Expanding Second Avenue subway beyond planned terminus key to system’s future, RPA says

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

response in BLACK....

 

Still waiting for "the political process" to give we, the general public, results that garner the least amount of skepticism..... Politics is dirty & it always will be.

In regards to the SAS comments:

207 is a bit too far north to function well as a crosstown, and 125 is a bit too far south, but the problem is that in between there's not a good place to put it because of the geology and what's already there. Add the fact that there isn't really a free train line available capable of connecting everything except maybe the and the , and it's just probably not going to happen.

On the more foamy concept ideas, I've toyed with the going across 161 St to Hunts Point, and then in the future up the general vicinity of the Bruckner, but that would require so much engineering work and would be so far down the priority list that I haven't really given it much thought.

As far as 149-GC goes, if there was only one line going to the Bronx, it should be the  . By the gets up and running, it should in the future connect to Brooklyn, and since the is an express I would rather have that make the longer trip than the  .

[bobtehpanda]

15 minutes ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

Not the divisions I was talking about. Three, as I said. The IND, BMT and IRT portions of the subway system cannot interact directly with each other and their individual shortcomings drag the system down.

Public transit is in bed with politics, and it's impractical to compare our transit system with others when they don't have the same types of issues.

Stop making this about me. I attend board meetings in both Bowling Green and The Westchester County Center. Unlike you, my PFP is not a symbol. It is me, and the same one I use on all forums. Who's really hiding behind a screen. Don't make me laugh.

Throwing a bunch of disconnected points and misfired statements doesn't solve real world problems. Shame on the three imbeciles who gave you reputation for misfired banter.

What year do you live in, 1967? The IND and BMT are linked and literally run on each others' tracks, use the same signalling systems, etc. And what individual shortcomings are you even talking about? Linking the SAS to the Dyre Av Line is not an actual operational or capacity improvement. The main thing preventing lack of better service on Dyre is not the fact that it is chained to the  .

28 minutes ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

Transit needs to be disconnected from politics if it is ever to make the comeback New Yorkers currently invest three figures in.

If you believe that any political jurisdiction anywhere somehow manages to direct billions of dollars in spending and revenue, I have a bridge to sell you. 

Politics as defined by the Oxford dictionary:

Quote

 The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power.

The MTA, by virtue of its size, is a system that has to be governed. But because it is public*, there will always be political debates about what to do with it. Heck, even if we solved the funding problems tomorrow, there are a myriad of ways to improve the system, and all of them are correct depending on how you define the goals you want to achieve, which in and of itself is a political activity. The problem is not politics being involved in the MTA, but rather a symptom of the general sick state of politics in New York, what with all the parties more interested in self-preservation than actual responsible governance. And the solution to that is to get out there and get dirty and participate in politics, because so many people have just opted out of the political process that the party can just use a few hundred people to swing people towards their preferred candidate.

This kind of thinking is really just evidence that we need to improve civics education in this country. 

*Note: Privatization is also not really a solution, and is actually more of a political solution than just keeping in public, because the system still operates with public rights of way, gets public approvals for its routes, and governments where this approach is successful usually support private systems in backhanded ways.

[Wallyhorse]

Quote

Manhattan
Second Avenue subway: Extend the Second Avenue line from 96th Street past its next planned terminus of 125th Street and Second Avenue, to Park Avenue and then westward along 125th Street to Broadway. The idea is that in the three miles of expansion, the subway would hit underserved sections of Harlem while connecting to seven subway lines at four stations.

7 Line extension: Extend the 7 train from its current terminus at 34th Street down to 14th Street and Eighth Avenue, where it would connect to the L, A, C and E lines.

Brooklyn
Utica Avenue extension: Build a new subway under Utica Avenue, from Eastern Parkway to Flatbush Avenue, extending 4 train service by four miles.

Nostrand Avenue line extension: Build out the Nostrand Avenue line 2.7 miles south to Avenue Z, connecting 2 and 5 trains farther into Flatlands, Midwood, Marine Park and Sheepshead Bay.

