Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[W4ST]

6 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

This option also works, since it would absorb the excess capacity from the Broadway express. Ideally, 72nd could be rebuilt to be like 63rd and Lex to allow a cross-platform transfer between the Broadway to Queens and the Second Avenue line, but I understand this would be quite the engineering feat to accomplish, considering the layout of existing tracks.

The 79th Street tunnel idea is fine, but it should go either to Northern Blvd or to the bypass. There's no need to try to route it into upper Roosevelt; not to mention this wouldn't be physically possible. You'd have to tear out the mezzanine above the IND platforms, as the upper level platforms stub-end at the eastern end of the mezzanine. Additionally, you would have to cut-and-cover underneath Queens Blvd to get there, underpinning the Flushing IRT in the process.

If the is simply rerouted to the Eighth Avenue express, the could cover Eighth Avenue local, 53rd, and the QB local to 179th on its own. This setup could probably get you about 20-24 tph on the local; sending the   and via 63rd to the QB express would get you 30+ tph (with CBTC). As for the bypass, it really should go through its own tunnel, but that requires extensive construction.

Sending the all through Cranberry would be operational suicide.

Oh, I forgot to mention that the  would end at WTC as a local. Then the  would run local and express on Fulton Street, or a connection would be made from the SAS and they could both run express.

[Wallyhorse]

On 4/2/2018 at 6:57 PM, officiallyliam said:

The 79th Street tunnel idea is fine, but it should go either to Northern Blvd or to the bypass. There's no need to try to route it into upper Roosevelt; not to mention this wouldn't be physically possible. You'd have to tear out the mezzanine above the IND platforms, as the upper level platforms stub-end at the eastern end of the mezzanine. Additionally, you would have to cut-and-cover underneath Queens Blvd to get there, underpinning the Flushing IRT in the process.

Actually, I was thinking more such a line could be the line that perhaps connects to the RBB (if that did get re-activated) than QB.  Such could have a stop at Broadway with a transfer to the Astoria Line station there followed by a stop at 61st-Woodside (Transfer to  and LIRR) and then from there continue to a new entrypoint south of where the portal is supposed to be for the RBB at 63rd-Rego Park.  This route I suspect would be very popular for those on the Upper East Side looking to head to Long Island but NOT wanting to deal with Penn Station (since such could get the LIRR at Woodside as well as make for a much quicker ride (albeit having to go through the UES) from the Rockaways with just likely two stops (Broadway and 61st-Woodside) in Queens before hitting the RBB.   

[officiallyliam]

53 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

This route I suspect would be very popular for those on the Upper East Side looking to head to Long Island but NOT wanting to deal with Penn Station.

Which, of course, is a large enough constituency to warrant a subway line.

Look, catering to every possible desired route for a given person is nice and all, but when you're trying to serve a city of over eight million with a rapid transit network, it just isn't possible. All of this construction - rebuilding SAS stations, a new river tunnel and reactivating upper Roosevelt (which still isn't possible) - to serve the Rockaway Beach Branch, a route which has been proven time and time again to not be a high priority for subway service, wouldn't pass the simplest of cost-benefit analyses.

Building this hypothetical new tunnel to finally take some pressure off of Queens's few existing (and very busy) subway lines - either the by doing the bypass, or the by doing Northern Blvd, or both - is exponentially more important than building a brand new tunnel to serve a line that's half parkland.

[Coney Island Av]

22 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Which, of course, is a large enough constituency to warrant a subway line.

Look, catering to every possible desired route for a given person is nice and all, but when you're trying to serve a city of over eight million with a rapid transit network, it just isn't possible. All of this construction - rebuilding SAS stations, a new river tunnel and reactivating upper Roosevelt (which still isn't possible) - to serve the Rockaway Beach Branch, a route which has been proven time and time again to not be a high priority for subway service, wouldn't pass the simplest of cost-benefit analyses.

Building this hypothetical new tunnel to finally take some pressure off of Queens's few existing (and very busy) subway lines - either the by doing the bypass, or the by doing Northern Blvd, or both - is exponentially more important than building a brand new tunnel to serve a line that's half parkland.

I would prefer to have the tunnel on 86 St, since that's a more major destination. It can serve as a crosstown route going onto Northern, and should also head of to College Point/Whitestone to serve communities that rely on buses to get to the nearest subway stop. However, the tunnel would have to curve a bit when entering Queens, as it would run on Broadway instead of 30th. 

