Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Quill Depot]

In that particular case, if you're going to put a substation and other parts in where the buildings were, then it likely makes sense to also add a subway station there with exits at 7th and 8th Streets, which also allows the Houston Street stop to be a bit further south if possible (but still with the transfer in place) and the 14th Street station be a little further north of where it would be others. 

 

Otherwise, I agree. 

 

Oops i mistakenly downvoted.

And so has every other part of Manhattan, but that doesn't mean we should just go around and add stops everywhere. Because there is no express line (and I swear to god, we don't need to have a "the SAS should have an express that doesn't go anywhere" conversation again), interstation distances need to be kept high to keep travel time low, and quite frankly between 14th and Houston there isn't a compelling enough reason to put a stop there, particularly since the most expensive costs these days are for stations (and if you think the MTA could get that land without paying today's market price for it, then do I have a bridge to sell you.)

 

Why should the SAS be making a stop that even the M15 SBS does not do, anyways?

 

This part of Manhattan includes about 4 extra avenues east of First. That's a lot more development.

[Wallyhorse]

Oops i mistakenly downvoted.

 

 

This part of Manhattan includes about 4 extra avenues east of First. That's a lot more development.

That is a lot of development that likely will be coming in the years ahead as you have Avenues A, B, C (aka Losida Avenue) and D all east of 1st Avenue (the area often referred to as Alphabet City) in that part of Manhattan. If there is an area where you need SAS stations closer together, it would be there since anyone coming from Avenue D for example (unless they are on 14th or Houston Street) already has to go at least a half-mile just to get to the subway.  The SAS won't completely eliminate that problem, but adding a station at St. Mark's Place (8th Street) with exits at 7th, 8th and either 9th or 10th Street  would help a lot with people who live there, especially east of 1st Avenue.

[bobtehpanda]

Oops i mistakenly downvoted.

 

 

This part of Manhattan includes about 4 extra avenues east of First. That's a lot more development.

 

And most likely a Second Avenue subway station there wouldn't really improve things, because that'd still be a five-block avenue walk; taking the M14 to 14th/2nd would still be faster, and it's a fairly frequent bus as well. The original SAS studies in the '90s and early '00s studied options serving the LES directly, and found that none would really be worth the additional travel time.

In that particular case, if you're going to put a substation and other parts in where the buildings were, then it likely makes sense to also add a subway station there with exits at 7th and 8th Streets, which also allows the Houston Street stop to be a bit further south if possible (but still with the transfer in place) and the 14th Street station be a little further north of where it would be others. 

 

Otherwise, I agree. 

 

You can't build the Houston St further south. Any further south and you not only have to rip up the only sizable park in the area, but you also have to deal with the complicated web of tunnels in that area hosting the , , and trains.

[bobtehpanda]

That is a lot of development that likely will be coming in the years ahead as you have Avenues A, B, C (aka Losida Avenue) and D all east of 1st Avenue (the area often referred to as Alphabet City) in that part of Manhattan. If there is an area where you need SAS stations closer together, it would be there since anyone coming from Avenue D for example (unless they are on 14th or Houston Street) already has to go at least a half-mile just to get to the subway.  The SAS won't completely eliminate that problem, but adding a station at St. Mark's Place (8th Street) with exits at 7th, 8th and either 9th or 10th Street  would help a lot with people who live there, especially east of 1st Avenue.

 

I wouldn't put my money on that. Most of that is R7 and R8 zoning, and that section of the city is fairly built out already and using as much available space as zoned to them.

[Quill Depot]

hey m8 what about the m8

[CenSin]

And most likely a Second Avenue subway station there wouldn't really improve things, because that'd still be a five-block avenue walk; taking the M14 to 14th/2nd would still be faster, and it's a fairly frequent bus as well. The original SAS studies in the '90s and early '00s studied options serving the LES directly, and found that none would really be worth the additional travel time.

 

 

You can't build the Houston St further south. Any further south and you not only have to rip up the only sizable park in the area, but you also have to deal with the complicated web of tunnels in that area hosting the , , and trains.

The station then, should assume the responsibility of serving East 4 Street to East Houston Street. 14 Streets between local station centers is ridiculous. The distance between East Houston Street and Grand Street is a little over half the distance between East Houston Street and East 14 Street.

[bobtehpanda]

The station then, should assume the responsibility of serving East 4 Street to East Houston Street. 14 Streets between local station centers is ridiculous. The distance between East Houston Street and Grand Street is a little over half the distance between East Houston Street and East 14 Street.

 

That's basically where it is. Interblock spacing is more like 9 blocks on that section.

[Wallyhorse]

That makes sense:

I do think given how far east even with the SAS some people will be from the subway, it would make sense to add a station at St. Mark's Place with entrances at 7th (with any new building built there having provisions for such built in), St. Mark's Place (which would be the official name of the station) and 10th Street.  The idea would be to give those in Alphabet City who don't have anywhere near as easy access to the subway because of the long distance many must walk just to reach the subway access that is a little easier for them.

