Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[S78 via Hylan]

And yet I would always picture rush hour without the train as a high school student...more frequent service and no more cumbersome transfers. What's your thought on service without the ? How would rush hour service be like by itself?

Just like Around the horn's post and mine above, service would be much slower. Most people are used to used to the current setup, so they know which train stops at which station. As for transferring, not that many people do it as much as you believe. Again, from someone who actually uses it every day, it's good to familiarize yourself with the service patterns and make them work for you. Edited November 24, 2016 by S78 via Hylan

[bstar1]

That's why some people don't like Skip-Stop. Like at Cleveland St stop and skip. QueensBound If come first then I could take it to Norwood Av and take opposite train back to Cleveland St or Manhattan to Van Siclen Av and take opposite train to Cleveland St.

[S78 via Hylan]

That's why some people don't like Skip-Stop. Like at Cleveland St stop and skip. QueensBound If come first then I could take it to Norwood Av and take opposite train back to Cleveland St or Manhattan to Van Siclen Av and take opposite train to Cleveland St.

Of course there will be some people who don't like it. Heck, there are some (especially on this forum) who didn't like that the was reinstated, but you can't please everyone. Edited November 24, 2016 by S78 via Hylan

[Armandito]

Of course there will be some people who don't like it. Heck, there are some (especially on this forum) who didn't like that the was reinstated, but you can't please everyone.

Just like SBS isn't for everyone...

[Around the Horn]

Just like SBS isn't for everyone...

False equivalency. The problems with SBS implementation are nothing like the issues people may have with skip-stop.

[checkmatechamp13]

More crowding and you'd probably have to let one or two trains go by, before you could squeeze on.

 

You may not like the but skip stop is a great form of crowd control.

 

Not necessarily. Remember that all the trains would be making all the stops you would only have 5 minutes worth of people instead of 10 minutes worth of people going to all those skipped stops (Norwood Avenue, Chauncey Street, etc) as opposed to 10 minutes worth of people going to half of those smaller stations. So overall crowding would be the same, but the ride would be slower, and likely a little less reliable because you're making all the stops and being subject to delays through door-holding, etc. 

[Porter]

Doesn't anyone get the feeling that the Second Avenue Subway kind of gives the cold shoulder to the East Village and Lower East Side? Why not switch over from Second Avenue to First Avenue at some point south of the United Nations to meet with the First Avenue station, and then continue down First Avenue and the generously wide construction-friendly Allen Street (making many useful stops along the way). Around the intersection of Allen and Canal streets, the would branch off westward beneath and/or alongside the BMT Broadway Line to connect with the unused half of the BMT Nassau Line's Chambers Street station (continuing south with the and beyond through the Montague Tunnel). The , however, would continue southwest at this intersection to serve Chatham Square, the Seaport, and Hanover Square, where it would terminate.

 

Lest anyone think the Nassau connection crazy, it was seriously considered by transit planners, as seen below. I realize that they opted not to choose this option for the , but that doesn't mean that a future service couldn't take advantage of it. After all, the built the SAS spurs on the southern portion of the 63rd Street corridor for a reason...

 

[Union Tpke]

Doesn't anyone get the feeling that the Second Avenue Subway kind of gives the cold shoulder to the East Village and Lower East Side? Why not switch over from Second Avenue to First Avenue at some point south of the United Nations to meet with the First Avenue station, and then continue down First Avenue and the generously wide construction-friendly Allen Street (making many useful stops along the way). Around the intersection of Allen and Canal streets, the would branch off westward beneath and/or alongside the BMT Broadway Line to connect with the unused half of the BMT Nassau Line's Chambers Street station (continuing south with the and beyond through the Montague Tunnel). The , however, would continue southwest at this intersection to serve Chatham Square, the Seaport, and Hanover Square, where it would terminate.

 

Lest anyone think the Nassau connection crazy, it was seriously considered by transit planners, as seen below. I realize that they opted not to choose this option for the , but that doesn't mean that a future service couldn't take advantage of it. After all, the built the SAS spurs on the southern portion of the 63rd Street corridor for a reason...

 

 

It wouldn't do its job of reducing crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line.

[bobtehpanda]

Doesn't anyone get the feeling that the Second Avenue Subway kind of gives the cold shoulder to the East Village and Lower East Side? Why not switch over from Second Avenue to First Avenue at some point south of the United Nations to meet with the First Avenue station, and then continue down First Avenue and the generously wide construction-friendly Allen Street (making many useful stops along the way). Around the intersection of Allen and Canal streets, the would branch off westward beneath and/or alongside the BMT Broadway Line to connect with the unused half of the BMT Nassau Line's Chambers Street station (continuing south with the and beyond through the Montague Tunnel). The , however, would continue southwest at this intersection to serve Chatham Square, the Seaport, and Hanover Square, where it would terminate.

