Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

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:

This pretty much sums up how I feel about what to do with expanding the 2nd Av Line. I'd include a stop at 34th St though. Also, for the (H)/(J)/(V) whatever you want to call it, there are two ways I'd do it. If you are deciding to leave the Nassau Line as is, continuing to Jamaica, I'd build the line to Chatham Sq, then down St James Pl/Water St with a stop at the Seaport, after which the (H) would go to Brooklyn connecting to Orange or Pineapple Street, then turn down Adams St with a stop at Willoughby/Fulton St. This would connect the 2nd Av Line with all the trains the current planned routing for Phase 4 will miss, connecting the train to both the Borough Hall and Jay St-Metrotech stations. It would then connect to the Fulton Line, making a stop at Hoyt St. If you decide to break up the Nassau line and connect the 6th Av Express to it, then I'd do it how you routed it or have it turn before Grand St onto the Bowery station.

3 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Essentially the core capacity issue is that 2 Av can only flow 30 tph with two tracks, or 60tph with four, and having the (Q) on 2 Av eats into those slots north of 63 St (even more so if we decide to deinterline northern Broadway ( 15 tph (R) to Forest Hills, 15tph (W) to Astoria, 30tph (N)(Q) 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 (N)(Q) plus sixty additional tph, letting you run a full four-service corridor all the way down the island on top of (N)(Q) 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 (Q) tracks, with a 61 St express stop connecting the (4)(5)(6)(R)(W) at 59 St to the (F)(N)(Q) 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 way I look at 2nd Av is mirroring the Central Park Av Line. The (N) and (Q) trains are analogous to the (B) and (D) trains, while the (T) and (H) trains are analogous to the (A) and (C) trains. For this reason, I don't think there needs to be 4 tracks going all along 2nd/3rd Avs. I feel the (N)(Q) should be left alone as built, being the local on 2nd Av and the express on Broadway. Of the (T)(H) trains that run on 2nd/3rd Avs South of 63rd St. You could mess with the configurations, but I think one should be the express train in the UES and the express train South of 63rd, and the other should be the local South of 63rd with the connection to Queens. It's easier to just run the service down 3rd Av in the UES, and if you are building that as an express train I'd say it matters a little less that it is farther away from 2nd Av. I agree it doesn't really expand the footprint of the subway system, but the (Q) is already doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, mrsman said:

Is there any possibility of branching off the SAS somewhere between 72nd and 63rd such that the (T) could have a station between 59th and 63rd along Third Ave?  If that were accomplished, then maybe the new station will connect to (F)(Q)  at 63rd and (N)(R)(4)(5)(6)  at 60th.  In that sense, you create a grand NE Midtown station, improving the connection for (F) 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 (F) 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. 

The (T) and any other SAS services really need to be their own self-contained trunk line if we don’t want to force them to run at half capacity or force other lines like QB local or 8th Ave to run with fewer tph than they could or should...

11 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

I wouldn't connect the (T) to the (Q) or the (F) just for the reason of it limiting capacity on all three. I'd say have (T) 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 (Q) at 2nd Av, which would be more expensive but more convenient. I would have (T) 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. 

...but I honestly can’t see the MTA being in favor of building a third line on the UES in between the existing SAS and the Lex, even if it is cheaper and wouldn’t have as many stops as the (6) or the (N)(Q) on upper 2nd Avenue. I don’t know if 2nd is wide enough to bore two more tracks beside the existing ones. I doubt it is. Maybe one option for a Queens service could be to have the (T) continue up 3rd until 72nd St, turn right, have a transfer with the (N)(Q) at 72nd and 2nd, then continue on into Queens that way. Squeezing the (N)(Q) and (T) onto the existing two-track Phase 1 and future Phase 2, will be a very tight squeeze, so that’s not such a great option either (though it is possible).

7 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Essentially the core capacity issue is that 2 Av can only flow 30 tph with two tracks, or 60tph with four, and having the (Q) on 2 Av eats into those slots north of 63 St (even more so if we decide to deinterline northern Broadway ( 15 tph (R) to Forest Hills, 15tph (W) to Astoria, 30tph (N)(Q) 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 (N)(Q) plus sixty additional tph, letting you run a full four-service corridor all the way down the island on top of (N)(Q) 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 (Q) tracks, with a 61 St express stop connecting the (4)(5)(6)(R)(W) at 59 St to the (F)(N)(Q) 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 (N) trains would run 2 Av express -> Broadway express, (Q) trains would run 2 Av local -> Broadway express, (T) 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 (N)(Q)(T) would serve the Bronx, while new services (potentially a teal (J)(Z) 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 (N) to the (J) 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.

 

I can’t see them leaving the existing SAS as stub. Plus one reason for going with 2nd over 3rd was to fill the gap east of the (4)(5)(6), especially below 23rd St, where Manhattan begins its “bulge.” Though an alignment on 3rd does make for much easier transfers with the cross-river tunnel lines in Midtown. And just going with the MTA’s current four-phase plan is bad because it leaves Phases 3 and 4 with far less service than there should be, unless a Queens-SAS service is simultaneously implemented when the (T) debuts. But even if there is a Queens-SAS service in addition to the (T), it’ll still be limited in frequency by being on the same two tracks with the (T) and any other trains it shares tracks with in Queens (or Brooklyn for that matter). 

Truth be told, I do like the “teal (J)(Z)” idea. I’ve long wanted to see the Nassau St Line folded into the 2nd Avenue Line. That’s really the only way to make it a more popular line. But to do that would require some sort of complex wye junction between Essex and Bowery to allow SAS :M: trains from the north to go onto the Willy B and to allow the (J)(Z) and (T) to go south. But I suspect it wouldn’t be very feasible. And if we do this, then we might not need a four-track line. You’d have :M: and (T) trains between 63rd and Bowery/Kenmare and (T) and teal (J)(Z) trains south of Bowery, with the (J) and (Z) turning at Chambers. The :M: could be the service that runs between Queens and the SAS in Midtown.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To start, I just want to reiterate a thought I've expressed before: Phase 3 & 4 of the current SAS plan is useless. 2nd Ave is not part of the core Midtown CBD nor is it likely to become an office avenue like 3rd. If we are going to extend SAS south, we should consider routing it either onto 3rd or even Madison after 63rd street.