As for the RBB, wouldn't it be similar to the low-ridership the  has today? The  has low-ridership stops probably because they're close together, so the ridership is split. If we spaced the stops on RBB more further apart, wouldn't it get higher ridership? FYI the  has almost the same catchment area of the portion between Forest/Ozone Park. 

I think if we should build the RBB, spacing of stops should be like this:

Metropolitan Av-Parkside

Jamaica Av

Atlantic Av

Liberty Av 

Stops at 66 Av, Myrtle Av, and Union Turnpike won't have high ridership to justify building them. And yes, you could say, "why build any of them," but I think one stop in the vicinity will be enough to cater to those folks if the area is half parkland and if they really warranted such a thing. 

But yes, I do agree that Northern Blvd/Bypass are arguably more important, but I would build both. I have proposed the bypass as a turquoise , while the Northern Blvd line should be an  extension. If you only build one, it will only relieve either QBL or Flushing, while the other will still be inundated with copious groupings of people. 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[Wallyhorse]

43 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Which, of course, is a large enough constituency to warrant a subway line.

Look, catering to every possible desired route for a given person is nice and all, but when you're trying to serve a city of over eight million with a rapid transit network, it just isn't possible. All of this construction - rebuilding SAS stations, a new river tunnel and reactivating upper Roosevelt (which still isn't possible) - to serve the Rockaway Beach Branch, a route which has been proven time and time again to not be a high priority for subway service, wouldn't pass the simplest of cost-benefit analyses.

Building this hypothetical new tunnel to finally take some pressure off of Queens's few existing (and very busy) subway lines - either the by doing the bypass, or the by doing Northern Blvd, or both - is exponentially more important than building a brand new tunnel to serve a line that's half parkland.

Should have noted this revised idea for the 79th Street tunnel would actually not include Queens Boulevard at all, but instead a new line via the SAS that would make just two stops before the RBB after leaving Manhattan: Broadway at the Astoria and 61st-Woodside, then not stopping again until it reaches the RBB.   I'm eliminating the Roosevelt Avenue stop in this case.  

Oh, and this would also be a new subway line to Howard Beach-JFK Airport, giving those on the upper east side looking for JFK in many cases a one-seat ride or at worst a ride back to 72nd/2nd and a transfer to the new SAS branch there to such.  

Edited April 4, 2018 by Wallyhorse

[officiallyliam]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

Should have noted this revised idea for the 79th Street tunnel would actually not include Queens Boulevard at all, but instead a new line via the SAS that would make just two stops before the RBB after leaving Manhattan: Broadway at the Astoria and 61st-Woodside, then not stopping again until it reaches the RBB.   I'm eliminating the Roosevelt Avenue stop in this case.  

With this, we're close to having a workable subway line, but you insist on sending it to the RBB, which is such a waste of capacity. Even if the RBB needs a subway - which it doesn't - it certainly doesn't need the full capacity of the Broadway express, which is far better used on corridors that will actually serve a large number of people.

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

Oh, and this would also be a new subway line to Howard Beach-JFK Airport, giving those on the upper east side looking for JFK in many cases a one-seat ride or at worst a ride back to 72nd/2nd and a transfer to the new SAS branch there to such.  

So most people - excepting those within walking distance of 72nd and 2nd - will still have a two-seat ride, which they do today using either the or the to the . Again, not worth a brand new subway line.

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

As for the RBB, wouldn't it be similar to the low-ridership the  has today? The  has low-ridership stops probably because they're close together, so the ridership is split. If we spaced the stops on RBB more further apart, wouldn't it get higher ridership? FYI the  has almost the same catchment area of the portion between Forest/Ozone Park. 

Yes, it would be. Why would you justify the building of a new line by saying it'll have the ridership of the ? Also, ridership is ridership - the has low-ridership stops that, when added together, equal a low-ridership line. If stops were further apart, the ridership of stations would be higher, but the overall line ridership would be exactly the same.

And the fact that the (and the ) have virtually identical catchment areas to the RBB is exactly what doesn't justify the construction of a subway in that corridor.

 

[Wallyhorse]

15 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

So most people - excepting those within walking distance of 72nd and 2nd - will still have a two-seat ride, which they do today using either the or the to the . Again, not worth a brand new subway line.

The area I'm talking about that would be mainly served by my proposed line to the RBB to JFK (those within walking distance of 72nd/2nd and 79th/1st in Manhattan) happen to live in what is arguably THE MOST dense area of apartments in the entire country, especially where I would have the new stop (79th and 1st).  This also benefits those in the Rockaways as once you get past the RBB onto the new line it's just two stops before Manhattan.  It's too bad you can't incorporate the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue into such a station, as that would make it even better.   Perhaps a new lower level of Roosevelt Avenue could be built with another stop on such a new level at 63rd-Rego Park (under the Queens-bound side of the current station not unlike how the Fairmount Station on the Broad-Ridge Spur is next to the Broad Street Line station in Philly (and actually has a free transfer between the two there).  

