Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[LGA Link N Train]

54 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't know where this meme of Sunnyside station not happening comes from. It is currently budgeted for in the Capital Plan and it is literally the cornerstone of Sunnyside Yards redevelopment.

There's a meme about the Sunnyside Station not happening? All I said is that there's no station present at Sunnyside, I never said that there will be no Sunnyside Station. 

I'll say that I didn't know that the MTA allocated some money into building a Sunnyside Station as part of Sunnyside Yards Redevelopment

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

The only connections missing would be to Astoria/Steinway and IMO that's not a huge deal.

 If you connect the RBB to QB, riders could take whatever local line goes there to Northern, 46th or Steinway for the Q58, Q66, Q101, Q102, Q104, etc. 

[Trainmaster5]

51 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

But connections where? If you want to go to Williamsburg or Downtown Brooklyn you can do that on the bus from Woodhaven Blvd, and using the RBB would be a pretty roundabout way to do it.

The only connections missing would be to Astoria/Steinway and IMO that's not a huge deal.

I don't know where this meme of Sunnyside station not happening comes from. It is currently budgeted for in the Capital Plan and it is literally the cornerstone of Sunnyside Yards redevelopment.

It’s currently budgeted but this is the  we’re talking about . The plan was supposed to be started after the Grand Central ESA opening, IIRC. Of course I seem to remember people saying that Phase 2 of the SAS is/was funded, too. I’ve been around the block for 70+ years, never been to Missouri, but “ show me “ and only then will I believe these plans will come to fruition.  The present day dead end at Parsons-Archer comes to mind. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The present day dead end at Parsons-Archer comes to mind. Just my opinion. Carry on.

The MTA has much, much more to list: Northern Boulevard station on the 63 Street connector; 10 Avenue station between Times Square and Hudson Yards; third track at 2 Avenue’s 72 Street station; all of the little segments of 2 Avenue that are currently disused; and—famously—the grand collection of Second System plans that are now effectively dead.

[Jacob]

On 5/18/2020 at 5:30 PM, CenSin said:

A 3 Avenue alignment would be pretty interesting as it connects with these stations more directly (no overly long passageways) which is vastly better than what the 2 Avenue alignment can do:

• 63 Street ()
• 59 Street ()
• 53 Street ()
• Grand Central–42 Street ()
• 14 Street ()
• Delancey Street ()

It does miss 2 stations though:

• 2 Avenue ()
• Grand Street ()

From Chinatown and down, it has the same limitation as the 2 Avenue alignment—avoiding all the Lower Manhattan connections. So, by necessity it needs to connect to South Ferry/Whitehall Street which is not in the current 2 Avenue plans.

The  train run via Third Avenue can be interesting but it can run Via Lexington Avenue In some stops but let it run to Grand Central to 14th street can be a good choice to do. So many transfers can be good for the people

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, Jacob said:

The  train run via Third Avenue can be interesting but it can run Via Lexington Avenue In some stops but let it run to Grand Central to 14th street can be a good choice to do. So many transfers can be good for the people

I don't quite understand what you're saying, but if it ran via Lexington you'd just be doing the same route over.. Second or Third Avenue works because it's giving more (closer) service to the East Side. Also, the construction would have to dig through the Lex Line, and interrupt service. There wouldn't be any nearby service from Lexington Av to Fifth Avenue between 125 and 59 St. You'd be forcing everyone that uses the Lexington Avenue line to go downtown, to get on the M101-LTD bus. It's best to make the least amount of disruptions to current service while making new service. 

[bobtehpanda]

12 hours ago, CenSin said:

The MTA has much, much more to list: Northern Boulevard station on the 63 Street connector; 10 Avenue station between Times Square and Hudson Yards; third track at 2 Avenue’s 72 Street station; all of the little segments of 2 Avenue that are currently disused; and—famously—the grand collection of Second System plans that are now effectively dead.

The Northern Blvd station was never built because the QBL connection was built, right?

10 Av was cancelled because by the time they cancelled it the developers had already built their towers expecting it to exist, and the Bloomberg administration/Dan Doctoroff saw promises of a subway station as a means to an end (more inflated property bubbles); if the property bubble happened then the proposal did its job and was no longer required.

Edited May 20, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[bobtehpanda]

15 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

There's a meme about the Sunnyside Station not happening? All I said is that there's no station present at Sunnyside, I never said that there will be no Sunnyside Station. 

