Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[CenSin]

4 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

What they should have done was that PATH/  combination with the 9/11 money... 

How would this have been done? PATH connects to the Lexington Avenue local tracks via Astor Place or the Lexington Avenue express tracks via Fulton Street?

[officiallyliam]

2 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Both would work.

A connection from PATH to the wouldn't add much transportation value; it won't add much coverage to the PATH network that isn't covered already by the uptown Hudson tubes. Connecting PATH to the , on the other hand, is something that certainly should've been done during the rebuild of the WTC complex: it would add an east side connection to the PATH network, connect NJ to Grand Central as well as to other centers of employment such as Union Square and the Upper East Side. 

2 minutes ago, CenSin said:

How would this have been done? PATH connects to the Lexington Avenue local tracks via Astor Place or the Lexington Avenue express tracks via Fulton Street?

The most formal proposal would have built a new (non-loop) platform at WTC, and connected it to the local tracks south of Brooklyn Bridge, using layup track 1 southbound and the space taken up by the City Hall loop tunnel going northbound. It was proven that this would actually be possible, even given the tangle of lines that the new tunnels would have to cross. Port Authority claimed that the grade would be too steep for trains, and that's why they dismissed it; this was a poor excuse to not have to go through any kind of integration process with the MTA, given that subway trains negotiate steeper grades than the one proposed.

It could still be possible today. It would involve digging under the Oculus - a definite pain - but probably isn't totally impossible.

If you're interested, you can read the proposal here: http://www.rrwg.org/path-lexa.pdf

[Around the Horn]

4 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

The most formal proposal would have built a new (non-loop) platform at WTC, and connected it to the local tracks south of Brooklyn Bridge, using layup track 1 southbound and the space taken up by the City Hall loop tunnel going northbound. It was proven that this would actually be possible, even given the tangle of lines that the new tunnels would have to cross. Port Authority claimed that the grade would be too steep for trains, and that's why they dismissed it; this was a poor excuse to not have to go through any kind of integration process with the MTA, given that subway trains negotiate steeper grades than the one proposed.

It could still be possible today. It would involve digging under the Oculus - a definite pain - but probably isn't totally impossible.

If you're interested, you can read the proposal here: http://www.rrwg.org/path-lexa.pdf

Yeah this is the one I was thinking of...

[KK 6 Ave Local]

Instead of 125 Street Crosstown, should we continue the  up the Harlem River Drive to the GWB (not running on it but on a tunnel near it where the  joins it) and Fort Lee?

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Instead of 125 Street Crosstown, should we continue the  up the Harlem River Drive to the GWB (not running on it but on a tunnel near it where the  joins it) and Fort Lee?

Personally, I'd end the  at 3 Avenue and 149 Street, with a stop at 138 Street. and build it in a way so that it's ACTUALLY WORTH $6 Billion 

[LTA1992]

2 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Instead of 125 Street Crosstown, should we continue the  up the Harlem River Drive to the GWB (not running on it but on a tunnel near it where the  joins it) and Fort Lee?

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllll to the no.

You're on the right track preferring a Bronx alignment over the less useful 125th Street Crosstown.

Yep. Still vehemently against that.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

https://imgflip.com/i/2d2hjd                                just a meme

Edited June 28, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local

[RailRunRob]

On 6/27/2018 at 7:12 PM, officiallyliam said:

Port Authority claimed that the grade would be too steep for trains, and that's why they dismissed it; this was a poor excuse to not have to go through any kind of integration process with the MTA, given that subway trains negotiate steeper grades than the one proposed.

 

4.5% is a bit steep but your correct trains navigate grades on par with that.. 60th street is 4.25% with the climb from the tunnel portal getting as steep as 4.37% The Manhattan Bridge is as high as a 5.4% in spots. Trains could have handled the grade.

[bobtehpanda]

On 6/27/2018 at 4:12 PM, officiallyliam said:

A connection from PATH to the wouldn't add much transportation value; it won't add much coverage to the PATH network that isn't covered already by the uptown Hudson tubes. Connecting PATH to the , on the other hand, is something that certainly should've been done during the rebuild of the WTC complex: it would add an east side connection to the PATH network, connect NJ to Grand Central as well as to other centers of employment such as Union Square and the Upper East Side. 

