Jump to content

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin

Recommended Posts

There's an issue with the 96th Street programs, at least heading NB. The automated announcements crap out at Lex/63rd.

 

 

 

There seem to be a lot of issues actually. 

 

After terminating at 96st, Southbound (Q)’s tend to default to the old Astoria Programing. Saying “Next Stop Is: Astoria Blvd” 

 

Sources: https://twitter.com/NikoMetsPlus/status/816323073158840320, &

 

https://twitter.com/jmp_nyc/status/816259568418353152

 

The crew then often cuts of the announcements with the “Please Listen to Train Crew for Announcements” until 72nd or 63rd. 

 

Additionally, the AAS system for the (W) is dated back to 2010, announcing V Transfers, no SBS, and saying “Atlantic Pacific and Lawrence” instead of “Atlantic Barclays and Jays MetroTech)

 

Source: 

 

----

 

On a separate note, does anyone know if they outfitted R68s with 96st/2av as a northern rollsign? If they really want to do this stupid (N) branch, they add 96st to the roll signs, like they did with Hudson Yards on the R62A. 

Edited by R42N
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

On a separate note, does anyone know if they outfitted R68s with 96st/2av as a northern rollsign? If they really want to do this stupid (N) branch, they add 96st to the roll signs, like they did with Hudson Yards on the R62A. 

(N) Branch? Isn't it just like 4 trains a day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(N) via 2nd Avenue has signage that reads

CONEY ISLAND

BWAY / 4 AV EXP

VIA SEA BEACH

 

http://imgur.com/a/0aFcO

 

Wow, very confusing, even for rail fans. 

Imagine you have only two seconds to read that. What is "Bway" and "Bway / 4 Av"????

If calling  (N) via 4 ave Express as "Sea Beach Express" is fine, why not just show "Broadway Express", "Via Sea Beach Exp"

 

(thanks for the picture by the way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, very confusing, even for rail fans. 

Imagine you have only two seconds to read that. What is "Bway" and "Bway / 4 Av"????

If calling  (N) via 4 ave Express as "Sea Beach Express" is fine, why not just show "Broadway Express", "Via Sea Beach Exp"

 

(thanks for the picture by the way)

Unless you're incapable of reading, It really isn't that hard to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, but it looks like the (MTA) had planned to construct entrances at Third Avenue for decades (Lexington Avenue–63rd Street Station):

 

http://ltvsquad.com/2015/11/04/abandoned-63rd-street-platform-mezzanine-circa-2004/

 

I thought it was just an unused IND platform blocked by a false wall, but there was an absolutely massive space to the west all along! I wonder whether every inch of it was used for the new entrances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of it this way, Wally:

 

If the Transit Fairy were to offer to magically construct an elevated line instantaneously and without costing even a single penny or demolishing even a single structure, the majority of politicians and residents would still respond with a resounding "no" anyway. You couldn't even give something like that away, and I doubt that you could even sufficiently bribe everyone either. It's not merely a less ideal option or compromise; it's disastrously negative.

Point well taken.  

 

My point is, this could turn into a game of pick you poison.  You can either:

 

1. Build the SAS Phase 2 as planned and spend $6-8 Billion (or by the time its finished, maybe $10 Billion).

 

2. Build it underground up to where the existing portion from the 1970's ends (around 120th Street) and then go elevated from that point to a terminal at 125th Street and Lexington Avenue (with provisions to go to The Bronx via a new rail bridge later), likely costing far less than $6-10 Billion (probably $750 Million-$1.5 Billion).

 

3. Continue underground from the existing tunnel via cut-and-cover as far as you can until where you'd have to go deep bore, at which point the line goes elevated (does increase the cost some, but again, nowhere near the $6-10 Billion).