I'll say that I didn't know that the MTA allocated some money into building a Sunnyside Station as part of Sunnyside Yards Redevelopment

It is funded as a part of East Side Access, as part of Penn Station Access, and the Sunnyside developments wouldn't happen without it.

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

It is funded as a part of East Side Access, as part of Penn Station Access, and the Sunnyside developments wouldn't happen without it.

Oh?

I thought the scrapped the Sunnyside Station from East Side Access. 

[bobtehpanda]

15 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

It’s currently budgeted but this is the  we’re talking about . The plan was supposed to be started after the Grand Central ESA opening, IIRC. Of course I seem to remember people saying that Phase 2 of the SAS is/was funded, too. I’ve been around the block for 70+ years, never been to Missouri, but “ show me “ and only then will I believe these plans will come to fruition.  The present day dead end at Parsons-Archer comes to mind. Just my opinion. Carry on.

If they've been wanting to cancel Sunnyside they would've done it when they also announced the cuts to Elmhurst and Republic LIRR stations this week. I wouldn't count it out just yet.

[bobtehpanda]

6 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Oh?

I thought the scrapped the Sunnyside Station from East Side Access. 

The wording of the project is, "projects in support of East Side Access".

It will open after, but it is still very much a part of East Side Access, the same way that, say, expanding Port Washington Yard or Jamaica Station reconfiguration is a part of East Side Access.

[Trainmaster5]

26 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

If they've been wanting to cancel Sunnyside they would've done it when they also announced the cuts to Elmhurst and Republic LIRR stations this week. I wouldn't count it out just yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the eliminated both Sunnyside and Elmhurst stations a while back and the monies were re-directed to the Third Track project ? AFAIK the Republic Station and KO yard projects fall under the Ronkonkoma Second Track category. ??? Just asking. Carry on.

[bobtehpanda]

31 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the eliminated both Sunnyside and Elmhurst stations a while back and the monies were re-directed to the Third Track project ? AFAIK the Republic Station and KO yard projects fall under the Ronkonkoma Second Track category. ??? Just asking. Carry on.

This is my general understanding of what happened

• Sunnyside construction was always supposed to happen after ESA. Given that ESA has been delayed til 2023 this was realistically not a reasonable timeline; the station construction was also delayed to 2020-2024 and the money was freed up for Third Track.
• Elmhurst and Republic were also both deferred for 2020-2024. Both are now officially cancelled, as of yesterday. Sunnyside was not included in this announcement.

Yet somehow the MTA can find it in their hearts to fund an Elmont station that nobody asked for.

Edited May 20, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[LGA Link N Train]

25 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

• Elmhurst and Republic were also both deferred for 2020-2024. Both are now officially cancelled, as of yesterday. Sunnyside was not included in this announcement.

Yet somehow the MTA can find it in their hearts to fund an Elmont station that nobody asked for.

Well that's an idiotic move on 's part. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 5/18/2020 at 5:30 PM, CenSin said:

A 3 Avenue alignment would be pretty interesting as it connects with these stations more directly (no overly long passageways) which is vastly better than what the 2 Avenue alignment can do:

• 63 Street ()
• 59 Street ()
• 53 Street ()
• Grand Central–42 Street ()
• 14 Street ()
• Delancey Street ()

It does miss 2 stations though:

• 2 Avenue ()
• Grand Street ()

From Chinatown and down, it has the same limitation as the 2 Avenue alignment—avoiding all the Lower Manhattan connections. So, by necessity it needs to connect to South Ferry/Whitehall Street which is not in the current 2 Avenue plans.

 

On 5/18/2020 at 5:47 PM, Theli11 said:

Couldn't it shift over somewhere between 42 and 14 St? the train's Third Avenue station still spans from 3 to 2 Av, so it's not really a long passageway. I think Grand St is important for a connection to the Manhattan Bridge, If we were to place a train in Downtown Brooklyn, there's Fulton St and Manhattan Bridge as both possibilities. 

 

On 5/19/2020 at 7:51 AM, mrsman said:

I agree with this.  For  service that is headed to Midtown, I assume that most people on those lines would transfer to  so as not to have to head south to then turn back and go north.  Along the , one can transfer at W4th for 8th Ave services.  Do people on the J/Z really go all the way to Fulton so that they can transfer to A/C or 2/3 if they are headed to West Midtown?