Here's my thoughts: SAS continues down 2nd Ave to 57th St, turns down 57th with a stop @ Lexington Ave for the (4)(5)(6) Trains. The line then turns down Madison with stops @ 50th, 42nd (Transfer to GCT), 34th, 23rd (Transfer (R)(W)), then turns down 23rd, then continues back down 2nd Ave with stops @ 14th St, Houston St and Grand St before taking over the (B)(D) services over the Manhattan Bridge. The (B)(D) is sent over the Jamaica Line. 

So for Queens Blvd, most people here seem to want to send a 2nd Ave service thru 63st. Here's how my plan makes that happen:

(N)(Q) Gun Hill Rd Via Third Ave, Bx and Lower Level SAS express tracks -> Broadway Express 

(R) No Changes

(W) Becomes full time Astoria route

(T) QB Express-> 63rd St -> Madison Ave Subway -> Brighton Express (cut back to Prospect Park Weekends/Nights) 

(U) 125th/Lex (Via SAS) -> Madison Ave Subway -> West End

(E) QB Local -> 53rd St -> 8th Ave Local

(F) QB Express -> 63rd St -> 6th Ave Local

(V) QB Local -> 53rd St -> 6th Ave Local 

No merges on Broadway. No merges on Queens Blvd. Just one merge added at junction of SAS and 63rd St. 

Broadway looks like this: express (N)(Q) local (R)(W) and Queens Blvd looks like this: express (F)(T) local (E)(R) 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shiznit1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

To start, I just want to reiterate a thought I've expressed before: Phase 3 & 4 of the current SAS plan is useless. 2nd Ave is not part of the core Midtown CBD nor is it likely to become an office avenue like 3rd. If we are going to extend SAS south, we should consider routing it either onto 3rd or even Madison after 63rd street.

Here's my thoughts: SAS continues down 2nd Ave to 57th St, turns down 57th with a stop @ Lexington Ave for the (4)(5)(6) Trains. The line then turns down Madison with stops @ 50th, 42nd (Transfer to GCT), 34th, 23rd (Transfer (R)(W)), then turns down 23rd, then continues back down 2nd Ave with stops @ 14th St, Houston St and Grand St before taking over the (B)(D) services over the Manhattan Bridge. The (B)(D) is sent over the Jamaica Line. 

So for Queens Blvd, most people here seem to want to send a 2nd Ave service thru 63st. Here's how my plan makes that happen:

(N)(Q) Gun Hill Rd Via Third Ave, Bx and Lower Level SAS express tracks -> Broadway Express 

(R) No Changes

(W) Becomes full time Astoria route

(T) QB Express-> 63rd St -> Madison Ave Subway -> Brighton Express (cut back to Prospect Park Weekends/Nights) 

(U) 125th/Lex (Via SAS) -> Madison Ave Subway -> West End

(E) QB Local -> 53rd St -> 8th Ave Local

(F) QB Express -> 63rd St -> 6th Ave Local

(V) QB Local -> 53rd St -> 6th Ave Local 

No merges on Broadway. No merges on Queens Blvd. Just one merge added at junction of SAS and 63rd St. 

Broadway looks like this: express (N)(Q) local (R)(W) and Queens Blvd looks like this: express (F)(T) local (E)(R) 

Madison Avenue from 57 St to 23 St would leave the East Side from 57 to 23 St Empty, when there could've been a train there. I also don't know how the (T) can end at Prospect Park and turn back Weekends/Late Nights. the QBL looks the same, but now it's overcrowded, because there's a (V) (?) Local train, along with (E) and (R) trains. You face the same issue with Pre-2010 routes. I'm also confused on where the (J)(Z) is, but I'm assuming that the (B) and (D) are on South 4th St? and the (J)(Z) still run on Jamaica. 

The current Phase 3 and 4 isn't useless, and the issue that people have with it is the lack of transfers. It being not apart of Midtown isn't the problem, there's a bunch of trains in Midtown and that area is covered. But the East Side from Lex/Park Av South to FDR Drive is lacking in trains. So adding a service to Third or Second Avenue fixes that. If anything, Madison Avenue having a subway is a big waste when you can fill the gap on the East Side of Manhattan.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s something to consider: Phase 3 and 4 will most likely not be complete for at least 30 years given MTA problems. Personally, rather than waste time thinking about all these alignments, people should focus on making the first two SAS phases as useful as possible- that means sending both the (N)(Q) up SAS, extending the 125th street line to 8th, and thinking about the merits of Bronx extensions such as one up 3rd or Webster. I’d much rather see SAS phase 3-4 $ be used to bring service to the central Bronx (where construction can be much cheaper and cut and cover due to less dense construction) than spend a huge period of time building an astronomically expensive subway. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I don’t know if 2nd is wide enough to bore two more tracks beside the existing ones. I doubt it is. Maybe one option for a Queens service could be to have the (T) continue up 3rd until 72nd St, turn right, have a transfer with the (N)(Q) at 72nd and 2nd, then continue on into Queens that way.

Something I posted before for 72 Street lower level:

kRjhcTp.png

A cost-cutting adjustment (not shown in the diagram above) would involve neutering the third track since the station as a whole would already have at least 4 tracks.

