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

[bobtehpanda]

8 minutes ago, CenSin said:

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.

Realistically speaking, what is the major benefit of adding a subway stop in between two existing ones that are no more than seven minutes away? Most people would still kill for a seven minute walk to a subway, and 50th St is not exactly a bustling center of commerce. I would rather use that money towards spreading the system outwards; we've spent far too much money on the core as it is, while the outer boroughs have seen decreased total trackage since the founding of the MTA in 1965.

[Wallyhorse]

On 12/13/2017 at 6:37 PM, ioas said:

I think the  should instead be extended up 12th Avenue. This serves the 11th Avenue market more effectively by providing subway service just one avenue block away. It also allows for a convenient transfer to the  at 34th St.--Hudson Yards.

After 72nd St. the  should instead continue under Riverside Park, making express stops along the Empire Connection. Then it would join the Husdon Line and switch to the local tracks until Montreal.

 

The current Steinway St and 46 St stops should instead be converted to IRT service on the . This would involve both rerouting the  and extending platform width at these two stations only. 

One of the reasons we came up with 10th Avenue has to do with the water table the further west you go.  For most of the way, 10th Avenue is about as realistic for putting a subway on that part of the west side (which is also why I would have such gradually ease towards 10th Avenue from 8th Avenue and 14th Street).  The idea would be initially to have such a line run to 72nd/Broadway with provisions to continue up 10th/Amsterdam Avenue after that.  

Adding:
Stops for an on 10th Avenue as I would do them:
23rd Street
31st-33rd Street (to align with Penn/Moynahan Station)
41st Street (Transfer to )
49th-50th Street
58th Street-Roosevelt Hospital
66th Street-Lincoln Center
72nd Street-Broadway (Transfer to )

If you are going to do a new branch to Queens, as said before, I would have a branch of the SAS go with the up to 55th Street, then go below the somewhere before the joins the at 63rd and 2nd, with the new branch stopping on a new lower level of 72nd Street-2nd Avenue before turning east at 79th Street and making a stop at 79th Street-York/1st Avenue (which could be built as a three-track station to include short turns) before heading via a new tunnel to Queens that would include a transfer if possible to the Astoria line once in Queens) and otherwise then run non-stop to the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue that could then be what winds up connecting to the Rockaway Beach Branch.

[R68OnBroadway]

My layout for stops: 

23rd/10th

34th/10th

41st/10th (also build that  stop)

57th/10th

72nd/Amsterdam/Broadway (transfer to  ,  ,  )

I would prefer not to extend the  to Queens as I would rather have another Queens line that run with express and local service than a two-tracked line.

With the exception of the 41st/10th  station, this extension would be more or so a "nice to have" thing, and if any service is to go to Queens, I would send a line from 2nd Av.

[bobtehpanda]

On 12/14/2017 at 1:26 PM, RR503 said:

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?

I have always preferred an alignment along Astoria rather than Northern.

I would intend for the 34th stop to be a transfer to the and 42nd be a standalone stop. You could make the stop stretch from 30th to 34th Sts.

[CenSin]

On 12/14/2017 at 9:56 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Realistically speaking, what is the major benefit of adding a subway stop in between two existing ones that are no more than seven minutes away?

7 minutes.

[RR503]

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I have always preferred an alignment along Astoria rather than Northern.

I would intend for the 34th stop to be a transfer to the and 42nd be a standalone stop. You could make the stop stretch from 30th to 34th Sts.

I'm really not wedded to either, but I do think there's something to be said for Northern's not being hemmed in by highways or water, and its ability to create a  xfer.

Sure, you could do that. I just think that Hells Kitchen needs subway service anyway, so why not give it  for Crosstown, and  for north south. Otherwise you'll have even more backtracking. 

[Deucey]

27 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I'm really not wedded to either, but I do think there's something to be said for Northern's not being hemmed in by highways or water, and its ability to create a  xfer.

Sure, you could do that. I just think that Hells Kitchen needs subway service anyway, so why not give it  for Crosstown, and  for north south. Otherwise you'll have even more backtracking. 

Or build a proper 10th Av Line with a crosstown component that connects to SAS and Queens. Because  screwed up SAS by making it a standalone relief project instead of an actual backbone/trunkline route in the current active section, that means either 125th St, 145th St or 34th Street would be the only viable crosstown line options - barring finding a way to get the UES denizens and NIMBYs onboard with building a pure crosstown line through Central Park.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

Or build a proper 10th Av Line with a crosstown component that connects to SAS and Queens. Because  screwed up SAS by making it a standalone relief project instead of an actual backbone/trunkline route in the current active section, that means either 125th St, 145th St or 34th Street would be the only viable crosstown line options - barring finding a way to get the UES denizens and NIMBYs onboard with building a pure crosstown line through Central Park.

