Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[R10 2952]

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

For 116th, perhaps that is done using what is existing and if necessary building two side platforms (and if necessary, an underpass to go back and forth between the two).  

If that is required to at least get part of Stage 2 done, then that may be necessary. 

This would actually make sense.  After all, the biggest money pits in Phase 2 currently are the deep-bore extension onto 125th and the extravagant plan for the 116th station.  Get rid of 125th, scale down 116th, build some bellmouths for a Bronx extension, and you get a project that becomes more salvageable cost-wise.

[NewFlyer 230]

2 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

This would actually make sense.  After all, the biggest money pits in Phase 2 currently are the deep-bore extension onto 125th and the extravagant plan for the 116th station.  Get rid of 125th, scale down 116th, build some bellmouths for a Bronx extension, and you get a project that becomes more salvageable cost-wise.

I agree with this idea. They should try to spend as less money as possible. They want to make these large beautiful stations and that’s why they can’t ever build anything. Look at how large Hudson Yards station is and 98% of the time a train is usually in the station which means the platform, the mezzanine are empty and benches are unused. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by NewFlyer 230

[R10 2952]

36 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I agree with this idea. They should try to spend as less money as possible. They want to make these large beautiful stations and that’s why they can’t ever build anything. Look at how large Hudson Yards station is and 98% of the time a train is usually in the station which means the platform, the mezzanine are empty and benches are unused. 

Not to mention they dropped the plans for a 10th-41st station on the , although I'll concede that was more the City's fault then the MTA's-  Bloomberg was very tight fisted when it came to municipal funding for transit.

[bobtehpanda]

Interesting shower thought I had about the SAS:

The MTA should abandon mezzanines entirely. Instead, there should be just the platform, and exits to the street.

Either we go with island platforms and station entrances on traffic islands (not unprecedented; 96/Broadway has its entrances on a traffic island), or we abandon mezzanines entirely and adopt stations without crossovers.

[Caelestor]

Island platforms are preferred because you only need one set of stairs, escalators, elevators, etc. to handle traffic uptown and downtown. Get rid of the mezzanine and just have exits at each end of the station to maximize coverage.

That said, given the current economic reality, I would delay SAS Phase 2 indefinitely until a new crowding baseline on the  is established, or until ridership/revenue recovers, probably in ~2 years. If/when stimulus comes in by a transit-friendly federal government, Gateway has to be the priority because the existing tunnels are falling apart, though that project needs to be reevaluated to not have a giant money-consuming cavern at Penn South.

[NewFlyer 230]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Interesting shower thought I had about the SAS:

The MTA should abandon mezzanines entirely. Instead, there should be just the platform, and exits to the street.

Either we go with island platforms and station entrances on traffic islands (not unprecedented; 96/Broadway has its entrances on a traffic island), or we abandon mezzanines entirely and adopt stations without crossovers.

I was thinking if 116th street was constructed with side platforms, they can have an 2 elevators from street level go to each platform and have the fare control at platform level too. It would be far cheaper that way, than digging a gigantic deep tunnel, with a huge mezzanine and such.

I think the 125th street station should be constructed on 2nd Ave instead of 125th because it would once again be cheaper than having to dig up the Lexington Ave line and 125th. Who cares about a direct Metro North connection? That is why the Bx15, the M100 and the M60 exist. If they want a connection to the Lexington Ave line, connect the second Ave line with the  at 3rd Ave-138th street and call it a day. 

[LGA Link N Train]

I've already Preached this already, but I personally think that Phase 2 should've ended at 3rd Avenue-149th Street where a  connection could be established.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

Island platforms are preferred because you only need one set of stairs, escalators, elevators, etc. to handle traffic uptown and downtown. Get rid of the mezzanine and just have exits at each end of the station to maximize coverage.

That said, given the current economic reality, I would delay SAS Phase 2 indefinitely until a new crowding baseline on the  is established, or until ridership/revenue recovers, probably in ~2 years. If/when stimulus comes in by a transit-friendly federal government, Gateway has to be the priority because the existing tunnels are falling apart, though that project needs to be reevaluated to not have a giant money-consuming cavern at Penn South.

To be clear I don't oppose island platforms that don't need mezzanines. They're just more problematic to build without mezzanine, since generally speaking unless your entrance is on a traffic island, you'll need a mezzanine to get people to sidewalks.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Interesting shower thought I had about the SAS:

The MTA should abandon mezzanines entirely. Instead, there should be just the platform, and exits to the street.

Either we go with island platforms and station entrances on traffic islands (not unprecedented; 96/Broadway has its entrances on a traffic island), or we abandon mezzanines entirely and adopt stations without crossovers.

 

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

Island platforms are preferred because you only need one set of stairs, escalators, elevators, etc. to handle traffic uptown and downtown. Get rid of the mezzanine and just have exits at each end of the station to maximize coverage.

