Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[CenSin]

Looks good, but IDK if the transit museum could be located near active lines.

Bowery is 2 stations away from Chambers Street and 1 station away from Essex Street. The former northbound center trackway was and still is isolated from traffic coming from Chambers Street. And since the only direction of traffic for the southern track at Essex Street is eastbound, there is no danger of introducing southbound traffic into the former northbound center track. There is also at least a foot of wall or columns between the center tracks at the stations, and more can be added to fill in the gaps to isolate the two sides of the tunnel. Short of cutting off the track connection to the abandoned side of the tunnel just south of Canal Street, this is as safe of a place for the new museum as you can get.

I had the same idea about the express stops, except I didn't plan on including 34th Street and 5_th Street as an express station .

By analogy with the Lexington Avenue line?

[Union Tpke]

 

I personally think it should mirror the other IND trunks: express stations concentrated near the central business district and the financial district, and local stations everywhere else. Some definites:

• 72 Street transfer and way station
• 59 Street / 55 Street / 53 Street transfer and way station
• 42 Street transfer point and major street
• 34 Street major street
• 14 Street major street
• Houston Street transfer station
• Grand Street transfer station and possible way station (if track connections to the Manhattan Bridge are made)
• Chatham Square
• Seaport
• Hanover Square

 

I would have a 61st St station and a 51st st Station.

The 61 St station has transfers to Lex/63 and Lex/59 and 51 to Lex/53.

[CenSin]

I would have a 61st St station and a 51st st Station.

The 61 St station has transfers to Lex/63 and Lex/59 and 51 to Lex/53.

61 Street might be too close to comfortably accommodate the connection to 63 Street and Queens Boulevard. Besides, a 61 Street station would also serve 60 and 59 Street, no?

[MTA Dude]

61 Street might be too close to comfortably accommodate the connection to 63 Street and Queens Boulevard. Besides, a 61 Street station would also serve 60 and 59 Street, no?

 

Good point. Maybe move it north a little, and the 59th St station south a liitle? Maybe a station between 63rd St to 67th St? You could name it 66th St.

[CenSin]

Good point. Maybe move it north a little, and the 59th St station south a liitle? Maybe a station between 63rd St to 67th St? You could name it 66th St.

The 72 Street station takes care of the area north of 63 Street since it has entrances at 69 Street as well as 72 Street. It's best if the line mirrors the Central Park West station spacing here and just have the 72 Street, 59 Street (57–60 streets), and 50 Street (47–50 streets) stations. The MTA, though, believes that a 55 Street station (with entrances at 57 Street and 53 Street) could fill in for both 59 Street and 50 Street, but that leaves a massive gap from 72 Street to 55 Street and from 55 Street to 42 Street. As opposed to station centers being about 10 blocks apart, the stations would be 10 blocks apart from end to end.

 

By the looks of the diagrams, the curve connecting 63 Street to 2 Avenue appears to occupy 4 blocks with the switches from Broadway connecting to 2 Avenue at around 67 Street. Then there's a diamond crossover before the platform begins at 69 Street.

Edited March 4, 2015 by CenSin

[bobtehpanda]

The 72 Street station takes care of the area north of 63 Street since it has entrances at 69 Street as well as 72 Street. It's best if the line mirrors the Central Park West station spacing here and just have the 72 Street, 59 Street (57–60 streets), and 50 Street (47–50 streets) stations. The MTA, though, believes that a 55 Street station (with entrances at 57 Street and 53 Street) could fill in for both 59 Street and 50 Street, but that leaves a massive gap from 72 Street to 55 Street and from 55 Street to 42 Street. As opposed to station centers being about 10 blocks apart, the stations would be 10 blocks apart from end to end.

 

By the looks of the diagrams, the curve connecting 63 Street to 2 Avenue appears to occupy 4 blocks with the switches from Broadway connecting to 2 Avenue at around 67 Street. Then there's a diamond crossover before the platform begins at 69 Street.

 

A good reason why the MTA does not plan for a 59 St station (besides the very close distance to the 63 St junction, if it is indeed four blocks long), is because realistically speaking, the SAS would do very little in terms of transfers if it connected there. Lex/59 is about as convenient as a Queens-East Side transfer is going to get, and an SAS station with a two-block long transfer passageway is not going to do much to draw away passengers who could just use the stairs for a train. In addition, it would be very challenging, since not only would you have to deal with the junction, but the QB approach and Roosevelt Tram are located very close by as well.

Edited March 4, 2015 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

A good reason why the MTA does not plan for a 59 St station (besides the very close distance to the 63 St junction, if it is indeed four blocks long), is because realistically speaking, the SAS would do very little in terms of transfers if it connected there. Lex/59 is about as convenient as a Queens-East Side transfer is going to get, and an SAS station with a two-block long transfer passageway is not going to do much to draw away passengers who could just use the stairs for a train. In addition, it would be very challenging, since not only would you have to deal with the junction, but the QB approach and Roosevelt Tram are located very close by as well.

