Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[bobtehpanda]

The way the the Ditmars Boulevard station was designed, the line was meant to make a turn. It is similar to Utica Avenue on the Eastern Parkway Line. The line was meant to be extended along Utica Avenue, which meant the station itself had to leave room for the curve onto Utica Avenue.

 

As a correction to the comment referenced by what you're replying to; there are no provisions for extension of the Flushing Line further east. In fact, the eastern entrance by Macy's would block any further extensions.

 

Actual vs Scheduled they may be scheduled every 4 min but in actuality If you mis an train you really don't wait longer than 3 for the next. The exception when 2 's come back to back.

 

Over the course of an hour, no more than 15TPH run through the 63 St tunnel; therefore, there is still 15TPH left over.

Yes, only way a train could run from anywhere in Astoria to LGA is to run at ground level or underground where the GCP crosses in front of the runway.

 

Really, LGA would be best served by a busway or an LRT with grade separated segments, similar to the Boston Green or Silver Lines. In fact, as part of the LGA rebuild, the best thing they could do would be to build a dedicated, two-way busway from 82nd St & Astoria to Northern and Astoria, so that M60 buses could be extended to Flushing.

[Mtatransit]

All they need is a few underground bus tunnel connecting all airport terminals and have the buses exit the airport tunnel at 103 St/Ditmars (Q23), 94 St, and Astoria and 78 Street. Buses can avoid traffic, serve all terminal underground and no need for fancy air train to nowhere

[agar io]

Really, LGA would be best served by a busway or an LRT with grade separated segments, similar to the Boston Green or Silver Lines. In fact, as part of the LGA rebuild, the best thing they could do would be to build a dedicated, two-way busway from 82nd St & Astoria to Northern and Astoria, so that M60 buses could be extended to Flushing.

All they need is a few underground bus tunnel connecting all airport terminals and have the buses exit the airport tunnel at 103 St/Ditmars (Q23), 94 St, and Astoria and 78 Street. Buses can avoid traffic, serve all terminal underground and no need for fancy air train to nowhere

 

The fact that the Q48, M60, Q70, and Q72 run in mixed, on-street traffic basically negates the benefits that a busway would provide. All of these routes would be stuck in local traffic on Astoria and Junction Blvds or Roosevelt Av.

 

The AirTrain is a boondoggle, but the underlying local-traffic issues need to be addressed first for the busway to be useful.

 

----

 

Anyway, back to topic...

 

So maybe the Second Avenue Subway could get an airport connection elsewhere, this time to JFK.

 

This might involve the RBB, or crazy plans like linking the Archer Av line to the JFK AirTrain. This will probably not happen though. I found an even more preposterous idea in http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Creating-a-One-Seat-Ride-to-JFK.pdf that suggests "Super Express with New Tunnels" running right under the middle of Queens. Yeah, right...

Edited January 30, 2017 by agar io

[CenSin]

As a correction to the comment referenced by what you're replying to; there are no provisions for extension of the Flushing Line further east. In fact, the eastern entrance by Macy's would block any further extensions.

Certainly the intention was there.

 

The tracks once continued north of the bump block (as there were plan to extend the 7 eastward), but were removed in the renovation.

Source: http://www.coronayard.com/routeguide.html

 

This entrance is to the Flushing Line eastward extension as the 42 Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal’s lower level was to its westward extension.

[Around the Horn]

There were definitely provisions for expansion east. The Routes Not Taken devotes a whole chapter to the history of that.

[Lawrence St]

I work near Astoria, curving onto Ditmars would not be a good idea, especially considering that elevated's are not built easy these days. You have to worry about community opposition, the effect, etc.

[LTA1992]

We know and it's been discussed to death.

[Mtatransit]

Somebody needs to audit how the MTA is spending money in these project. 6 Billion dollars for PhaseII? and who knows how much for Phase III.Hell if they had 6 Billion dollars in 1970s Program for Action we would have the full Second Av subway Line, Queens Bl Bypass, and the Utica Subway done by 2000

[bobtehpanda]

The fact that the Q48, M60, Q70, and Q72 run in mixed, on-street traffic basically negates the benefits that a busway would provide. All of these routes would be stuck in local traffic on Astoria and Junction Blvds or Roosevelt Av.

