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

[RR503]

On 12/23/2017 at 3:36 PM, bobtehpanda said:

The ROW looks plenty wide enough til Roosevelt (at which point it would be tunnel all the way to Astoria), but honestly, a little eminent domain here and there wouldn't be too terrible.

Look at the depth of the tracks -- you'd need to do a massive amount of underpinning if you were to widen it sans ED. ED is a political no go, so while I agree it wouldn't be too terrible, that doesn't make it feasible

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Right.  Bay Ridge was always a good area to begin with.   

While I do understand the idea of bringing back the , I would myself as noted before if that were to be done do it by splitting the and into two separate full-time routes that would meet up at Chambers Street (with a limited number of trains at peak hours running to/from Broad), set up so there (usually, other than the peak-hour  trains that continue to Broad) a train waiting at Chambers for those coming from Jamaica on the and likewise those coming from Bay Ridge on the a train waiting at Chambers.  As I would do, this new version of the also eliminates the late-night shuttle since this would be a 24-hour line and except for Whitehall would make every stop the does late night.  

And this does...? 

A shuttle from Lower Manhattan to Bay Ridge, and another that *almost* gets Jamaica line passengers to fulton st helps no one. If you want more service on fourth avenue, extend the . The nassau loop is cool and all, but its existance doesn't merit its use, especially given that it fails to serve NYC's largest market -- Midtown. 

Also, the termination procedure at Chambers for those  trains you propose sounds like....a mess. 

[CenSin]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I would myself as noted before if that were to be done do it by splitting the and into two separate full-time routes that would meet up at Chambers Street (with a limited number of trains at peak hours running to/from Broad), set up so there (usually, other than the peak-hour  trains that continue to Broad) a train waiting at Chambers for those coming from Jamaica on the and likewise those coming from Bay Ridge on the a train waiting at Chambers.  As I would do, this new version of the also eliminates the late-night shuttle since this would be a 24-hour line and except for Whitehall would make every stop the does late night.  

As noted before, your idea serves passengers from the Precambrian era. Exactly how large of a market relative to the midtown Manhattan market does this service pattern serve, and at what expense in terms of US currency, train capacity for other destinations, and operational degradation for other routes?

[Porter]

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Downtown-only Nassau St service is useless

I think you misunderstood a crucial aspect of my proposal. The from Bay Ridge would not terminate downtown; it would run all the way to Metropolitan Avenue, with the returning to normal service (or otherwise using the Chrystie Street Connection for additional service into Brooklyn).

[RR503]

1 minute ago, Skipper said:

I think you misunderstood a crucial aspect of my proposal. The from Bay Ridge would not terminate downtown; it would run all the way to Metropolitan Avenue, with the returning to normal service (or otherwise using the Chrystie Street Connection for additional service into Brooklyn).

And the purpose of resuscitating an objectively less useful service pattern is...? 

Look, the route will be long, but it’ll be nothing compared to the , , , or  lines. Get over it. As long as trains are dispatched well (ie working with conditions on the line in real time), it should be just fine. 

[quadcorder]

37 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I think you misunderstood a crucial aspect of my proposal. The from Bay Ridge would not terminate downtown; it would run all the way to Metropolitan Avenue, with the returning to normal service (or otherwise using the Chrystie Street Connection for additional service into Brooklyn).

I'm not sure what you understand "Downtown-only service" to mean - continuing to Metropolitan Avenue gives both Bay Ridge and Williamsburg customers downtown-only service (versus the downtown-and-midtown service provided by the and respectively)

[Wallyhorse]

4 hours ago, CenSin said:

As noted before, your idea serves passengers from the Precambrian era. Exactly how large of a market relative to the midtown Manhattan market does this service pattern serve, and at what expense in terms of US currency, train capacity for other destinations, and operational degradation for other routes?

The idea is, the is in this scenario a supplement to the  (except late nights when it would replace the entirely) that takes people along 4th Avenue as a local to where they can transfer to the and  along 4th Avenue or the  ,  or  at DeKalb.  The idea is the combined and is really one long line between 95th-Bay Ridge and Jamaica Center split into two parts: The between Jamaica Center and Chambers Street (with limited rush hour runs to Broad) and between Chambers and 95th Street, set up where it's supposed to be where going "north,", the is waiting for the  at Chambers while going south, the is waiting for the .  