[Fresh Pond]

That makes sense:

 

I do think given how far east even with the SAS some people will be from the subway, it would make sense to add a station at St. Mark's Place with entrances at 7th (with any new building built there having provisions for such built in), St. Mark's Place (which would be the official name of the station) and 10th Street. The idea would be to give those in Alphabet City who don't have anywhere near as easy access to the subway because of the long distance many must walk just to reach the subway access that is a little easier for them.

Did you not see what bontehpanda posted? The 14 St stop is gonna have an entrance at 12 St, and the Houston St stop is gonna have an entrance at 3 St. Making a stop at St. Marks Place is gonna be completely useless.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Fresh Pond

[Wallyhorse]

Did you not see what bontehpanda posted? The 14 St stop is gonna have an entrance at 12 St, and the Houston St stop is gonna have an entrance at 3 St. Making a stop at St. Marks Place is gonna be completely useless.

I didn't see the second part.  As I would do it, the 14th Street stop would be moved north with the exits at 14th and 16th-17th Street to accommodate a St. Mark's Square stop (exits at 7th, 8th and 10th street).  

[bobtehpanda]

I, for one, don't personally see the point in emulating the closer, outdated stop spacing of a nearby trunk line that 1. has express services, so the speed of the local doesn't really matter and 2. was built at a time when trains were half the length they are now, particularly since stations are a billion a piece and you'd still have to pay eminent domain for a burned down property, which these days is likely to be in the tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. But that's just me.

[Wallyhorse]

I, for one, don't personally see the point in emulating the closer, outdated stop spacing of a nearby trunk line that 1. has express services, so the speed of the local doesn't really matter and 2. was built at a time when trains were half the length they are now, particularly since stations are a billion a piece and you'd still have to pay eminent domain for a burned down property, which these days is likely to be in the tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. But that's just me.

I would ONLY be doing it at St. Mark's Place because of the unique nature of that area, plus the fact that area has a lot theaters and other things that people from other parts of the city go to (not to mention providing additional entry points for those who live in Alphabet City). 

 

The only other area I would have considered doing such would have been to add a stop at 79th Street (exits at 76th-77th and 79th) with the exits at 86th Street and 96th moved north if necessary to accommodate such, and that is solely due to the dense population of the UES and the fact you have both Wagner Junior High (75th-76th between 2nd/3rd) and Eleanor Roosevelt High School (east of 1st Avenue) on 76th Street. 

[CenSin]

I would ONLY be doing it at St. Mark's Place because of the unique nature of that area, plus the fact that area has a lot theaters and other things that people from other parts of the city go to (not to mention providing additional entry points for those who live in Alphabet City).

With 5 blocks between St. Mark’s Place and either of the adjacent stations along the line, if the MTA really wants to serve the Lower East Side, they'll go through with the cup handle plan (difficult or not).

 

 

The only thing I would do different is move that station at Tompkins Square down by one street so that it stretches from East 6 Street to East 8 Street.

 

The only other area I would have considered doing such would have been to add a stop at 79th Street (exits at 76th-77th and 79th) with the exits at 86th Street and 96th moved north if necessary to accommodate such, and that is solely due to the dense population of the UES and the fact you have both Wagner Junior High (75th-76th between 2nd/3rd) and Eleanor Roosevelt High School (east of 1st Avenue) on 76th Street.

The schools don't matter. Kids don't help pay for the costs of running the station, the MTA operates buses and subways for the ingrates at a loss, with the city slashing contributions. If kids are producing the density flux you’re talking about, then the MTA has a reason to not put a station there. Any other important reason is fine such as station spacing, important destinations (which neighborhood schools generally do not fall under), or whatever else might be creating heavy revenue-generating traffic.

[Wallyhorse]

With 5 blocks between St. Mark’s Place and either of the adjacent stations along the line, if the MTA really wants to serve the Lower East Side, they'll go through with the cup handle plan (difficult or not).

 

 

The only thing I would do different is move that station at Tompkins Square down by one street so that it stretches from East 6 Street to East 8 Street.

 

The schools don't matter. Kids don't help pay for the costs of running the station, the MTA operates buses and subways for the ingrates at a loss, with the city slashing contributions. If kids are producing the density flux you’re talking about, then the MTA has a reason to not put a station there. Any other important reason is fine such as station spacing, important destinations (which neighborhood schools generally do not fall under), or whatever else might be creating heavy revenue-generating traffic.

It's the overall area between 72nd and 86th is why I would fit in a station at 79th.  The schools are only a small part of it.

 

That area (depending on when you grew up either being Yorkville or the border between Lenox Hill and Yorkville) has an extremely dense population in that area and those for instance who live at East End Avenue have to go over a half-mile to reach the 77th or 86th Street stations on Lexington Avenue.  That is why I would add a stop there, as people who for instance live on York Avenue (two blocks east of 2nd) have a very long walk to reach the subway now that for those between 72nd and 83rd won't be remedied otherwise.  Plus, you have Lenox Hill Hospital at 77th/Lex and although the goes directly there, there are those who likely would prefer to be able from the Brighton line or Times Square for example take the to a 79th/2nd Avenue station that has an exit between 76th and 77th on Second Avenue and walk over, only dealing with one train rather than two and possibly three.

