Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[CenSin]

also if they were concerned about cost in say phase 3 i'd say their best option is to build cross platform transfer at grand street

Sounds like the best outcome of a cash-strapped MTA ever. But I think this would come in phase 4.

[RailRunRob]

Sounds like the best outcome of a cash-strapped MTA ever. But I think this would come in phase 4.

How do you do that with Crystie street being so narrow?

Edited March 28, 2017 by RailRunRob

[CenSin]

How do you do that with Crystie street being so narrow?

The Brooklyn-bound platform could be directly under the western sidewalk, but I’m not sure. If there were provisions to make a space for 2 Avenue, either the bare track space is there already, or they shifted enough of the station to towards the park that a track way could be excavated by digging straight down from the sidewalk. No matter what though, it’s going to be disruptive.

[RailRunRob]

The Brooklyn-bound platform could be directly under the western sidewalk, but I’m not sure. If there were provisions to make a space for 2 Avenue, either the bare track space is there already, or they shifted enough of the station to towards the park that a track way could be excavated by digging straight down from the sidewalk. No matter what though, it’s going to be disruptive.

Yeah, I was wondering why wouldn't they have just made the provisions it wasn't like they weren't expecting the SAS to be coming that way A few years later at least from a mid to late 60's POV.

[SmallParkShuttle]

Indeed but the thing is after 72nd there an upgrade the split and then a downgrade and turn onto 63rd. Phase 3 is going cross over the 63rd street tunnels. There's even a slight upgrade into the 72nd itself from 86th.

I've finally got my eyes​ on some drawings. Looks like depth of bedrock and the drive to stay in bedrock to simplify tunneling (which keeps costs down) controls the track grades and depths (as it should).

 

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

[RailRunRob]

I've finally got my eyes​ on some drawings. Looks like depth of bedrock and the drive to stay in bedrock to simplify tunneling (which keeps costs down) controls the track grades and depths (as it should).

 

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

 Possible this make's sense overall. The typography in this area the rock layer almost reaches the surface. They could have moved the cavern 20-25 feet up and still been in rock at both 72nd and 86th so there wasn't a sudden change in ground material except at the northern end at 96th. But this could be partially true to keep a certain distance from the street being the surface elevation changes a bit.

Edited March 28, 2017 by RailRunRob

[CenSin]

I've finally got my eyes​ on some drawings. Looks like depth of bedrock and the drive to stay in bedrock to simplify tunneling (which keeps costs down) controls the track grades and depths (as it should).

 

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

At the cost of speed for trains taking the downgrade. This is a cost that will be paid indefinitely. Some other rail project specifications I’ve read explicitly admonish building stations at the end of downgrades. Ideally, the stations should be built like those on the Lexington Avenue Line where the track profile is like a hump to help trains slow down going in and speed up going out.

[RailRunRob]

At the cost of speed for trains taking the downgrade. This is a cost that will be paid indefinitely. Some other rail project specifications I’ve read explicitly admonish building stations at the end of downgrades. Ideally, the stations should be built like those on the Lexington Avenue Line where the track profile is like a hump to help trains slow down going in and speed up going out.

Great point. 

[bobtehpanda]

Yeah, I was wondering why wouldn't they have just made the provisions it wasn't like they weren't expecting the SAS to be coming that way A few years later at least from a mid to late 60's POV.

 

The '60s was Moses era, when knocking down a few blocks of minorities here and there was par for the course in public works.

[BreeddekalbL]

cause if i am not mistaken didn't they decide against building the cross platform transfer at grand street due not wanting to make chinatown mad cause it would rip up the streets?

Edited March 28, 2017 by BreeddekalbL

[SmallParkShuttle]

At the cost of speed for trains taking the downgrade. This is a cost that will be paid indefinitely. Some other rail project specifications I’ve read explicitly admonish building stations at the end of downgrades. Ideally, the stations should be built like those on the Lexington Avenue Line where the track profile is like a hump to help trains slow down going in and speed up going out.

