Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Around the Horn]

What exactly does it mean if the governor declares a state of emergency for the MTA wouldn’t that help to secure funding for vital infrastructure projects and expansion? Or is this more for shoring up existing infrastructure?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

My guess would be that under a state of emergency, it would go to existing infrastructure, however if you were to make the case that an additional trunk line through Manhattan would alleviate some of the conditions that caused the state of emergency, then things get interesting.

[RailRunRob]

My guess would be that under a state of emergency, it would go to existing infrastructure, however if you were to make the case that an additional trunk line through Manhattan would alleviate some of the conditions that caused the state of emergency, then things get interesting.

Indeed that’s where my head is that as well. The system is so far behind it seems it would have to be a two part plan. One of course to stabilize existing infrastructure and the second expansion. At this point phase 3 of the SAS is vital its almost not even a question. But both parts almost have to be done in parallel for the MTA even hope to being able to pull out of this nose dive. As you stated you have fix the cause. One has to wonder is there any winning this war if the State and Feds are funding on a budget? How do stabilize infrastructure while adding more weight at the sometime? Just visited a pal of mines in LIC unreal. More properties more people more riders. You Just can’t Solve this Being budget minded. Or at least I don’t have the answer.

 

Besides getting the existing infrastructure up to par.

My top priorities would be.

 

SAS to phase 3 at minimum.

 

Repurposing existing and underused rail Row’s around the city. RX,NEC,Putnam,Rockaway. A billion will go a lot further with maximizing what’s there. Might’ve Said Some of these already but heck the Governors Looking For Ideas And Giving $1 Million Payout Why Not One of us? Can’t be crazier then any of the ideas there going to hear.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Edited July 2, 2017 by RailRunRob

[N6 Limited]

Yes, they're currently doing design work at the moment. Should be starting on preliminary utilities relocation in the next year or two.

Shouldn't this have been done before the completion of Phase 1?

[bobtehpanda]

Shouldn't this have been done before the completion of Phase 1?

 

Anything that was done back then wouldn't account for roughly thirteen years of utility work and god knows what else changing since the 2004 FEIS.

[ChemWhizNYC]

Anything that was done back then wouldn't account for roughly thirteen years of utility work and god knows what else changing since the 2004 FEIS.

 

Considering everything we learned from Phase 1, I think everything is going back to the drawing board (or at the very least, should.)

 

We (re)learned how dangerous it is to extend a subway line.

We (re)learned how expensive it is to put in MASSIVE expansions to infrastructure.

We (re)learned how bad the MTA budget is (because of cost overruns, I recall seeing numerous articles that other maintenance will have to be shelved or cut.)

 

I'm going to ask a question - is lower Manhattan really in need for a new subway line? Can the topography tolerate a new subway, or will it all flood in with the next storm? Is the ground even stable for the construction that needs to be done?

 

Do the community really want a new subway line, or can they live with an improvement to what already exists?

What if the trick is to NOT bore another hole through an area that is properly served by other lines, and not disturb the existing buildings?

 

I don't know if this proposal was ever looked at or not, but the Second Ave Subway can go in at Bowery / Kenmare Street to the inner platforms. Have it hit Canal, Chambers, Fulton, Broad Street, and continue to the Montague Street Tunnels.

Does Hanover Square really need to be served? Does anyone consider that part of the street outside to even be safe? Is that area that desperate for a subway, or will it suffice?

 

Considering the cost overruns, a single blast, plus track realignment will definitely be cheaper than blowing through lower Manhattan and creating a new connection. With the "savings," you can extend the Broadway / Nassau platforms, and even make a Grand Street-Bowery Connection.

 

And the people wouldn't have to deal with the round-the clock construction for 20 years (haha.)

[bobtehpanda]

Considering everything we learned from Phase 1, I think everything is going back to the drawing board (or at the very least, should.)

 

We (re)learned how dangerous it is to extend a subway line.

We (re)learned how expensive it is to put in MASSIVE expansions to infrastructure.

We (re)learned how bad the MTA budget is (because of cost overruns, I recall seeing numerous articles that other maintenance will have to be shelved or cut.)