 

Edited to add:  The Lower East side proposal is one that probably needs to be revisited.  That part of Manhattan would likely be better served by such if it ran on Avenue A or B (especially if it included an transfer at 14th Street) in particular.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Wallyhorse

[bobtehpanda]

With 5 blocks between St. Mark’s Place and either of the adjacent stations along the line, if the MTA really wants to serve the Lower East Side, they'll go through with the cup handle plan (difficult or not).

 

 

The only thing I would do different is move that station at Tompkins Square down by one street so that it stretches from East 6 Street to East 8 Street.

 

The schools don't matter. Kids don't help pay for the costs of running the station, the MTA operates buses and subways for the ingrates at a loss, with the city slashing contributions. If kids are producing the density flux you’re talking about, then the MTA has a reason to not put a station there. Any other important reason is fine such as station spacing, important destinations (which neighborhood schools generally do not fall under), or whatever else might be creating heavy revenue-generating traffic.

 

The issue with the cuphandle plan is that it literally avoids every single transfer downtown except East Broadway, which IMO wouldn't really work as a transfer station, and they're basically the only locations with actually convenient transfers. Maybe in like 2357 we can build a spur heading east to Tompkins Sq, Williamsburg, and Utica Av, but until then the transfers outweigh the benefits of serving the LES. The time travel penalty would also be too great to justify doing this, since it would be a time-consuming detour.

Edited April 2, 2015 by bobtehpanda

[P3F]

This idea would be expensive but what about building both alignments? Half of trains go on one side, and half use the other.

 

I know there's issues with this, such as some trains not having transfers to many lines, but it could work if the demand is there.

 

If some other line eventually goes on the line, like a (U) or whatever, it could use the other alignment while the uses the first.

Edited April 2, 2015 by P3F

[Javier]

To me it just seems as the will become like the

[RollOver]

Just imagine that the entire line was to exist today, then the Queens Blvd Line would have been the busiest corridor in the entire subway system.

[MTA Dude]

Just imagine that the entire line was to exist today, then the Queens Blvd Line would have been the busiest corridor in the entire subway system.

 

I don't get it.

[RollOver]

I don't get it.

If there hadn't been any delays and financial problems in the past, then the whole SAS would have successfully been built (as a two-track subway as currently officially proposed) and crowding would have been relieved on the Lex. At the same time, QB would have been the busiest in the whole system instead.

[Javier]

If there hadn't been any delays and financial problems in the past, then the whole SAS would have successfully been built (as a two-track subway as currently officially proposed) and crowding would have been relieved on the Lex. At the same time, QB would have been the busiest in the whole system instead.

Yes, and the SAS would have also been extended to Brooklyn, and the IND Utica Line would have been built, and the Fulton lines wouldn't be crowded as much.

[BronxBombers]

Just imagine that the entire line was to exist today, then the Queens Blvd Line would have been the busiest corridor in the entire subway system.

 

I disagree, any of the Manhattan trunk lines (except the 14th, 42nd, and Nassau) are busier than Queens Blvd. You could say that the QBL would be the busiest outside of Manhattan.

[CenSin]

I disagree, any of the Manhattan trunk lines (except the 14th, 42nd, and Nassau) are busier than Queens Blvd. You could say that the QBL would be the busiest outside of Manhattan.

It think it's pretty obvious that Queens Boulevard was designed from the beginning to be the busiest trunk outside of Manhattan. Maybe it was even designed to be as busy as Manhattan trunks. The whole length is full of bellmouths, junctions, and express tracks. The provisions for extensions were also intended to funnel traffic from every nook and cranny in eastern Queens to the Queens Boulevard line. And at the very end, the line fans out to connect to the Broadway, Crosstown, 6 Avenue, and 8 Avenue lines. No other line in the system has so many connections.

[CenSin]

The issue with the cuphandle plan is that it literally avoids every single transfer downtown except East Broadway, which IMO wouldn't really work as a transfer station, and they're basically the only locations with actually convenient transfers. Maybe in like 2357 we can build a spur heading east to Tompkins Sq, Williamsburg, and Utica Av, but until then the transfers outweigh the benefits of serving the LES. The time travel penalty would also be too great to justify doing this, since it would be a time-consuming detour.

The only transfer avoided is Grand Street (, ). And that's replaced by a transfer to Delancey Street–Essex Street (, , , ). Houston Street's transfer () is supplanted by the transfer at East Broadway () and Delancey Street–Essex Street.

[bobtehpanda]

The only transfer avoided is Grand Street ( , ). And that's replaced by a transfer to Delancey Street–Essex Street ( , , , ). Houston Street's transfer ( ) is supplanted by the transfer at East Broadway ( ) and Delancey Street–Essex Street.

 

Grand St is perhaps one of the most important links though, since that gives riders from Brighton Beach, the West End Line, and DeKalb Av easy access to the East Side.

 

In any case, it was actually one of the alternatives in the DEIS. It was rejected, because 1. underpinning the was a terrible idea at the time, and would be even worse now, and 2. it added way too much travel time for north-south travel to actually relieve the Lexington Av Line.