Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[P3F]

I'm not writing out a full proposal yet, but in my opinion there should be a York Avenue Line in addition to 2nd Avenue.

[BronxBombers]

I'm not writing out a full proposal yet, but in my opinion there should be a York Avenue Line in addition to 2nd Avenue.

 

A 2nd Av and Lexington Av Line should suffice for the East Side.

[LTA1992]

I don't know. I still strongly believe that the current version of SAS is not what this city needs. That's two less tracks than what is actually needed for proper expansion down the line.

[Javier]

SAS is not being suited to the needs of the East Side. It should be four tracks, not two as the original Second AV EL was.

[bobtehpanda]

SAS is not being suited to the needs of the East Side. It should be four tracks, not two as the original Second AV EL was.

 

You say that like it's the same, but keep in mind the old els were 1, slower, and 2., a lot shorter in length. The SAS is a significant improvement over the els.

 

I don't know. I still strongly believe that the current version of SAS is not what this city needs. That's two less tracks than what is actually needed for proper expansion down the line.

 

What is the point if there is no proper expansion down the line in the first place? Building provisions for plans that never happened is what blew the IND budget out of the water, and even later stages of the IND were not fully built out all at once - the Sixth Avenue Express was not initially built out. There's nothing under the current plan stopping the building of another pair of tracks in the future underneath the existing ones.

[Around the Horn]

Okay,If we're purely talking further provisions I'm all for bellmouths, but space for 4 tracks is unnecessary unless they are to be built simultaneously...

 

And while we are talking about 2nd Avenue...

the MTA has released their January station newsletters.Electrical work is almost complete and will be connected to the Verizon power grid by the spring. Lex-63 is basically done at 96% completion.The other stations are in the 80% and only require installation of platform air ducts, the cover for the platform service carriers, wall tiles, floor tiles, acoustic ceiling panels and then signage. 96 Street's Entrance 3 is already having its customer service booth installed and the permanent sidewalks on 2nd Avenue will be completed by the Spring.

[trainfanrod]

I hope that if it finishes earlier than dec we get to see the pics or they open it

[CenSin]

There's nothing under the current plan stopping the building of another pair of tracks in the future underneath the existing ones.

Provisions prevent later construction from being more expensive. Imagine the IND had not provisioned for the 6 Avenue express tracks. What if the north side of the Lexington Avenue station and the bellmouths were left as an afterthought?

 

While the agency no longer builds impediments like the 42 Street lower level, I'm sure they haven't built anything to help expedite an expansion of 2 Avenue to 4 tracks.

[Wallyhorse]

Provisions prevent later construction from being more expensive. Imagine the IND had not provisioned for the 6 Avenue express tracks. What if the north side of the Lexington Avenue station and the bellmouths were left as an afterthought?

 

While the agency no longer builds impediments like the 42 Street lower level, I'm sure they haven't built anything to help expedite an expansion of 2 Avenue to 4 tracks.

And I think you'd be more likely to see an rebuild of the 3rd Avenue El before you saw express tracks on 2nd Avenue mainly because it would be CHEAPER to re-build the El (not that it's likely to happen anytime soon).

[LTA1992]

You say that like it's the same, but keep in mind the old els were 1, slower, and 2., a lot shorter in length. The SAS is a significant improvement over the els.

 

 

What is the point if there is no proper expansion down the line in the first place? Building provisions for plans that never happened is what blew the IND budget out of the water, and even later stages of the IND were not fully built out all at once - the Sixth Avenue Express was not initially built out. There's nothing under the current plan stopping the building of another pair of tracks in the future underneath the existing ones.

And this is exactly why we're gonna get nowhere in the future. This is a new age where the system is not trying to compete with another. And there is one thing stopping the installation of express tracks. The depth of the line being the main. The Sixth Avenue Express was planned for express track expansion from the get-go, this version of SAS is not. Hell, at least the men of yesterday had the foresight to build for tomorrow. And everyone in this city, regardless of whether or not you use the system, are reaping the benefits of that foresight.

Edited January 12, 2016 by LTA1992

[CenSin]

And this is exactly why we're gonna get nowhere in the future. This is a new age where the system is not trying to compete with another. And there is one thing stopping the installation of express tracks. The depth of the line being the main. The Sixth Avenue Express was planned for express track expansion from the get-go, this version of SAS is not. Hell, at least the men of yesterday had the foresight to build for tomorrow. And everyone in this city, regardless of whether or not you use the system, are reaping the benefits of that foresight.

I just woke up and read this in bed this morning. Let me also add that there wasn’t anything stopping the Second Avenue tunnels from being built. However, during construction a lot of utility structures had to be relocated to make way for the tunnel and stations. The fact that we had to do this was a direct result of policy failure. We failed to enact and implement policies to avoid impeding future construction. What if the city had banned installation of utilities right where the tunnels and stations were supposed to be? And this is exactly the kind of crap we are dealing with again today: there is no policy or action to prevent future impediments to building express tracks. It’s not the same as taking explicit actions to purposely stymie the construction of express tracks, but it’s as good as letting various other forces do that very job. How many little problems will we encounter in the future because we don’t give it a modicum of thought today?