How much of a cost is that trade-off? I don't think it's that enough to warrant a deeper station, and the benefit would only be in one direction, since trains going the opposite way have to climb back up that hill. I'm not even sure if you'd save two minutes on the schedule cutting across the geo-strata. You will definitely pay much more up front in construction, as well as down the road in infrastructure maintenance.

 

Looking at the profile that they have in the construction methods brochure, 86 St station is crested in the recommended technique that you mentioned, which decreases the depth of the station, which in turn decreases construction costs as well as vertical circulation time for people entering the station.

 

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

[DailyDose]

cause if i am not mistaken didn't they decide against building the cross platform transfer at grand street due not wanting to make chinatown mad cause it would rip up the streets?

 

Isn't the platform for the SAS supposed to be behind one of the walls at Grand as a provision? Idk, somebody posted that some time ago

[BreeddekalbL]

Isn't the platform for the SAS supposed to be behind one of the walls at Grand as a provision? Idk, somebody posted that some time ago

 

that's what i just said and supposedly in their recent plans for phase 4 they decided against to not make chinatown mad because they would rip up the neighborhood

[CenSin]

How much of a cost is that trade-off? I don't think it's that enough to warrant a deeper station, and the benefit would only be in one direction, since trains going the opposite way have to climb back up that hill. I'm not even sure if you'd save two minutes on the schedule cutting across the geo-strata. You will definitely pay much more up front in construction, as well as down the road in infrastructure maintenance.

 

Looking at the profile that they have in the construction methods brochure, 86 St station is crested in the recommended technique that you mentioned, which decreases the depth of the station, which in turn decreases construction costs as well as vertical circulation time for people entering the station.

 

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

Actually, I’m speaking of the downgrade slowing down southbound trains to 72 Street. There are some signals to slow down trains. On relatively flat and straight segments, there wouldn’t be a need for them.

[CenSin]

also if they were concerned about cost in say phase 3 i'd say their best option is to build cross platform transfer at grand street

If they were concerned about cost in phase 3, they would cut the Queens Boulevard connection at 53 Street. I think we’ll see them cut the storage tracks at 14 Street as well. And if they’re really strapped for cash, they’ll probably even resort to a cheaper cut-and-cover option at Houston Street using the provisioned space and figure out how to get to Grand Street from there some other time.

[RR503]

If they were concerned about cost in phase 3, they would cut the Queens Boulevard connection at 53 Street. I think we’ll see them cut the storage tracks at 14 Street as well. And if they’re really strapped for cash, they’ll probably even resort to a cheaper cut-and-cover option at Houston Street using the provisioned space and figure out how to get to Grand Street from there some other time.

QBL connection is at 63rd, I think. I see that being built hell or high water; Queens will raise the dead otherwise. 

 

I can see the other things you mention though. 

[CenSin]

QBL connection is at 63rd, I think. I see that being built hell or high water; Queens will raise the dead otherwise. 

 

I can see the other things you mention though. 

Haha. That “6” key is right next to the “5.” I wonder if the streets being 10 blocks apart had to do with selecting 63 Street instead of some other street for the construction of the new Queens tunnel decades ago.

[Caelestor]

If they were concerned about cost in phase 3, they would cut the Queens Boulevard connection at 53 Street. I think we’ll see them cut the storage tracks at 14 Street as well. And if they’re really strapped for cash, they’ll probably even resort to a cheaper cut-and-cover option at Houston Street using the provisioned space and figure out how to get to Grand Street from there some other time.

 

The QBL connection at 63 St is too important to cut: it serves the future Queens - SAS service and gives the closer yard access. The more prudent option would be to end Phase 3 at 14 St for the transfer and to relieve the worst congestion on the . The tunnel would extend south of 14 St and the tail tracks would replace the storage tracks.

[RR503]

Haha. That “6” key is right next to the “5.” I wonder if the streets being 10 blocks apart had to do with selecting 63 Street instead of some other street for the construction of the new Queens tunnel decades ago.