 

4. Only go on Phase 2 as far as the existing tunnels go to a terminal at 116th Street (lowers the cost considerably).

 

5. Leave it as it is.

 

Given the likely importance of getting this to 125th Street and at least Lexington Avenue (and preferably all the way across 125th Street to Broadway so it can serve as a crosstown line with transfers to all other lines that serve 125), I suspect one of the first three options will have to be chosen and it will be a matter of how much the (MTA) and politicians are willing to pay.  Options 2 and 3 would mean some elevated line, but a very small stretch of it (likely about the same length the (1) is elevated on the Broadway-7th Avenue line between the 116th and 137th Street stations in the valley with 125th of course being elevated at the most and most likely less than that).  Costs and getting it done to me may very well in the end overrule anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point well taken.  

 

My point is, this could turn into a game of pick you poison.  You can either:

 

1. Build the SAS Phase 2 as planned and spend $6-8 Billion (or by the time its finished, maybe $10 Billion).

 

2. Build it underground up to where the existing portion from the 1970's ends (around 120th Street) and then go elevated from that point to a terminal at 125th Street and Lexington Avenue (with provisions to go to The Bronx via a new rail bridge later), likely costing far less than $6-10 Billion (probably $750 Million-$1.5 Billion).

 

3. Continue underground from the existing tunnel via cut-and-cover as far as you can until where you'd have to go deep bore, at which point the line goes elevated (does increase the cost some, but again, nowhere near the $6-10 Billion).

 

4. Only go on Phase 2 as far as the existing tunnels go to a terminal at 116th Street (lowers the cost considerably).

 

5. Leave it as it is.

 

Given the likely importance of getting this to 125th Street and at least Lexington Avenue (and preferably all the way across 125th Street to Broadway so it can serve as a crosstown line with transfers to all other lines that serve 125), I suspect one of the first three options will have to be chosen and it will be a matter of how much the (MTA) and politicians are willing to pay.  Options 2 and 3 would mean some elevated line, but a very small stretch of it (likely about the same length the (1) is elevated on the Broadway-7th Avenue line between the 116th and 137th Street stations in the valley with 125th of course being elevated at the most and most likely less than that).  Costs and getting it done to me may very well in the end overrule anything else.

Excuse me, but what's up with this overhead nonsense?  If underground is good enough for Manhattan, it's good enough for the other boroughs too. Any good neighborhood in NYC will not want an overhead subway.  They're dark, loud and bring an undesired element to the neighborhood.  If there was ever an attempt to extend a subway to my neighborhood, I would fight it tooth and nail.  Subways ruin the aesthetic of neighborhoods and usually change them for the worse.  I would perhaps support a commuter rail or a light rail depending on where it would run.  I think that's the question.  Where would an extended line run/terminate and what impact would it have on the areas it ran through?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but what's up with this overhead nonsense?  If underground is good enough for Manhattan, it's good enough for the other boroughs too. Any good neighborhood in NYC will not want an overhead subway.  They're dark, loud and bring an undesired element to the neighborhood.  If there was ever an attempt to extend a subway to my neighborhood, I would fight it tooth and nail.  Subways ruin the aesthetic of neighborhoods and usually change them for the worse.  I would perhaps support a commuter rail or a light rail depending on where it would run.  I think that's the question.  Where would an extended line run/terminate and what impact would it have on the areas it ran through?

My point is again, this may come down to costs and the importance of doing the line to at least 125/Lex-Park.

 

Totally understand on ELs, but like I said, this could turn into a game of pick your poison.

 

Also, there already is an EL on Metro-North at 125th and Park, so it likely would not be as big a deal in that area than it would be elsewhere.

 

In a perfect world, this would without question be done as underground, but with costs skyrocketing, it's going to be a case of finding ways to cut costs to make sure this is done.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is again, this may come down to costs and the importance of doing the line to at least 125/Lex-Park.

 

Totally understand on ELs, but like I said, this could turn into a game of pick your poison.

 

Also, there already is an EL on Metro-North at 125th and Park, so it likely would not be as big a deal in that area than it would be elsewhere.

 

In a perfect world, this would without question be done as underground, but with costs skyrocketing, it's going to be a case of finding ways to cut costs to make sure this is done.  