[Around the Horn]

Currently reading an interesting SubChat thread (http://www.subchat.com/readflat.asp?Id=1380481 ) about extending the M to West 4th Street (you knew immediately who came up with the idea).

Of course it's devolved into the usual "switches are there to be used, not for decoration" vs "This is going to be a log jam" argument and the usual " You can't make the D switch twice" rebuttal.

 

Then it hit me.

 

What's stopping the    from running the up to 96 St-2 Av? OPTO?

 

In all honesty and seriousness, does extending the to 96 Street accomplish the goal of providing midtown service without merging/splitting the at 3 different locations?

 

The M would now connect directly to the:

- at Broadway-Lafayette (currently you can get it at Canal)

- at West 4th (new transfer)

- at 14 Street (new transfer)

- at 14 Street (get it at Myrtle-Wyckoff)

- at 34 Street (currently you can get it at Canal)

-PATH NJTransit Amtrak at 34 Street (one block west) (new transfer)

- at 42 Street (new transfer)

- via MetroCard transfer at Lex-63rd (currently you can get it at Canal)

 

All of these direct transfers are either new or only accessible because the M runs to Chambers Street.The M to Essex misses all of them.Running the M to 96 Street also allows people to transfer without going through Canal Street, one of the more crowded (and small) transfer complexes.

 

Is it worth it?

Edited January 12, 2016 by Around the Horn

[RollOver]

Lol at that SubChat thread that I just finished reading all together. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by RollOver

[Around the Horn]

Lol at that SubChat thread that I just finished reading all together. 

Yup. I died laughing when the guy brought up monorails...

[LegoBrickBreaker101]

Delete 

Edited January 12, 2016 by LegoBrickBreaker101

[Around the Horn]

Lol at that SubChat thread that I just finished reading all together. 

You missed this one just posted...

 

Asked the Manhattan-bound M as it crossed the Willy B one weekend. . ."I'm coming! Who wants me?"

Essex St: "Not me, switch replacement"

West 4th St: "Not me, I'm not a terminal"

57th St: "Not me, lost terminal status"

Queens Blvd: "I'm always under construction"

CPW: "I only know the letters A, B, C, D, and K."

Chambers: "Why aren't you brown like the J and Z?"

Brighton: "No way. . .not unless the 4 train stops working again."

Bay Ridge: "I didn't know the Bankers worked on weekends too."

Sea Beach: "You remind me of 9/11."

West End: "Can we just stop you at 9th Ave maybe? We don't want to change the station signs."

SAS: "If Astoria can't give up some trains, we'll take you."

LMFAOOOO!

[RollOver]

Around the Horn and CenSin, I've been viewing alot of old threads/posts about the current setup on all 3 Broadway Line services. I've came to the conclusion that the would indeed be far better as a Broadway Local, running to and from Astoria 24/7 and the as a Broadway Express days & eves as well as on Saturday and Sunday (also skipping 49th Street in both directions if there's a punch box at the south end of 5th Avenue-59th Street southbound platform and at the north end of 57th Street-7th Avenue northbound platform respectively).

 

The is local for like 85% of its route anyway, but under no circumstances should it go via the Montague Street Tunnel since almost nobody from the Brighton Line wants local service through Lower Manhattan. When the does come back, the should revert back to express in Manhattan weekdays (local weekends, however, though it would involve unnecessary switching at both 57th Street-7th Avenue and also Canal Street both directions, so perhaps weekend service would be better off local in Manhattan while the runs express to SAS).

Edited January 13, 2016 by RollOver

[Eric B]

Currently reading an interesting SubChat thread (http://www.subchat.com/readflat.asp?Id=1380481 ) about extending the M to West 4th Street (you knew immediately who came up with the idea).

Of course it's devolved into the usual "switches are there to be used, not for decoration" vs "This is going to be a log jam" argument and the usual " You can't make the D switch twice" rebuttal.

 

Then it hit me.

 

What's stopping the    from running the up to 96 St-2 Av? OPTO?

When 72nd St.'s middle track was still planned, that would have been the obvious choice, as the wouldn't interfere with the at all.

But 96th, I'm not sure, as this simply extends the (Q)'s current weekend terminus from 57th, and the always needs both pockets. That's why on G.O's where either the or get cut back from Queens, one of the lines must terminate at Times Sq. and when the gets rerouted, it's cut off at Whitehall, if not Pacific (and this upcoming one, replaced on the BMT side altogether).

 

It would be nice if they could squeeze it into 96th, though.

[bobtehpanda]

Currently reading an interesting SubChat thread (http://www.subchat.com/readflat.asp?Id=1380481 ) about extending the M to West 4th Street (you knew immediately who came up with the idea).

Of course it's devolved into the usual "switches are there to be used, not for decoration" vs "This is going to be a log jam" argument and the usual " You can't make the D switch twice" rebuttal.

 

Then it hit me.

