Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[LGA Link N Train]

I would have 4 services south of 63rd, with SAS being four-tracked for Phase 3/4. Unfortunately, the MTA is broke and can't even get the line out of Manhattan.

Maybe the MTA is to busy wasting money at places where it's not needed

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Bosco]

Maybe the MTA is to busy wasting money at places where it's not needed

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

It goes beyond that.  The important projects that they do invest in are out of control.  I understand Phase 2 will entail underpinning Metro-North, but there is no reason that Phase 2 should cost $6 billion with two-thirds of the tunnel work already done and with a scaled down terminal station and without the proposed yard at 129 Street.  There is absolutely zero accountability held on the contractors at the moment, which has been mentioned in this thread and others ad nauseam.

[Fresh Pond]

+1 for that good sir. Seems like that they are purposefully ignoring UES residents. They only need to do a bit of tunneling....and thats it!

The only portion done that will be part of phase 2 is from 116 to 120 Sts. They still have to connect the end of Phase 1 to it (that ends at about 103 St), and the major work under 125 St.

 

...more than a bit of tunneling

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

It goes beyond that. The important projects that they do invest in are out of control. I understand Phase 2 will entail underpinning Metro-North, but there is no reason that Phase 2 should cost $6 billion with two-thirds of the tunnel work already done and with a scaled down terminal station and without the proposed yard at 129 Street. There is absolutely zero accountability held on the contractors at the moment, which has been mentioned in this thread and others ad nauseam.

would it be reasonable to dedicate certain MTA employees to these tasks?

 

Some of them are hard as nails and have a better understanding and concern for the system than contractors *cough* outsiders.

 

Sent from my HP ENVY m6 Notebook PC using Tapatalk

[Bosco]

+1 for that good sir. Seems like that they are purposefully ignoring UES residents. They only need to do a bit of tunneling....and thats it!   

 

As Turtle said, it's more than a little bit of tunneling, but it is still considerably less than Phase 1.  Their incompetence isn't just hurting UES residents (whom, the most cynical of us would think, would be benefiting the most given their income); it's hurting people in the Bronx who also lost their extra subway line decades ago.

 

In addition to the problems I mentioned, why do they need to redo 116 St anyway?  I know it's been discussed a lot on here, but it's such a waste of resources on an already out of control project.  Use the middle track as a relay track.  Use that extra money to build the originally planned terminal station or storage yard.  But no, that'd be too logical for the MTA.

 

Just something to think about: the 10 Ave Station on the is projected to cost about half a billion.  Ironically, even with all but the station shell scrapped, the project still cost a half billion more than the original cost.  That original cost estimate also factored in building the 10 Ave Station, so that's the equivalent of a billion down the drain.  And then of course, the station was leaking after that.  No one at the MTA thought to check to see if the contractor was cutting corners?  It almost seems like these contractors assume they won't get caught (which thankfully, in that case, didn't happen as the contractor had to pay for the repairs there).

[CenSin]

Yeah I do see it's more than a bit of tunneling...but I do see the benefits of a 116 St layup track. In case 2 Av gets congested, that layup track could be used to take some pressure off of congestion.

Currently, all trains must make it to the terminal before turning back. Under heavy congestion, a train could drop all its passengers at 106 Street, run up to the middle track at 116 Street, and turn back southbound to fill in the gap in service sooner. Better, the train won’t be packed with people from 125 Street.

 

This morning, my 8:00 from Coney Island didn’t leave as usual. Instead, it waited until 8:13 to leave. The train was standing-room-only (SRO) after Avenue U, which is a bit unusual considering the fact that it doesn’t usually become SRO until 18 Avenue.

[Porter]

Using the middle track at 116th Street as a relay/layup track is the most logical solution, so I ask you honestly, why not? Really, why not?

[Wallyhorse]

Using the middle track at 116th Street as a relay/layup track is the most logical solution, so I ask you honestly, why not? Really, why not?

Yes, and what should be done is to build side platforms (and if necessary, platforms that offset) at 116 to accomplish that.

[LGA Link N Train]

The relay track at 116 is a great Idea, yet my original plan was for it to start at 103 St (106 Street station) and merge with an employee 125 Street (2 island platform, 3 tracks). The relay track stops at 129 St and the local tracks continue to the Bronx

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[CenSin]

The relay track at 116 is a great Idea, yet my original plan was for it to start at 103 St (106 Street station) and merge with an employee 125 Street (2 island platform, 3 tracks). The relay track stops at 129 St and the local tracks continue to the Bronx

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

We’re only even talking about this middle track because the trackway exists between 106 Street and 120 Street (in real life). If you want to introduce a wholly fantasy scenario, why restrict it to a middle track that spans 2 stations?

Edited August 27, 2017 by CenSin

[LGA Link N Train]

We’re only even talking about this middle track because the trackway exists between 106 Street and 120 Street (in real life). If you want to introduce a wholly fantasy scenario, why restrict it to a middle track that spans 2 stations?