The idea is to create another ramp to the lower level from the 2 Avenue mainline and from 63 Street. From 2 Avenue, the ramps would descend deep below the ground (but would not block a possible Queens connection via 63 Street). From 63 Street, the ramp down to the lower level would be created by cutting back the wall where the tracks merge/diverge. The two sets of tracks would merge at the lower level of the 72 Street station before turning west towards the East River. This would enable the flexibility of having trains from 63 Street or 2 Avenue serve the lower level.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Here’s something to consider: Phase 3 and 4 will most likely not be complete for at least 30 years given MTA problems. Personally, rather than waste time thinking about all these alignments, people should focus on making the first two SAS phases as useful as possible- that means sending both the (N)(Q) up SAS, extending the 125th street line to 8th, and thinking about the merits of Bronx extensions such as one up 3rd or Webster. I’d much rather see SAS phase 3-4 $ be used to bring service to the central Bronx (where construction can be much cheaper and cut and cover due to less dense construction) than spend a huge period of time building an astronomically expensive subway. 

We're not proposing when Phases 3 and 4 should finish, just what we would like to see with it. I agree with you that Central Bronx needs more service, because it's a huge area that doesn't have much coverage. Phases 3 and 4 is a plan that needs adjusting so that it works to the best of its ability. All we want is for the plan to be executed properly and have the best results. At this point we've accepted that Phase 3 and 4 were going to be done at least 30-50 years from now. If anything, this isn't a waste of time. A 3rd Avenue Subway is one of the more simple plans (not talking about the construction but the route is pretty straight forward, 149 St to Fordham Plaza/Northern Terminal.) There's not a lot of conversation that can be had about it. It doesn't make it any less important that we're not talking about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The (T) and any other SAS services really need to be their own self-contained trunk line if we don’t want to force them to run at half capacity or force other lines like QB local or 8th Ave to run with fewer tph than they could or should...

...but I honestly can’t see the MTA being in favor of building a third line on the UES in between the existing SAS and the Lex, even if it is cheaper and wouldn’t have as many stops as the (6) or the (N)(Q) on upper 2nd Avenue. I don’t know if 2nd is wide enough to bore two more tracks beside the existing ones. I doubt it is. Maybe one option for a Queens service could be to have the (T) continue up 3rd until 72nd St, turn right, have a transfer with the (N)(Q) at 72nd and 2nd, then continue on into Queens that way. Squeezing the (N)(Q) and (T) onto the existing two-track Phase 1 and future Phase 2, will be a very tight squeeze, so that’s not such a great option either (though it is possible).

I can’t see them leaving the existing SAS as stub. Plus one reason for going with 2nd over 3rd was to fill the gap east of the (4)(5)(6), especially below 23rd St, where Manhattan begins its “bulge.” Though an alignment on 3rd does make for much easier transfers with the cross-river tunnel lines in Midtown. And just going with the MTA’s current four-phase plan is bad because it leaves Phases 3 and 4 with far less service than there should be, unless a Queens-SAS service is simultaneously implemented when the (T) debuts. But even if there is a Queens-SAS service in addition to the (T), it’ll still be limited in frequency by being on the same two tracks with the (T) and any other trains it shares tracks with in Queens (or Brooklyn for that matter). 

Truth be told, I do like the “teal (J)(Z)” idea. I’ve long wanted to see the Nassau St Line folded into the 2nd Avenue Line. That’s really the only way to make it a more popular line. But to do that would require some sort of complex wye junction between Essex and Bowery to allow SAS :M: trains from the north to go onto the Willy B and to allow the (J)(Z) and (T) to go south. But I suspect it wouldn’t be very feasible. And if we do this, then we might not need a four-track line. You’d have :M: and (T) trains between 63rd and Bowery/Kenmare and (T) and teal (J)(Z) trains south of Bowery, with the (J) and (Z) turning at Chambers. The :M: could be the service that runs between Queens and the SAS in Midtown.

I just finished throwing something together that would address a lot of these issues (though this also results in the Nassau line being basically abandoned):

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?state={"ids"%3A["1Sgq--JwpB1No7avLLLVpK-bsAtq4z9Is"]%2C"action"%3A"open"%2C"userId"%3A"114356854643211448619"}&usp=sharing

Under this service pattern, the 2 Av line runs on 3 Av from 63 St to 37 St the way that was discussed upthread, and sees a full 60tph from 63 St down to Houston St; the two branches see 45tph each above 63 St, and then Brooklyn service is distributed between a new Williamsburg/Jamaica trunk and 4 Av/Brighton.

The new trackage involved would be a four-track trunk from Norwood-205 St down to Springfield/Merrick Blvds via Webster Av/3 Av/2 Av/3 Av again/2 Av/Broadway(Brooklyn)/Jamaica Av/Merrick Blvd, a four-track trunk from Bell Blvd to 72 St/3 Av via Northern Blvd/36 Av, a three-track extension from Norwood-205 St to Bay Plaza via Gun Hill Rd/Bartow Av, a two-track branch from 161 St/3 Av to Bay Plaza via Boston Rd/Tremont Av/Amtrak tracks, a two-track branch from 2 Av/Houston St to Court St IND via the 2 Av subway route, a two-track branch from Marcy Av to Prospect Pk via Union Av/Franklin Av, a two-track branch to LGA via 94 St, and a two-track extension from Middle Village-Metropolitan Av to Woodhaven Bl QBL, which would be converted to an express station.

The service patterns would be as follows:

(B)Bedford Pk Blvd-Coney Island via Concourse local/CPW local/6 Av exp/Williamsburg/Brighton local. 

(D): Bay Plaza-Hook Creek Blvd via Concourse local (peak direction express)/CPW/6 Av/Jamaica express. 

(F): 179 St-Coney Island via 53 St, QBL express,  6 Av local, Culver express between Bergen St and Church Av.

(V): Forest Hills-Church Av via 63 St, QBL/6 Av/Culver local.

(J): Flushing/Main St-Springfield Blvd via Northern Blvd/2 Av lower/Jamaica local. 

:M:: Bell Blvd-Woodhaven Blvd via Northern Blvd/2 Av lower express/Jamaica local/Middle Village local

(P): LGA-Euclid Av via 94 St/Northern Blvd/2 Av lower/Fulton St local; this line would run via a new tunnel from Hanover Sq to Court St.