 

I'm going to ask a question - is lower Manhattan really in need for a new subway line? Can the topography tolerate a new subway, or will it all flood in with the next storm? Is the ground even stable for the construction that needs to be done?

 

Do the community really want a new subway line, or can they live with an improvement to what already exists?

What if the trick is to NOT bore another hole through an area that is properly served by other lines, and not disturb the existing buildings?

 

I don't know if this proposal was ever looked at or not, but the Second Ave Subway can go in at Bowery / Kenmare Street to the inner platforms. Have it hit Canal, Chambers, Fulton, Broad Street, and continue to the Montague Street Tunnels.

Does Hanover Square really need to be served? Does anyone consider that part of the street outside to even be safe? Is that area that desperate for a subway, or will it suffice?

 

Considering the cost overruns, a single blast, plus track realignment will definitely be cheaper than blowing through lower Manhattan and creating a new connection. With the "savings," you can extend the Broadway / Nassau platforms, and even make a Grand Street-Bowery Connection.

 

And the people wouldn't have to deal with the round-the clock construction for 20 years (haha.)

 

Ooh boy, there's a lot to digest in this post...

 

First of all, if Hanover Sq is unsafe to you, I hope you're having a great time in that little plastic bubble of yours.

 

The ground holds modern skyscrapers. It is without a doubt stable enough for tunnels, given that tunnels already exist there and the world hasn't fallen over yet.

 

The community overwhelmingly requested a subway. More importantly, it requested a new subway. Water St is dense and underserved. Connecting to Nassau would be 1. too expensive and 2. too disruptive.

[Wallyhorse]

Considering everything we learned from Phase 1, I think everything is going back to the drawing board (or at the very least, should.)

 

We (re)learned how dangerous it is to extend a subway line.

We (re)learned how expensive it is to put in MASSIVE expansions to infrastructure.

We (re)learned how bad the MTA budget is (because of cost overruns, I recall seeing numerous articles that other maintenance will have to be shelved or cut.)

 

I'm going to ask a question - is lower Manhattan really in need for a new subway line? Can the topography tolerate a new subway, or will it all flood in with the next storm? Is the ground even stable for the construction that needs to be done?

 

Do the community really want a new subway line, or can they live with an improvement to what already exists?

What if the trick is to NOT bore another hole through an area that is properly served by other lines, and not disturb the existing buildings?

 

I don't know if this proposal was ever looked at or not, but the Second Ave Subway can go in at Bowery / Kenmare Street to the inner platforms. Have it hit Canal, Chambers, Fulton, Broad Street, and continue to the Montague Street Tunnels.

Does Hanover Square really need to be served? Does anyone consider that part of the street outside to even be safe? Is that area that desperate for a subway, or will it suffice?

 

Considering the cost overruns, a single blast, plus track realignment will definitely be cheaper than blowing through lower Manhattan and creating a new connection. With the "savings," you can extend the Broadway / Nassau platforms, and even make a Grand Street-Bowery Connection.

 

And the people wouldn't have to deal with the round-the clock construction for 20 years (haha.)

For this to work, what would need to happen is:

 

The would have to come in on the INNER tracks at Bowery since the would likely be terminating at Chambers..

 

The would have to come in on the OUTER tracks at Bowery since the would be going through to Broad Street and then through Montague to Brooklyn.

 

Another option on this would be to skip Bowery with the and have the come in at Canal Street.

 

And then there's the issue with DeKalb Avenue and also this:

 

Ooh boy, there's a lot to digest in this post...

 

First of all, if Hanover Sq is unsafe to you, I hope you're having a great time in that little plastic bubble of yours.

 

The ground holds modern skyscrapers. It is without a doubt stable enough for tunnels, given that tunnels already exist there and the world hasn't fallen over yet.

 

The community overwhelmingly requested a subway. More importantly, it requested a new subway. Water St is dense and underserved. Connecting to Nassau would be 1. too expensive and 2. too disruptive.