It's not for the transfer, but for coverage. Most of 2 Avenue is far away from any station. If you have a look at some of the east-west station layouts in midtown Manhattan, the closest you'll get to 2 Avenue is a few dozen feet east of 3 Avenue. Lexington Avenue/63 Street doesn't cross 3 Avenue, and neither does Grand Central–42 Street. I know we had a past discussion about connecting lines, but 2 Avenue is really too far away to make convenient connections. This is all about proper spacing of stations. This is why I suggested a 47–50 Streets station in my previous post.

Edited March 4, 2015 by CenSin

[bobtehpanda]

It's not for the transfer, but for coverage. Most of 2 Avenue is far away from any station. If you have a look at some of the east-west station layouts in midtown Manhattan, the closest you'll get to 2 Avenue is a few dozen feet east of 3 Avenue. Lexington Avenue/63 Street doesn't cross 3 Avenue, and neither does Grand Central–42 Street. I know we had a past discussion about connecting lines, but 2 Avenue is really too far away to make convenient connections. This is all about proper spacing of stations. This is why I suggested a 47–50 Streets station in my previous post.

 

Ideally, we would place stations where coverage is needed, but that isn't really possible given the engineering constraints of everything around it (QB, 63rd St junction, Roosevelt Tram). In terms of immediate coverage, it isn't particularly great to have a station at 59 St either, given that most of its immediate walkshed to the east is the QB approach itself. The M15 SBS doesn't stop there either - it stops at 57 and 50 Sts, but placing a stop in those locations means that 53rd St doesn't get a connection, so 55 St becomes the compromise stop.

[CenSin]

Ideally, we would place stations where coverage is needed, but that isn't really possible given the engineering constraints of everything around it (QB, 63rd St junction, Roosevelt Tram). In terms of immediate coverage, it isn't particularly great to have a station at 59 St either, given that most of its immediate walkshed to the east is the QB approach itself. The M15 SBS doesn't stop there either - it stops at 57 and 50 Sts, but placing a stop in those locations means that 53rd St doesn't get a connection, so 55 St becomes the compromise stop.

The transfer at 53 Street is under consideration by the MTA, but given that the distance between Park Avenue and 2 Avenue is about the same as the distance between 6 Avenue and Park Avenue and that it'll be one of the few transfer opportunities between 2 Avenue and any other line the MTA would probably go for it.

 

If for any reason the MTA does not (e.g.: community pressure to split 55 Street back into 2 stops), 57–59 Streets and 47–50 Streets would be logical places to put the stops. The bridge entrance isn't really a bother; just put exits on the western side of the avenue at 59 Street. The Roosevelt Island Tram station is directly above that spot too.

 

But the everlasting issue of money might trump all other reasons. One station is a lot cheaper than two.

[trainfanrod]

This is the main reason why the MtA needs to find a way to connect the to other boroughs fast or it won't be as efficient as we think and most people will pass it up for the

[LTA1992]

People will pass it up for the Lex. All local equals slow when there is a line that hosts express service a couple blocks away. That's the mentality.

[bobtehpanda]

People will pass it up for the Lex. All local equals slow when there is a line that hosts express service a couple blocks away. That's the mentality.

 

Most of the benefits of express service are psychological in nature. In any case, if you're traveling to east of Lex, walking over from an express station (if your stop is indeed a Lex express stop) is going to erase any time advantage from just taking the or .

[Armandito]

Most of the benefits of express service are psychological in nature. In any case, if you're traveling to east of Lex, walking over from an express station (if your stop is indeed a Lex express stop) is going to erase any time advantage from just taking the or .

And that's why I proposed a Second Avenue express service, the (X), to run between the Bronx and Brooklyn (Queens overnight) and complement the local .

Edited March 4, 2015 by lara8710

[LTA1992]

Most of the benefits of express service are psychological in nature. In any case, if you're traveling to east of Lex, walking over from an express station (if your stop is indeed a Lex express stop) is going to erase any time advantage from just taking the or .

Not really. It depends on where you are going, time of travel, and distance. Basing off a trip without delays anyway. I've found that express trains are generally faster coming from Queens and The Bronx when there are 4-track lines. The Brighton express time savings definitely depends on timing.

 

As for walking and all that jazz, that depends on the persons walking speed and knowledge of transversing the city. The walk from Lexington Avenue to Second is shorter than normal since Lex splits what would have been a single block in half.

[bobtehpanda]

And that's why I proposed a Second Avenue express service, the (X), to run between the Bronx and Brooklyn (Queens overnight) and complement the local .

 

The local that currently isn't even going to run until we actually build Phase III? That local ?

 

Not really. It depends on where you are going, time of travel, and distance. Basing off a trip without delays anyway. I've found that express trains are generally faster coming from Queens and The Bronx when there are 4-track lines. The Brighton express time savings definitely depends on timing.

 

As for walking and all that jazz, that depends on the persons walking speed and knowledge of transversing the city. The walk from Lexington Avenue to Second is shorter than normal since Lex splits what would have been a single block in half.

 

For a trip from 125 to Hanover, the time savings are fairly insignificant. Stop spacing would be most similar to, if not sparser than, the CPW IND lines, which take 16 minutes to go from 125th to 42nd St on the , and it would be even faster due to the smaller amount of stops. To put this in context, the takes 13 minutes to make the same trip on the East Side. A grand total of three minutes is going to be eaten up by walking over to the Lex from Second, and this is using scheduled times for the Lex, which often aren't met anyways due to the overcrowding. (Google Maps says 4 minutes to walk from Lex to Second).