(T): Bay Plaza-Coney Island via 3 Av/2 Av (upper and lower)/4 Av express/ West End local; this line would replace the (D) in Brooklyn so the (D) could serve Queens

(N): Norwood-205 St-Coney Island via 3 Av/2 Av upper local/Broadway/4 Av express/Sea Beach local.

(Q):Bay Plaza-Brighton Beach via Amtrak tracks/Tremont Av/Boston Rd/3 Av/2 Av upper local/Broadway/Brighton express.

This would probably be a 20-30 year project, and would likely need to be done in phases; I'd recommend doing 2 Av upper and 3 Av as far as Fordham Plaza with provisions for express tracks as the first step; that gets you 30tph to the Bronx right off the bat. The second phase would be the Jamaica replacement from Rivington-Essex to Broadway Junction, finishing with a temporary portal at the junction. From there we'd want to lay the core four-track line from 72 St to Rivington-Essex with the Grand St connector, turning the (J) teal and running it to 72 St lower level. From there we'd build the Northern Blvd line to Flushing with provisions for express tracks, letting us run the (J) along the entire new route, and temporarily running the (T) to Jamaica. From there we'd just need to finish the express tracks in the Bronx, in Queens, finish the Jamaica line, and add the lower Manhattan connector and we would have the core of the new system running ( (N)(Q)(T) up 3 Av, teal (J):M:, and (P) up Northern relieving the (7)<7>, (D) and (J) to Jamaica relieving some of the strain on QBL, (T) via West End, (P) supplementing the (C) on Fulton (offering 20-22 local tph on that corridor), (V) returning, and the (F) running Culver express).

The remaining tracks are mostly nice-to-haves; the Gun Hill (D)(T) extension takes a huge load off the Bx28/38 and should help the (2)(5) by providing a 45-minute ride to Midtown from the northeast Bronx, the (P) run to LGA via a 94 St connector is a short, low-cost way of connecting LGA into the subway system, the :M: extension to Woodhaven Blvd is a nice gap-filler to have (and lets us set up to potentially extend it down HHE), and the (B) via Williamsburg (and subsequent swapping of the (B) and (Q)) takes one train out of DeKalb interlocking and frees the (B) to run up to its full 15tph potential, while providing yet another connection between Williamsburg and Midtown). The :M: and (D)(J) extensions aren't strictly necessary from a relief perspective, but would be nice to have (and with express service on the Jamaica line, one-seat travel times between Merrick and Linden or Merrick and Springfield and east Midtown are pretty good. The (Q) branch via Boston/Tremont/Amtrak tracks is an option that I'm not entirely sure is the best idea, but was just a thought I had after reading the IND second system article; it's somewhat duplicative of the (6) but also about 2/3-3/4 of a mile away (which is a little closer than the distance between Brighton and the Culver El, and yet both of those are fairly heavily used).

This plan does essentially abandon the Nassau St line; you could run a shuttle from Broad St to Delancey-Essex for people who still need to access it (since the old Delancey-Essex and the new Rivington-Essex would be 500' or less apart you could easily connect them via a concourse (and I was planning on adding a spare track connection between the new subway and Nassau St that would see use before the (J) gets pulled off Nassau but after the Jamaica subway build is underway; that and Montague would keep Nassau St attached to the city subway system, and enable the transit museum to be moved to the unused platforms at Bowery and Canal.

Edited by engineerboy6561

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The (T) and any other SAS services really need to be their own self-contained trunk line if we don’t want to force them to run at half capacity or force other lines like QB local or 8th Ave to run with fewer tph than they could or should...

...but I honestly can’t see the MTA being in favor of building a third line on the UES in between the existing SAS and the Lex, even if it is cheaper and wouldn’t have as many stops as the (6) or the (N)(Q) on upper 2nd Avenue. I don’t know if 2nd is wide enough to bore two more tracks beside the existing ones. I doubt it is. Maybe one option for a Queens service could be to have the (T) continue up 3rd until 72nd St, turn right, have a transfer with the (N)(Q) at 72nd and 2nd, then continue on into Queens that way. Squeezing the (N)(Q) and (T) onto the existing two-track Phase 1 and future Phase 2, will be a very tight squeeze, so that’s not such a great option either (though it is possible).

I agree that building the tunnel to Queens as you've described it is a higher priority than building more express service in the UES. I also don't think it's a good idea to have the (T) connect to the existing SAS, like you've said, because it necessarily limits capacity on both the (N)(Q) and the (T)

14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I can’t see them leaving the existing SAS as stub. Plus one reason for going with 2nd over 3rd was to fill the gap east of the (4)(5)(6), especially below 23rd St, where Manhattan begins its “bulge.” Though an alignment on 3rd does make for much easier transfers with the cross-river tunnel lines in Midtown. And just going with the MTA’s current four-phase plan is bad because it leaves Phases 3 and 4 with far less service than there should be, unless a Queens-SAS service is simultaneously implemented when the (T) debuts. But even if there is a Queens-SAS service in addition to the (T), it’ll still be limited in frequency by being on the same two tracks with the (T) and any other trains it shares tracks with in Queens (or Brooklyn for that matter). 

South of 42nd St, as others have mentioned, turning the (T) from 3rd to 2nd would be a good way to provide both transfers in Midtown and better subway coverage for the LES where Manhattan bulges.

11 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Here’s something to consider: Phase 3 and 4 will most likely not be complete for at least 30 years given MTA problems. Personally, rather than waste time thinking about all these alignments, people should focus on making the first two SAS phases as useful as possible- that means sending both the (N)(Q) up SAS, extending the 125th street line to 8th, and thinking about the merits of Bronx extensions such as one up 3rd or Webster. I’d much rather see SAS phase 3-4 $ be used to bring service to the central Bronx (where construction can be much cheaper and cut and cover due to less dense construction) than spend a huge period of time building an astronomically expensive subway. 

I don't think these things are mutually exclusive, though. Phase "2.5" where you extend the SAS across 125th St probably makes sense to do before creating a new service down the East Side of Manhattan. You could also have it branch with one covering 125th St and the other covering 3rd Av in the Bronx. Having service South of 63rd St, though, in the form of the (T) is a way of expanding subway access to Queens and a way of boosting the frequency of the SAS, since you could have a service take over 125th St or 3rd Av in the Bronx.