[bobtehpanda]

On 4/3/2018 at 4:18 PM, Wallyhorse said:

Actually, I was thinking more such a line could be the line that perhaps connects to the RBB (if that did get re-activated) than QB.  Such could have a stop at Broadway with a transfer to the Astoria Line station there followed by a stop at 61st-Woodside (Transfer to  and LIRR) and then from there continue to a new entrypoint south of where the portal is supposed to be for the RBB at 63rd-Rego Park.  This route I suspect would be very popular for those on the Upper East Side looking to head to Long Island but NOT wanting to deal with Penn Station (since such could get the LIRR at Woodside as well as make for a much quicker ride (albeit having to go through the UES) from the Rockaways with just likely two stops (Broadway and 61st-Woodside) in Queens before hitting the RBB.   

This is all well and good. But why RBB? A bypass to Forest Hills still gets you to Woodside for LIRR passengers. In fact, nearly every single benefit you listed can be achieved with a bypass.

As far as JFK goes, the RBB is not really a fast way to get there. You can pick actually serving residents in the corridor and a fast ride to JFK, but not both. But wait, it's not even a fast ride to JFK; it's a fast ride to an AirTrain stop outside of JFK. I have a hard time believing that this use of billions of dollars has a BCR of greater than 1 given that there already is a fast two-seat ride to JFK, which will only get better on completion of East Side Access.

Edited April 5, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is all well and good. But why RBB? A bypass to Forest Hills still gets you to Woodside for LIRR passengers. In fact, nearly every single benefit you listed can be achieved with a bypass.

As far as JFK goes, the RBB is not really a fast way to get there. You can pick actually serving residents in the corridor and a fast ride to JFK, but not both. But wait, it's not even a fast ride to JFK; it's a fast ride to an AirTrain stop outside of JFK. I have a hard time believing that this use of billions of dollars has a BCR of greater than 1 given that there already is a fast two-seat ride to JFK, which will only get better on completion of East Side Access.

Upper East Side … Upper Roosevelt Avenue platforms … Aqueduct casino … racetrack … are his core constituencies. Never mind that there will be a connection from 2 Avenue/55 Street to Queens via the already-built 63 Street tunnel with provisions for a bypass line being added by East Side Access right now.

[Wallyhorse]

Bringing this over from the Proposals/Ideas thread:
 

On 4/13/2018 at 10:15 PM, thicctrain said:

Here's my proposal:  train, starts at Inwood 207, goes down with the  until 125 st, goes onto Second Av, then in lower manhattan goes thru a new tunnel (was originally proposing cranberry but that isn't gonna work lol), meets up with  at High street, goes with  as an express, then splits off after Bway Junction and goes on the LIRR until Queens Village and ends there. 

This would be tricky unless you can do it in the following manner:

Have it run with the  between 145th and 207th Street

Go to the additional track on each side south of 145th Street (the one area where it's six tracks across)

Build a curve or have the middle track on each side between 125-145 turn north of 125th Street to there and go to a new station on a level below 125 (with transfers both ways to the and at 125).  

Continue on 125 across with a stop at Lenox Avenue (transfer to before continuing to Lexington and the transfer there and then the SAS as planned.

For the Brooklyn end, as previously noted I would have the  run via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel with such connected to Court Street (current Transit Museum) and then coming in on the local (presently unsued) track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and from there continuing as the Fulton Street local to Euclid Avenue where it would terminate (except late nights when such would be extended to Lefferts Boulevard).   This allows the and to both run express on Fulton with the becoming the full-time Lefferts line and the  becoming the full-time Rockaway line.

As for the breaking away at Broadway Junction and using LIRR trackage, I don't know if that would be possible.  

[CenSin]

5 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

This would be tricky unless you can do it in the following manner:

Have it run with the  between 145th and 207th Street

Go to the additional track on each side south of 145th Street (the one area where it's six tracks across)

Build a curve or have the middle track on each side between 125-145 turn north of 125th Street to there and go to a new station on a level below 125 (with transfers both ways to the and at 125).  

Continue on 125 across with a stop at Lenox Avenue (transfer to before continuing to Lexington and the transfer there and then the SAS as planned.