The most formal proposal would have built a new (non-loop) platform at WTC, and connected it to the local tracks south of Brooklyn Bridge, using layup track 1 southbound and the space taken up by the City Hall loop tunnel going northbound. It was proven that this would actually be possible, even given the tangle of lines that the new tunnels would have to cross. Port Authority claimed that the grade would be too steep for trains, and that's why they dismissed it; this was a poor excuse to not have to go through any kind of integration process with the MTA, given that subway trains negotiate steeper grades than the one proposed.

It could still be possible today. It would involve digging under the Oculus - a definite pain - but probably isn't totally impossible.

If you're interested, you can read the proposal here: http://www.rrwg.org/path-lexa.pdf

Do the train lengths match up?

Part of the issue with the proposal is that the City Hall loop basically allows unlimited amounts of trains to be run on the  . PATH to Newark does not offer the same capacity, because of the wye between Grove St and Exchange Place; trains from the north must track share with Newark-bound trains even to terminate early. And as far as I am aware the lines to Hoboken and Midtown are not long enough.

[officiallyliam]

24 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Do the train lengths match up?

I'm not sure - a ten-car IRT train is 510' and a ten-car PATH train would be 480', but I'm not sure how long PATH platforms are.

24 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Part of the issue with the proposal is that the City Hall loop basically allows unlimited amounts of trains to be run on the  . PATH to Newark does not offer the same capacity, because of the wye between Grove St and Exchange Place; trains from the north must track share with Newark-bound trains even to terminate early. And as far as I am aware the lines to Hoboken and Midtown are not long enough.

This is a very good point, and a significant disadvantage to this proposal. In theory, you could continue to short-turn some trains at City Hall, but you'd probably sacrifice frequency on the WTC to Newark line doing that; either way, service would likely be affected by the merges at Exchange Place and Grove Street. This is now going into some of my PATH fantasy proposals, but I'd suggest a way to simultaneously remove the slow junction merges and expand PATH: separating the uptown and downtown tubes. The downtown line would be taken over by the running to Newark; then, you'd route the uptown tubes from Newport into a new lower level at Grove Street, where the line could turn south and capture the HBLR line to Bayonne - and, who knows, maybe reach Staten Island one day. The branch to Hoboken would run exclusively to 33rd Street. I'd do that building at the same time as any construction for the PATH to connection so that the final project is two separate Manhattan to NJ trains: an east-to-west line (downtown) and a north-south line (uptown). It's certainly a pretty long-shot proposal, but isn't impossible.

[MysteriousBtrain]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 Do the train lengths match up?

No, but there should be a project that expands the WTC-Newark line to 10 cars. Northward of the line you can't expand elsewhere, especially at 33rd St and Hoboken.

Edited June 30, 2018 by MysteriousBtrain

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

I'm not sure - a ten-car IRT train is 510' and a ten-car PATH train would be 480', but I'm not sure how long PATH platforms are.

This is a very good point, and a significant disadvantage to this proposal. In theory, you could continue to short-turn some trains at City Hall, but you'd probably sacrifice frequency on the WTC to Newark line doing that; either way, service would likely be affected by the merges at Exchange Place and Grove Street. This is now going into some of my PATH fantasy proposals, but I'd suggest a way to simultaneously remove the slow junction merges and expand PATH: separating the uptown and downtown tubes. The downtown line would be taken over by the running to Newark; then, you'd route the uptown tubes from Newport into a new lower level at Grove Street, where the line could turn south and capture the HBLR line to Bayonne - and, who knows, maybe reach Staten Island one day. The branch to Hoboken would run exclusively to 33rd Street. I'd do that building at the same time as any construction for the PATH to connection so that the final project is two separate Manhattan to NJ trains: an east-to-west line (downtown) and a north-south line (uptown). It's certainly a pretty long-shot proposal, but isn't impossible.

The problem is that the time to do such a separation cheaply has passed. The Jersey City waterfront is now some of the densest, priciest real estate in America outside of Manhattan itself. Realistically speaking, de-interlining PATH is not possible.