That to me solves the long-talked about problem with the  on 4th Avenue. 

[quadcorder]

5 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

The idea is, the is in this scenario a supplement to the  (except late nights when it would replace the entirely) that takes people along 4th Avenue as a local to where they can transfer to the and  along 4th Avenue or the  ,  or  at DeKalb.  The idea is the combined and is really one long line between 95th-Bay Ridge and Jamaica Center split into two parts: The between Jamaica Center and Chambers Street (with limited rush hour runs to Broad) and between Chambers and 95th Street, set up where it's supposed to be where going "north,", the is waiting for the  at Chambers while going south, the is waiting for the .  

That to me solves the long-talked about problem with the  on 4th Avenue. 

How is this different from just extending the down 4 Av besides making people switch trains excessively at Chambers? Also, how do you get around the issue of fleet availability?

 

oh also - how does this relate to the 2 Av Subway?

[B35 via Church]

11 hours ago, Skipper said:

I think you misunderstood a crucial aspect of my proposal. The from Bay Ridge would not terminate downtown; it would run all the way to Metropolitan Avenue, with the returning to normal service (or otherwise using the Chrystie Street Connection for additional service into Brooklyn).

I'm trying to be objective, but the points being raised by the consensus is too potent to successfully refute.... I have to agree with them; the current is much more useful than a 4th av that would run over to Middle Village.... The combination of [having the M take on such a service pattern being proposed] & a [ revival ] isn't remotely a substitute for the current .... IMO, today's M is one of the more brilliant service alterations this agency's done in quite some time.....

As far as "downtown only" service, what they're getting at is, an of sorts would not serve Midtown - not that your suggestion would terminate in Lower Manhattan....

I know you said you agreed with the old 's terminal @ Bay Pkwy being useless, but having the terminal shifted to Bay Ridge in South Brooklyn & making it a full time route, won't have it looming too much more useful within the overall network than the old service pattern.... I don't doubt that you'd get more riders south of 36th using your route (compared to the former usage along the West End), but that'll be the extent of it.....

You'd just be shifting the same problem (of "downtown only" service) on the along more of 4th av.... I can fathom a large swathe of Brooklyn riders being like *yeah, thanks but no thanks for the supplemental service* - I need service past Canal st !! 

In laymens, your would loom more useful than the last rendition of the , but neither of the 2 is more beneficial for the network than the ....

[Deucey]

9 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The idea is, the is in this scenario a supplement to the  (except late nights when it would replace the entirely) that takes people along 4th Avenue as a local to where they can transfer to the and  along 4th Avenue or the  ,  or  at DeKalb.  The idea is the combined and is really one long line between 95th-Bay Ridge and Jamaica Center split into two parts: The between Jamaica Center and Chambers Street (with limited rush hour runs to Broad) and between Chambers and 95th Street, set up where it's supposed to be where going "north,", the is waiting for the  at Chambers while going south, the is waiting for the .  

That to me solves the long-talked about problem with the  on 4th Avenue. 

We could just as easily run  to 96th St with ,   express and  local on Brighton,  local on QBL to 71st and solve the  4th Av and reliability problems except that  would still have no yard to start out from.

[R68OnBroadway]

On 12/17/2017 at 4:50 PM, Caelestor said:

 

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.

How is this a problem? London has the Circle Line do something similar to this and it doesn't matter because nobody takes it from Hammersmith to Edgware Road via the giant loop.

[Porter]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm trying to be objective, but the points being raised by the consensus is too potent to successfully refute.... I have to agree with them; the current is much more useful than a 4th av that would run over to Middle Village.... The combination of [having the M take on such a service pattern being proposed] & a [ revival ] isn't remotely a substitute for the current .... IMO, today's M is one of the more brilliant service alterations this agency's done in quite some time.....

As far as "downtown only" service, what they're getting at is, an of sorts would not serve Midtown - not that your suggestion would terminate in Lower Manhattan....

I know you said you agreed with the old 's terminal @ Bay Pkwy being useless, but having the terminal shifted to Bay Ridge in South Brooklyn & making it a full time route, won't have it looming too much more useful within the overall network than the old service pattern.... I don't doubt that you'd get more riders south of 36th using your route (compared to the former usage along the West End), but that'll be the extent of it.....