 

Lest anyone think the Nassau connection crazy, it was seriously considered by transit planners, as seen below. I realize that they opted not to choose this option for the , but that doesn't mean that a future service couldn't take advantage of it. After all, the built the SAS spurs on the southern portion of the 63rd Street corridor for a reason...

 

Because the main point of SAS is to relieve the Lexington Avenue Line and other subway lines. Besides those alternatives' massively disruptive impacts (going to LES via a jughandle would require shutting down the , going to the Nassau St line would require shutting down the Nassau St line as every station would have to be retroactively upgraded for ADA accessibility), that would not really relieve congestion on the subway at a rate that would justify spending that level of money. The reason why the current plan calls for a straight shot down Water is because it's the least impactful route and slows down future commuters from Brooklyn the least; subway riders are trying to get to where they're going, not sightsee the underground labyrinth of the subway.

[Porter]

It wouldn't do its job of reducing crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line.

 

If it serves Second Avenue until 14th Street (where the would connect with it anyway), why wouldn't this reduce crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line, which is mostly a problem north of 14th Street? As far as the downtown region is concerned, it's more important to provide more convenient service to a growing East Village and Lower East Side anyway.

going to the Nassau St line would require shutting down the Nassau St line as every station would have to be retroactively upgraded for ADA accessibility

 

A worthy investment, especially considering that the Nassau Street Line is purportedly the least popular among those running through the neighborhood (most of the stations are in need of a fresh renovation anyway). Permanent progress demands temporary sacrifice, and commuters will just have to swallow that fact as they always have.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Skipper

[Armandito]

If it serves Second Avenue until 14th Street (where the would connect with it anyway), why wouldn't this reduce crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line, which is mostly a problem north of 14th Street? As far as the downtown region is concerned, it's more important to provide more convenient service to a growing East Village and Lower East Side anyway.

 

 

A worthy investment, especially considering that the Nassau Street Line is purportedly the least popular among those running through the neighborhood (most of the stations are in need of a fresh renovation anyway). Permanent progress demands temporary sacrifice, and commuters will just have to swallow that fact as they always have.

Leave the SAS alone as is. Connecting it to either the or lines will do nothing more than significantly reduce its capacity and make it much less attractive for potential future services.

[Porter]

Leave the SAS alone as is. Connecting it to either the or lines will do nothing more than significantly reduce its capacity and make it much less attractive for potential future services.

 

A second SAS service running south of 63rd Street would have to connect to the by design; that one's not negotiable. The connection is just a cheap way to send one of the services to Brooklyn if so desired, although I don't believe it to be absolutely crucial as I do the Bronx extension.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Skipper

[bobtehpanda]

If it serves Second Avenue until 14th Street (where the would connect with it anyway), why wouldn't this reduce crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line, which is mostly a problem north of 14th Street? As far as the downtown region is concerned, it's more important to provide more convenient service to a growing East Village and Lower East Side anyway.

 

A worthy investment, especially considering that the Nassau Street Line is purportedly the least popular among those running through the neighborhood (most of the stations are in need of a fresh renovation anyway). Permanent progress demands temporary sacrifice, and commuters will just have to swallow that fact as they always have.

 

The SAS is about providing new core capacity and relieving existing lines. Of all the Downtown-Brooklyn river crossings, the Brooklyn IRT is nearing capacity and future developments like Atlantic Yards will only increase pressure on those lines, so relief may not be immediately needed but will probably be by the time we get around to building Phases III and IV. Likewise, this is assuming that the best use of remaining SAS capacity is to go to the Nassau St line via a leisurely jog to the LES, but it isn't. The LES would be better off getting a light rail line across 14th St, and we have better things to do with billions of dollars than to try and use every last bit of track to fulfill some railfan's wet dream.

 

In shutting down the Nassau St line you might also just end up killing ridership on it completely, as people find alternatives in the meantime and decide that they're okay with them. This happened in Chicago when the Green Line was shut down for renovations; everyone switched to the Red Line a mile away and most of them didn't switch back when the work was over.

[Porter]

Of all the Downtown-Brooklyn river crossings, the Brooklyn IRT is nearing capacity and future developments like Atlantic Yards will only increase pressure on those lines, so relief may not be immediately needed but will probably be by the time we get around to building Phases III and IV.

