Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[bobtehpanda]

Reading the FEIS, I see nothing overly concerning. Most of the changes revolve around the fact that:

• It's been more than a decade since the last FEIS, so some of the low-usage sites they picked for ancillary facilities have now been redeveloped and are therefore much more costly to acquire
• Post-Sandy NYCT standards mean that a lot of equipment cannot be stored in stations that are located in flood zones, and have to be moved aboveground to new ancillary facilities

Important quotes:

Quote

The bellmouth structure where the 125th Street curve would terminate at Second Avenue has been shifted south from the original location at 120th-122nd Streets to 118th-120th Streets, connecting with the existing bulkhead of the Section 13 tunnel box and the north end of the 116th Street Station structure. This revised bellmouth structure would be more compact (i.e., narrower), which would reduce the amount of surface construction, and its new location would eliminate about two blocks of cut-and-cover construction for the new tunnel. The bellmouth would still allow for a future extension to the Bronx, with space for two outer tracks that would continue to the 125th Street Station and two inner tracks that would allow for the extension. This revised alignment and track configuration is a result of updated design and proposed construction methods.

So they're getting rid of the tail tracks, but not the bellmouths, and it sounds like it may actually be easier to construct the future extension with this design. So that's an overall win.

Quote

To meet the Project objectives of maintaining neighborhood character and creating transit facilities that are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with neighborhood character, the proposed ancillary facilities in the Modified Design would accommodate ground floor-retail spaces. Retail uses in these buildings would result in street-level activity and visual interest, but require additional space not originally contemplated in the 2004 FEIS Design.

Quote

However, it should be noted that, in conformance with FTA joint development guidelines, ancillary and entrance sites may be considered for private co-development as the Phase 2 advances. Any such development or overbuild proposal(s) would be subject to additional NEPA re-evaluation(s).

On the one hand, I would like the MTA to make a little bit more money from its projects; however, experience with retail spaces in Times Square and Jackson Heights make me a bit cautious about the MTA being able to do any of this. If they work with a private developer, it may work.

Quote

• The philosophy for station entrances has been modified to better balance passenger flows. Rather than having a large primary entrance and a smaller secondary entrance, the entrances would be similar in size.
• To comply with the ADA requirement that at least 60 percent of the station entrances be ADA accessible, the Modified Design would include elevators at each end of the 106th and 116th Street Stations.
• Entrances have been designed for greater visibility and access along Second Avenue, rather than side streets.
• In the Modified Design, the entrances would serve a larger portion of emergency egress passenger loads, so that NYCT code requirements are met without the need to provide additional emergency access points that might require additional property at other locations near the station.
• Similar to the ancillary facilities, the sites for some proposed entrances have been expanded to provide sufficient space to build the entrances while minimizing impacts to and structural reinforcement needs for adjacent buildings.

Quote

The Modified Design includes a new entrance option at the northwest corner that would provide better transfer connections between the Lexington Avenue (4/5/6) subway line and the Second Avenue platforms, eliminating a chokepoint that would exist in the 2004 FEIS Design.

Quote

In the Modified Design, the entrance that was originally planned in the Park Avenue median under the Metro-North Railroad viaduct would be expanded to incorporate the property at the southeast corner of 125th Street and Park Avenue. This change was made to address passenger load demands and constructability considerations related to the foundations of the viaduct and the historic Comfort Station building located nearby (as discussed in Section 2.3.3.4.4, “125th Street Station”). As design advances, additional evaluation of the viaduct structure may result in the need to place the entrance entirely on the southeast corner of 125th Street and Park Avenue.

Translation: we are now rethinking the design because we thought about it a bit harder and the assumptions in 2004 no longer hold up.

These in general sound like positive changes. My one concern is this in particular:

Which runs directly under Lenox Av, which is also the location of this:

I would hope that whatever they end up deciding to build in that location does not preclude turning this into a transfer stop, and future-proofs the ancillaries so that they can be used as additional entrances for such a transfer stop. But who knows?

Are there open houses for this new design? I would hope that someone on this forum could show up in person and raise the concern about Lenox.

Edited July 15, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[Wallyhorse]

Regardless, they need to set it up so they can extend the line all the way across 125 to Broadway.  

[Union Tpke]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Reading the FEIS, I see nothing overly concerning. Most of the changes revolve around the fact that:

• It's been more than a decade since the last FEIS, so some of the low-usage sites they picked for ancillary facilities have now been redeveloped and are therefore much more costly to acquire
• Post-Sandy NYCT standards mean that a lot of equipment cannot be stored in stations that are located in flood zones, and have to be moved aboveground to new ancillary facilities

Important quotes:

So they're getting rid of the tail tracks, but not the bellmouths, and it sounds like it may actually be easier to construct the future extension with this design. So that's an overall win.