Given the track layout, even if the lower part of Nassau is taken over by SAS, J/Z can still run to Chambers.  In Manhattan, the J/Z will maintain connections to the following lines:   at Essex, all Broadway trains and  at Canal, and all Lexington trains at Chambers.  If a transfer were built, there can also be a connection to  at Grand/Bowery.  Depending upon the configuration of the SAS, there should be a direct transfer to the SAS as well.

I see two possibilities for connecting Nassau tracks to SAS, both of which preserve J/Z service to Chambers.  The first has SAS running down 2 Ave (or 3rd Ave) south of 14th, connecting with  at Houston, B/D at Grand, and then somehow making its way to the Chambers station providing a transfer to J/Z and 4/5/6 and continuing south.  Part of the alignment may repurpose the old tracks that took Nassau trains to the Manhattan Bridge and I definitely see most of the route being dug under Park Row.

The second possibility provides for a connecting track from the outer tracks at Kenmare street to Bowery (for 3rd Ave) or Chrystie (for 2nd Ave).  This also preserves J/Z service to Chambers along the inner tracks of the Centre street line.  This will allow SAS to have transfers to Canal and the Broadway trains connections to the Manhattan Bridge, but  will preclude the connection to Grand Street and the 6th Ave connections to the Manhattan Bridge.  So there is a trade-off.  Nevertheless, both options provide a lot of connections for the SAS in Lower Manhattan and allow the J/Z to run to Chambers.  Both options also limit new tunneling in the Financial District, which I am not convince is needed.

I’ll agree that 3rd Ave is better for transfers above 14th St (2nd is fine for a transfer to the  at 3rd). Maybe if/when it comes time to extend SAS south of 63rd, the line can swing over to 3rd to take advantage of the transfers at 59th, 53rd and 42nd. Then it can possibly swing back over to 2nd somewhere south of 42nd to connect with the , the  and the . Personally, I prefer a 2nd Ave (or even a 1st Ave, like the 2nd Avenue el had) alignment in the East Village to fill in the big transit gap that lies east of the  over there. Though if it continues straight down 3rd/Bowery, that would be better for faster run times with fewer sharp curves.

Edited May 21, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Theli11]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ll agree that 3rd Ave is better for transfers above 14th St (2nd is fine for a transfer to the  at 3rd). Maybe if/when it comes time to extend SAS south of 63rd, the line can swing over to 3rd to take advantage of the transfers at 59th, 53rd and 42nd. Then it can possibly swing back over to 2nd somewhere south of 42nd to connect with the , the  and the . Personally, I prefer a 2nd Ave (or even a 1st Ave, like the 2nd Avenue el had) alignment in the East Village to fill in the big transit gap that lies east of the  over there. Though if it continues straight down 3rd/Bowery, that would be better for faster run times with fewer sharp curves.

Ways the  can go beyond 72 St: 

• Plan #1 via 2 Av and 3 Av
  • 72 - Second Av
  • (Turn on 57 St, and turn down on Third Av)
  • 51 - Third Av
  • 42 - Third Av  
  • 34 - Third Av
  • (Turn on 30 St, and turn down Second Av)
  • 28 - Bellevue [Not entirely sure if a stop here would be good or not, or if the stop placement should be spaced out]
  • 23 - Second Av
  • 14 - Second Av  
  • St. Marks Place - Second Av
  • Houston St - Second Av  
  • Grand St - Chrystie St  
• Plan #2 via 2 Av, 3 Av, 1 Av [Least Likely due to the turning]
  • 72 - Second Av
  • (Turn on 57 St, turn down on Third Av)
  • 51  - Third Av  
  • 42 - Third Av  
  • 34 - Third Av
  • (Turn on 25 St, turn down on First Av)
  • 23  - First Av
  • 14 - First Av  
  • St. Marks Place - First Av
  • (Turn on 4 St, turn down on Second Av)
  • Houston St - Second Av  
  • Grand St - Chrystie St 
• Plan #3 via 3 Av (and 2 Av uptown)
  • 72 - Second Av
  • (Turn on 57 St and turn down on Third Av)
  • 51 - Third
  • 42 - Third Av
  • 34 - Third Av
  • 23 - Third Av
  • 14 - Third Av
  • Houston St - Third Av  [Connect the to the Uptown platform and possibly the east side of the  platforms]
  • Delancey St - Bowery  [We could create a transfer to the Grand St station]

Plan #3 would have the best options in terms of transfers, and the second most easily built, it becomes repetitive and essential just a faster train. 