[LGA Link N Train]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-second-avenue-subway-co-op-vibration-lawsuit-20180629-story.html

Anyone wanna dig in?

[CenSin]

31 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-second-avenue-subway-co-op-vibration-lawsuit-20180629-story.html

Anyone wanna dig in?

Someone find out when she plans to move out. I want to buy in.

[kosciusko]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

Anyone wanna dig in?

Unless the escalator machine room is located smack under her building I don't see how this is possible. Plenty of stations have long escalators and this is the first time we're hearing about this

[125thstreet]

46 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Someone find out when she plans to move out. I want to buy in.

Lmao.

[LGA Link N Train]

45 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Unless the escalator machine room is located smack under her building I don't see how this is possible. Plenty of stations have long escalators and this is the first time we're hearing about this

I couldn't even read the whole thing, the moment I heard that a woman was complaining about the SAS, I was done 

[Union Tpke]

On 6/29/2018 at 9:31 PM, MysteriousBtrain said:

No, but there should be a project that expands the WTC-Newark line to 10 cars. Northward of the line you can't expand elsewhere, especially at 33rd St and Hoboken.

They are doing that. Harrison is being lengthened as we speak.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

New SAS plan-  Gun Hill Rd to Jamaica as always.

(U) - College Point-Avenue U via Northern/Astoria Blvd, 21 St(or 31st to connect with the  or ), SAS, S4 Street, Utica Ave

This allows for expansion even with only 2 tracks.

All terminals will have loops.

Edited July 3, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local

[engineerboy6561]

As far as proposals for 2 Av go, we really ought to do something more like my proposal on the other thread:

with an additional track connection between the center tracks at the Lower East Side/2 Av station and the 2 Av mainline heading to Brooklyn; that way if the were to ever return it could run Forest Hills-Kings Plaza via the Utica Av trunk to the S 4 St trunk to 6 Av/QBL. 

I really don't understand why the hell  decided it would be wise to build the SAS with only two tracks; we've needed a full four-track trunk line there for a very long time.

Edited July 3, 2018 by engineerboy6561

[Wallyhorse]

5 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

As far as proposals for 2 Av go, we really ought to do something more like my proposal on the other thread:

with an additional track connection between the center tracks at the Lower East Side/2 Av station and the 2 Av mainline heading to Brooklyn; that way if the were to ever return it could run Forest Hills-Kings Plaza via the Utica Av trunk to the S 4 St trunk to 6 Av/QBL. 

I really don't understand why the hell  decided it would be wise to build the SAS with only two tracks; we've needed a full four-track trunk line there for a very long time.

Below is both the original post in the other thread and my response after that:

21 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I have a fun one for you guys; it's also something I've wanted to see for a really long time: a four-track trunk on 2 Av carrying four different lines, some from Queens and some from the Bronx. The (P) and the (U) would be the expresses, with the  and (Y) running local. Express stops are in bold below, while local stops are in regular text.

The Bronx line would start off carrying the (P) on two tracks at Bay Plaza, with stops at Edson/Bartow Avs, Gun Hill Rd/Fenton Av (connection to  with rear exits on Eastchester Rd, Boston Rd, White Plains Rd , and a four-track station at Norwood-205 St  beneath the existing tracks. The  would begin service at Norwood-205 St, and then the line would continue south, with the  running local and the (P) running express, stopping at Bedford Park Blvd/Webster Av, Fordham Plaza, 3Av/183 St, 3 Av/Tremont Av, 3 Av/Claremont Pkwy, 3Av/169 St, 3 Av/Boston Rd, 3 Av/156 St, 3 Av/149 St with connections to the  , and 138 St/3 Av. with a connection to the  before running under the East River. 

The Queens line would start at Francis Lewis Bl/26 Av with two tracks, carrying the (U). It would stop at 157 St/23 Av, Willets Pt Blvd/150 St, Willets Pt Blvd/Parsons Blvd, and 28 Av/College Pt Blvd before running under Flushing Bay and stopping at LGA terminal D. LGA Terminal D would be a four-track station, and the (Y) would terminate there. West of Terminal C the line would stop at LGA Central Terminal, 23 Av/82 St, Astoria Blvd/Hazen St, Astoria Blvd/Steinway St, Astoria Blvd/31 St with a connection to the  , and Randall's Island before crossing the East River at around 125 St.