If you build deep enough there's no disruption to the trees of Central Park at all, plus if you don't actually build a station near the park there's no reason to dig it up. I'd put the CPW station on Columbus for this reason, and to be honest I don't think a station serving the Museum Mile is worth the trouble.

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm really not wedded to either, but I do think there's something to be said for Northern's not being hemmed in by highways or water, and its ability to create a  xfer.

Sure, you could do that. I just think that Hells Kitchen needs subway service anyway, so why not give it  for Crosstown, and  for north south. Otherwise you'll have even more backtracking. 

My main issue with Northern is that, well, it doesn't do much at all for coverage (since Northern is already a ten minute walk from Roosevelt) and it doesn't have great options on the western end, since it's hard to provide an option that has good connectivity, doesn't require negotiating lots of existing infrastructure, and doesn't dump you in Midtown or LIC like every other train line in Queens.

I like Astoria in the context of being able to create a northern super-express bypass to Flushing that serves LGA.

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, CenSin said:

7 minutes.

That's just diminishing returns.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

If you build deep enough there's no disruption to the trees of Central Park at all, plus if you don't actually build a station near the park there's no reason to dig it up. I'd put the CPW station on Columbus for this reason, and to be honest I don't think a station serving the Museum Mile is worth the trouble.

My main issue with Northern is that, well, it doesn't do much at all for coverage (since Northern is already a ten minute walk from Roosevelt) and it doesn't have great options on the western end, since it's hard to provide an option that has good connectivity, doesn't require negotiating lots of existing infrastructure, and doesn't dump you in Midtown or LIC like every other train line in Queens.

I like Astoria in the context of being able to create a northern super-express bypass to Flushing that serves LGA.

You've convinced me, though I did like the  transfer... Makes Queens that much easier to navigate+gives riders from the  access to LIC, and those from Astoria access to Jamaica. Breaks the mold of 'everyone to manhattan!!!' in the system. 

[bobtehpanda]

41 minutes ago, RR503 said:

You've convinced me, though I did like the  transfer... Makes Queens that much easier to navigate+gives riders from the  access to LIC, and those from Astoria access to Jamaica. Breaks the mold of 'everyone to manhattan!!!' in the system. 

I don't think we need to pipe more people through LIC. Honestly, my vision is very focused around breaking the LIC-centric Queens subway network right now.

[LGA Link N Train]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't think we need to pipe more people through LIC. Honestly, my vision is very focused around breaking the LIC-centric Queens subway network right now.

ehhhh..... I like some of these plans and others just make no sense to me what so ever

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

ehhhh..... I like some of these plans and others just make no sense to me what so ever

Care to elaborate with some meaningful criticism?

[LGA Link N Train]

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Care to elaborate with some meaningful criticism?

First off, the train in Queens is Too far in the long term 

Whatever extension you have here is ........ (I can't describe it)

Everything else I agree with 

[bobtehpanda]

7 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

This is what my plan for the  up 10 Av-Northern would look like after Flushing.

IMG_0454 by Jacob Robles, on Flickr

My issue with any plan that serves College Point like that is who is going to take the long way around to go to College Point? The Q20 makes this route and barely picks up anybody. The bus will take the same amount of time. Also, anyone who's ever actually been to Queens knows that there's nothing around Flushing/Northern and it's even harder to serve by bus than Flushing/Main.

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

First off, the train in Queens is Too far in the long term 

Whatever extension you have here is ........ (I can't describe it)

Everything else I agree with 

The biggest problem we have is no long term planning. Long term is a good thing.

The extension is actually pretty useful, since it roughly runs the route of the Q58, the busiest bus route in Queens, the slowest bus route in Queens, and probably the one route you can't actually turn into SBS due to all the roads it runs on.

[LGA Link N Train]

28 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

The biggest problem we have is no long term planning. Long term is a good thing.

The extension is actually pretty useful, since it roughly runs the route of the Q58, the busiest bus route in Queens, the slowest bus route in Queens, and probably the one route you can't actually turn into SBS due to all the roads it runs on.