9 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

This plan does essentially abandon the Nassau St line; you could run a shuttle from Broad St to Delancey-Essex for people who still need to access it (since the old Delancey-Essex and the new Rivington-Essex would be 500' or less apart you could easily connect them via a concourse (and I was planning on adding a spare track connection between the new subway and Nassau St that would see use before the (J) gets pulled off Nassau but after the Jamaica subway build is underway; that and Montague would keep Nassau St attached to the city subway system, and enable the transit museum to be moved to the unused platforms at Bowery and Canal.

Instead of abandoning the (J) or leaving it as a shuttle, you could also try and connect the (P) to the Nassau Line either at Bowery or at Chambers St via Park Row. A new tunnel could then be constructed from the Nassau Line to the Fulton Line. I'd also suggest connecting the (B)(D) to Utica Av rather than continuing it down the Brighton Line and continuing it as the express to Jamaica. I really like the idea of connecting the Northern Boulevard Line to LGA, I've not thought about that before and it's a cool idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I just finished throwing something together that would address a lot of these issues (though this also results in the Nassau line being basically abandoned):

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?state={"ids"%3A["1Sgq--JwpB1No7avLLLVpK-bsAtq4z9Is"]%2C"action"%3A"open"%2C"userId"%3A"114356854643211448619"}&usp=sharing

 

The link doesn’t work.

 

Also, is it me or is Google MyMaps acting very funny lately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The link doesn’t work.

 

Also, is it me or is Google MyMaps acting very funny lately?

It is; this has been an ongoing problem for a while. Try this link? https://www.google.com/maps/d/view?mid=1Sgq--JwpB1No7avLLLVpK-bsAtq4z9Is&ll=40.72700381444096%2C-73.87290985&z=11

3 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

Instead of abandoning the (J) or leaving it as a shuttle, you could also try and connect the (P) to the Nassau Line either at Bowery or at Chambers St via Park Row. A new tunnel could then be constructed from the Nassau Line to the Fulton Line. I'd also suggest connecting the (B)(D) to Utica Av rather than continuing it down the Brighton Line and continuing it as the express to Jamaica. I really like the idea of connecting the Northern Boulevard Line to LGA, I've not thought about that before and it's a cool idea.

Thanks for the critique; (P) via Nassau plus a slightly different tunnel would still be a great idea; Bowery would still wind up closed or shuttle-only because the curve needed to connect 2 Av/Houston with Bowery would be ridiculously sharp. As far as Utica Av is concerned, sending the (B) down there might make more sense than keeping it on Brighton. I'm not too sure of the relative merits of moving the (B) off Brighton vs having the (4) go down Utica and keeping 30tph on Brighton, but it could work. I really do feel that express service to Jamaica is important to have because that gets you 45-60 express tph between Jamaica and Manhattan (which should take some of the pressure off the (E)(F), and also allows for extending the Jamaica trunk into SE Queens because the travel time between Jamaica and Midtown would be about equivalent on the (D) vs the (F) under this configuration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

It's working.

Now that I see it, I would like to offer some of my own feedback. For the Second Avenue Subway, I've seen some of the discussion for the lower end of Second Avenue, and I don't know if I'm in the minority, but I do disagree with the SAS below 63rd Street routed along 3rd Avenue. My reasoning for it is because of its proximity to the Lexington Avenue Line to be useful. Yes you would have easier transfers to the current Queens-Manhattan crosstown lines, but the Third Avenue routing leaves much of the East Side east of 2nd Avenue a bit of a hike from the subways. For me, I'd rather keep SAS 3 on 2nd Avenue to allow for better access to the United Nations on 42nd Street and to residential areas east of 2nd Avenue. 

I also would've preferred to see the Jamaica Avenue elevated hooked up to the Fulton Street Line instead of going along Broadway to the Lower East Side. This would provide a more direct access between Jamaica and Lower Manhattan and actually save 20 minutes travelling between the two. While I do understand the concept for this is to provide express service to Midtown, this service could be provided by a cross-platform transfer to the (A) and (C) express, since those lines would make few stops in Brooklyn and Midtown and would now have faster service due to less merging (I'm assuming that the map you have assumes that the (P) would take over (C) service on the local tracks).

Also, how do you get that link to your custom map to work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

It's working.

Now that I see it, I would like to offer some of my own feedback. For the Second Avenue Subway, I've seen some of the discussion for the lower end of Second Avenue, and I don't know if I'm in the minority, but I do disagree with the SAS below 63rd Street routed along 3rd Avenue. My reasoning for it is because of its proximity to the Lexington Avenue Line to be useful. Yes you would have easier transfers to the current Queens-Manhattan crosstown lines, but the Third Avenue routing leaves much of the East Side east of 2nd Avenue a bit of a hike from the subways. For me, I'd rather keep SAS 3 on 2nd Avenue to allow for better access to the United Nations on 42nd Street and to residential areas east of 2nd Avenue.

I get where you're coming from, but if you include a turn onto 2nd Av South of 42nd St you mitigate a lot of that. The stations on 3rd Av at 42nd and 53rd would be as close to 1st Av as the existing  stations are to York Av, so it's not as though there is no benefit since the subway is still closer for riders living on the East side. I guess I assume the increased ease of transferring throughout the rest of the system would lead to more riders than a Subway that is closer to where people live but makes it harder to transfer. If transfers are very inconvenient or don't exist, as would be the case throughout midtown for the SAS, a lot of riders would likely choose to walk to the (6) anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

I get where you're coming from, but if you include a turn onto 2nd Av South of 42nd St you mitigate a lot of that. The stations on 3rd Av at 42nd and 53rd would be as close to 1st Av as the existing  stations are to York Av, so it's not as though there is no benefit since the subway is still closer for riders living on the East side. I guess I assume the increased ease of transferring throughout the rest of the system would lead to more riders than a Subway that is closer to where people live but makes it harder to transfer. If transfers are very inconvenient or don't exist, as would be the case throughout midtown for the SAS, a lot of riders would likely choose to walk to the (6) anyway.