Mentioned in 2011:

On 7/8/2011 at 5:29 AM, Wallyhorse said:

I'd myself be looking to connect it with the Nassau line (as noted elsewhere), with Canal street the stop after Houston should they ever complete Phase 3. I would also be looking at extending Phase 2 across 125th street (terminating on a low elevated platform under the at Broadway-12th Avenue) since by the time that Phase is complete, Columbia University will be in the middle of a massive expansion that I think would warrant the line going across 125, including a connection to the (A)/(:P/©/(D) at St. Nicholas Avenue that would allow for the SAS to reach the Bronx and/or extreme upper Manhattan.

…and a once a month thereafter. Is it a mensiversary already?

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

Mentioned in 2011:

…and a once a month thereafter. Is it a mensiversary already?

Thanks for reminding me (I had actually forgot I had said that before).  And yes, I stand by what I said in 2011 as far as 125 is concerned as Columbia IS in the middle of that expansion project (while it would be nice to include Nassau, the downtown end as I would do now would be to extend it to the Fulton line in Brooklyn as noted.  

One adjustment to that would be if the SAS did go to Broadway/125, it would be an underground station under the  there.

[RR503]

9 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Bringing this over from the Proposals/Ideas thread:
 

This would be tricky unless you can do it in the following manner:

Have it run with the  between 145th and 207th Street

Go to the additional track on each side south of 145th Street (the one area where it's six tracks across)

Build a curve or have the middle track on each side between 125-145 turn north of 125th Street to there and go to a new station on a level below 125 (with transfers both ways to the and at 125).  

Continue on 125 across with a stop at Lenox Avenue (transfer to before continuing to Lexington and the transfer there and then the SAS as planned.

For the Brooklyn end, as previously noted I would have the  run via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel with such connected to Court Street (current Transit Museum) and then coming in on the local (presently unsued) track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and from there continuing as the Fulton Street local to Euclid Avenue where it would terminate (except late nights when such would be extended to Lefferts Boulevard).   This allows the and to both run express on Fulton with the becoming the full-time Lefferts line and the  becoming the full-time Rockaway line.

As for the breaking away at Broadway Junction and using LIRR trackage, I don't know if that would be possible.  

I'm with you on the Fulton local connection, but the direct service to Northern Manhattan seems unnecessary. The 125th St branch is really the only way to salvage the idiotic placement of the line's northern terminal at 125/lex, so we can probably take that as given. Having it turn north before the , however, seems wasteful.  riders have no means of escaping the line between 168 and 96, so giving them that additional flexibility I'd argue is a much more worthy goal than shoving more tph up to Inwood. 

Also, to do your proposal, the area around 135 would have to be rebuilt. The layup tracks exist, yes, but they merge back in before the  pull off, so you'd end up cramming an untenable number of trains onto 4 tracks for about a thousand feet before they all disperse. In short, you'll have constant merge and overcapacity delays. 

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm with you on the Fulton local connection, but the direct service to Northern Manhattan seems unnecessary. The 125th St branch is really the only way to salvage the idiotic placement of the line's northern terminal at 125/lex, so we can probably take that as given. Having it turn north before the , however, seems wasteful.  riders have no means of escaping the line between 168 and 96, so giving them that additional flexibility I'd argue is a much more worthy goal than shoving more tph up to Inwood. 

Also, to do your proposal, the area around 135 would have to be rebuilt. The layup tracks exist, yes, but they merge back in before the  pull off, so you'd end up cramming an untenable number of trains onto 4 tracks for about a thousand feet before they all disperse. In short, you'll have constant merge and overcapacity delays. 

That's why I said unless you'd be able to do it as noted (I was specifically replying to the other proposal explaining how that would work).

I do think such a connection should be built anyway if for no other reason than for G.O.'s and flexibility so the can go down the SAS when needed and then run via 63rd to the . to West 4th.  The 125th Street connection to the  I think would be huge.

[RR503]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

That's why I said unless you'd be able to do it as noted (I was specifically replying to the other proposal explaining how that would work).

I do think such a connection should be built anyway if for no other reason than for G.O.'s and flexibility so the can go down the SAS when needed and then run via 63rd to the . to West 4th.  The 125th Street connection to the  I think would be huge.

The chances of all 4 tracks of CPW being put out of service/needing to be OOS is extremely low. Planning for such situations is thus wasteful, especially given the massive cost and disruption that'd be involved in creating such a link. Even for some crazy situation when you, say, need to shut a level of CPW, you'd either use reverse signalling to empty the affected level, tell folks to take the , or set up bus bridges between discontinuous portions of the lines. That just makes more sense than playing circle line with trains. 

