Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Lance]

They may be internal schedules.

[BreeddekalbL]

Yes, congratulations Max (DJHammers).

 

To answer a persistent question, riders are not permitted on the extension because it's still an active construction zone. It has nothing to do with who "owns the line" at the moment. Look at what they're doing right now. They're testing the third rails and weight loads. If something goes wrong on any of those tests and the train gets stuck there, said rider would be stuck with the train.

 

There's also the possibility of the train remaining out of service past the 96 Street dead head. Unlike the City Hall loop, where all downtown trains must return to service on the northbound local track, there is nothing that forces a test train to return to service other than the needs of the line.

 

So please, don't try to sneak past the train crews and board a test train at 57 Street. You'll get to ride the line just like everybody else when it officially opens sometime in December. Hopefully.

 

 

To add to that, SAS is a restricted area and anyone entering that zone without permission is trespassing.

 

so by the sound of it they are gonna have platform C/R'S clearing out the trains?

[Mysterious2train]

I don't understand how 72nd Street is only 90 percent complete with three months left.

 

It's at least partially because one of the entrances had a design change a few years back. The 69th Street entrance was originally supposed to be inside a building (301 E 69th St) but it was moved and built out on the sidewalk (NE corner of 2 Av and 69 St) The change was iirc because the MTA and the building owners couldn't agree on a design or something like that. So having to 'redo' one of the entrances slowed progress. 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Mysterious2train

[Javier]

The new timetables were finally released today. Been waiting for this, to see the whole deal regarding the (N)'s to 96th.

There are three in the AM, the first to return to the regular route afterwards, and the last one lays up, but apparently doesn't return to service, as there are no putins from there in the PM. (Not sure what it does then. I imagine probably City Hall? Can't tell what comes from there, as I don't see anything dropping out or going in from there. They all must run light from the northern terminal). Instead, four trains come from regular service and then return to it from 96th for the PM.

 

You still have the three putins that go into service at 86th, but only one hat returns there for the night. The rest all drop out at Ditmars. However, after the AM, you do have two that return to 86th! It wasn't like this before!

 

The has two AM putins from 96th and one layup afterward, and one putin and two layups for the PM. Weekends, it's one putin at the beginning of the day, and the layup at the end of the day (though early evening on Sunday).

Hold on, there are two (W)'s that drop out at 86th or 96th? What's the point of dropping out at 86th St?

[Fresh Pond]

Hold on, there are two (W)'s that drop out at 86th or 96th? What's the point of dropping out at 86th St?

86 St BROOKLYN

[Javier]

86 St BROOKLYN

I was stupid for saying that never mind.

[j express]

Hold on, there are two (W)'s that drop out at 86th or 96th? What's the point of dropping out at 86th St?

To allow the C.I yard barn to inspect those trains if needed. It also allows different  trains to be swapped everyday. 

[Eric B]

Where are these schedules?

They may be internal schedules.

They were posted on an RTO Facebook group. 

I was stupid for saying that never mind.

I wasn't even thinking of the new 86th, but it's understandable to get thrown off by that, since the focus is the new uptown line.

[rbrome]

I just noticed that the Oct. update for 72nd St is available if you choose Sept.:

 

http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_pdf/SAS%20Newsletter%2072nd%20-%20October%202016.pdf

 

It says the station is 92.3% complete. 

[Around the Horn]

I just noticed that the Oct. update for 72nd St is available if you choose Sept.:

 

http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_pdf/SAS%20Newsletter%2072nd%20-%20October%202016.pdf

 

It says the station is 92.3% complete.

Ah, so the links are under the wrong months...

 

I'll redo my update post later this evening. Thanks for pointing that out!

[richardye1]

Just a random thought: has MTA ever considered a 1st Av line instead of a 2nd Av line?

2nd Av north of 59th St seems close to the Lex Line. 

[Around the Horn]

Updating my previous post with the correct link for 72nd Street's newsletter. (Thanks rbrome for pointing that out)

 

Update time!

 

Lexington Av-63 Street: 99% complete (http://web.mta.info/...ctober 2016.pdf)

72nd Street: 92.3% complete (http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_pdf/SAS%20Newsletter%2072nd%20-%20October%202016.pdf)

86 Street: 92.5% complete (http://web.mta.info/...ctober 2016.pdf)

96 Street: 95.8% complete (http://web.mta.info/...ctober 2016.pdf)

 

The entire project is 97.2% complete with most of that being completing tests.

 

According to the newsletters, tracks have been energized and test trains have already been running the full length of the line.

Tree planting and sidewalk restoration kicks into high gear next week.

 

It's happening folks!

[CenSin]

Just a random thought: has MTA ever considered a 1st Av line instead of a 2nd Av line?

2nd Av north of 59th St seems close to the Lex Line. 