 

The major benefit is that thru-service to Flushing for both the M60, Q70 is possible, since the one-way loop roads of LGA make through-routing buses impossible.

[Mtatransit]

The major benefit is that thru-service to Flushing for both the M60, Q70 is possible, since the one-way loop roads of LGA make through-routing buses impossible.

There really needs to be two paths thur LGA, one serving the Terminals which MTA buses will serve, and one loop which will serve the parking lot, which PA Shuttle will use. Add maybe a few bus lanes in the immediate vincinty of the tunnel portal, then the buses will operate like a AirTrain. Imagine 125 St to Flushing Via LGA

[agar io]

Somebody needs to audit how the MTA is spending money in these project. 6 Billion dollars for PhaseII? and who knows how much for Phase III.Hell if they had 6 Billion dollars in 1970s Program for Action we would have the full Second Av subway Line, Queens Bl Bypass, and the Utica Subway done by 2000

It doesn't take an audit to figure where all the money was wasted. Just look at the size and extravagance of the stations. In London, the TfL would have just put one entry point with two elevators and call it a day. Instead, the MTA wants to build huge column-less mezzanines and three entry points to each station. The multiple exits aren't bad, but why are the mezzanines so big? The depth of the tunnels is a factor too, because that's why the large mezzanines and long escalator shafts need to be built.

 

From https://therealdeal.com/2016/12/31/new-yorks-incredibly-expensive-new-subway-explains-why-we-cant-have-nice-things-opinion/

Of the nearly $4.5 billion price tag for the project, $2.4 billion went to build three new stations and expand an existing one at 63rd Street. Building the tunnels and track systems cost just $734 million.

About $500 million went toward design and engineering. The remaining $800 million covered the rest: construction management, real estate, station artwork, fare-collection systems and other sundry items.

 

With better construction practices, like a design-build contract instead of design-bid-build, the work could be done much faster. Safety regulations are also costly, but make the new line better than the older ones in the long run. Of course, we could also take a time machine back to 1900, when there were no considerations for safety or quality-of-life, and a 4-track line from City Hall to 145 St could be completed in 4 years...

 

Now let's talk about the benefits of these huge costs. The two-tracks not only save money, but with the spacing of the stations and their exits, it also saves time. With provisions for new CBTC signaling systems, many more trains can use the line per hour, and with the huge station mezzanines and column-less platforms, there is much more passenger capacity. The A/C is also comfortable for riders who just want to chill (pun intended) after a hot summer day, or warm up during the frigid winter. Plus, the tracks are quieter and the rails aren't as bumpy.

 

I know the cost is a big problem. It is more expensive than any other modern urban subway project on earth. There are problems with that, but they can be fixed with better management and coordination. I think you could shave $1.5 to $2 billion off Phase 2 just by building 116 Street as a side-platform station with no crossover, using design-build, and having better communication between the different construction firms on site.

 

tl;dr version: Maybe half the cost is worth it. It will inevitably be expensive, but it's half worth its cost.

Edited January 31, 2017 by agar io

[HenryB]

Should we expect more and to 96st in late 2017/early 2018? I see every N/B leaves 57st-7av packed everyday during PM rush.  

Edited January 31, 2017 by HenryB

[Mtatransit]

Should we expect more and to 96st in late 2017/early 2018? I see every N/B leaves 57st-7av packed everyday during PM rush.

 

The could become more frequent by shortening its headway by 1minutes Rush hr from 6 min to 5 min. That's all I will do. We couldn't send to 96 without compromising service to Astoria.

[Around the Horn]

Should we expect more and to 96st in late 2017/early 2018? I see every N/B leaves 57st-7av packed everyday during PM rush.