Which is exactly why I would now do it is do it to Hanover Square as planned with provisions for a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would have the come in at what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) and on the as-present unused track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, becoming the Fulton local and allowing the and to BOTH operate express on Fulton with no changeover of track going into/leaving Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  

[ChemWhizNYC]

For this to work, what would need to happen is:

 

The would have to come in on the INNER tracks at Bowery since the would likely be terminating at Chambers..

 

The would have to come in on the OUTER tracks at Bowery since the would be going through to Broad Street and then through Montague to Brooklyn.

 

Another option on this would be to skip Bowery with the and have the come in at Canal Street.

 

And then there's the issue with DeKalb Avenue and also this:

 

Which is exactly why I would now do it is do it to Hanover Square as planned with provisions for a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would have the come in at what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) and on the as-present unused track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, becoming the Fulton local and allowing the and to BOTH operate express on Fulton with no changeover of track going into/leaving Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  

 

 

Last I checked, there were 2 building evacuations that were at least partially attributable to the blasting for 2nd Avenue Subway - to lose a skyscraper down there would be unimaginable.

 

T train comes in before Bowery, and merges before Canal - you want to say that the train comes in on the outer platforms, I can re-generate the track maps. But ultimately, it'll continue like the M-line to Brooklyn. To have a tunnel running to the G-train at Hoyt-Schermerhorn is... unnecessary, I think. 

Even temporary, I think the provisions for having the T-train run along Broadway-Nassau (rather than an expensive expenditure that may never happen at this rate) is plausible. Do we really need another Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnel? I think the Montague tunnel would suffice.

[Around the Horn]

Even temporary, I think the provisions for having the T-train run along Broadway-Nassau (rather than an expensive expenditure that may never happen at this rate) is plausible. Do we really need another Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnel? I think the Montague tunnel would suffice.

 

They studied Nassau vs Water St and found retrofitting Nassau to be more disruptive and more expensive. Water Street also had larger ridership projections as it serves a portion of Lower Manhattan that only has the near Wall Street and thats it.

 

We aslo do need a new Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnel as the DeKalb Avenue junction that Montague feeds into is at capacity.

[Wallyhorse]

They studied Nassau vs Water St and found retrofitting Nassau to be more disruptive and more expensive. Water Street also had larger ridership projections as it serves a portion of Lower Manhattan that only has the near Wall Street and thats it.

 

We aslo do need a new Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnel as the DeKalb Avenue junction that Montague feeds into is at capacity.

Right, with the then becoming the Fulton Street local as noted above in my other comment.  

[CenSin]

I don't know if this proposal was ever looked at or not, but the Second Ave Subway can go in at Bowery / Kenmare Street to the inner platforms. Have it hit Canal, Chambers, Fulton, Broad Street, and continue to the Montague Street Tunnels.

The thing about the track map you based yours on is that it’s incorrect. The easternmost track (former northbound “local” track) is connected to the current northbound track. It shouldn’t be too much trouble to reconfigure the alignment south of Canal Street, but I don’t know about installing switches north of Canal Street. I think there may be spots approaching the curve with provisions for switch installation. However, reusing the former bridge trackways is a more attractive option for capacity reasons. The former northbound tracks can bulldoze through the existing walls and create a straight path from Chambers Street to Canal Street.

 

Track connections beyond (north) Canal Street, things are less certain. What you should know is that the Bowery station platforms end right under Chrystie Street at the eastern end. Christie Street is a continuation of 2 Avenue. Given the narrow width of the park, the is most certainly unable to stop at Bowery or connect with the existing tracks there. There is the option of connecting to the tracks west of Bowery, however.

 

Another preferable option is to bring the tracks down to Grand Street, and then from there, capture the former Manhattan Bridge connection and run it to Chambers Street. That sort of alignment provides transfers at both Chambers Street ()) and Grand Street (). (Connections to the and further north would remain the same.) The tricky part is configuring the switches. I can imagine that bringing a high-frequency service to the junction as it is currently configured would bring about traffic jams worse than the DeKalb Avenue junction. The bridge tracks would have to be depressed approaching Chambers Street to create a flying junction.

[RR503]

Another interesting proposal was on vanshnook's website. IDK what I think of it as an idea (haven't had time to think properly yet), but thought it was worth sharing.