True, though I still believe that Second Avenue could allow for better service coverage between 63rd and 42nd. While the transfers would be much easier, I feel that much of this can be better served by both the Northern Blvd Line and the SAS being hooked up with the Queens Blvd Line to replace current service on the local tracks (concurrent with building a new Queens subway from the 63rd Street Tunnel for the (F), and the SAS below 63rd Street being 4 tracks). The Northern Blvd Line would provide an alternative to the Flushing Line and the connect with the SAS at 72nd Street, while the Queens Blvd-SAS connection would provide an East-West Midtown pairing on the QBL, with the SAS on the local tracks to 71st Avenue (E) and (M) providing express service to West Midtown. With both, passengers can avoid the Lexington-Queens transfers altogether, and simply use the SAS instead between work and home (in the case of Queens Blvd, they can take one SAS train between home and work).

The transfers at 42nd and 55th Street should be built as planned, though with the new connections and lines, I do foresee them being little used by riders travelling to/from Queens as most folks will use the SAS instead due to convenience of access in Queens, but that's just my take on things.

For those that may insist on using Lexington Avenue, they should see trains less crowded since the SAS won't take all the ridership off Lexington, but rather take off a large chunk of riders to a point where there is breathing room on the trains.

I may reevaluate that option if possible.

Edited by JeremiahC99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

True, though I still believe that Second Avenue could allow for better service coverage between 63rd and 42nd. While the transfers would be much easier, I feel that much of this can be better served by both the Northern Blvd Line and the SAS being hooked up with the Queens Blvd Line to replace current service on the local tracks (concurrent with building a new Queens subway from the 63rd Street Tunnel for the (F), and the SAS below 63rd Street being 4 tracks). The Northern Blvd Line would provide an alternative to the Flushing Line and the connect with the SAS at 72nd Street, while the Queens Blvd-SAS connection would provide an East-West Midtown pairing on the QBL, with the SAS on the local tracks to 71st Avenue (E) and (M) providing express service to West Midtown. With both, passengers can avoid the Lexington-Queens transfers altogether, and simply use the SAS instead between work and home (in the case of Queens Blvd, they can take one SAS train between home and work).

The transfers at 42nd and 55th Street should be built as planned, though with the new connections and lines, I do foresee them being little used by riders travelling to/from Queens as most folks will use the SAS instead due to convenience of access in Queens, but that's just my take on things.

For those that may insist on using Lexington Avenue, they should see trains less crowded since the SAS won't take all the ridership off Lexington, but rather take off a large chunk of riders to a point where there is breathing room on the trains.

I may reevaluate that option if possible.

Is the benefit of greater coverage for two stations worth the decreased connections of those stations for the entire line though? I also don't personally like the idea of planning for an interlined subway, though I acknowledge this is personal preference. And even so, with an interlined SAS, while riders looking to go to and from Queens might be less affected, riders wanting to go West in Manhattan or go to Astoria would still find transfers more difficult or non-existent. The loss of coverage, in my mind, represents benefits to the whole line that are not reliant on interlining which would reduce frequencies, and even riders who are most affected still find closer subway access since it is on 3rd Av rather than Lex.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice that the narrowest part of Manhattan on the East Side, at least between 125th and Canal, is in the heart of Midtown.  A subway along 3 Ave servicing the area between 42nd and 63rd will allow transfers to all 4 crosstown subways (and all 4 subway tunnels to Queens) and still be a close walk to all points to the east to the river.  Where manhattan bulges out, the subway can also move to the east to be able to service the edges of the Lower east side and alphabet city.  A subway like that will have all of the eastern part of Manhattan within its walkshed, while maintaing very important connections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

It's working.

Now that I see it, I would like to offer some of my own feedback. For the Second Avenue Subway, I've seen some of the discussion for the lower end of Second Avenue, and I don't know if I'm in the minority, but I do disagree with the SAS below 63rd Street routed along 3rd Avenue. My reasoning for it is because of its proximity to the Lexington Avenue Line to be useful. Yes you would have easier transfers to the current Queens-Manhattan crosstown lines, but the Third Avenue routing leaves much of the East Side east of 2nd Avenue a bit of a hike from the subways. For me, I'd rather keep SAS 3 on 2nd Avenue to allow for better access to the United Nations on 42nd Street and to residential areas east of 2nd Avenue. 

I also would've preferred to see the Jamaica Avenue elevated hooked up to the Fulton Street Line instead of going along Broadway to the Lower East Side. This would provide a more direct access between Jamaica and Lower Manhattan and actually save 20 minutes travelling between the two. While I do understand the concept for this is to provide express service to Midtown, this service could be provided by a cross-platform transfer to the (A) and (C) express, since those lines would make few stops in Brooklyn and Midtown and would now have faster service due to less merging (I'm assuming that the map you have assumes that the (P) would take over (C) service on the local tracks).

Also, how do you get that link to your custom map to work?

The 3 Av comment really depends a lot on who/what you expect 2 Av to serve; if its main market is explicitly serving those parts of the far East Side that the Lex misses then it might make sense to keep it on 2 Av all the way down through Midtown even at the cost of a fair amount of connectivity. For what I was doing where 2 Av was effectively serving as the main core segment of three different outer-borough corridors (Jamaica, Northern Blvd, and 3 Av) the connectivity in Midtown is super important (especially if you want to relieve the Lex in Manhattan). That small 26-block jog gives basically all the Flushing and QBL trains plus the Lex direct access to 2 Av, which then basically means that all of Queens that has subway service has easy access to 2 Av, and that everyone coming up from Williamsburg has easy access to basically anywhere in the city (granted, this is less of an issue with the D providing express service to Jamaica, but in a deinterlined subway like what I've seen proposed (6 Av takes Brighton, Broadway takes 4 Av, 8 Av takes Fulton, 2 Av takes Jamaica) this arrangement would still allow for a two-seat ride to basically all of Midtown from the Jamaica and Northern Blvd lines, and I think preserving this capability really matters.