That said, given the current economic reality, I would delay SAS Phase 2 indefinitely until a new crowding baseline on the  is established, or until ridership/revenue recovers, probably in ~2 years. If/when stimulus comes in by a transit-friendly federal government, Gateway has to be the priority because the existing tunnels are falling apart, though that project needs to be reevaluated to not have a giant money-consuming cavern at Penn South.

I suggested getting rid of the oversized mezzanines years ago on here, only to get flamed for it. I seem to recall reasons such as what happens if you miss your stop and having to have more elevators to comply with ADA. But even with an island platform, you would still need at least two elevators (one from the street to the mezzanine, then one down to the platform). That is, unless the tracks are not directly located under a street (unlike most NYC subway stations) or if there’s a wide median in the middle of the street where you can locate a station house (like on Broadway with 96th St and 72nd St). @NewFlyer 230 suggested doing 116th St with two side platforms with the elevators going from street directly to platform level. I think that’s a good place to start and I’ll suggest that maybe 106th St can be built that way too.

As much as it pains me to say it, I’ll agree with delaying Phase 2 given the MTA’s potentially painful financial situation, unless  ridership quickly rebounds from where it is now. Though the Gateway project really isn’t something the MTA should be focused on since that project’s goal is to create more trans-Hudson track capacity for Amtrak and NJ Transit. The “less-glamorous” things like making more stations ADA-compliant and upgrading signaling/switches should get short-term priority (yes, I seem to be getting more transit alert emails from the MTA about signal problems again, so start there!).

[NewFlyer 230]

To add onto my idea from earlier, building a cross-under isn’t a bad idea  either because at least you can still transfer to the other side. I think all the MTA should focus on in terms of station design is making sure the station is accessible for all.

By the way isn’t there suppose to be a 110th street station as well? Phase 2, ideally should be easier to build since a lot of the tunnel is there already.  

[Lex]

One thing I've noticed about all these posts saying to delay/cancel Phase 2 is that the trunk is seen strictly as a relief line, as opposed to something with any potential for expanding (or mitigating the losses of) the base. I'm in agreement that something needs to be done to cut the costs of new construction, but that shouldn't be an excuse to kick the can down the road (we've done plenty of that, thank you very much). Even considering the expected ridership losses, it will rebound to at least a respectable level.

46 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

By the way isn’t there suppose to be a 110th street station as well? Phase 2, ideally should be easier to build since a lot of the tunnel is there already.  

The station's at 106th Street.

[Union Tpke]

On 7/21/2020 at 4:17 PM, R10 2952 said:

This would actually make sense.  After all, the biggest money pits in Phase 2 currently are the deep-bore extension onto 125th and the extravagant plan for the 116th station.  Get rid of 125th, scale down 116th, build some bellmouths for a Bronx extension, and you get a project that becomes more salvageable cost-wise.

Except you would need to construct crossovers at 116th, adequate crewing and terminal facilities, storage areas, a dispatchers area, and other requirements for a terminal. Also, you would lose a lot of ridership by not going to 125th. Ending at 116th Street is not a good option. Also, doing that would put federal FTA funds at risk. You either do the whole thing, or none of it. 

[R10 2952]

3 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Except you would need to construct crossovers at 116th, adequate crewing and terminal facilities, storage areas, a dispatchers area, and other requirements for a terminal. Also, you would lose a lot of ridership by not going to 125th. Ending at 116th Street is not a good option. Also, doing that would put federal FTA funds at risk. You either do the whole thing, or none of it. 

Not necessarily.  57th-6th comes to mind as a station that served as a cut-cover temporary terminal and had all the features you just described; same thing goes for 21st-Queensbridge.  They worked reasonably well as interim solutions, and the MTA was still able to get the federal funding they needed to complete the 63rd Street Line.

All or nothing is just not a solution that works with public transportation (especially in NY), because you'll just end up with nothing at the end of the day.  The 1995 and 2010 cuts showed us that cut service rarely gets brought back, and the last thing passengers need to hear this time around from the MTA is "oh, and we also aren't going to add anything new, either".

Right now the best bet for East Harlemites would be for them to ensure they get that station.  Would be good for the folks in the Bronx as well if it means ultimately steering the Second Avenue project away from Lex and towards Mott Haven instead.

Edited July 23, 2020 by R10 2952

[Lawrence St]

I still think SAS should connect with a rebuilt version of the 3rd Av elevated. More connections with other lines and buses and cheaper to build then a regular subway.

[mrsman]

7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I still think SAS should connect with a rebuilt version of the 3rd Av elevated. More connections with other lines and buses and cheaper to build then a regular subway.

Is there political will to build new elevated trackage?  I believe that even in poorer neighborhoods, NIMBYs will oppose new elevateds and demand that expansions on the system happen underground.

But if there is political will, go for it.  Elevateds are far cheaper as they avoid tunnelling.