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2017/05/the-future-of-the-2nd-avenue-subway/

[Wallyhorse]

The thing about the track map you based yours on is that it’s incorrect. The easternmost track (former northbound “local” track) is connected to the current northbound track. It shouldn’t be too much trouble to reconfigure the alignment south of Canal Street, but I don’t know about installing switches north of Canal Street. I think there may be spots approaching the curve with provisions for switch installation. However, reusing the former bridge trackways is a more attractive option for capacity reasons. The former northbound tracks can bulldoze through the existing walls and create a straight path from Chambers Street to Canal Street.

 

Track connections beyond (north) Canal Street, things are less certain. What you should know is that the Bowery station platforms end right under Chrystie Street at the eastern end. Christie Street is a continuation of 2 Avenue. Given the narrow width of the park, the is most certainly unable to stop at Bowery or connect with the existing tracks there. There is the option of connecting to the tracks west of Bowery, however.

 

Another preferable option is to bring the tracks down to Grand Street, and then from there, capture the former Manhattan Bridge connection and run it to Chambers Street. That sort of alignment provides transfers at both Chambers Street ( )) and Grand Street ( ). (Connections to the and further north would remain the same.) The tricky part is configuring the switches. I can imagine that bringing a high-frequency service to the junction as it is currently configured would bring about traffic jams worse than the DeKalb Avenue junction. The bridge tracks would have to be depressed approaching Chambers Street to create a flying junction.

This was another idea that was brought up.  I remember seeing it where it would essentially run non-stop from Houston to Chambers.

 

If you can do it by connecting such a new line to the former Manhattan Bridge tracks, that could work, however, southbound you'd have the potential problem of northbound trains crossing over to get to the "northbound" track at Canal Street. That is why I would be looking at most likely doing it where the is on the "express" tracks at Bowery and Canal Street since those tracks end after Chambers where the would likely terminate while the would come in/exit the Nassau branch on the "local" tracks at Canal Street, coming in/leaving the line after/before Bowery.  

Edited July 5, 2017 by Wallyhorse

[BayParkwayW]

This was another idea that was brought up.  I remember seeing it where it would essentially run non-stop from Houston to Chambers.

 

If you can do it by connecting such a new line to the former Manhattan Bridge tracks, that could work, however, southbound you'd have the potential problem of northbound trains crossing over to get to the "northbound" track at Canal Street. That is why I would be looking at most likely doing it where the is on the "express" tracks at Bowery and Canal Street since those tracks end after Chambers where the would likely terminate while the would come in/exit the Nassau branch on the "local" tracks at Canal Street, coming in/leaving the line after/before Bowery.  

 

What I would do is run the as is down the "local" outer tracks and the on the "express". If the need arises the two center tracks at Chambers should be extended south and built to underpin the local tracks, and then run express on a lower level until they get to south of Broad, where they connect with Montague.

[Wallyhorse]

What I would do is run the as is down the "local" outer tracks and the on the "express". If the need arises the two center tracks at Chambers should be extended south and built to underpin the local tracks, and then run express on a lower level until they get to south of Broad, where they connect with Montague.

No need, the "local" tracks go to Broad already.  By having the go south of Chambers (using the "local" track), it can make the connection.

 

That all said, the bigger issue is DeKalb. 

[CenSin]

This was another idea that was brought up.  I remember seeing it where it would essentially run non-stop from Houston to Chambers.

 

If you can do it by connecting such a new line to the former Manhattan Bridge tracks, that could work, however, southbound you'd have the potential problem of northbound trains crossing over to get to the "northbound" track at Canal Street. That is why I would be looking at most likely doing it where the is on the "express" tracks at Bowery and Canal Street since those tracks end after Chambers where the would likely terminate while the would come in/exit the Nassau branch on the "local" tracks at Canal Street, coming in/leaving the line after/before Bowery.  

You plan avoids the problem of a flat junction the same way my plan does. Reread what I wrote. I said a flying junction.