[Armandito]

It would have been a lot cheaper to keep the now-defunct Third Avenue El and connect it to the Lexington Avenue lines instead of building a new subway line to the Bronx. Why wasn't this considered at the time its demolition was about to happen?

Edited March 5, 2015 by lara8710

[LTA1992]

The local that currently isn't even going to run until we actually build Phase III? That local ?

 

 

For a trip from 125 to Hanover, the time savings are fairly insignificant. Stop spacing would be most similar to, if not sparser than, the CPW IND lines, which take 16 minutes to go from 125th to 42nd St on the , and it would be even faster due to the smaller amount of stops. To put this in context, the takes 13 minutes to make the same trip on the East Side. A grand total of three minutes is going to be eaten up by walking over to the Lex from Second, and this is using scheduled times for the Lex, which often aren't met anyways due to the overcrowding. (Google Maps says 4 minutes to walk from Lex to Second).

Google maps accounts for the average walking speed which, IMO, is slow. Very slow in fact. I can walk that distance in half the time. Now, unless Lex and  2 Avenue trains are somewhat synced, then there is a possibility of missing a train. With that possibility, there is a significant time savings. And 13 minutes from 125 to 42nd? Noooooooo, impossible. Cannot be. It's never taken me that long aside from delays during Plan 4. I time myself on the subway as well as since I'd never get anywhere on time If I didn't.

 

It would have been a lot cheaper to keep the now-defunct Third Avenue El and connect it to the Lexington Avenue lines instead of building a new subway line to the Bronx. Why wasn't this considered at the time its demolition was about to happen?

See, about that, it actually would have been cheaper to keep the 2nd Avenue El. It was the youngest of the Els and was also the strongest. BOT inaction to maintain both structures as well as Second Avenue business owners are the reason the 2 Avenue El was torn down. During the 1930s, people seemed to forget that building the subway FIRST was more important than keeping the "L". Now, this new subway was going to replace it and in actuality, a 1951 Bond issue for $500,000,000 was supposed to pay for it. The BOT ended up using it for system modernization. The sucky part about that is that if they raised the fare sooner, then that bond could have paid for the subway and modernization could have happened without going into the bonds. But, politics.

[CenSin]

Most of the benefits of express service are psychological in nature. In any case, if you're traveling to east of Lex, walking over from an express station (if your stop is indeed a Lex express stop) is going to erase any time advantage from just taking the or .

Different people value their time differently. The assumption should be that everyone values their times more than the actual value, because this covers nearly everyone. If someone doesn't value their time much (such as those who get on whatever train is across the platform at Brighton Beach), a train that gets there a few minutes earlier doesn't do them harm.

 

The expectation and intention of express service is faster service, and it's implicit in the design of many subway lines (especially those of the IND). Why else would the IND dig a separate tunnel for express tracks in Queens and Brooklyn? Why not have all island platforms where there are side platforms? It's the same number of platforms anyway.

 

If express service isn't meeting its intended goals, then something needs to be fixed to put it back on track. The solution isn't to forgo the service altogether.

[bobtehpanda]

Different people value their time differently. The assumption should be that everyone values their times more than the actual value, because this covers nearly everyone. If someone doesn't value their time much (such as those who get on whatever train is across the platform at Brighton Beach), a train that gets there a few minutes earlier doesn't do them harm.

 

The expectation and intention of express service is faster service, and it's implicit in the design of many subway lines (especially those of the IND). Why else would the IND dig a separate tunnel for express tracks in Queens and Brooklyn? Why not have all island platforms where there are side platforms? It's the same number of platforms anyway.

 

If express service isn't meeting its intended goals, then something needs to be fixed to put it back on track. The solution isn't to forgo the service altogether.

 

So let's say we do build express tracks. Where do they go? There is no money for extension to the other boroughs, and even then the places where an SAS Express would go aren't particularly obvious; the benefits of a pair of express tracks only from 125 to Hanover is very, very limited, and that's before we consider that even that's not completely on the table. Maybe, in a couple decades when we actually have somewhere to send Second Av Express trains, we can build the express tracks just like we did for the Sixth Av Express. But until then, there is no pressing need for an express train.

[Javier]

Is it possible to have skip-stop service on the SAS?

[LTA1992]

Why? 

[MysteriousBtrain]

Is it possible to have skip-stop service on the SAS?

Not qith the and and especially the alone.

[bobtehpanda]

You could do it. It wouldn't really save you any time, it'd be difficult to schedule, and quite frankly it'd be pointless, but you could technically do it.

[Lance]

Is it possible to have skip-stop service on the SAS?

With a grand total of around 15 stops in Manhattan (under current design plans), there is little point in skip-stop service. There likely wouldn't be any kind of problems with rider distribution with speedy service on the Q and potential T lines.

[CenSin]

Is it possible to have skip-stop service on the SAS?

It's always possible to have worse service (except when there's no service).