Queens
Northern Boulevard line: Create a new 3.7-mile subway line running from 36th Street and Northern Boulevard to Willets Point, where it could either continue east to serve north Flushing and Mitchell-Linden or turn north to pass under Flushing Bay to College Point.

Jewel Avenue line: Build a 5.7-mile Jewel Avenue line that would branch off the Queens Boulevard line to the transit deserts of Pomonok and Fresh Meadows in central Queens.

Astoria line extension: Add a 0.8-mile extension to hook service closer to the East River at 21st Street and 20th Avenue. A new yard would be constructed on the northern side of Ditmars Boulevard along 20th Street.

The Bronx
Second Avenue extension: In addition to an expansion out west, the plan association calls for a northern expansion to the Grand Concourse at 149th Street to connect to the 2, 4 and 5 trains.

The 125th Street crosstown extension is one I have been pushing for myself.  I would have that also have connections to the 8th Avenue line at St. Nicholas/125th so you can have a Concourse SAS line in the future or allow for 8th Avenue trains to use the SAS to 63rd when needed.  For the Bronx portion, I would have it be the long-needed replacement for the 3rd Avenue EL in the Bronx, going that route's old route to Gun Hill Road and coming (if not underground) in on a new upper level of that station (or rebuild the old lower level for that purpose).

The extension southward is one I would look at, but I still like my idea better of having the  be extended up 10th Avenue to first 72nd and Broadway with provisions to go further up in the future.

As for the Astoria Line, I still like the idea of extending the / to the Bronx that would give Bronx riders a way to get to Queens without going through Manhattan.  As noted before, I would have such a line connect with the /  at East 180th and the  at Elder/Westchester Avenues and then go to Jacobi Medical Center (EL to Food Service Drive, then underground).  

The Brooklyn extensions I think would work very well.

I would also extended the and to a new terminal at Belmont Park, which many expect is going to undergo a massive rebuild in the next couple of years, with possibly a new, winterized grandstand being built where you currently have a massive parking lot on the backstretch or the current grandstand being rebuild with Aqueduct expected to eventually close.  How it would be built could be done where provisions for such could be built into any rebuilds of the grandstand at Belmont Park. 

 

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

18 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

What year do you live in, 1967? The IND and BMT are linked and literally run on each others' tracks, use the same signalling systems, etc. And what individual shortcomings are you even talking about? Linking the SAS to the Dyre Av Line is not an actual operational or capacity improvement. The main thing preventing lack of better service on Dyre is not the fact that it is chained to the  .

If you believe that any political jurisdiction anywhere somehow manages to direct billions of dollars in spending and revenue, I have a bridge to sell you. 

Politics as defined by the Oxford dictionary:

The MTA, by virtue of its size, is a system that has to be governed. But because it is public*, there will always be political debates about what to do with it. Heck, even if we solved the funding problems tomorrow, there are a myriad of ways to improve the system, and all of them are correct depending on how you define the goals you want to achieve, which in and of itself is a political activity. The problem is not politics being involved in the MTA, but rather a symptom of the general sick state of politics in New York, what with all the parties more interested in self-preservation than actual responsible governance. And the solution to that is to get out there and get dirty and participate in politics, because so many people have just opted out of the political process that the party can just use a few hundred people to swing people towards their preferred candidate.

This kind of thinking is really just evidence that we need to improve civics education in this country. 

*Note: Privatization is also not really a solution, and is actually more of a political solution than just keeping in public, because the system still operates with public rights of way, gets public approvals for its routes, and governments where this approach is successful usually support private systems in backhanded ways.

YAWNS

 

[CenSin]

19 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

As far as 149-GC goes, if there was only one line going to the Bronx, it should be the  . By the gets up and running, it should in the future connect to Brooklyn, and since the is an express I would rather have that make the longer trip than the  .

It’s express for 5 stops, and takes such a roundabout route that it will probably get to Chinatown slower than the . I would say they are about even.