Plan #2 has sharp turns, so hard to build and run time will get cut down. It provides the best service possible in the areas, while preserving the transfers.

Plan #1 has just 1 turn on Second Avenue, and is the simplest one. 

Of course, we could just have the down second Avenue, making longer transfers to stations uptown. (55 St and 42 St (Which are important transfers))

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

(Turn on 30 St, and turn down Second Av)

The best place to turn is probably where there are least amount of buildings above the diagonal tunnel path. As I noted:

On 5/19/2020 at 2:40 AM, CenSin said:

crossing over to 2 Avenue south of East 37 Street where there are relatively fewer structures above ground to grovel to for build permission.

The block bounded by East 36 Street, East 37 Street, 1 Avenue, and 3 Avenue has vacant ground (currently used for parking) and going under it would disturb as little private property as possible.

Heck, it could even cut diagonally all the way to 1 Avenue and East 35 Street and go down that avenue before curving back to Chrystie Street at East 1 Street under First Park and Sara D. Roosevelt Park.

[EvilMonologue]

2 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Ways the  can go beyond 72 St: 

• Plan #1 via 2 Av and 3 Av
  • 72 - Second Av
  • (Turn on 57 St, and turn down on Third Av)
  • 51 - Third Av
  • 42 - Third Av  
  • 34 - Third Av
  • (Turn on 30 St, and turn down Second Av)
  • 28 - Bellevue [Not entirely sure if a stop here would be good or not, or if the stop placement should be spaced out]
  • 23 - Second Av
  • 14 - Second Av  
  • St. Marks Place - Second Av
  • Houston St - Second Av  
  • Grand St - Chrystie St  

I'd be against the 28th St and St Marks Pl stops because while the goal might be 4 tracks South of 63rd St eventually, it certainly wouldn't run that way for some time, and so having larger stop spacing is important. For that reason I wouldn't put stations on 28th and St Marks.

Another thing I've been thinking about is where the station connecting with 53rd St would be. I think that, assuming there is eventually a plan to build a new crosstown line in Manhattan, where that line goes should decide where the  would stop since the two lines should offer a transfer where they meet. If there is a 57th St crosstown line, then the 53rd station should have its Southern end at 53rd. If the crosstown line goes down 50th St instead, then the North end should be on 53rd.

Also, I really think it's important to have a station between 59th St and 63rd St, allowing for an in station transfer via the  platforms, and also offering a better transfer option for  riders looking to go down the East side. Just some considerations.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

4 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Plan #3 would have the best options in terms of transfers, and the second most easily built, it becomes repetitive and essential just a faster train. 

Plan #2 has sharp turns, so hard to build and run time will get cut down. It provides the best service possible in the areas, while preserving the transfers.

Plan #1 has just 1 turn on Second Avenue, and is the simplest one. 

Of course, we could just have the down second Avenue, making longer transfers to stations uptown. (55 St and 42 St (Which are important transfers))

I like #1 the best, though #3’s options for transfers do make it a tempting option. Plus, it’s not shifting back to 2nd, so there’s less turning.

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

The best place to turn is probably where there are least amount of buildings above the diagonal tunnel path. As I noted:

The block bounded by East 36 Street, East 37 Street, 1 Avenue, and 3 Avenue has vacant ground (currently used for parking) and going under it would disturb as little private property as possible.

Heck, it could even cut diagonally all the way to 1 Avenue and East 35 Street and go down that avenue before curving back to Chrystie Street at East 1 Street under First Park and Sara D. Roosevelt Park.

Agreed. We certainly can afford to lose surface parking by the entrance to the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. 

1 hour ago, EvilMonologue said:

I'd be against the 28th St and St Marks Pl stops because while the goal might be 4 tracks South of 63rd St eventually, it certainly wouldn't run that way for some time, and so having larger stop spacing is important. For that reason I wouldn't put stations on 28th and St Marks.

Another thing I've been thinking about is where the station connecting with 53rd St would be. I think that, assuming there is eventually a plan to build a new crosstown line in Manhattan, where that line goes should decide where the  would stop since the two lines should offer a transfer where they meet. If there is a 57th St crosstown line, then the 53rd station should have its Southern end at 53rd. If the crosstown line goes down 50th St instead, then the North end should be on 53rd.