You'd just be shifting the same problem (of "downtown only" service) on the along more of 4th av.... I can fathom a large swathe of Brooklyn riders being like *yeah, thanks but no thanks for the supplemental service* - I need service past Canal st !! 

In laymens, your would loom more useful than the last rendition of the , but neither of the 2 is more beneficial for the network than the ....

I appreciate your point, and you're probably right. I acknowledge that I have a bias in that I used to work in FiDi and commute from Bay Ridge, and I personally would have loved such a service as I'd outlined for the .

After rethinking it, I agree with Wallyhorse that it might be better to just make the a separate service south of Broad Street. It would still serve as a skip-stop service as it does today, but it would run beyond Broad Street and serve Bay Ridge during peak hours (which is when skip-stop service operates anyway). Such an arrangement would be a lot less jarring to the system than a return of the , and the could be reserved for the SAS Queens service.

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, Skipper said:

I appreciate your point, and you're probably right. I acknowledge that I have a bias in that I used to work in FiDi and commute from Bay Ridge, and I personally would have loved such a service as I'd outlined for the .

After rethinking it, I agree with Wallyhorse that it might be better to just make the a separate service south of Broad Street. It would still serve as a skip-stop service as it does today, but it would run beyond Broad Street and serve Bay Ridge during peak hours (which is when skip-stop service operates anyway). Such an arrangement would be a lot less jarring to the system than a return of the , and the could be reserved for the SAS Queens service.

Where are you guys getting that Blue (V)??

Aside from that, I agree with everyone that says that the is superior than the ever will be, even though it was cool at the time. Also whoever proposed the going to 4 Av whether it's to Bay Ridge or wherever, I remember making a similar proposal before coming into these forums. But making the terminate at Chambers is a bad idea (even though the Bankers Special  is recreated) just split the and and Call it a day

[LGA Link N Train]

Does anyone know how to get that blue  

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Does anyone know how to get that blue  

It's not in the forum emoticon listing, it was uploaded it to Imgur.... The one's Skipper's using is located at https://i.imgur.com/yD35xgl.png

 

[R68OnBroadway]

6 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

Yeah, the  doesn't need to really come back. 

The only way you could realistically do it is if you reroute the  up 6 Av and QB in its place, which would be possible, but I am not advocating for this. 

As for additional service on 4th Av... you have the  for the job. However you cannot have both, otherwise the 6 Av tracks will be jammed. 

Option 1: 

The  will run to/from Bay Ridge-95 St rush hrs and late nights, thus eliminating the need of running the  full-time. 

Option 2: 

 service will be extended down the West End Line to Bay Pkwy rush hrs, 9 Av middays, and Whitehall St other times. 

Option 3:

Make the  the express counterpart to the , running express between Sutphin-Archer and Marcy Av.  service will terminate at Broad while  service continues to Bay Ridge. 

 

 

 

Option 2 makes the most sense as with the  , there is only a one-seat ride to Delancy, a transfer is required to go further north. The   meanwhile serves as a one-seat ride to Midtown, the biggest market in NYC.

[Porter]

7 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Where are you guys getting that Blue (V)??

Aside from that, I agree with everyone that says that the is superior than the ever will be, even though it was cool at the time. Also whoever proposed the going to 4 Av whether it's to Bay Ridge or wherever, I remember making a similar proposal before coming into these forums. But making the terminate at Chambers is a bad idea (even though the Bankers Special  is recreated) just split the and and Call it a day

As @B35 via Church pointed out, it's not an emoticon on these forums. I created it by opening the original vector image of the bullet and changing the RGB hexadecimal color code to match that of the bullet. I made the background transparent, sized it to match the dimensions of the forum bullets, and exported it as a png with an alpha channel. Feel free to use it to your heart's content.

This hypothetical would not terminate at Chambers Street like the old Bankers Special had done (or my formerly proposed to Staten Island via 4th Avenue). Instead, the would run the entire length from the Jamaica Center to Bay Ridge, but only during the times when skip-stop service is actually active; when skip-stop service ends, the runs to and from Bay Bridge would end as well.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Skipper said:

As @B35 via Church pointed out, it's not an emoticon on these forums. I created it by opening the original vector image of the bullet and changing the RGB hexadecimal color code to match that of the bullet. I made the background transparent, sized it to match the dimensions of the forum bullets, and exported it as a png with an alpha channel. Feel free to use it to your heart's content.