I tied Jamaica up through Broadway with the intention of providing 45 tph on the new corridor to Williamsburg/Bushwick/Ridgewood as (L) train relief, which I think is sorely needed. Essentially Broadway Junction here would look like West 4th St (two layers of four tracks each, directly overtop each other), and ideally there would be a W4-type interlocking bracketed by diamond crossovers allowing for Jamaica service via Fulton and Rockaway service via Williamsburg. Swapping the two corridors ( (J) to Euclid, (D) to Ozone Pk/Rockaways, (A)(C)(P) to SE Queens via Jamaica) would be an interesting idea, and I could see it working. The (B) to Brighton is mostly there because I assumed Brighton needs 30tph peak and it let me recapture Franklin shuttle trackage.

I got the link to work by copying the link in my browser when I was editing the map, changing maps/d/edit? to maps/d/view? and making sure my share settings allowed people to see the map.

Edited by engineerboy6561

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrsman said:

It is nice that the narrowest part of Manhattan on the East Side, at least between 125th and Canal, is in the heart of Midtown.  A subway along 3 Ave servicing the area between 42nd and 63rd will allow transfers to all 4 crosstown subways (and all 4 subway tunnels to Queens) and still be a close walk to all points to the east to the river.  Where manhattan bulges out, the subway can also move to the east to be able to service the edges of the Lower east side and alphabet city.  A subway like that will have all of the eastern part of Manhattan within its walkshed, while maintaing very important connections.

The reason why LES "jughandle" routes for a north-south have been rejected for decades now is because it slows down rides significantly for people who are passing through the LES. Manhattan Bridge services via 2nd have one massive advantage over the (4)(5) ; despite local stop spacing, skipping all the downtown stops means that it would still be faster than the Lex to Midtown. A jog via LES of any kind would basically negate this advantage and eliminate any sort of meaningful congestion reduction on the Lex.

The best the LES is getting is probably a light rail replacing the M14 routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The reason why LES "jughandle" routes for a north-south have been rejected for decades now is because it slows down rides significantly for people who are passing through the LES. Manhattan Bridge services via 2nd have one massive advantage over the (4)(5) ; despite local stop spacing, skipping all the downtown stops means that it would still be faster than the Lex to Midtown. A jog via LES of any kind would basically negate this advantage and eliminate any sort of meaningful congestion reduction on the Lex.

The best the LES is getting is probably a light rail replacing the M14 routes.

I think that is fine and good and may explain why the subway should not run down 1st Ave or Ave A.  But let's say that the SAS were to run from Grand St station under Chrystie, and then hit Houston, 14th, 23rd, make its way over to 3rd Avenue somewhere between 23rd and 34th, then hit 34, 42, 52, 62, along 3 Ave, and then move back along 2 Ave to hit 72, 86, and 96 and from hence northward.  From Grand Street to 23rd you are going straight and not losing any distance.  You merely move over one avenue to the west to be closer to the heart of Midtown (and to provide very important connections to the crosstown subways at 42, 53, 60, and 63) and then move back one avenue to continue north and service the eastern part of the Upper East Side.  This still seems like an efficient path.  This also will be that much closer to Grand Central to pick up some of the downtown passengers coming from there. The crosstown subways will allow connections to all services in Queens and provide transfers to (7)(S)(4)(5)(6) and to subways servicing 6th Ave, 8th Ave, and Broadway.

While it is nice to think that we can get both a 3 Ave and a 2 Ave subway, I don't see that as realistic.  It is better to have (T) and (V) running from Bronx or West 125th, down the current SAS, and continuing to the south in such a way as to get as many transfers as it can.  With regard to the comment that there won't be enough trains running if  (N) and (Q) are also running on the current SAS, I agree.  So if there is no budget for a new tunnel to Queens, we may have to terminate (Q) at 57th and send (N) to Astoria so that all trains on the upper SAS can continue onto the lower SAS via the Third Ave route (to maximize connections).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrsman said:

I think that is fine and good and may explain why the subway should not run down 1st Ave or Ave A.  But let's say that the SAS were to run from Grand St station under Chrystie, and then hit Houston, 14th, 23rd, make its way over to 3rd Avenue somewhere between 23rd and 34th, then hit 34, 42, 52, 62, along 3 Ave, and then move back along 2 Ave to hit 72, 86, and 96 and from hence northward.  From Grand Street to 23rd you are going straight and not losing any distance.  You merely move over one avenue to the west to be closer to the heart of Midtown (and to provide very important connections to the crosstown subways at 42, 53, 60, and 63) and then move back one avenue to continue north and service the eastern part of the Upper East Side.  This still seems like an efficient path.  This also will be that much closer to Grand Central to pick up some of the downtown passengers coming from there. The crosstown subways will allow connections to all services in Queens and provide transfers to (7)(S)(4)(5)(6) and to subways servicing 6th Ave, 8th Ave, and Broadway.

So here's my thoughts on 3rd vs 2nd

Pros: 

  • easier transfers on 3rd
  • for a northern extension after 63 St, no overlap with 2nd, which makes it easy to keep going north without having to shut down SAS for complicated construction underneath existing things

Cons: 

  • Transitioning from Chrystie St to 3rd, even with a deep bore, would require a lot of property acquisition for the turns. This by itself is enough of a deal breaker
  • Too much coverage overlap with Lex, reducing congestion mitigation ability
  • These better transfers will still not outmatch an existing transfer to the Lex express, so I don't know that there's a point in trying
  • Personally, I would like to keep 3rd and its better transfers open as a route for regional rail tunnels
2 hours ago, mrsman said:

While it is nice to think that we can get both a 3 Ave and a 2 Ave subway, I don't see that as realistic.  It is better to have (T) and (V) running from Bronx or West 125th, down the current SAS, and continuing to the south in such a way as to get as many transfers as it can.  With regard to the comment that there won't be enough trains running if  (N) and (Q) are also running on the current SAS, I agree.  So if there is no budget for a new tunnel to Queens, we may have to terminate (Q) at 57th and send (N) to Astoria so that all trains on the upper SAS can continue onto the lower SAS via the Third Ave route (to maximize connections).