Lol all cool

 

I think 63rd Street being selected had a lot to do with the geology of the East River in the area, along with ease of construction in Manhattan. IIRC routings as far north as 76th and as far south as 62nd were considered. Also remember that the 63rd St tubes were built with ESA in mind.

Edited March 29, 2017 by RR503

[bobtehpanda]

Isn't the platform for the SAS supposed to be behind one of the walls at Grand as a provision? Idk, somebody posted that some time ago

 

 

that's what i just said and supposedly in their recent plans for phase 4 they decided against to not make chinatown mad because they would rip up the neighborhood

 

According to the MTA, those platforms do not exist, and the current ones are too narrow to make ADA accessible for tracks on both sides.

 

To be fair, I am pretty sure that anyone would logically be upset about the MTA trying to tear down buildings on their block. To add insult to injury, it would also disrupt the only green space in the neighborhood; the nearest parks of similar size are City Hall Park and Washington Square Park.

Edited March 29, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

According to the MTA, those platforms do not exist, and the current ones are too narrow to make ADA accessible for tracks on both sides.

 

To be fair, I am pretty sure that anyone would logically be upset about the MTA trying to tear down buildings on their block. To add insult to injury, it would also disrupt the only green space in the neighborhood; the nearest parks of similar size are City Hall Park and Washington Square Park.

Columbus Park is nearby. There are plenty of parks in the area. There’s also Seward Park. It’s unlikely the entire park is going to be closed anyway.

 

And the way I see things going, there won’t be any minorities around to speak of by phase 4. And any that remain are going to be totally whitewashed yuppies with none of the disadvantages of being a minority. A lot of those buildings are going to go down in the coming decades for condominiums and art studios.

[bobtehpanda]

Columbus Park is nearby. There are plenty of parks in the area. There’s also Seward Park. It’s unlikely the entire park is going to be closed anyway.

 

All of those parks are crowded. It would be immensely disruptive to the community, for... what tangible improvement for the community, exactly? Compared to the outer boroughs, Lower Manhattan is particularly underparked given its population.

[CenSin]

All of those parks are crowded. It would be immensely disruptive to the community, for... what tangible improvement for the community, exactly? Compared to the outer boroughs, Lower Manhattan is particularly underparked given its population.

A cross-platform transfer is in itself an enormous gain.

 

But you know me: I’m focus on routing flexibility. Construction is a price paid once. Flexibility is a gain that gives forever. Cutting these important things for a temporary reduction in disruption is extremely short-sighted. The neighborhood will experience a turnover whether it’s by the hands of the MTA or the forces of gentrification.

—2 cents from the mind of an investor

 

I would allow my life to be disrupted and live like a poor man if it meant even greater financial gains down the road. Most people don’t do that, which is why it’s relatively easy for those with an eye for the future to place themselves in the top 25% or even 5%.

 

The same communities who protest about every project end up losing forever as they are stuck with the results of their protest. Those living near the Rockaway Beach Branch are going to suffer the consequences of substandard transportation forever if they get their wish to have a Queens High Line. Sometimes people don’t know what they want and decisions have to be made for them as patronizing as it sounds. My Facebook feed is always full of people complaining about the MTA, oblivious to the machinations of our governor who keeps the MTA barely alive; I wouldn’t give their opinions any weight if it were up to me.

Edited March 29, 2017 by CenSin

[Around the Horn]

I agree with you on the fact that a cross platform transfer (and connection from SAS to the Manhattan Bridge) is very beneficial in the long run, however the issues with construction are still important and need to be resolved with the neighborhood at heart.

[Wallyhorse]

I agree with you on the fact that a cross platform transfer (and connection from SAS to the Manhattan Bridge) is very beneficial in the long run, however the issues with construction are still important and need to be resolved with the neighborhood at heart.

Which is only one problem.

 

The second one, if there are in fact tracks behind the walls at Grand, is how far from the existing platforms are those?  We know how crowded Grand can be to begin with and if they are right where the wall is now, that is another issue in itself.