Ok, but I'm not complaining about long term in general, I'm saying that extending the past 72 St-10 Av is TOO FAR in the long term 

[LGA Link N Train]

@D to 96 St nice map

[Caelestor]

 

23 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't think we need to pipe more people through LIC. Honestly, my vision is very focused around breaking the LIC-centric Queens subway network right now.

Most of this map seems fine. I really like the  extension to Flushing, which I think is better than the  at conecting Queens with Brooklyn. Were this to be built, I'd bring back the  and reroute the line back to Broad St to create a one-seat ride from Queens to Lower Manhattan, rerouting the  up to 6 Ave in its place. Such a configuration would also prevent the  from intersecting itself and creating an awkward route.

My greatest concern is that the Astoria Blvd line will underperform ridership-wise because it is a circumferential route, when ultimately Queens needs more radials line linking residents directly to Midtown. Surprised to see it instead of a 50 St / Northern Blvd line, which forms a naturally straight route into Midtown where the highest ridership is.

On the other hand, the  extension past 72 St along 86 St, linking up with the Triboro RX is sound, though now there exists a minor issue of the  intersecting itself at Broadway Junction.

[Wallyhorse]

7 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Ok, but I'm not complaining about long term in general, I'm saying that extending the past 72 St-10 Av is TOO FAR in the long term 

Anything with the past 72nd would as I would do it have the line continue up Amsterdam Avenue, at first up to 116th Street to serve Columbia University and then working from there.

As the street topography changes dramatically, if you wanted to go past 116 on the (L), you'd have to explore either staying level and going above ground or taking a big dive to stay below ground.  

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

This map is good, but I think the  to Springfield seems overkill. Just end the extension at College Point/Whitestone since those are way underserved. 

Also, Northern is a major north-south street. My alignment would relieve the  in doing so. 

The  extension is good, tho I might have it follow the LIE to Main. 

Honestly, College Point is just never going to get a decent subway connection because it's too hard to serve and also serve other neighborhoods, and College Point is not particularly far from the subway anyways. Anyone who lives in Queens would rather have a quick connection between Jamaica and Flushing.

As stated before, the problem with Northern is that there is no good western alignment for it that connects everything, doesn't interact with a lot of existing infrastructure, and doesn't just needlessly duplicate a LIC-Midtown alignment. My plan would create a secondary center in Astoria to get to Manhattan, much like how you can get to Brooklyn from either Downtown Brooklyn or Williamsburg.

The problem I have always had with an LIE extension is that nothing is around the LIE. Even the major destinations next to the LIE do not open out onto it. It's not a good place to put a subway line.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

Anything with the past 72nd would as I would do it have the line continue up Amsterdam Avenue, at first up to 116th Street to serve Columbia University and then working from there.

As the street topography changes dramatically, if you wanted to go past 116 on the (L), you'd have to explore either staying level and going above ground or taking a big dive to stay below ground.  

We need to stop making Manhattan-centric subway lines. Manhattan has quite enough investment as it is.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Honestly, College Point is just never going to get a decent subway connection because it's too hard to serve and also serve other neighborhoods, and College Point is not particularly far from the subway anyways. Anyone who lives in Queens would rather have a quick connection between Jamaica and Flushing.

As stated before, the problem with Northern is that there is no good western alignment for it that connects everything, doesn't interact with a lot of existing infrastructure, and doesn't just needlessly duplicate a LIC-Midtown alignment. My plan would create a secondary center in Astoria to get to Manhattan, much like how you can get to Brooklyn from either Downtown Brooklyn or Williamsburg.

The problem I have always had with an LIE extension is that nothing is around the LIE. Even the major destinations next to the LIE do not open out onto it. It's not a good place to put a subway line.

I don't think College Point residents would agree. If the  is messed out, you're pretty much out of luck or you have to take the bus further south to Jamaica.

[quadcorder]

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

We need to stop making Manhattan-centric subway lines. Manhattan has quite enough investment as it is.

The is so overcrowded they had to remove cars, proving your point.

[R68OnBroadway]

16 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Anything with the past 72nd would as I would do it have the line continue up Amsterdam Avenue, at first up to 116th Street to serve Columbia University and then working from there.

As the street topography changes dramatically, if you wanted to go past 116 on the (L), you'd have to explore either staying level and going above ground or taking a big dive to stay below ground.  

Yeah, because the  is not adequate enough </sarcasm>

[R68OnBroadway]

Personally I do not think the  to Queens is a good investment as if anything is built in Queens, it should be a 4 track line near the LIE. Services here would come from Second Avenue and run via 63rd or via a new crosstown line under 42nd Street to 12th Av.