[RR503]

11 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The 125th Street crosstown extension is one I have been pushing for myself.  I would have that also have connections to the 8th Avenue line at St. Nicholas/125th so you can have a Concourse SAS line in the future or allow for 8th Avenue trains to use the SAS to 63rd when needed.  For the Bronx portion, I would have it be the long-needed replacement for the 3rd Avenue EL in the Bronx, going that route's old route to Gun Hill Road and coming (if not underground) in on a new upper level of that station (or rebuild the old lower level for that purpose).

The extension southward is one I would look at, but I still like my idea better of having the  be extended up 10th Avenue to first 72nd and Broadway with provisions to go further up in the future.

As for the Astoria Line, I still like the idea of extending the / to the Bronx that would give Bronx riders a way to get to Queens without going through Manhattan.  As noted before, I would have such a line connect with the /  at East 180th and the  at Elder/Westchester Avenues and then go to Jacobi Medical Center (EL to Food Service Drive, then underground).  

The Brooklyn extensions I think would work very well.

I would also extended the and to a new terminal at Belmont Park, which many expect is going to undergo a massive rebuild in the next couple of years, with possibly a new, winterized grandstand being built where you currently have a massive parking lot on the backstretch or the current grandstand being rebuild with Aqueduct expected to eventually close.  How it would be built could be done where provisions for such could be built into any rebuilds of the grandstand at Belmont Park. 

 

I'm all for a Bx 3rd ave extension of SAS, and for a 125 crosstown, but connecting SAS to 8th seems a bit...extra. Riders will already be able to transfer at 125 for , and aside from the possibility of rerouting service ALL the way around Manhattan in the event of some incident that blocks all of CPW (unlikely, if I may say so), the connection is kinda useless. You can't add much service on Concourse, and adding trains to the  would require a reshuffling of 145th st. 

I'm with you on the  too. 

It's great to give Queens riders a way to the Bronx, but the way you've done it, very few will get that. The  only connect to the  in Queens -- the line would just become a back way into Manhattan. Much better to extend the  east to LGA and possibly beyond. 

Unless coupled with a massive amount of TOD, the  and  are better off going to Rosedale. A racetrack won't bring enough demand. 

10 hours ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

YAWNS

 

You know, you wrote that whole thing about how you've learned so much being a member here, which is great. Now why don't you apply some of that absorbational capacity and, well, learn from what was said to you. BTP is right, and there is no shame in being wrong. Where there is shame is in sarcastically dismissing someone's point even when you know you've lost the argument. 

[Wallyhorse]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm all for a Bx 3rd ave extension of SAS, and for a 125 crosstown, but connecting SAS to 8th seems a bit...extra. Riders will already be able to transfer at 125 for , and aside from the possibility of rerouting service ALL the way around Manhattan in the event of some incident that blocks all of CPW (unlikely, if I may say so), the connection is kinda useless. You can't add much service on Concourse, and adding trains to the  would require a reshuffling of 145th st. 

I'm with you on the  too. 

It's great to give Queens riders a way to the Bronx, but the way you've done it, very few will get that. The  only connect to the  in Queens -- the line would just become a back way into Manhattan. Much better to extend the  east to LGA and possibly beyond. 

Unless coupled with a massive amount of TOD, the  and  are better off going to Rosedale. A racetrack won't bring enough demand. 

You know, you wrote that whole thing about how you've learned so much being a member here, which is great. Now why don't you apply some of that absorbational capacity and, well, learn from what was said to you. BTP is right, and there is no shame in being wrong. Where there is shame is in sarcastically dismissing someone's point even when you know you've lost the argument. 

The idea of the and going to Belmont Park is two-fold:

1. There figures to be a lot of additional building on the property by then, including possibly a new arena for the Islanders.  The stop could also serve as a park-and-ride for those coming from Nassau County.

2. Any rebuilding of Belmont Park is likely going to include provisions for a Casino there as I think eventually there will be a casino there.

3. For any  / extension to The Bronx, there would also be an OOS transfer at Queensboro Plaza to the  / / at Queensboro Plaza.  The extension as I would do it also would serve areas (especially Jacobi Medical Center) that don't currently have ANY subway service at all.