A 1 Avenue subway would miss every connection in Manhattan except the . Lexington Avenue/63 Street and Lexington Avenue/53 Street both have exits at 3 Avenue, and they transfers could conceivably be built to a 2 Avenue subway, but 1 Avenue is too far out east for a connection to those crosstown subways.

 

In the Bronx, the alignment would still allow a connection to the , , and at 3 Avenue.

 

Unless there is more to feed the subway along 1 Avenue, its use cases are limited.

[Wallyhorse]

A 1 Avenue subway would miss every connection in Manhattan except the . Lexington Avenue/63 Street and Lexington Avenue/53 Street both have exits at 3 Avenue, and they transfers could conceivably be built to a 2 Avenue subway, but 1 Avenue is too far out east for a connection to those crosstown subways.

 

In the Bronx, the alignment would still allow a connection to the , , and at 3 Avenue.

 

Unless there is more to feed the subway along 1 Avenue, its use cases are limited.

Exactly:

 

Where a 1st Avenue portion of the SAS would work would be to have the line run on 1st Avenue and Allen Street south of 23rd Street like the 2nd Avenue El used to years ago.  In addition to a transfer to the at 14th and the at Houston Street, such likely would allow for a branch of the SAS to go with the via Rutgers and serve as the Culver Express while the rest of the line would go via Allen Street and East Broadway to Chatam Square before then running Phase 4 as intended.  

[CenSin]

In addition to a transfer to the at 14th and the at Houston Street

Whoops. I missed the 2 Avenue station connection. The 2 Avenue station has exits at 1 Avenue and that’s where the eastern end touches. That brings the roster of connections up to:

• 3 Avenue–149 Street ( )
• 3 Avenue–138 Street ( )
• 1 Avenue ( )
• 2 Avenue ( )

Compare this to a 2 Avenue alignment:

• 3 Avenue–149 Street ( )
• 3 Avenue–138 Street ( )
• Lexington Avenue/59 Street* ( )
• Lexington Avenue/53 Street* ( )
• 3 Avenue ( )
• 2 Avenue ( )
• Grand Street ( )

* Feasible, but the transfer will probably be a PITA.

 

A 2 Avenue alignment also has the option of taking over the Nassau Street Line from Chambers Street and benefiting from those connections.

 

such likely would allow for a branch of the SAS to go with the via Rutgers and serve as the Culver Express while the rest of the line would go via Allen Street and East Broadway to Chatam Square before then running Phase 4 as intended.

My main point was and is still: the 1 Avenue subway would be much less useful because of a lack of transfers. It dodges all the crosstown subways in Midtown Manhattan, has no opportunity to connect to the Nassau Street Line due to its alignment, and will not likely have any connections in Lower Manhattan either due to it not being able to capture the Nassau Street Line from Allen Street.

 

Although it is very tempting to solve the express dilemma by providing additional capacity using another Manhattan trunk, there is no provision for a tunnel connection to Rutgers Street. Quite a bit of property might have to be demolished to build it given the shallowness of the tunnels. A connection to Brooklyn via a new tunnel parallel to East Houston Street would be less disruptive and this option would be kept open by not building a connection to Rutgers Street.

Edited October 13, 2016 by CenSin

[rbrome]

Why not have it go down Avenue A through the East Village? Alphabet City is a relative transit desert. A stop at Tompkins Square Park would go a long way. It could join up with the F and then head down E Broadway to Chatham Square.

[Around the Horn]

Why not have it go down Avenue A through the East Village? Alphabet City is a relative transit desert. A stop at Tompkins Square Park would go a long way. It could join up with the F and then head down E Broadway to Chatham Square.

 

I think this should be a spur off of the main Second Avenue service, , south of 23rd Street. Perhaps the 2nd Avenue-Queens service should serve this spur then connect to the and become the Culver Local in Brooklyn and call it the . 

 

I'd have it stop at:

-23 Street (last station under 2nd Avenue shared with ; possibly two levels with flat junctions on each)

-14 Street-Stuyvesant Town (transfer to ; station would be arranged diagonally from 1st and 17th to Avenue A and 14th)

-Tompkins Square Park 

-Delancey-Essex Sts ( )

The would then follow the into Brooklyn and then be the Culver Local to either Church Avenue or Kings Highway with rush hour trips to/from Avenue X.

[P3F]

1st Avenue Line? Nah, too many transfers are provided. If you're going to go there, go to the extreme. Build a York Avenue-FDR Drive-Avenue C line, which provides transfers to absolutely nothing in Manhattan!

 

Unless Wally proposes an extension of the 42nd street shuttle to the FDR drive, in which case all of the city's problems are solved.