On the one hand, I would like the MTA to make a little bit more money from its projects; however, experience with retail spaces in Times Square and Jackson Heights make me a bit cautious about the MTA being able to do any of this. If they work with a private developer, it may work.

Translation: we are now rethinking the design because we thought about it a bit harder and the assumptions in 2004 no longer hold up.

These in general sound like positive changes. My one concern is this in particular:

Which runs directly under Lenox Av, which is also the location of this:

I would hope that whatever they end up deciding to build in that location does not preclude turning this into a transfer stop, and future-proofs the ancillaries so that they can be used as additional entrances for such a transfer stop. But who knows?

Are there open houses for this new design? I would hope that someone on this forum could show up in person and raise the concern about Lenox.

I was at the CIC recently and someone there said that it wouldn't preclude turning it into a transfer stop. I plan on showing up, so I can bring it up.

[CenSin]

14 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I was at the CIC recently and someone there said that it wouldn't preclude turning it into a transfer stop. I plan on showing up, so I can bring it up.

With such an easy conversion to a transfer, one wonders if this will become another juicy excuse for the MTA to build a station here and call it a day when the time comes to extend it to the Bronx.

“Oh well, we added a transfer so it serves even more Bronx.”

I can’t help but think that the line’s endpoint becomes an irresistible itch that community members and politicians there would want to scratch.

[bobtehpanda]

52 minutes ago, CenSin said:

With such an easy conversion to a transfer, one wonders if this will become another juicy excuse for the MTA to build a station here and call it a day when the time comes to extend it to the Bronx.

“Oh well, we added a transfer so it serves even more Bronx.”

I can’t help but think that the line’s endpoint becomes an irresistible itch that community members and politicians there would want to scratch.

We just elected a mayor with no resolve because he spun a story about how he wanted to end the tale of two cities in the outer boroughs vs Manhattan.

Imagine we elected an actual mayor with conviction, and not the kind of convictions that New York State politicians love to get themselves into.

[Union Tpke]

Anyone else going tonight?

[BreeddekalbL]

On 7/16/2018 at 9:49 PM, bobtehpanda said:

We just elected a mayor with no resolve because he spun a story about how he wanted to end the tale of two cities in the outer boroughs vs Manhattan.

Imagine we elected an actual mayor with conviction, and not the kind of convictions that New York State politicians love to get themselves into.

and he is making that "tale of two cities" a reality

[Union Tpke]

On 7/31/2018 at 4:27 PM, Union Tpke said:

Anyone else going tonight?

@BreeddekalbL @LaGuardia Link N Tra

I was talking about going to the public hearing.

[CenSin]

With this new plan, I believe we have a reasonable guarantee that either of two things happen after the completion of phase 2:

• 2 Avenue is extended further towards the west side with an eventual 3-track terminal or an intervening station with a middle track.
• 2 Avenue is extended into the Bronx to 3 Avenue as far as the and station.

I believe that despite the theoretical terminal capacity of any 2 Avenue station, there will be inefficiencies that bring it much lower. I need not name those inefficiencies; you’re all familiar with them. Therefore, the line must gain extra tracks for turning back trains by splitting it into a Bronx branch (adding 2 extra tracks) or adding a third track after the completion of phase 2 by further extension west.

This all hinges on the idea that subway usage will see a net growth despite ride sharing, biking, and SBS. Lexington Avenue and 2 Avenue will pick up a lot of passengers.

[Tonyboy515]

Hmm... If the  can’t turn at 72nd for the time being because there is no third track, then what if a connection is made to the southbound SAS from 63rd west of 2nd Avenue and then when 55th St Station is built, it could be built with 3 tracks. Even though the  might curve backwards a bit, 55th can offer transfers to the  and , while at the same time making the  able to run at full capacity. What do you guys think of that idea?

Edited August 3, 2018 by Tonyboy515

[BreeddekalbL]

1 hour ago, Tonyboy515 said:

Hmm... If the  can’t turn at 72nd for the time being because there is no third track, then what if a connection is made to the southbound SAS from 63rd west of 2nd Avenue and then when 55th St Station is built, it could be built with 3 tracks. Even though the  might curve backwards a bit, 55th can offer transfers to the  and , while at the same time making the  able to run at full capacity. What do you guys think of that idea?

thats a little insane are you saying make the wye at 72nd? we are not bart!