In Manhattan the Ditmars Blvd and 3 Av lines would merge into a single four-track trunk on 2 Av, carrying the (P) and (U) on the express tracks, with the  and (Y) on the local tracks, stopping at 125 St-2Av, 116 St, 106 St, 96 St 86 St, 79 St (infill, may be worth skipping), 72 St, 66 St, 59 St with passage to 59-Lex   , 51 St, 42 St-2 Av  with new  station if possible, 34 St, 28 St, 23 St, 14 St-2 Av with a connection to the 3 Av  stop, St. Mark's Pl, and Houston St-2 Av.

South of there, run a two-track line carrying the  and continuing under Chrystie/Pearl Sts and stops at Grand St , St. James Pl, Fulton/Water Sts, and South Ferry with  connections before continuing to Tottenville to connect with the SIR (shamelessly bumming that from OfficiallyLiam's post right behind mine).

Turn the main trunk line carrying the (P) (U) and (Y) east under the river, and continue it with stops at Metropolitan/Wythe Avs, Metropolitan Av/Roebling St, Metropolitan Av/Lorimer St with a connection to the , Graham Av/Grand Av, Graham Av/Montrose Av, Graham Av/Flushing Av/Broadway with  connection, and Graham Av/Myrtle Av/Broadway with  connection. Split the trunk line here; send four tracks to Kings Plaza via Utica Av and another four via a new Broadway/Jamaica Av line.

The Utica Av line would carry the (P) on the express tracks and the (Y) on the local tracks, and stop at Utica/Lafayette Avs, Utica Av/Halsey St, Utica Av/Fulton St with connection to  using the existing station shell, Utica Av/St Marks St, Utica Av/Eastern Pkwy with connection to , Utica Av/Empire Blvd, Utica Av/Winthrop St, Utica Av/Church Av, Utica Av/Beverly Rd, Utica Av/Foster Av, Utica Av/Kings Highway, Utica Av/Flatlands Av, Utica Av/Av M, Utica Av/Av S, and finally Kings Plaza.

The Broadway/Jamaica Av line would carry the  on the local tracks and the (U) on the express tracks, and stop at Broadway/Gates Av, Broadway/Halsey Av, Broadway/Chauncey St, Broadway Junction with connections to the , Jamaica Av/Arlington Av, Jamaica Av/Elton St, Jamaica Av/Highland Blvd, Jamaica Av/Crescent St, Jamaica Av/75 St, Jamaica Av/85 St, Jamaica Av/Woodhaven Blvd, Jamaica Av/104 St, Jamaica Av/111 St, Jamaica Av/121 St, Sutphin Blvd  with  connection, and Parsons/Archer with  connection.

 and  trains would terminate at Parsons/Archer, while the (U) would continue on a two-track line out to Springfield Blvd via Merrick Blvd, with stops at Liberty Av, 110 Av, Linden Blvd, Baisley Blvd, Farmers Blvd, and Springfield Blvd as the terminus.

The Nassau St Elevated line would be demolished east of the BQE, and a new portal would be built in the block bounded by Rodney St, Broadway, S 5th St, and Keap St to bring the  underground; the Hewes St station would be rebuilt underground, and the new underground Lorimer St station would connect to the Broadway  station. The new underground Broadway/Jamaica Av corridor would be built to IND standards.

This is really ambitious, but it would accomplish a lot of things; The NE Queens branch would connect Northeastern Queens to the subway system, providing redundancy for Flushing, while tying LGA into the subway system in a way that actually makes sense (as opposed to an AirTrain from Flushing to LGA), and the Bronx branch would provide a crosstown option in the Bronx on Gun Hill Rd, and the connections with the  and  would provide west side access to Manhattan, to go along with east side access from the  and  , while also taking a load off the Bx15 and providing the Bronx a proper four-track express service.