Also, I really think it's important to have a station between 59th St and 63rd St, allowing for an in station transfer via the  platforms, and also offering a better transfer option for  riders looking to go down the East side. Just some considerations.

It might be difficult to put a station between 59th and 63rd due to the 63rd St Tunnel junction. Maybe have the station closer to 59th (like in between 57th and 59th). But then you’d have your 53rd St connecting station very close to the one at 59th. For  riders looking to go down the East Side, a Queens-SAS service, should be implemented to take care of that, with the transfer being made somewhere along the  line in Queens. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It might be difficult to put a station between 59th and 63rd due to the 63rd St Tunnel junction. Maybe have the station closer to 59th (like in between 57th and 59th). But then you’d have your 53rd St connecting station very close to the one at 59th. For  riders looking to go down the East Side, a Queens-SAS service, should be implemented to take care of that, with the transfer being made somewhere along the  line in Queens.

It could be done since the 2 Avenue tunnels are at a higher elevation than the 63 Street tunnels. The 60 Street tunnels are also deep enough to allow for another tunnel above it. Starting from the stub ends at East 65 Street, the 2 Avenue mainline could curve diagonally to East 62 Street and 3 Avenue and have a station span East 60 Street through East 62 Street (10 blocks away from East 72 Street in Manhattan distance). The next station down at East 53 Street would be 7 blocks away (not a bad thing for midtown stations). And the next one down at East 42 Street would be 8 blocks away.

[mrsman]

Is there any possibility of branching off the SAS somewhere between 72nd and 63rd such that the  could have a station between 59th and 63rd along Third Ave?  If that were accomplished, then maybe the new station will connect to   at 63rd and   at 60th.  In that sense, you create a grand NE Midtown station, improving the connection for  to the Lexington line via the new platform and providing one place where everyone from the Upper East Side, Astoria, and anybody coming from the 63rd St tunnel could all transfer to SAS (along 3 Av), Lexington, Broadway, and 6th Ave (local) service.  Furthermore, if the  had a better connection to East Midtown (to Lex and SAS trains), there may be the possibility of better organizing the trains to/from Queens so that all 60th street trains go to Astoria, all 53rd street trains go to QBL local and all 63rd street trains go to QBL express.

The only down side to all of this that I see is that we would still be running Broadway express trains and SAS trains at half-capacity because the two lines join as one line to service 2nd Ave between 72nd and 96th.  One partial solution to this problem is providing a third track on the Third Ave platform of the new station so that half of the SAS trains can short turn there, so that there is full service on the SAS from 59-63 all the way to downtown. 

[EvilMonologue]

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

Is there any possibility of branching off the SAS somewhere between 72nd and 63rd such that the  could have a station between 59th and 63rd along Third Ave?  If that were accomplished, then maybe the new station will connect to   at 63rd and   at 60th.  In that sense, you create a grand NE Midtown station, improving the connection for  to the Lexington line via the new platform and providing one place where everyone from the Upper East Side, Astoria, and anybody coming from the 63rd St tunnel could all transfer to SAS (along 3 Av), Lexington, Broadway, and 6th Ave (local) service.  Furthermore, if the  had a better connection to East Midtown (to Lex and SAS trains), there may be the possibility of better organizing the trains to/from Queens so that all 60th street trains go to Astoria, all 53rd street trains go to QBL local and all 63rd street trains go to QBL express.

The only down side to all of this that I see is that we would still be running Broadway express trains and SAS trains at half-capacity because the two lines join as one line to service 2nd Ave between 72nd and 96th.  One partial solution to this problem is providing a third track on the Third Ave platform of the new station so that half of the SAS trains can short turn there, so that there is full service on the SAS from 59-63 all the way to downtown. 

I wouldn't connect the  to the  or the  just for the reason of it limiting capacity on all three. I'd say have  trains terminate at 63rd St with tail tracks continuing up 3rd, with the goal ultimately being to have SAS trains run express service either up 3rd Av, which would be cheaper, or go underneath the  at 2nd Av, which would be more expensive but more convenient. I would have  trains go to Queens via a new tunnel at 69th or 72nd St later on, and then when the Southern portion of the SAS is expanded to 4 tracks, that's when you would also build the UES express service either on 3rd or turning back over to 2nd. 