[Caelestor]

2 hours ago, Tonyboy515 said:

Hmm... If the  can’t turn at 72nd for the time being because there is no third track, then what if a connection is made to the southbound SAS from 63rd west of 2nd Avenue and then when 55th St Station is built, it could be built with 3 tracks. Even though the  might curve backwards a bit, 55th can offer transfers to the  and , while at the same time making the  able to run at full capacity. What do you guys think of that idea?

The wye is a waste of money because it doesn't go where the riders want to, i.e. UES / Bronx / Queens. 

Post Phase 2 I see one of the following happen:

1. 14 tph , 14 tph  - this is the 2004 FEIS and still current plan for SAS
2. 20 tph , no build south of 72 St - this was the original plan for SAS and there is a non-negligible chance of this happening
3. 14 tph , 14 tph , 14 tph  - basically option 1 but a new service from SAS to Queens via 63 St is introduced, but this requires additional capacity from the QBL bypass

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

With this new plan, I believe we have a reasonable guarantee that either of two things happen after the completion of phase 2:

• 2 Avenue is extended further towards the west side with an eventual 3-track terminal or an intervening station with a middle track.
• 2 Avenue is extended into the Bronx to 3 Avenue as far as the and station.

I believe that despite the theoretical terminal capacity of any 2 Avenue station, there will be inefficiencies that bring it much lower. I need not name those inefficiencies; you’re all familiar with them. Therefore, the line must gain extra tracks for turning back trains by splitting it into a Bronx branch (adding 2 extra tracks) or adding a third track after the completion of phase 2 by further extension west.

This all hinges on the idea that subway usage will see a net growth despite ride sharing, biking, and SBS. Lexington Avenue and 2 Avenue will pick up a lot of passengers.

And a connection all the way west on 125 to Broadway, including a connection to the 8th Avenue/Concourse Line at St. Nicholas Avenue is something that should be done.

There should if possible be a three-track station at 125/St. Nicholas that can double as a short-turn terminal for 8th Avenue trains when needed as well as three tracks at a Broadway terminal.

This also would allow 8th Avenue trains when needed to go via the SAS and 63rd.  

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

And a connection all the way west on 125 to Broadway, including a connection to the 8th Avenue/Concourse Line at St. Nicholas Avenue is something that should be done.

There should if possible be a three-track station at 125/St. Nicholas that can double as a short-turn terminal for 8th Avenue trains when needed as well as three tracks at a Broadway terminal.

This also would allow 8th Avenue trains when needed to go via the SAS and 63rd.  

I don't know why you keep beating this dead horse. Such a connection could never be used in regular service, and quite frankly a billion dollars and change for some random GO to accommodate one seat rides is ridiculous. Particularly when you could run the exact same service and just dead-end CPW trains at 125; a billion dollars to save some stair usage is poor value for money.

[R68OnBroadway]

Thanks to political neutering of SAS's capacity, it will be very difficult to increase capacity on the line once phase 3 comes around. To help increase capacity between phases 2 and 3, I say we do this:

1. New lower level tracks added beneath the current lines. These tracks will eventually carry 2nd Av service, which will run express north of 72nd while Broadway runs local. Express stops at 72nd, 86th, and 116th. A new infill station may be built at 79th.

2.  are extended across 125th to Broadway where a three-tracked station will be built with flyovers to allow for trains to access all tracks without crossing others. Stops at every transfer point.

3. Two new services will operate using the new lower level express tracks on SAS: The  and  . Both will originate from Fordham Plaza and run via Third or Webster to SAS. Stops at Fordham Plaza, 180th/Tremont, Claremont, 168th, 163rd-Boston Rd, 3rd-149th and 3rd-138th. One will go to SI to recapture the SIR, while the other will connect to Fulton. Rather than eliminate the transit museum, tracks will just be built around its walls or below it.

We could also just build a new lower level for the  at 72nd, but that will still limit the Bronx line to 15tph, which may be a problem in the long-run.

On another note, would extending the  to Ocean Pkwy help improve its terminal capacity? It may now have only 2 tracks to terminate on, but fumigation would now be unnecessary (unless trains were taken out of service), and capacity could be increased because Ocean Pkwy does not suffer from the curve before it like Brighton does.

Edited August 3, 2018 by R68OnBroadway
spelling error

[Union Tpke]

6 hours ago, CenSin said:

With this new plan, I believe we have a reasonable guarantee that either of two things happen after the completion of phase 2:

• 2 Avenue is extended further towards the west side with an eventual 3-track terminal or an intervening station with a middle track.
• 2 Avenue is extended into the Bronx to 3 Avenue as far as the and station.