And using Park Avenue as an example, the minute Metro-North comes above ground, you can see an instant change in the neighborhood.  Posh Park Avenue rapidly becomes poor Park Avenue.  ELs should be fought tooth and nail in this city.  Cost should not be an excuse to ram in loud subways into areas with lesser money than posh areas of Manhattan, as it destroys quality of life, and definitely has destroyed many neighborhoods.  We have plenty of examples of that across the city.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally understand on ELs, but like I said, this could turn into a game of pick your poison.

 

A game of pick your poison that you can opt out of...

 

People didn't want els in the past, people don't want them today, and people won't want them; not then, not now, not ever,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A game of pick your poison that you can opt out of...

 

People didn't want els in the past, people don't want them today, and people won't want them; not then, not now, not ever,

Right.

 

But it may turn out to be political suicide regardless of what is chosen, which was my point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern concrete viaducts are vastly quieter and less imposing than old steel elevated structures. Instead of a forrest of steel columns, you can have a single row of concrete columns in the center of the street. And a concrete bed + concrete sides can contain the sound and direct it upwards. Modern low-vibration trackbeds also help. 

 

With that said, any elevated structure is a no-go in any truly urban area these days, especially in NYC. People here saying it's just not going to happen are correct. You might build one in the outer parts of the outer boroughs (like where they built the JFK AirTrain), but otherwise, forget it, even with the improved new designs. 

 

Also, consider where the real costs are in projects like this. All of the talk about cost per mile makes its easy forget how bad of a metric that is. A continuous stretch of plain track is actually relatively cheap, whether underground or above. It's everything else that's expensive, like stations, launch boxes, ancillary structures, connections to other lines, etc. In the case of these elevated 2nd Ave ideas, it's the transition from underground to elevated that would be cost-prohibitive. Imagine building that portal anywhere near 2nd Ave. You'd have to raze several blocks just for the incline. We're not talking about huge distances for Phase 2. I could easily see it being cheaper to just continue underground than to build that crazy inline and portal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And using Park Avenue as an example, the minute Metro-North comes above ground, you can see an instant change in the neighborhood.  Posh Park Avenue rapidly becomes poor Park Avenue.  ELs should be fought tooth and nail in this city.  Cost should not be an excuse to ram in loud subways into areas with lesser money than posh areas of Manhattan, as it destroys quality of life, and definitely has destroyed many neighborhoods.  We have plenty of examples of that across the city.    

That had more to do with a LOT of other factors that had ZERO to do with the Metro-North Line EL being there.  The area around Mount Sinai has started to get built up as well and we may start to see that and other parts of Park Avenue that are NOT housing projects get built up over time as well.  The ball game has certainly changed there.

 

That said, we are looking at a Phase 2 that politically may have to be built no matter what and it may be political suicide no matter what. 

Modern concrete viaducts are vastly quieter and less imposing than old steel elevated structures. Instead of a forrest of steel columns, you can have a single row of concrete columns in the center of the street. And a concrete bed + concrete sides can contain the sound and direct it upwards. Modern low-vibration trackbeds also help. 

 

With that said, any elevated structure is a no-go in any truly urban area these days, especially in NYC. People here saying it's just not going to happen are correct. You might build one in the outer parts of the outer boroughs (like where they built the JFK AirTrain), but otherwise, forget it, even with the improved new designs. 

 

Also, consider where the real costs are in projects like this. All of the talk about cost per mile makes its easy forget how bad of a metric that is. A continuous stretch of plain track is actually relatively cheap, whether underground or above. It's everything else that's expensive, like stations, launch boxes, ancillary structures, connections to other lines, etc. In the case of these elevated 2nd Ave ideas, it's the transition from underground to elevated that would be cost-prohibitive. Imagine building that portal anywhere near 2nd Ave. You'd have to raze several blocks just for the incline. We're not talking about huge distances for Phase 2. I could easily see it being cheaper to just continue underground than to build that crazy inline and portal. 

I agree, but it would come down to costs as a whole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is again, this may come down to costs and the importance of doing the line to at least 125/Lex-Park.

 

Totally understand on ELs, but like I said, this could turn into a game of pick your poison.