[Wallyhorse]

I was not thinking of a flying junction, but that can work too.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The thing about the track map you based yours on is that it’s incorrect. The easternmost track (former northbound “local” track) is connected to the current northbound track. It shouldn’t be too much trouble to reconfigure the alignment south of Canal Street, but I don’t know about installing switches north of Canal Street. I think there may be spots approaching the curve with provisions for switch installation. However, reusing the former bridge trackways is a more attractive option for capacity reasons. The former northbound tracks can bulldoze through the existing walls and create a straight path from Chambers Street to Canal Street.

 

Track connections beyond (north) Canal Street, things are less certain. What you should know is that the Bowery station platforms end right under Chrystie Street at the eastern end. Christie Street is a continuation of 2 Avenue. Given the narrow width of the park, the is most certainly unable to stop at Bowery or connect with the existing tracks there. There is the option of connecting to the tracks west of Bowery, however.

 

Another preferable option is to bring the tracks down to Grand Street, and then from there, capture the former Manhattan Bridge connection and run it to Chambers Street. That sort of alignment provides transfers at both Chambers Street ()) and Grand Street (). (Connections to the and further north would remain the same.) The tricky part is configuring the switches. I can imagine that bringing a high-frequency service to the junction as it is currently configured would bring about traffic jams worse than the DeKalb Avenue junction. The bridge tracks would have to be depressed approaching Chambers Street to create a flying junction.

I always liked this option as a "best of both worlds" between the Nassau and Water alignments because you still get the transfers you otherwise wouldn't get by going all the way down Water, but you can also still serve Chatham Square. On the other hand, the SAS becomes tied to Montague and would then be subjected to the madness that is DeKalb. Only one 2nd Ave service would be able to run this service, because two 2nd Ave services would be unable to share tracks with the / from Chambers to Broad and with the between Manhattan and Brooklyn. Edited July 6, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[BreeddekalbL]

this supposed SAS-queens service where would they build the pocket track or will they make it go to 2nd ave?

[Around the Horn]

this supposed SAS-queens service where would they build the pocket track or will they make it go to 2nd ave?

Pocket track?

[Lawrence St]

Isn't the Manhattan Bride Connection from Nassau to the bridge sealed up?

[Bosco]

this supposed SAS-queens service where would they build the pocket track or will they make it go to 2nd ave?

 

The current plan is for SAS to connect to the 63 Street Line east of Second Avenue.  The bell mouths exist for it and are visible on the Manhattan-bound just before Lex-63.  The connection will be similar in layout to the split at 64 Street.  The only tentative pocket tracks are to be between 14 and 23 Streets (someone correct me if I'm wrong), which won't connect to anything according to the current Phase 3 plan.

Isn't the Manhattan Bride Connection from Nassau to the bridge sealed up?

 

Yup.  I think the only bell mouth that still exists is the former connection from the BMT Broadway Line to Brooklyn (now visible from Brooklyn-bound trains just past Grand St.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Bosco

[bobtehpanda]

 

The current plan is for SAS to connect to the 63 Street Line east of Second Avenue.  The bell mouths exist for it and are visible on the Manhattan-bound just before Lex-63.  The connection will be similar in layout to the split at 64 Street.  The only tentative pocket tracks are to be between 14 and 23 Streets (someone correct me if I'm wrong), which won't connect to anything according to the current Phase 3 plan.

Yup.  I think the only bell mouth that still exists is the former connection from the BMT Broadway Line to Brooklyn (now visible from Brooklyn-bound trains just past Grand St.

 

 

It's something more like 9-21 Sts. IMO, that's actually perfect, because if you really wanted to you could build an extension to Brooklyn from those pocket tracks without royally screwing up SAS service.

[Porter]

On the other hand, the SAS becomes tied to Montague and would then be subjected to the madness that is DeKalb.

 

Unless you reconfigure Court Street or Jay Street–Metro Tech to become the SAS terminus (at least until DeKalb is figured out).

[bobtehpanda]

Unless you reconfigure Court Street or Jay Street–Metro Tech to become the SAS terminus (at least until DeKalb is figured out)

 

Expanding station blueprints under Downtown Brooklyn is not realistic.