[engineerboy6561]

3 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

I wouldn't connect the  to the  or the  just for the reason of it limiting capacity on all three. I'd say have  trains terminate at 63rd St with tail tracks continuing up 3rd, with the goal ultimately being to have SAS trains run express service either up 3rd Av, which would be cheaper, or go underneath the  at 2nd Av, which would be more expensive but more convenient. I would have  trains go to Queens via a new tunnel at 69th or 72nd St later on, and then when the Southern portion of the SAS is expanded to 4 tracks, that's when you would also build the UES express service either on 3rd or turning back over to 2nd. 

Essentially the core capacity issue is that 2 Av can only flow 30 tph with two tracks, or 60tph with four, and having the  on 2 Av eats into those slots north of 63 St (even more so if we decide to deinterline northern Broadway ( 15 tph  to Forest Hills, 15tph  to Astoria, 30tph  going elsewhere, as that would put 30tph onto the existing tracks above 63 St and require a fully discontinuous 2 Av corridor if the corridor runs two tracks). There's not really a great way to resolve this without there being a four (or even six) track segment on 2 Av. A 6 track segment would accommodate the  plus sixty additional tph, letting you run a full four-service corridor all the way down the island on top of  service. The big question then would be whether it would be possible to thread a four-track corridor above the 63 St tunnels and below the  tracks, with a 61 St express stop connecting the  at 59 St to the  at 63 St via mezzanine. I personally like this idea because it could comfortably form the core of a full Second System like I posted about a few pages ago, but I can understand it not being the most practical.

The cheaper option (which would sacrifice some elegance and room for expansion) would be to have the 2 Av/3 Av/Broadway corridors basically mirror the CPW/8 Av/6 Av corridors; in that case  trains would run 2 Av express -> Broadway express,  trains would run 2 Av local -> Broadway express,  trains would run 2 Av local/3 Av local, and some new services coming in from Queens would claim the free 3 Av local/3 Av express slots. A Northern Blvd line would be pretty well located for that; build it out via Northern Blvd/36 Av and then swing around on 3 Av to merge with the 2 Av/3 Av line just above the 61 St express station. This is the more affordable option, and in conjunction with a Northern Blvd line could work really well. In a situation like that the  would serve the Bronx, while new services (potentially a teal  if we rebuild the Jamaica line as a four-track subway, which we should) would serve Northern Blvd and take up 30tph worth of slots on the lower half of the line. This might work out to be the best option; you could ameliorate the discontinuity by bringing the Northern Blvd line across 36 Av and under the two-layer 72 St station, so passengers going from the Bronx to the LES could just change from the  to the  at 72 St for continued express service. That's not perfect, and the constraints aren't ideal, but it would work decently well.

Alternately, if we're building a 3 Av corridor, we could just build a cut-and-cover four-track corridor on 3 Av and leave the 2 Av line as a stub. That's not particularly satisfying because it doesn't really serve the far East Side all that well, and coming all that way out only to stop running at Harlem-125 St is a waste. That would essentially be the core of the same sort of Second System I discussed a few pages ago, just shifted a block over (but it's also a waste of what we've already built). Also, I don't really see a solid path for that to happen unless this does turn into a second Great Depression, and 2 Av gets basically left as-is for 20-30 years, at which point people decide the corridor is just cursed and want to try elsewhere.

Frankly, a 2-track 2 Av line just staying as it is and running from 125 St to Hanover Sq is significantly worse than all of these alternatives because the QBL, 14 St, Roosevelt Av, and Lexington Av corridors are all basically full to bursting, and 15tph from Harlem to the hospitals on the East Side doesn't do all that much for any of those corridors. While I get that building out the full Second System needed to address all of these issues is unfeasible all at once barring massive infrastructure stimulus, we should be building the chunks we can in a way that doesn't meaningfully foreclose on additional growth until we've addressed the overcrowding on those corridors.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[LGA Link N Train]

hmmm. Since we're on the topic of Second Avenue, this method (from an operational standpoint) would maximize everything. 