4. The 125th/8th Avenue Line connection to the SAS is mainly for G.O.'s and yard moves.  It also would allow in the future some trains to be stored at Concourse Yard if need be.  

[B35 via Church]

8 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The idea of the and going to Belmont Park is two-fold:

1. There figures to be a lot of additional building on the property by then, including possibly a new arena for the Islanders.  The stop could also serve as a park-and-ride for those coming from Nassau County.....

Of the Nassau county patrons that drive, they're not going to be apt to park & riding to a subway (to get to work or whatever).... If it's anyone who's going to benefit from a subway specifically to that new arena they're talking about building out there for the Islanders, it's going to be NYC patrons (and Nassau patrons won't be too fond of that).... I say let them have their own (arena) out there & so they can shut up about having to take the RR to Brooklyn; they've been at it ever since Barclays was being constructed....

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

 

You know, you wrote that whole thing about how you've learned so much being a member here, which is great. Now why don't you apply some of that absorbational capacity and, well, learn from what was said to you. BTP is right, and there is no shame in being wrong. Where there is shame is in sarcastically dismissing someone's point even when you know you've lost the argument. 

I don't have to admit that here on the site. That doesn't mean, however, that I doubt your word. *nods*

Didn't I say in a past reply to you that I don't do that on forums as it's ego fuel? Under no circumstance do I have to validate or reconcile any remark I state, so long as it isn't provocative or pointed as @bobtehpanda's remarks have been. The 'holier than thou' remark has been used against me a baker's dozen times. *facepalm*

It becomes difficult for me to understand where the criticism is coming from when we veer toward personal insults instead of staying on or reacting directly to my perspective on the topic. *shakes head*

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

I will reply under Random Thoughts Thread after this. It seems our spat has already veered us off course. To the mods, Apologies.

[rbrome]

I strongly agree with those saying that the  should be extended up 10th Ave, instead of extending the  down. I can't even begin to grasp why they are proposing that  extension. 

...and for so many reasons!

1. The  currently has fewer stations. Extend the shorter line.
2. The  has wider (and therefore inherently higher-capacity) trains.
3. Extending the  provides the opportunity to fix the problem of no tail tracks at the Manhattan end, a major bottleneck. 
4. We could finally build the missing station on the  extension, and create a transfer between the  and  there. 
5. Hudson Yards is such a massive development, and is spurring so much development around it. In 10-15 years, the  extension could be insufficient. 
6. The  could continue up and serve the booming (and transit-deficient) Hell's Kitchen area, and more areas as you continue uptown, whereas extending the  down hits a dead-end of sorts. 

Does anyone know why extending the  up 10th Ave isn't discussed more seriously?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I agree, the  should be the crosstown line that gets extended. The only place they should be talking about extending the  is further east into Queens. But if they won’t (thanks a lot, Archie Bunker NIMBYs!) then strongly consider extending the  uptown to (at the very least) the Hell’s Kitchen/Columbus Circle area. With a new terminal station with tail tracks pointed further uptown, they would be able to run more trains per hour and possibly even have a branch off the  running down the Bay Ridge Branch or Utica Ave (via Bushwick and Stuyvesant avenues).

[N6 Limited]

Would extending the   on an El over the Port Washington Branch be feasible?

[NY1635]

5 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Would extending the   on an El over the Port Washington Branch be feasible?

No, Flushing is too overdeveloped for an El to travel thru the area for points east. It's better remaining underground from Main Street to Bell Blvd along Northern. Nassau would technically benefit more from the 7 being extended via Port Washington branch than the city.

[R68OnBroadway]

Don't know where there is a such a big fuss over sending the  north. The only area that needs more options is Hell's Kitchen, but there you can just improve M50 service and extend the M31 down 11th to 42nd, and then have loop back up 10th (and improve it too).

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Don't know where there is a such a big fuss over sending the  north. The only area that needs more options is Hell's Kitchen, but there you can just improve M50 service and extend the M31 down 11th to 42nd, and then have loop back up 10th (and improve it too).