The Manhattan trunk would take a huge load off the Lex, especially considering the Bronx connections, and the Brooklyn setup would provide massive relief on the western Brooklyn part of the  , as it would now be possible to get a one-fare ride into Manhattan from any station west of Broadway Junction by taking the B20/24/26/38/52/57/ from the area around basically any L station between Lorimer St and Broadway Junction to a stop on the Broadway/2 Av corridor (or just walk if you're near the Graham Av or Grand St stations on the  . The Utica Av corridor takes a huge load off the B46 (and the split ends of the B41), and the Jamaica Av corridor gets rid of the Crescent St curves while providing one-seat rides from SE Queens into Manhattan.

 

4 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

All excellent, however, you might need to move this version of the and the other lines over to 1st Avenue north of say 79th Street due to the being where it is.   I would probably do that and add a stop at 79th Street/1st Avenue if there would not have been a stop on 79th otherwise, with such coming under the existing SAS tracks at 79th and stopping at a new lower level of 72nd, with provisions that allow the newer tracks to turn at 63rd and head to the Broadway Line (and I would also on 63rd look to extend those tracks so they can connect to the 8th Avenue line, which would have all kinds of additional benefits for G.O.s or even down the road being able to do a line that runs from a connection to the 8th Avenue line at 63rd to the SAS as well as to Queens. 

[Porter]

On 6/28/2018 at 11:54 AM, LGA Link N train said:

Personally, I'd end the  at 3 Avenue and 149 Street, with a stop at 138 Street. and build it in a way so that it's ACTUALLY WORTH $6 Billion 

This is the only logical plan considering the 's budget. Build it like that, call it a day, and leave provisions for future expansions when the can afford it. 149th and 138th provide the most use for the lowest cost.

[R68OnBroadway]

19 hours ago, Porter said:

This is the only logical plan considering the 's budget. Build it like that, call it a day, and leave provisions for future expansions when the can afford it. 149th and 138th provide the most use for the lowest cost.

If we were a normal city we would get to Tremont on $6 billion. But if it has to be that price, I'd rather it go to 149th-3rd then be the line that could have been a crosstown but was not. I prefer though that any SAS Bronx line be via Webster north of 149th as then you have a straighter and wider road, and you have more space for a potential transit hub at Fordham Plaza. Building it on Webster also makes it easier to extend the line further north to Gun Hill, which would be a good idea if the  was sent to Co-Op City.

[Mysterious2train]

The MTA just uploaded the updated environmental assessment for Phase 2: http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/ea_phase2.htm

It just describes how the MTA's updated design for Phase 2 differs from the design in the original final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that was published in 2004.

The major changes from the 2004 design are:

- 125th St station being reduced from 3 tracks to 2 tracks (which they already announced a few months ago), along with changes to the tail tracks

- Potential changes in size to the ancillary buildings and station entrances, in order to fit more equipment and better facilitate passenger flow, possibly requiring changes to the properties the MTA will have to take via eminent domain

- The proposed storage tracks on 2nd Avenue going up to 129th St being scrapped

Quote

The potential storage tracks beneath Second Avenue to 129th Street have been eliminated, as well as an associated ancillary facility that was proposed along Second Avenue near 127th Street. Updated operations analysis conducted during advanced preliminary engineering has concluded that the location of these storage tracks is not compatible with the efficient dispatching of trains from storage into revenue service and, therefore, these tracks are not needed.

Which of course also has the benefit of reducing the scope of the project.

And some other minor changes due to things like changes in construction techniques/technology:

- Some of the station locations being shifted slightly (e.g. 125th St station being built an extra 20 feet deeper underground so that the station can be mined instead of being built with cut-and-cover, which will reduce the impact to the surface)

- Redesigning the design of the curve from Second Avenue onto 125th Street, allowing the MTA to resequence the use of TBMs, as well as the location of the bellmouth for a Bronx extension being moved south from 120th-122nd Streets down to 118th-120th Streets, reducing the amount of cut-and-cover construction the MTA has to do.

Several of these changes seem to be the MTA just doing as much as it can to reduce use of cut-and-cover and disruption to the surface. Which I think is setting a bad precedent, but that's neither here nor there.

And if you're itching to submit comments, you can do so online until August 13th, or show up to a presentation on July 31st. 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

If it brings down the cost and speeds up the construction timeframe significantly, then I’m all right with it.