Someone brought up having a tunnel diverge from 3rd Avenue onto 72nd Street, this is what I envision:

 - Harlem-125th Street (with Bronx Provisions), to Brooklyn via 3rd and 2nd Avenues:

• Harlem-125th Street (with Bronx Provisions)   MNRR, M60+
• Lexington Avenue-63rd Street  [Eliminates the need of a Lex 59-63rd Transfer IMO
• 53rd Street (Transfer to the  and , maybe a line if we do something about Queens) 
• 42nd Street  LIRR, MNRR
• [Swing to 2nd Avenue at 37th Street]
• 23rd Street
• 14th Street M14A/D+
• Houston Street  
• Grand Street [Takes over the and  in south Brooklyn. These 2 routes are rerouted to WIlliamsburg] 

,   or   - Flushing-Main Street to Broad Street. 

• Flushing-Main Street LIRR
• 108th Street
• Junction Blvd
• 80th Street
• 71st Street
• Broadway (Transfer to the and )
• 48th Street
• [Swings under 36th Avenue]
• Steinway Street
• 31st Street [ Transfer to the  or  at 36th Street]
• 21st Street
• [Maybe] Roosevelt Island Bridge
• 2nd Avenue ( transfer at 72nd Street)
• (Same Stops as the between 63rd Street and Grand Street]
• Cantham Square [Swings under Park Row afterwards]
• Fulton Center  [Replaces the line]
• Broad Street [possible Brooklyn Extension] 

I'll make an expansion map later conveying my ideas.

[engineerboy6561]

5 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

hmmm. Since we're on the topic of Second Avenue, this method (from an operational standpoint) would maximize everything. 

Someone brought up having a tunnel diverge from 3rd Avenue onto 72nd Street, this is what I envision:

 - Harlem-125th Street (with Bronx Provisions), to Brooklyn via 3rd and 2nd Avenues:

• Harlem-125th Street (with Bronx Provisions)   MNRR, M60+
• Lexington Avenue-63rd Street  [Eliminates the need of a Lex 59-63rd Transfer IMO
• 53rd Street (Transfer to the  and , maybe a line if we do something about Queens) 
• 42nd Street  LIRR, MNRR
• [Swing to 2nd Avenue at 37th Street]
• 23rd Street
• 14th Street M14A/D+
• Houston Street  
• Grand Street [Takes over the and  in south Brooklyn. These 2 routes are rerouted to WIlliamsburg] 

,   or   - Flushing-Main Street to Broad Street. 

• Flushing-Main Street LIRR
• 108th Street
• Junction Blvd
• 80th Street
• 71st Street
• Broadway (Transfer to the and )
• 48th Street
• [Swings under 36th Avenue]
• Steinway Street
• 31st Street [ Transfer to the  or  at 36th Street]
• 21st Street
• [Maybe] Roosevelt Island Bridge
• 2nd Avenue ( transfer at 72nd Street)
• (Same Stops as the between 63rd Street and Grand Street]
• Cantham Square [Swings under Park Row afterwards]
• Fulton Center  [Replaces the line]
• Broad Street [possible Brooklyn Extension] 

I'll make an expansion map later conveying my ideas.

As a rough idea that's not too bad; I'll want to throw up a few things tonight and tomorrow as well, mostly because my goals are:

30+ TPH to the Bronx via 3 Av, preferably with express provisions

30+ TPH to Queens via Northern or Astoria Blvd (Astoria lets you connect at 86 St, which is how I'd do it if we were doing this from scratch, and connects to 31 St at an express station, but Northern lets you better align with a 72 St transfer station, which would theoretically allow for 60tph to the Bronx if we so chose).

30+ TPH to Jamaica via Williamsburg to relieve the (L) and the eastern QBL segments, preferably with full express provisions

Something to serve Utica Av if at all possible (although that may be simpler to do with the (4) depending on how things go)

Cleaning up DeKalb is a nice-to-have, but I'm not quite sure how feasible that is.

The other fun challenge here is going to be designing something like that in a way where it can be phased in over a period of 20-30 years and there are enough incremental benefits to each segment that the thing keeps getting funded instead of getting declared a boondoggle and de-scoped partway through.

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

hmmm. Since we're on the topic of Second Avenue, this method (from an operational standpoint) would maximize everything. 

Someone brought up having a tunnel diverge from 3rd Avenue onto 72nd Street, this is what I envision:

I'll make an expansion map later conveying my ideas.

I'll add on to the fact that there could be some non-revenue connection to QBL, though I'd preferably connect Northern Blvd to the QB Local Tracks so that we could already have a service running there.