Lex is what makes me think that people will skip it all together since at that point, the train will already be going express. I know it's more expensive, but I do think that the more effective terminal would have been at 3rd Avenue-149th Street.

Question #2: descend the long escalator into the deep cavern where the local is going to depart every 4~6 minutes (assuming they actually raise the frequency that high for the Upper East Side extension), or transfer across the platform to a parade of express and trains?

 

I doubt most people will make that much of an effort for a seat on the , and whether people transfer depends on how far away the next express is and where they need to be. The and will be siphoning ridership from the for decades to come.

[RollOver]

I do think that the more effective terminal would have been at 3rd Avenue-149th Street.

Dead ass, me too.

[LTA1992]

Another thing too is that that westward turn onto 125th denies The Bronx a second branch of the new line. 

[Fresh Pond]

Another thing too is that that westward turn onto 125th denies The Bronx a second branch of the new line.

There will be provisions built in case of a Bronx extension

[Union Tpke]

There will be provisions built in case of a Bronx extension

much like for a Nostrand Avenue or Hillside Avenue extension.

[bobtehpanda]

IMO phase 3 and phase 4 aren't necessary. Just complete phase 2 and have the last stop be 125 street and 2nd avenue. What the mta should do is build a entrance/exit on 125 street and 3rd avenue and create a out of station transfer to the 125 street and Lexington avenue station. This type of transfer already exist with the 63rd street and Lexington avenue station and the 59 street and Lexington avenue station.

 

The transfer policy only allows that kind of transfer when a preexisting transfer was lost (in this case, the F lost a transfer to the Lex when it moved to 63rd).

 

People will be willing and able to make the 1 block walk. It's not that far of a walk to be honest. The walk from 59th and lex to 63rd and lex is a longer walk.

 

Barely anyone actually uses that transfer.