Run some W trains from 96th to Whitehall in the AM and Whitehall To 96th in the PM

[Mtatransit]

 

Run some W trains from 96th to Whitehall in the AM and Whitehall To 96th in the PM

Could Whitehall turn the increased amount of train without interfering with the ? Edited January 31, 2017 by Mtatransit

[agar io]

Could Whitehall turn the increased amount of train without interfering with the ?

It could turn at Canal Street if needed. Whitehall has probably only 12 tph capacity at most due to the single-track layout.

[CenSin]

It could turn at Canal Street if needed. Whitehall has probably only 12 tph capacity at most due to the single-track layout.

You reduce capacity by turning trains at Canal Street. Clearing out trains at Canal Street is going to hold up trains behind it.

[Mtatransit]

They may have to send some to 9 AV in Brooklyn but equipment is a big problem.

[agar io]

You reduce capacity by turning trains at Canal Street. Clearing out trains at Canal Street is going to hold up trains behind it.

I see. But Whitehall really can't turn that many trains, and the next suitable terminal south of that is 9 Av like @Mtatransit said.

 

Lack of rolling stock might lead some s to be sent over the bridge. However, that in itself turns these trains into trains, defeating the whole purpose.

 

I suppose they can't divert a few rush-hour trains to 57 St-6 Av and then go on to 96 St? That may cause congestion on the QBL , but it duplicates the basically except for the Midtown sections.

 

I really can't think of many other ideas besides sending some northbound trains to 96 St, but then there would be a lack of trains on the QBL local tracks.

 

Oh, well.

Edited January 31, 2017 by agar io

[Art Vandelay]

Should we expect more and to 96st in late 2017/early 2018? I see every N/B leaves 57st-7av packed everyday during PM rush.  

You fairly quickly end up with a capacity issue heading through DeKalb should there be attempts to increase service on the Q. 

[Wallyhorse]

I see. But Whitehall really can't turn that many trains, and the next suitable terminal south of that is 9 Av like @Mtatransit said.

 

Lack of rolling stock might lead some s to be sent over the bridge. However, that in itself turns these trains into trains, defeating the whole purpose.

 

I suppose they can't divert a few rush-hour trains to 57 St-6 Av and then go on to 96 St? That may cause congestion on the QBL , but it duplicates the basically except for the Midtown sections.

 

I really can't think of many other ideas besides sending some northbound trains to 96 St, but then there would be a lack of trains on the QBL local tracks.

 

Oh, well.

A few trains to 96th-2nd might work since trains can get to the track to 57th from the Express track.

 

Still think long-term the way to do it is split the into and with the to 96th-2nd at all times.

[NYCTNostalgia]

A few trains to 96th-2nd might work since trains can get to the track to 57th from the Express track.

 

Still think long-term the way to do it is split the into and with the to 96th-2nd at all times.

I don't believe sending select trains to 96 St-2 Av is a good idea. I believe during Rush Hours in the peak direction when the is the only line serving busy Concourse line stations, removing trains from its 7-9 minute average headway would cause awkward 14-18 minute gaps in service and for the Concourse line, that is a no-no. 

[Caelestor]

6 Ave is going to be full as more trains are added. Running 3 local services on the same track is asking for trouble.

 

It's operationally expensive to run more trains over the bridge and through Dekalb Ave. The simple solution is to send more trains onto the SAS, and add more trains between Astoria and Whitehall St. Excess trains can run to and from Gravesend instead of reversing at South Ferry.

[Mtatransit]

6 Ave is going to be full as more trains are added. Running 3 local services on the same track is asking for trouble.

 

It's operationally expensive to run more trains over the bridge and through Dekalb Ave. The simple solution is to send more trains onto the SAS, and add more trains between Astoria and Whitehall St. Excess trains can run to and from Gravesend instead of reversing at South Ferry.

No need for Gravesend ,9 Av is sufficient

Edited February 1, 2017 by Mtatransit

[Wallyhorse]

No need for Gravesend ,9 Av is sufficient

Yes, 9th Avenue would be more than sufficient in this case for the if you have to send some that way.

 

That said, I much prefer the split / idea since you are going to have to increase service on that line anyway to accommodate the shutdown in two years.