 

Another trans-river tunnel would be unthinkably expensive, especially after already draining funds just to get phases III and IV built. If any tunnel should be built for the SAS (or in general), it should be for the Bronx extension of the or . The Montague Tunnel has been underused since the neutering of the Nassau Line, so if you don't believe that sending one of the two sub-63rd SAS services through the Nassau corridor is a good idea, then you should at least appreciate the benefit of finding some way to send it through the Montague Tunnel.

[Caelestor]

Another trans-river tunnel would be unthinkably expensive, especially after already draining funds just to get phases III and IV built. If any tunnel should be built for the SAS (or in general), it should be for the Bronx extension of the or . The Montague Tunnel has been underused since the neutering of the Nassau Line, so if you don't believe that sending one of the two sub-63rd SAS services through the Nassau corridor is a good idea, then you should at least appreciate the benefit of finding some way to send it through the Montague Tunnel.

 

The last two subway underwater tunnels to be built were Rutgers in 1936 and 63 St in 1989, so we're due for a new tunnel in 25 years. I'd argue that the new Hudson River tunnels take priority over anything in the East River, though.

 

Due to how many existing crossings there are, I actually don't think a new Brooklyn - Manhattan tunnel is necessary either. Rutgers and Montague are still at half capacity, and there's an easy way to increase service through the latter. I'd reserve Montague for an extension of the . It's harder to increase service through Rutgers since the is taking up capacity, so I'll table that for now.  As for the IRT, reconstructing Rogers Junction is the obvious way to increase apacity without shelling out the money for a new East River tunnel. Overall, there's really no need for SAS to run into Brooklyn in the short or medium term, actually. The one thing I'd fix is to construct some sort of transfer between Seaport / Fulton St or Hanover Sq / South Ferry, so that the south portion of SAS isn't a complete dead end.

 

On the flip side, Queens badly needs more subway service. I argue that after Phase 3 extends SAS to Houston St / Grand St, Phase 3.5 should extend the 63 St to a temporary terminus at Woodside or Northern Blvd / Broadway to add a second service along 2 Ave / 63 St. This allows for the turquoise to add 10 - 15 tph of additional service at probably $1 - $2 billion, a fraction of SAS costs.

[bobtehpanda]

Another trans-river tunnel would be unthinkably expensive, especially after already draining funds just to get phases III and IV built. If any tunnel should be built for the SAS (or in general), it should be for the Bronx extension of the or . The Montague Tunnel has been underused since the neutering of the Nassau Line, so if you don't believe that sending one of the two sub-63rd SAS services through the Nassau corridor is a good idea, then you should at least appreciate the benefit of finding some way to send it through the Montague Tunnel.

 

Using the Montague tunnel to its full extent implies that there is something on the other end of the Montague tunnel that needs more service, than it does today, and last I checked none of the lines serving 4th Avenue, express or local, are at guideline capacity during peak hours. They are also not as congested as the Brooklyn IRT.

 

Tunneling is usually the cheapest part of subway construction, actually; stations and property acquisition, both of which a SAS-Nassau link would require a lot of, are what make subway construction expensive. Ventilation shafts do add to the cost, of an underwater tunnel, but the length of an under-East-River tunnel is not particularly long, so it does not really add a lot. On the other hand, constructing a Nassau link requires digging under either Worth or Canal, both of which would be ruinously expensive due to the need to avoid existing infrastructure in the way (and all the disruptions that would entail), landmarked buildings, and the likelihood of archaeological finds. On the other hand, Phase IV will already be pointed around all existing tunnels and will be at the water's edge, and the Fulton local tracks are currently not in use for anything other than the Transit Museum.

[Armandito]

A second SAS service running south of 63rd Street would have to connect to the by design; that one's not negotiable. The connection is just a cheap way to send one of the services to Brooklyn if so desired, although I don't believe it to be absolutely crucial as I do the Bronx extension.

I meant to say that it's not feasible to connect the SAS to the at the Rutgers Street Tunnel; I'm good with connecting it at the 63rd Street Tunnel.

[Porter]

Rutgers and Montague are still at half capacity, and there's an easy way to increase service through the latter. I'd reserve Montague for an extension of the . It's harder to increase service through Rutgers since the is taking up capacity, so I'll table that for now.

 

It's not that I'm personally against extending the , but it might piss off Astorians (not that I really care, but you know, politics). When exactly does the ever use the Rutgers Street tunnel? That sounds like a great tunnel through which to send the (since the Nassau Line connection is evidently so controversial). In fact, if the were to join the at both Rutgers and 63rd streets, you could almost justify saving a few bucks and reviving the bullet as it was (by calling it a 'Sixth Avenue shunt').

