Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
CenSin

Second Avenue Subway Discussion

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Wouldn't Phase 2 be faster since the tunnels are already pre-built? I also see that the existing tunnels have provisions for an express track.

Also, have they actually started working on Phase 2 or is it still in the planning stage?

They’ll start on Phase 2 sometime in 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2018 at 7:59 PM, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, are we really sure that Phases 3 and 4 are even a good idea? Where I'm coming from is that 2nd Ave below 63rd St is *not* really part of the East Midtown CBD. 2nd and 1st Aves are pretty much pure residential all the way down Manhattan, and if we're going to spend multi-billions on subway extensions it really should be either 1) Expanding capacity into Core Midtown or 2) serving transit deserts like 3rd Ave (Bronx) or Utica Av. My fear is everyone is drawing up plans for QB 2nd Ave services that to be honest I don't think anyone is going to really want to use (I live along QB BTW). People want anything between 8th and 3rd Aves and a lower SAS is at best convenient to 3rd Ave offices which already have decent subway access. 

I know some advance the argument that the city will somehow upzone or adjust Far East Midtown to become another office district but I doubt that's going to happen. The reality is that 1) That area is really well heeled and 2) with the general anti-development mindset of many city leaders I doubt the political will is there to have 2nd Ave morph into a business zone. 

Long story short, I think we are making a very big assumption that the SAS below 63rd st will be as big of a hit as the Uptown/Bronx section, and I personally don't see it.  

 

It's residential, but high density. And there are plenty of ridership generators there -- the UN; Bellevue, Beth Israel, NYU and VA Hospitals, Stuyvesant Town, public housing, the Water St. office buildings. One problem is that it'll dead-end in the Financial District. It needs a Brooklyn connection.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 6:00 PM, Italianstallion said:

It's residential, but high density. And there are plenty of ridership generators there -- the UN; Bellevue, Beth Israel, NYU and VA Hospitals, Stuyvesant Town, public housing, the Water St. office buildings. One problem is that it'll dead-end in the Financial District. It needs a Brooklyn connection.

Which is why my original thought was to do it with the (T) running via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel, coming in at Court Street (current Transit Museum) and on the as-present unused tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, allowing the (A) and (C) or (E) to run express on Fulton while the )T) takes over local duties, allowing for de-interlining (except late nights when the (T) would be extended to Lefferts if the (C) goes there otherwise). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If the MTA resumes work, a section built from 110th to 120th Streets could finally be used. But parts of the original plan would have to change.

The thinking back in the 1970s was to use a section as maintenance tracks for trains that needed repair work. Now it would be used as an island platform if and when the 116th Street station gets built.

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2018/12/08/second-avenue-subway-tunnel-never-used-a-rare-look-manhattan-nyc

What happened to the platform width issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Porter said:

It would be better to simply do side platforms at 116 with no crossover.  Yes, that could create a problem down the road if a Bronx extension is built, but it probably best solves that problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 2:02 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Yes.

ZsF83vl.jpg

So, all the stations appear to be cut-and-cover. Also, interesting that there is no bedrock north of 96th. That should make boring easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

So, all the stations appear to be cut-and-cover. Also, interesting that there is no bedrock north of 96th. That should make boring easier.

Boring? The tunnels already exists north of 96th, up to 120th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

So, all the stations appear to be cut-and-cover. Also, interesting that there is no bedrock north of 96th. That should make boring easier.

Some of them are mined or partially mined to reduce surface disruption. 72nd and 86th were, for example.

In practice I don't think it saves all that much disruption vs. cut and cover, and it costs more, so we should revisit this cut-and-cover avoidance decision.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My one question I always have when I read this thread is, how soon could the whole thing have been built if it was built concurrently (i.e.. as Phase 1 was finishing start phase 2, or if the TBM had continued south instead of stopping at 63rd) and built as cut and cover?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

My one question I always have when I read this thread is, how soon could the whole thing have been built if it was built concurrently (i.e.. as Phase 1 was finishing start phase 2, or if the TBM had continued south instead of stopping at 63rd) and built as cut and cover?

I’d say that if All 4 phases of SAS were built correctly (with provisions for Future connections of course), then I’d say 5-10 years max. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Metro CSW said:

Boring? The tunnels already exists north of 96th, up to 120th

Not exactly. There are 2, disconnected, existing tunnels - 99 to 105 and 110 to 120. The 106 St. Station will be excavated via cut and cover, while boring will be required from 120 to the terminus at Park and 125.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.