[Lance]

If Second Ave must be extended to the west side, let that be the terminal. It does not need to tie in with the Concourse or upper 8th Avenue lines and thereby kneecap their capacity with meandering services. Also, I believe I mentioned this before, someone else can do the digging, but subway construction cannot be justified solely on its reroute potential. Even relatively short extensions like Chrystie St or the 11th Street cut served an important purpose beyond rerouting trains in an emergency. The only potential for regular riders is with those on the upper end of 8th Avenue, which I do not feel is large enough to justify a full track connection. We cannot give everyone a one-seat ride.

[kosciusko]

Quote

Plans move ahead for Second Avenue Subway Phase Two in Harlem

POSTED 1:01 PM, MAY 1, 2018, BY GREG MOCKER, UPDATED AT 03:26PM, MAY 1, 2018

It's round two for the Second Avenue Subway in the heart of Harlem.

When will it open? How will it be funded? What are the specific designs?

Phase Two would add three new stations at 106th and 116th Streets on Second Avenue and connect to the Lexington Line at 125th Street. Some of the tunneling has already been done during previous work on the project.

MTA Capital Construction officials have been making presentations to community boards, neighbors, riders and business owners along Second Avenue and 125th Street in Harlem and East Harlem.

Manhattan Community Board 10 Transportation Chairperson Raquel Vazquez looks forward to the project and wants to make sure small businesses are a part of the planning process.

By July, MTA officials say they expect to have completed the required Environmental Impact Review period. Design will get underway and there could be some construction by the end of 2019.

A document filed with the Federal Transit Administration says revenue service could begin between 2027 and 2029.

Significant federal funding for this project is expected to be available in 2020. More than a billion and a half dollars has been included in the current MTA Capital Plan for big projects.

The project has been a priority for the MTA since the opening of Phase One on the East Side in January 2017. After decades of starts and stops, construction on that portion had a ground-breaking in 2007.

There will be significant utility and road work required between the stations at 106th and 116th Streets. Deep drilling will happen along Second Avenue from 116th Street to meet up and create the station at 125th Street. Underground train storage tracks will stretch past that station to Lennox Avenue.

Ventilation facilties will be built near the new stations. Those specific locations are still being considered. MTA officials say the buildings along 125th Street will not be "blank walls." The vent and power facilities can also include retail and commercial space.

MTA Chief Development Officer Janno Lieber says lessons were learned from Phase One about community outreach and involvement.

A Neighborhood Center with information about the project opened in 2017 on 125th Street at Park Avenue.

http://pix11.com/2018/05/01/plans-move-ahead-for-second-avenue-subway-phase-two-in-harlem/

Edited May 1, 2018 by kosciusko

[RR503]

5 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Underground train storage tracks will stretch past that station to Lennox Avenue

Talk about *almost* making the 125th st line useful...

Another three blocks, and they would have paradigmatically changed crosstown transportation. But alas, sheer blindness wins again. 

[MysteriousBtrain]

29 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Talk about *almost* making the 125th st line useful...

Another three blocks, and they would have paradigmatically changed crosstown transportation. But alas, sheer blindness wins again. 

You know we can't afford to have more connections along 125 St. It's also not priority to Lord Cuomo. 😛

[bobtehpanda]

2029? Jesus.

[R68OnBroadway]

2029 opening and a 6 billion price tag...

Why the f*ck does it take so long and cost so much for a segment that is majority cut-and-cover? We should just put the project on hold or send it to 3rd-138th instead as this 125th crosstown isn’t going to do much to take riders off the Lex lines in the Bronx. Guarantee you with a cost like this and such we are going to get a multi-billion dollar out of control boondoggle like ESA. My grandchildren will be on their deathbed before the whole line is complete. No wonder other countries are even cities are whooping our as**s.

Edited May 2, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Completely agreed! $6 billion for a section of the line that would be (or better be!) using existing tunnels under 2nd Avenue. This is beyond outrageous! The MTA needs to come clean about why it’s going to cost that much for a stretch of tracks that don’t go very far and already have existing tunnels in place for much of the way. And fast!

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

So, the PIX 11 news reporter in the video mentions that construction work might begin at the end of 2019. Right. I'm content with walking for the remainder of my lifetime...

[kosciusko]

9 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The MTA needs to come clean about why it’s going to cost that much for a stretch of tracks that don’t go very far and already have existing tunnels in place for much of the way. And fast!

Where else is Emperor Cuomo supposed to get the funding for his state-run ski resorts?

[Around the Horn]

I'm sorry but that's absurd... More than half the thing is built already!