The Bronx SAS has a better way of getting lots of good transfers; running down the Broadway Express. No through trains period.

A Bronx-Lower SAS train will never be competitive with the Lex; the existing Bronx IRTs are all served with Bronx express variants that ultimately end up on the Lex, and even an earlier intercept on the Bronx 3rd Av stations is not time competitive with the Lex, because people hate transferring and a cross-platform Lex transfer is magnitudes more palatable than a level change to the SAS platforms. No point in competing in a market that you cannot win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have proposed a Queens TramLink as a joint effort with @WillF40PH. This incorporates many abandoned lines (as @LaGuardia Link N Tra @R68OnBroadway and others have proposed) , as well as new ROWs along many underutilized streets. This is a frequent, not-that-expensive to build system that would run on a frequent basis, allowing a vast expanse of Queens to have rail service that is environmentally friendly, very useful, and cheap.

Please see @WillF40PH's post below for the link to the doc and map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 11:13 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

Here’s something to consider: Phase 3 and 4 will most likely not be complete for at least 30 years given MTA problems. Personally, rather than waste time thinking about all these alignments, people should focus on making the first two SAS phases as useful as possible- that means sending both the (N)(Q) up SAS, extending the 125th street line to 8th, and thinking about the merits of Bronx extensions such as one up 3rd or Webster. I’d much rather see SAS phase 3-4 $ be used to bring service to the central Bronx (where construction can be much cheaper and cut and cover due to less dense construction) than spend a huge period of time building an astronomically expensive subway. 

This is true. By focusing on bringing SAS further north, we would be continuing to plug in gaps in areas of the City that are criminally underserved by the subway (East Harlem in Phase 2, Central Bronx in an extension further north). Heck, 30 years to get SAS south of 63rd is probably the rosiest of scenarios. But it still doesn’t hurt to go back to the drawing board for what to do about the southern extension, simply because there has to be something better and more useful than what the MTA proposed for phases 3 and 4.

On 5/23/2020 at 10:39 AM, EvilMonologue said:

I agree that building the tunnel to Queens as you've described it is a higher priority than building more express service in the UES. I also don't think it's a good idea to have the (T) connect to the existing SAS, like you've said, because it necessarily limits capacity on both the (N)(Q) and the (T)

South of 42nd St, as others have mentioned, turning the (T) from 3rd to 2nd would be a good way to provide both transfers in Midtown and better subway coverage for the LES where Manhattan bulges.

I don't think these things are mutually exclusive, though. Phase "2.5" where you extend the SAS across 125th St probably makes sense to do before creating a new service down the East Side of Manhattan. You could also have it branch with one covering 125th St and the other covering 3rd Av in the Bronx. Having service South of 63rd St, though, in the form of the (T) is a way of expanding subway access to Queens and a way of boosting the frequency of the SAS, since you could have a service take over 125th St or 3rd Av in the Bronx.

Instead of abandoning the (J) or leaving it as a shuttle, you could also try and connect the (P) to the Nassau Line either at Bowery or at Chambers St via Park Row. A new tunnel could then be constructed from the Nassau Line to the Fulton Line. I'd also suggest connecting the (B)(D) to Utica Av rather than continuing it down the Brighton Line and continuing it as the express to Jamaica. I really like the idea of connecting the Northern Boulevard Line to LGA, I've not thought about that before and it's a cool idea.

Though honestly given the way the MTA built Phase 1, we may have to make due with a two-track line, at least going north. South is a different story, but then we’d also have to figure out where the two additional tracks would go if it’s four tracks going south. I think something along the lines of what you’re proposing would be good, though tying Nassau into SAS won’t be easy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

30 years to get SAS south of 63rd is probably the rosiest of scenarios

Let’s not forget about what we have to do to make NYC a livable area in that time: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/nyregion/sea-wall-nyc.html

Quote

Picture a storm charging toward New York City, pushing a surge of seawater like the one that flooded the region during Hurricane Sandy. But this time, man-made islands with retractable gates stretch from the Rockaways in Queens to a strip of land in New Jersey south of Staten Island.

The gates swing shut. A six-mile-long wall blocks the deluge, saving property and lives.

The giant barrier is the largest of five options the Army Corps of Engineers is studying to protect the New York area as storms become more frequent, and destructive, on a warming Earth.

Quote

The Corps estimates the wall to cost $119 billion, and it is unclear if the city, New York State, New Jersey and Congress will agree to jointly fund the project, which would take 25 years to build. Even if construction went smoothly, opponents say, the barrier could be obsolete within decades because, they say, the Corps’s estimates of future sea levels are too low.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jova42R said:

I have proposed a Queens TramLink as a joint effort with @WillF40PH. This incorporates many abandoned lines (as @LaGuardia Link N Tra @R68OnBroadway and others have proposed) , as well as new ROWs along many underutilized streets. This is a frequent, not-that-expensive to build system that would run on a frequent basis, allowing a vast expanse of Queens to have rail service that is environmentally friendly, very useful, and cheap.

Please see @WillF40PH's post below for the link to the doc and map.

 

14 hours ago, WillF40PH said:

I have proposed a Queens TramLink system as a joint effort with @Jova42R. Please see the link below for the proposal.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz17-KIFRDWieUCrQZo82xELDbdi0dx9dW3r2wNo31g/edit#heading=h.5b9dlcng3cvk

 

This is a great idea, but I think that Laguardia Yard is never gonna exist. Also, where is it street running, median-running, and own ROW? That would be helpful to know - as @engineerboy6561, @koolmazinand others have said, it is best to have median or own ROW running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.