This hypothetical would not terminate at Chambers Street like the old Bankers Special had done (or my formerly proposed to Staten Island via 4th Avenue). Instead, the would run the entire length from the Jamaica Center to Bay Ridge, but only during the times when skip-stop service is actually active; when skip-stop service ends, the runs to and from Bay Bridge would end as well.

Skip stop service runs for all of an hour. I really don't see what meaningful benefit this provides.

[Porter]

1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

Skip stop service runs for all of an hour. I really don't see what meaningful benefit this provides.

Skip-stop service can be extended, then. Why not? Make it something like 5-9 in the mornings and evenings.

[quadcorder]

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

Skip-stop service can be extended, then. Why not? Make it something like 5-9 in the mornings and evenings.

Why link skip-stop to the extension? Why not just extend some and trains at all times?

[RR503]

That'd make for an insanely long route -- 46 stops and all local. With the  already running subpar headways, the extra length would just serve to aggrivate train bunching, delays, etc. With skip stop, the  lose 5 and 4 stops respectively (once Myrtle/Canarsie is done, 10 and 9), so the number of stops becomes fewer, and therefore more managable. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 6:30 PM, Skipper said:

The and would revert to their pre-2010 states, except that the would serve Brooklyn (Bay Ridge this time, ideally).

If you want to bring the  back, then why not make it the skip-stop partner of the rerouted ( J ) ? I suppose then it would be a ( J ) /  skip-stop service instead of a  /  . But at least then you'd have the  back and in a more useful role than in its pre-2010 configuration. 

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 10:28 AM, R68OnBroadway said:

How is this a problem? London has the Circle Line do something similar to this and it doesn't matter because nobody takes it from Hammersmith to Edgware Road via the giant loop.

I suppose the extended  to Flushing intersecting with the  at the Elmhurst Ave station wouldn't be much different from the Circle Line interchanging with itself at Edgware Road, though I wonder how London Underground makes the distinction between where to catch the Circle Line at the two different locations at Edgware and how Transit would do it in this case. Though Caelestor's suggestion to make the Flushing extension the  would allow it to function as a sort-of radial route, because then you've got a route that runs between Brooklyn and Queens in a more central location, goes deeper into Queens than the does and connects to more subway and bus routes in both boroughs. It would just happen to also serve Lower Manhattan. Even if you extend the  to Bay Ridge via the Montague Tunnel, I think it could still function effectively as a mostly-radial route. Maybe not as well as the Rx, but still better than the .

23 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

Yeah, the  doesn't need to really come back. 

The only way you could realistically do it is if you reroute the  up 6 Av and QB in its place, which would be possible, but I am not advocating for this. 

 

I agree that it should either be the  OR the  on Nassau St. No need for both. If the  goes up 6th in place of the  , then the  goes with it (either as a ( Z ) or bring back  for the service). Possibly also expand ( J ) /  service to run for the entire duration of morning and evening rush, instead of just one hour each rush period.

[Lance]

If you're going to run the from Jamaica-Parsons to Forest Hills, you might as well close the loop and run it from Jamaica upper to Jamaica lower. Of course, that is not a serious idea and nobody should consider running such a long-winded and meandering route. This suggestion takes two routes that work fairly well as it is and creates one extremely long and potentially delay-prone route and another that its primary ridership don't want. If the idea is to bring more service to the 4th Avenue corridor, I'd much rather extend the from its present terminal at Broad St over flipping the and  lines.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I will agree that if the idea is to provide more 4th Avenue local service, then just extend the ,  or  there and leave the  as is. But I think the idea behind the  train in this thread is to function primarily as a radial line that better connects riders traveling between Brooklyn and Queens that just happens to continue into Lower Manhattan. It probably should just terminate at Broad St then.

But the more I think about how London’s Circle Line has a transfer to itself at Edgware Road and Paddington, maybe transferring from the  to the  at Elmhurst Ave and Broadway might not really be that big of a problem. They could just give the new platform a different name. I suppose there’s no real reason why the  can’t function as a radial line between Flushing and Ridgewood and still provide direct Midtown service to Ridgewood and Bushwick riders.