 

I meant to say that it's not feasible to connect the SAS to the at the Rutgers Street Tunnel; I'm good with connecting it at the 63rd Street Tunnel.

 

Why not?

 

Using the Montague tunnel to its full extent implies that there is something on the other end of the Montague tunnel that needs more service, than it does today, and last I checked none of the lines serving 4th Avenue, express or local, are at guideline capacity during peak hours.

 

Judging from this forum (and less importantly from my own experience), Bay Ridge is indeed currently underserved by the unreliable . It's not a question of whether this should be rectified, but how. Extending the seems to be many people's preferred fix.

[Armandito]

It's not that I'm personally against extending the , but it might piss off Astorians (not that I really care, but you know, politics). When exactly does the ever use the Rutgers Street tunnel? That sounds like a great tunnel through which to send the (since the Nassau Line connection is evidently so controversial). In fact, if the were to join the at both Rutgers and 63rd streets, you could almost justify saving a few bucks and reviving the bullet as it was (by calling it a 'Sixth Avenue shunt').

 

 

 

Why not?

 

 

 

Judging from this forum (and less importantly from my own experience), Bay Ridge is indeed currently underserved by the unreliable . It's not a question of whether this should be rectified, but how. Extending the seems to be many people's preferred fix.

Once again, connecting the SAS to the at Rutgers Street would greatly reduce its capacity as opposed to digging a new tunnel between Hanover Square and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets, which would therefore open the door to a new local along Fulton Street--a critical change that would eliminate the need to have the cross over at Lafayette Avenue to the local tracks, and make the route faster and more reliable for central and eastern Brooklyn riders going to Eighth Avenue.

 

And sending the to Bay Ridge is out of the question. Keep in mind the was rerouted from Astoria to Forest Hills in 1987 because it lacked direct access to a maintenance facility, meaning trains had to be repeatedly sent back and forth to and from Coney Island. Just extend the to Bay Ridge instead. It would make a perfect extension to supplement the on weekdays between 6AM and 11PM.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Q44SBS

[Union Tpke]

There are provisions for an 11-track yard south of 95th Street. Build it and the problem is solved! The MTA, of course, doesn't know this.

[Porter]

Just extend the to Bay Ridge instead. It would make a perfect extension to supplement the on weekdays between 6AM and 11PM.

 

See, this is what I'd prefer too, but people keep hating on the Nassau Street Line.

 

The Montague Tunnel is underused so let's use more of it! If Bay Parkway doesn't want it, then Bay Ridge does!

[bobtehpanda]

Judging from this forum (and less importantly from my own experience), Bay Ridge is indeed currently underserved by the unreliable . It's not a question of whether this should be rectified, but how. Extending the seems to be many people's preferred fix.

 

Is it underserved? Sure.

 

Is it "throw billions of dollars at" underserved? Not really.

 

Is it "divert billions of dollars from other potential extensions" underserved? Hell no.

[Around the Horn]

We've already discussed at length, why the is not a good option for Bay Ridge (as much as I may like the idea).

 

The can supplement the to Bay Ridge and still deadhead to Coney Island yard as it does currently.

 

Union's idea of a yard at 95th Street should also be implemented. The tunnels go down to at least 100th Street.

[Caelestor]

It's absolutely possible to extend the into Brooklyn. If Bay Ridge can't handle the traffic, send it to Sea Beach, since the is already basically a branch of the anyways. The yard and/or an extension to Staten Island (pricy) are some other options to improve service at Bay Ridge. Certainly I'd take it over extending the , which has already been cut back in the 1980s due to route length reliability concerns.

 

Is this a good use of existing resources though? Phase 3 of SAS is probably going to cost $10 billion, and I'm sure there are other lines which are higher up in the priority queue for subway cars.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Caelestor

[Porter]

Okay, well if we're talking about priorities here, it seems that most of us are in agreement that Queens needs more service options. In that case, the to Jamaica–179th Street could be inexpensively implemented as early as Phase III (and would give commuters more confidence in the Second Avenue Subway's worth overall). The only significant cost I can think of is connecting it to the 63rd Street Tunnel, but I believe the SAS spurs have long since been constructed, so it actually shouldn't be too difficult or costly.

 

If it would be reasonably affordable to construct a yard at Bay Ridge–95th Street to feasibly extend the there, then I'm all for it, especially if there are provisions to extend it to Staten Island someday.