 

/s

[i really didn't want to have to write /s, but unfortunately some members on this forum take every proposal as a serious one and would actually spend the time to point out the extremely obvious problems with this proposal.]

[Wallyhorse]

Whoops. I missed the 2 Avenue station connection. The 2 Avenue station has exits at 1 Avenue and that’s where the eastern end touches. That brings the roster of connections up to:

• 3 Avenue–149 Street ( )
• 3 Avenue–138 Street ( )
• 1 Avenue ( )
• 2 Avenue ( )

Compare this to a 2 Avenue alignment:

• 3 Avenue–149 Street ( )
• 3 Avenue–138 Street ( )
• Lexington Avenue/59 Street* ( )
• Lexington Avenue/53 Street* ( )
• 3 Avenue ( )
• 2 Avenue ( )
• Grand Street ( )

* Feasible, but the transfer will probably be a PITA.

 

A 2 Avenue alignment also has the option of taking over the Nassau Street Line from Chambers Street and benefiting from those connections.

 

My main point was and is still: the 1 Avenue subway would be much less useful because of a lack of transfers. It dodges all the crosstown subways in Midtown Manhattan, has no opportunity to connect to the Nassau Street Line due to its alignment, and will not likely have any connections in Lower Manhattan either due to it not being able to capture the Nassau Street Line from Allen Street.

 

Although it is very tempting to solve the express dilemma by providing additional capacity using another Manhattan trunk, there is no provision for a tunnel connection to Rutgers Street. Quite a bit of property might have to be demolished to build it given the shallowness of the tunnels. A connection to Brooklyn via a new tunnel parallel to East Houston Street would be less disruptive and this option would be kept open by not building a connection to Rutgers Street.

Overall, yes, but I was specifically referring to going on 1st Avenue only up to 23rd Street and then only if a connection to the Rutgers line could be done (with such from the SAS joining the line at Delancey) that can serve as the Culver Express (which in this case would likely also require 55th Street to be built as a three or four-track station so such a line can terminate there, which also would replace the originally planned three-track station at 72nd).  In that scenario, I'd also be looking at a way to connect the SAS to the Canarsie Line (with possibly during the reconstruction taking place of the 14th Street tubes in 2019-'20 building out bellmouths for a possible future connection to an SAS line running via 1st Avenue to 23rd Street that also would give the SAS an additional connection to the rest of the lines).  

 

Otherwise, I agree because I've been one who has advocated a Nassau connection to the SAS that likely has the side benefit of forcing all of the Eastern Division stations to be lengthened to 600 feet.  That to me would really help in reducing those using the and between Atlantic-Barclays and 125th Street if it were connected to Nassau.

[Union Tpke]

They were posted on an RTO Facebook group. 

I wasn't even thinking of the new 86th, but it's understandable to get thrown off by that, since the focus is the new uptown line.

 

Could you possibly post the link? Thanks.

[richardye1]

I was mainly thinking 1st Av north of 63rd St (since I might not live to see Phase 3+4)

[Caelestor]

I expect SAS will be enough to accommodate any future Bronx subway, but on the East Side, the best place to build a line after SAS would be 3rd Ave. It could function as the express line to SAS, with its only stops as transfers to the crosstown lines: 125 St, 63 St, 53 St, 42 St, 14 St, Houston St. Not certain where it would go south of Houston St though.

[Union Tpke]

 

Rapid Transit Alternatives Under Second Avenue (Alternative 1): The full-length Second Avenue Subway (Alternative 1A in Table B-1 above) and two other subway options—the eastward alignment (Alternative 1D) and the New Jersey connection (Alternative 1G) were found to meet the goals and objectives and passed the coarse screen. The other subway alternatives were eliminated as stand-alone alternatives because they would increase accessibility and increase capacity only to certain portions of the study area, would be difficult to implement, and/or would not be cost-effective compared with other alternatives that would provide similar improvements. In developing the long list of alternatives, rapid transit lines were initially considered for any of the avenues east of Second Avenue, but Second Avenue was chosen early on as most appropriate because a route on Third Avenue would too closely duplicate the Lexington Avenue Line’s service area; a subway route on First Avenue would be difficult near the Queensboro Bridge, the United Nations, and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel; and the Second Avenue route takes advantage of tunnel sections built as part of the 1968 plan. 

http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/appendixb.pdf

[Porter]

Why bother with the transfer between Lexington/63 and Lexington/57 once the SAS opens? How does that transfer even work, anyway? I've never seen anything like it.

[bobtehpanda]

Why bother with the transfer between Lexington/63 and Lexington/57 once the SAS opens? How does that transfer even work, anyway? I've never seen anything like it.

 

The only reason that it exists is to replace the transfer that was lost when the switched to 63 St.

 

Granted, I don't think many people actually use that transfer since it's faster to just take the and switch in Queens.