I believe that despite the theoretical terminal capacity of any 2 Avenue station, there will be inefficiencies that bring it much lower. I need not name those inefficiencies; you’re all familiar with them. Therefore, the line must gain extra tracks for turning back trains by splitting it into a Bronx branch (adding 2 extra tracks) or adding a third track after the completion of phase 2 by further extension west.

This all hinges on the idea that subway usage will see a net growth despite ride sharing, biking, and SBS. Lexington Avenue and 2 Avenue will pick up a lot of passengers.

I am betting on the Bronx extension. I have heard that it is viewed as a high priority by some of the board members.

[Around the Horn]

56 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

On another note, would extending the  to Ocean Pkwy help improve its terminal capacity? It may now have only 2 tracks to terminate on, but fumigation would now be unnecessary (unless trains were taken out of service), and capacity could be increased because Ocean Pkwy does not suffer from the curve before it like Brighton does.

The  doesn't fumigate at Brighton Beach currently.

[R68OnBroadway]

Just had an idea: would it be possible to build the SAS stations (phase 2 and on) similarly to Roosevelt Island and 21st-Queensbridge? These stations have nice and open platform areas, but have quick access to the street by long escalators, which eliminate the need for mezzanines. This would allow for considerable easier construction and lower costs as the platforms would be wide enough for people to walk between the ends, while the long escalators help people get to the street quicker. I know that overstaffing is a big problem in costs, as well as over-extravagant crap, but cutting the grand mezzanines we have now will be the easiest to do of the three.

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I am betting on the Bronx extension. I have heard that it is viewed as a high priority by some of the board members.

Operationally, the MTA might be forced to make such a move due to ridership pressures. I only wonder if the MTA is legally obligated to build the other 2 phases first before moving onto the Bronx.

[R68OnBroadway]

6 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I am betting on the Bronx extension. I have heard that it is viewed as a high priority by some of the board members.

Do you know how far they want the extension to go, or do you just know that they want it?

[RailRunRob]

19 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I am betting on the Bronx extension. I have heard that it is viewed as a high priority by some of the board members.

I wouldn't be surprised there's a lot of development slated for that neck of the woods SoBro, Piano district ect. Better rail connectivity would sweeten the pot. 

[bobtehpanda]

18 hours ago, CenSin said:

Operationally, the MTA might be forced to make such a move due to ridership pressures. I only wonder if the MTA is legally obligated to build the other 2 phases first before moving onto the Bronx.

There is no law dictating how exactly SAS must be built; we're not as foolish as California with their HSR.

That being said, Phases III and IV might be necessitated for East Side Access relief.

[Mysterious2train]

On 7/15/2018 at 5:37 PM, bobtehpanda said:

So they're getting rid of the tail tracks, but not the bellmouths, and it sounds like it may actually be easier to construct the future extension with this design. So that's an overall win.

In terms of getting the Bronx extension done, I find it hard to beat actually starting to build the first half-mile of it. And "easier" in what way? Since the segment under 2nd Avenue between 120th St and 130th St would be relatively shallow and pass underneath soil instead of rock, the MTA might just go ahead and build it using cut-and-cover regardless, just like they proposed to do back in 2002. I suppose it would depend on how the line would be built in the South Bronx (whether it passes through soil or rock) to determine if it's economical for the MTA to use a TBM for this half-mile portion. If the MTA does end up using cut-and-cover on this segment in the future, than they wouldn't have really accomplished much in terms of "making things easier" by moving and shrinking the bellmouth. And that's even assuming surface disruption is something we should actually be concerned about.

 

(That note was added by me. Here's the link to the full original chart from 2002: https://web.archive.org/web/20170916110241/http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/2ndave.pdf)

Although it's true the tail tracks from under 2nd Ave 120th St to 129th St are not crucial to revenue service and aren't a hill worth dying on, I'm more opposed to the MTA reducing the scope of their projects and shirking away from cut-and-cover on principle.

 

21 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Just had an idea: would it be possible to build the SAS stations (phase 2 and on) similarly to Roosevelt Island and 21st-Queensbridge? These stations have nice and open platform areas, but have quick access to the street by long escalators, which eliminate the need for mezzanines. This would allow for considerable easier construction and lower costs as the platforms would be wide enough for people to walk between the ends, while the long escalators help people get to the street quicker. I know that overstaffing is a big problem in costs, as well as over-extravagant crap, but cutting the grand mezzanines we have now will be the easiest to do of the three.