 

What's stopping the    from running the up to 96 St-2 Av? OPTO?

 

In all honesty and seriousness, does extending the to 96 Street accomplish the goal of providing midtown service without merging/splitting the at 3 different locations?

 

The M would now connect directly to the:

- at Broadway-Lafayette (currently you can get it at Canal)

- at West 4th (new transfer)

- at 14 Street (new transfer)

- at 14 Street (get it at Myrtle-Wyckoff)

- at 34 Street (currently you can get it at Canal)

-PATH NJTransit Amtrak at 34 Street (one block west) (new transfer)

- at 42 Street (new transfer)

- via MetroCard transfer at Lex-63rd (currently you can get it at Canal)

 

All of these direct transfers are either new or only accessible because the M runs to Chambers Street.The M to Essex misses all of them.Running the M to 96 Street also allows people to transfer without going through Canal Street, one of the more crowded (and small) transfer complexes.

 

Is it worth it?

 

The main issue is that it's generally best to keep service patterns as simple as possible for clarity purposes (the different services and their variances confuse many people as it is). Running to a different terminal on the weekend that isn't a short turn would be a no-no.

 

If the really needed weekend service it should go to Forest Hills, but with the Queens Blvd CBTC in the next couple years there probably won't be space on Queens Blvd for it during the weekends anyways.

Edited January 13, 2016 by bobtehpanda

[Wallyhorse]

The main issue is that it's generally best to keep service patterns as simple as possible for clarity purposes (the different services and their variances confuse many people as it is). Running to a different terminal on the weekend that isn't a short turn would be a no-no.

 

If the really needed weekend service it should go to Forest Hills, but with the Queens Blvd CBTC in the next couple years there probably won't be space on Queens Blvd for it during the weekends anyways.

Which is why once the SAS opens I would have the go to 96th/2nd.  That gives riders midtown service that may be more important with the shutdown looming and as noted gives those on the UES a supplement to the on weekends in arguably the most densely populated neighborhood in the country.

[LTA1992]

Which is why once the SAS opens I would have the go to 96th/2nd.  That gives riders midtown service that may be more important with the shutdown looming and as noted gives those on the UES a supplement to the on weekends in arguably the most densely populated neighborhood in the country.

But the issue here is that the would need to switch to the BMT 63rd Street Line tracks which would cause delays to the higher frequency . The  going up there is the smoothest of options.

Edited January 14, 2016 by LTA1992

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Which is why once the SAS opens I would have the go to 96th/2nd. That gives riders midtown service that may be more important with the shutdown looming and as noted gives those on the UES a supplement to the on weekends in arguably the most densely populated neighborhood in the country.

But if this so-called most densely populated gets a direct weekend service to the 6th Avenue Line in the form of the train, what makes you think there won't be demand for the same direct 6th Ave service on weekdays too? Weekday subway ridership is higher and 6th Avenue is literally block-after-block of office towers in the 40's and 50's.

[P3F]

They could just make a cross platform transfer to the ...

[Wallyhorse]

But if this so-called most densely populated gets a direct weekend service to the 6th Avenue Line in the form of the train, what makes you think there won't be demand for the same direct 6th Ave service on weekdays too? Weekday subway ridership is higher and 6th Avenue is literally block-after-block of office towers in the 40's and 50's.

It would be made clear the to 96th/2nd on weekends is a temporary situation caused because of the closure and the unable to go to its regular terminal of 71st-Continental on weekends due to CBTC work in Queens.  Also, the runs close to most of the spots the 6th Avenue trains do anyway (and actually is on 6th Avenue at Herald Square), so that isn't that big of a deal.  You could also on weekdays if that did become an issue supplement the in Broadway/Brooklyn and on 6th Avenue with an "Orange " (with whatever capacity is left after the and on 6th Avenue) that can run to 96th/2nd (and if so, that becomes the weekend train from Metropolitan Avenue while the otherwise runs its normal route on weekdays) as that would give Broadway-Brooklyn and 6th Avenue riders a one-seat ride to the UES and cut down on those transferring to the at 63rd/Lex.

But the issue here is that the would need to switch to the BMT 63rd Street Line tracks which would cause delays to the higher frequency . The  going up there is the smoothest of options.

The idea is this would mainly be on WEEKENDS, when trains are NOT as frequent.

 

As noted above, this also could be accomplished by creating an "Orange " that can supplement the on weekdays along Broadway-Brooklyn and 6th Avenue while on weekends being the line between Metropolitan and 96/2.

[LTA1992]

The idea is this would mainly be on WEEKENDS, when trains are NOT as frequent.

As noted above, this also could be accomplished by creating an "Orange " that can supplement the on weekdays along Broadway-Brooklyn and 6th Avenue while on weekends being the line between Metropolitan and 96/2.

But WHY? There's no need. A simpler solution is to just run the at slightly higher frequencies on Weekdays and a regular weekend schedule on weekends. There's no need for a 6th Avenue Extra. And there's also no need for a orange on weekends for the same reasons I just stated.