Incase congestion starts happening at 96 Street or an emergency peak service could occur

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Union Tpke]

Residents along Second Avenue in Harlem are getting postcards from the MTA in the mail about soil testing, but other than that nothing much.

 

Somewhere someone posted an image of the postcard. Could you try to find it? Thanks.

[CenSin]

Incase congestion starts happening at 96 Street or an emergency peak service could occur

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Why not 4 tracks then? Do you see my point?

[LGA Link N Train]

Why not 4 tracks then? Do you see my point?

I see your point however there's not enough room

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[CenSin]

I see your point however there's not enough room

There already isn’t enough room for a third track from 96 Street. You would have to create a trackway from there to 106 Street anyway.

 

Want 4 tracks? Bury the second pair under the local tracks. In case of congestion, reroute as necessary just like they do on the other quadruple-tracked trunks.

[RR503]

I see your point however there's not enough room

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

Lol that was literally his point.

[R42N]

I know there will probably be a fairly obvious answer to this, but I’m curious:

 

Is there any reason why some supplemental SAS service can’t be provided by a 6th Avenue Line? I know some might complain that it’s merging, but I think a little extra merging in a quieter would be better running extra ’s up SAS, which stops at a lot of the same stops that the does. 

 

Maybe to add an extra TPH here or there, that’s ok, but if you wanted to add considerable extra service, couldn’t you at least consider a 6th Avenue service? 

[Wallyhorse]

I know there will probably be a fairly obvious answer to this, but I’m curious:

 

Is there any reason why some supplemental SAS service can’t be provided by a 6th Avenue Line? I know some might complain that it’s merging, but I think a little extra merging in a quieter would be better running extra ’s up SAS, which stops at a lot of the same stops that the does. 

 

Maybe to add an extra TPH here or there, that’s ok, but if you wanted to add considerable extra service, couldn’t you at least consider a 6th Avenue service? 

This is what I proposed previously with splitting the into and once the work on Myrtle Avenue is finished, with the as it is now 19;/5 and the to 96th/2nd 24/7 (supplement during the week and main line from Metropolitan weekends). 

[S78 via Hylan]

Outside of the temporary reroute during the shutdown, there's really no need for a 6 Ave service to serve SAS.

Edited August 29, 2017 by S78 via Hylan

[R42N]

This is what I proposed previously with splitting the into and once the work on Myrtle Avenue is finished, with the as it is now 19;/5 and the to 96th/2nd 24/7 (supplement during the week and main line from Metropolitan weekends).

That makes sense, only I would support simply having split terminals with one common Designation, and having it be a weekday only line.

 

I do believe that with the under long term constrcution, additional service from Williamsburg to Midtown would be welcome. Maybe just add 4-5 TPH up SAS.

 

Any extra service that Metroploitan Ave couldn't handle could terminate in 2nd Ave/Houston or Broadway Junction.

[R42N]

Outside of the temporary reroute during the shutdown, there's really no need for a 6 Ave service to serve SAS.

 

 

It’s better than running trains up there like they are currently discussing for the fall. 

[quadcorder]

That makes sense, only I would support simply having split terminals with one common Designation, and having it be a weekday only line.

 

I do believe that with the under long term constrcution, additional service from Williamsburg to Midtown would be welcome. Maybe just add 4-5 TPH up SAS.

 

Any extra service that Metroploitan Ave couldn't handle could terminate in 2nd Ave/Houston or Broadway Junction.

Weekend (and late night iirc) M will run to 96/2 during Canarsie tube shutdown.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the increased M service at peak and midday went to 96/2 to alleviate the 71st conga line.

[CenSin]

That makes sense, only I would support simply having split terminals with one common Designation, and having it be a weekday only line.

Why should it be a common designation?

[R42N]

Why should it be a common designation?

 

 

Well, I don’t envision it as a full time line, only during peak periods, like the to Nereid Avenue (with 3-4 TPH to complement the service, which is all that’s needed at this point.) 

 

Why would you create a separate designation all for an extension of a service that is going to run a few trips? 

 

When Phase 2 kicks in, then we can talk about a full second service. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by R42N

[Wallyhorse]

That makes sense, only I would support simply having split terminals with one common Designation, and having it be a weekday only line.

 

I do believe that with the under long term constrcution, additional service from Williamsburg to Midtown would be welcome. Maybe just add 4-5 TPH up SAS.

 

Any extra service that Metroploitan Ave couldn't handle could terminate in 2nd Ave/Houston or Broadway Junction.

My plan to split it was (and still is) as follows:

 

Metropolitan to 71st-Continental: Unchanged, running as it does now 19/5

 

Metropolitan to 96th-2nd Avenue: Runs 24/7 with 5 TPH (max) weekdays as a supplement to the while replacing the entirely late nights and weekends, running 3 TPH late nights (4 TPH late Friday and Saturday) and 6 TPH Saturdays and Sundays (more trains on weekends than weekdays as it's the main line on weekends).