[Lawrence St]

3 hours ago, mrsman said:

Is there political will to build new elevated trackage?  I believe that even in poorer neighborhoods, NIMBYs will oppose new elevateds and demand that expansions on the system happen underground.

But if there is political will, go for it.  Elevateds are far cheaper as they avoid tunnelling.

I could care less what NIMBY's think about a subway line. If this new subway line will benefit more people, it should be done.

This "what about NIMBY's" mentality really has to stop, this is why MTA can never get anything done. Look at the 14th St busway, they complained and it still happened anyway.

[Union Tpke]

11 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Not necessarily.  57th-6th comes to mind as a station that served as a cut-cover temporary terminal and had all the features you just described; same thing goes for 21st-Queensbridge.  They worked reasonably well as interim solutions, and the MTA was still able to get the federal funding they needed to complete the 63rd Street Line.

All or nothing is just not a solution that works with public transportation (especially in NY), because you'll just end up with nothing at the end of the day.  The 1995 and 2010 cuts showed us that cut service rarely gets brought back, and the last thing passengers need to hear this time around from the MTA is "oh, and we also aren't going to add anything new, either".

Right now the best bet for East Harlemites would be for them to ensure they get that station.  Would be good for the folks in the Bronx as well if it means ultimately steering the Second Avenue project away from Lex and towards Mott Haven instead.

Except 57th and 21st Street were designed to be temporary terminals. The design for 116th will need to be completely redesigned.

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

The design for 116th will need to be completely redesigned.

Fortunately the space under the avenue has already been carved out. It’s pretty obvious that initial design is more work than working with what’s already there and shoehorning in a platform and some shafts. 116 Street has a few things going for it that could make a station pretty easy:

• existing tunnel fairly close to the surface
• tunnel depth still deep enough under the street that a mezzanine (of any size) could fit in between the street and platform level
• wide middle track space suitable for plopping a platform right over (and looks like that is the new plan anyway)

21 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I've already Preached this already, but I personally think that Phase 2 should've ended at 3rd Avenue-149th Street where a  connection could be established.

Definitely been touted again and again. Not sure if this pandemic and budget crunch can even kill the current 125 Street station plans.

Edited July 23, 2020 by CenSin

[Caelestor]

I still think the best non-pandemic option is to just build SAS Phase 2 as a single four-station extension into the Bronx along 3 Ave, stopping at 106, 116, 138, and 149 Aves. The latter two stops get you transfers to the  and , which will free up capacity on both IRT trunks. The 125 St line is nice, but I've always seen it as part of the Triboro RX, with 116 St being the transfer to the SAS.

I'm ambivalent on a temporary terminal at 116 St. That stop is only a mile away from the existing 96 St station by bus, though admittedly the choice isn't between terminating Phase 2 at 116 St vs 125 St  or 149 St , it's a short extension or no construction at all.

[Wallyhorse]

21 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I've already Preached this already, but I personally think that Phase 2 should've ended at 3rd Avenue-149th Street where a  connection could be established.

I would at doing that instead, possibly with the line becoming elevated after 116th Street (and a new rail bridge to The Bronx), with stations at 138th Street-3rd Avenue for the  and 149th for the and .  Provisions could be then do for a later extension over the former Bronx 3rd Avenue EL route, either as an EL or subway.  You could also include provisions for a separate extension to LaGuardia that way (with a separate station for THAT at 124th Street-1st Avenue) also via a rail bridge that stops on Randalls Island (most likely at Ichan Stadium with an additional stop TBD) and a couple of stops in Queens on the way to LGA, out of the way of residential properties.  

[R10 2952]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Except 57th and 21st Street were designed to be temporary terminals. The design for 116th will need to be completely redesigned.

Well yeah, that's what I've been saying- the 116th station needs to be redesigned, because the current plan's projected costs are ridiculously high.  

[Maxwell179]

Just now, R10 2952 said:

Well yeah, that's what I've been saying- the 116th station needs to be redesigned, because the current plan's projected costs are ridiculously high.  

What are the current plans for the 116th St station ?

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, Maxwell179 said:

What are the current plans for the 116th St station ?

Through Station, convert the current space reserved for a middle track into an island platform

[R10 2952]

7 minutes ago, Maxwell179 said:

What are the current plans for the 116th St station ?

 

5 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Through Station, convert the current space reserved for a middle track into an island platform

Yes, with a full mezzanine if I'm not mistaken.  Would be a lot cheaper if they did side platforms, pocket entrances and a small crossunder instead of a full mezzanine.  And kept the center track for non-revenue layups, because these things end up being quite useful (135th-8th being a case in point).

Edited July 23, 2020 by R10 2952

[CenSin]

21 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Would be a lot cheaper if they did side platforms

If I’m not mistaken they did mention something about water mains or something alongside the existing tunnel structure. Not sure how deep, but the side platforms would not be cheaper than plopping the platform over the middle track space considering the extra excavation and modifications to the tunnel walls.