Roosevelt Island is fairly deep and I wouldn't describe getting to the platform as "quick". There's even an escalator landing between the street level and the mezzanine above the platform. Conversely, Lex-63 has two separate mezzanines and getting to the platforms is still pretty slow.

Also, Roosevelt Island and 21 St can get away with smaller, more centralized entrances/mezzanines because they have lower ridership than the SAS stations. (Weekday ridership: 7,300 at Roosevelt Island and 10,200 at 21 St vs 17,100 at 96 St, 23,800 at 86 St and 28,100 at 72 St - Just to put that into perspective, 72 St has almost four times as many riders as Roosevelt Island)

Of course, the MTA could keep the spacious mezzanines and also lower costs by just building all the stations completely with cut-and-cover instead of mining station caverns, which is how 72 St and 86 St were built. But the MTA is tripping over itself to minimize surface disruption, despite the fact that doing so increases costs.

On 8/3/2018 at 6:06 PM, Union Tpke said:

I am betting on the Bronx extension. I have heard that it is viewed as a high priority by some of the board members.

What timeframe are we talking here? Before, alongside or after phases 3 and 4? If before, if the board really pushes for this, more power to them. But there's the obvious caveat that phases 3 and 4 already have the groundwork environmental impact statement completed (just in need of updating) while the EIS for a Bronx extension will have to start from scratch. I don't see the MTA prioritizing a Bronx extension anytime soon, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

20 hours ago, CenSin said:

Operationally, the MTA might be forced to make such a move due to ridership pressures. I only wonder if the MTA is legally obligated to build the other 2 phases first before moving onto the Bronx.

Why would the MTA be legally obligated to build phases 3 and 4? Sure, the MTA completed the EIS (aside from passage-of-time-related updates) but this point in time, they're just proposals without even a single dollar of funding behind them.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Mysterious2train

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Mysterious2train said:

In terms of getting the Bronx extension done, I find it hard to beat actually starting to build the first half-mile of it. And "easier" in what way? Since the segment under 2nd Avenue between 120th St and 130th St would be relatively shallow and pass underneath soil instead of rock, the MTA might just go ahead and build it using cut-and-cover regardless, just like they proposed to do back in 2002. I suppose it would depend on how the line would be built in the South Bronx (whether it passes through soil or rock) to determine if it's economical for the MTA to use a TBM for this half-mile portion. If the MTA does end up using cut-and-cover on this segment in the future, than they wouldn't have really accomplished much in terms of "making things easier" by moving and shrinking the bellmouth. And that's even assuming surface disruption is something we should actually be concerned about.

Roosevelt Island is fairly deep and I wouldn't describe getting to the platform as "quick". There's even an escalator landing between the street level and the mezzanine above the platform. Conversely, Lex-63 has two separate mezzanines and getting to the platforms is still pretty slow.

Also, Roosevelt Island and 21 St can get away with smaller, more centralized entrances/mezzanines because they have lower ridership than the SAS stations. (Weekday ridership: 7,300 at Roosevelt Island and 10,200 at 21 St vs 17,100 at 96 St, 23,800 at 86 St and 28,100 at 72 St - Just to put that into perspective, 72 St has almost four times as many riders as Roosevelt Island)

 

On 7/15/2018 at 2:37 PM, bobtehpanda said:

The bellmouth would still allow for a future extension to the Bronx, with space for two outer tracks that would continue to the 125th Street Station and two inner tracks that would allow for the extension.

It would be less disruptive to use this, than to take out tracks that are actively used for storage, finding other storage, etc. (I don't think the usage of storage tracks will really result in a lack of service disruptions to the SAS). There's also the question of whether or not 120th to 130th would even be useful cut-and-cover; at the very least, the under-river portion would probably need to be TBM'ed or mined at least partially, and then you might as well just TBM all the way to the Bronx. And there is a cost to surface disruption, particularly on a segment that is not really necessary and will have zero ventilation structures in its current iteration. If the MTA were to spend billions of dollars building something that ended up being completely unused, like South Fourth Street, then that would be an egregious use of taxpayer dollars. Not to mention that the segment of surface that would be disrupted would be the roads linking the Triboro, Willis Av,Third Av Bridges, and FDR Drive, which would be extremely painful to reroute or close.

The second portion of your comment also ignores the examples of Parsons/Archer and Sutphin/Archer, the 26th and 53rd busiest stations in the city. Both get away with not using full mezzanines despite being quite busy, and neither has terrible surface to platform travel times.

[Union Tpke]

21 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Do you know how far they want the extension to go, or do you just know that they want it?

They don't know how far. Phases 3 and 4 are still the priority over the Bronx.