The M50 is a joke. When it's not detoured, it usually takes forever just to get to 6th Avenue (and longer to the east side). You can add all the service you want, but I doubt you'll get more people on the M50. Out of all the crosstown routes, this one should not be a true crosstown route at all. 

 

I would actually agree with an  extension, but probably up to 72 Street so it connects with the . 

I'll end it there, so that the thread returns to topic.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Don't know where there is a such a big fuss over sending the  north. The only area that needs more options is Hell's Kitchen, but there you can just improve M50 service and extend the M31 down 11th to 42nd, and then have loop back up 10th (and improve it too).

The is considered at capacity south of 96th St. So I could see why you'd do it.

[R68OnBroadway]

41 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The is considered at capacity south of 96th St. So I could see why you'd do it.

 

1 hour ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The M50 is a joke. When it's not detoured, it usually takes forever just to get to 6th Avenue (and longer to the east side). You can add all the service you want, but I doubt you'll get more people on the M50. Out of all the crosstown routes, this one should not be a true crosstown route at all. 

 

I would actually agree with an  extension, but probably up to 72 Street so it connects with the . 

I'll end it there, so that the thread returns to topic.

I doubt many people would switch to the  as it would most likely not have express service, so people would opt for the /  . Plus, people would rather stay on the  and  from Harlem/Bronx than transfer.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

 

I doubt many people would switch to the  as it would most likely not have express service, so people would opt for the /  . Plus, people would rather stay on the  and  from Harlem/Bronx than transfer.

So if you build a Westside IND/BMT line, you build a station every 20 blocks instead of 10 so it’s a hybrid local-express, and you make it a three track line so an actual express can be run if the need ever develops.

[CenSin]

7 hours ago, Deucey said:

So if you build a Westside IND/BMT line, you build a station every 20 blocks instead of 10 so it’s a hybrid local-express, and you make it a three track line so an actual express can be run if the need ever develops.

And leave provisions to build every other stop that was skipped.

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, CenSin said:

And leave provisions to build every other stop that was skipped.

Eh, as long as stops are a 15 minute walking distance from each other it's not the worst thing in the world. Walk seven minutes from the farthest point to a subway station is not a huge deal breaker.

I'd put them at 23/10th, 34/10th, 42/10th, 57/10th, 72/10th, 86/CPW, 86/Third.

[RR503]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Eh, as long as stops are a 15 minute walking distance from each other it's not the worst thing in the world. Walk seven minutes from the farthest point to a subway station is not a huge deal breaker.

I'd put them at 23/10th, 34/10th, 42/10th, 57/10th, 72/10th, 86/CPW, 86/Third.

Yup! Then you have a straight shot down 30th ave and Newtown to Northern Boulevard. 

Quite conveniently, such an extension would also eliminate the inefficient terminal at 8th ave.

One quibble with the stops though: why 34th and 10th? 34th and 11th already has the  , so don't you think better to put on the south side of HY on say 30th?

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Eh, as long as stops are a 15 minute walking distance from each other it's not the worst thing in the world. Walk seven minutes from the farthest point to a subway station is not a huge deal breaker.

I'd put them at 23/10th, 34/10th, 42/10th, 57/10th, 72/10th, 86/CPW, 86/Third.

But can the average person walk 10 blocks in 7 minutes along Amsterdam/10th Av?

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Deucey said:

But can the average person walk 10 blocks in 7 minutes along Amsterdam/10th Av?

The longest inter-station distance in that segment is a distance of 15 blocks. Cut that in half and that's seven blocks. A minute a street block is perfectly reasonable for your average person.

There's not really a point to building for coverage, since the northern interstation that is that long is literally a block away from 66 St-Lincoln Center, and 10th Avenue is not more than two avenue blocks away from a subway station anyways. When stations are a billion and change we should not be building stations so close together.

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

When stations are a billion and change we should not be building stations so close together.

Perhaps once the swamp gets drained and the rats a scurrying from the trough, we’ll get sensible costs and the ability to build what is needed without being so overly concerned about money that the cut corners bleed.