 

Also, there already is an EL on Metro-North at 125th and Park, so it likely would not be as big a deal in that area than it would be elsewhere.

 

In a perfect world, this would without question be done as underground, but with costs skyrocketing, it's going to be a case of finding ways to cut costs to make sure this is done.  

A part of me understands where you're coming from. If you can't afford it let's look at something more in your price bracket. Thus your EL idea. Logic solution and move forward wise id look at an EL as well the get the best of both. But then comes the human elements the all or nothing that's the part that you're missing just looking at the convo. I'm reminded of my Grandparents I remember telling them I didn't want to eat some of the dishes they prepared heck I didn't like it. They'd always reply "If you don't like it then starve." Some nights I'd cave in some night's I left hungry. Moral of the story is I think you have to look at it with the same mentality here. You might win some and you might miss out. The better plan may or  may not appear that's the risk. If the money available can't allow for subway and they don't want an EL then there just going to have to do without transit. Can't be mad at the Community they don't want to go backward it's the will of the people. As long as they understand there going to have to go hungry. They like it I love it!

Edited by RailRunRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That had more to do with a LOT of other factors that had ZERO to do with the Metro-North Line EL being there.  The area around Mount Sinai has started to get built up as well and we may start to see that and other parts of Park Avenue that are NOT housing projects get built up over time as well.  The ball game has certainly changed there.

 

That said, we are looking at a Phase 2 that politically may have to be built no matter what and it may be political suicide no matter what. 

I agree, but it would come down to costs as a whole. 

No, it had to do with $$$.  It isn't a coincidence that the money starts at 96th and Park while above that Park Avenue looks completely different.  Even if you look at Park and 96th vs Lexington and 96th and the areas east of Lex where the previous EL was there is a stark difference in these areas because people with money didn't want a subway near them, and so we see the difference today just a few blocks away.  It's only now that we see changes coming about east of Lex because of gentrification, along with the SAS extension.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it had to do with $$$.  It isn't a coincidence that the money starts at 96th and Park while above that Park Avenue looks completely different.  Even if you look at Park and 96th vs Lexington and 96th and the areas east of Lex where the previous EL was there is a stark difference in these areas because people with money didn't want a subway near them, and so we see the difference today just a few blocks away.  It's only now that we see changes coming about east of Lex because of gentrification, along with the SAS extension.    

Umm. Is it about what people wanted? Or was it about planning, functional space or area resources. Your correct 96th and 107th are quite different. 96th south lends itself to more desirable residences wide, airy and tree lined unique to NYC standards desirable almost European in some ways. Park north of 96th is a different space separated in the middle for the first half of the 20th century this was a solid area working class so forth. A lot if this was planning and resources that pulled the area down. The non-communal elements that when into design public housing in the 50's lack of resources and investment that went into the area. Example The Grand Concourse is the Park Ave of Bronx Beautiful housing stock functional lack of resources. Northern Park Ave is going to see a resurgence there's a highrise going up on 125th and Park lots of great housing stock along that Corredor you're going to see values go up regardless of whether an elevated's there, especially in 21st-century New York.  Park is nothing like let's say Atlantic Ave probably because of the zoning.

I don't know if I fully agree with your statement that people with money don't want to be near a subway. New York is very unique in this regard there are quite a few people of that upper bracket that ride the subway. I think with gentrification and the population boom the city's experiencing some of the traditional notions of neighborhoods and areas are going to start to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm. Is it about what people wanted? Or was it about planning, functional space or area resources. Your correct 96th and 107th are quite different. 96th south lends itself to more desirable residences wide, airy and tree lined unique to NYC standards desirable almost European in some ways. Park north of 96th is a different space separated in the middle for the first half of the 20th century this was a solid area working class so forth. A lot if this was planning and resources that pulled the area down. The non-communal elements that when into design public housing in the 50's lack of resources and investment that went into the area. Example The Grand Concourse is the Park Ave of Bronx Beautiful housing stock functional lack of resources. Northern Park Ave is going to see a resurgence there's a highrise going up on 125th and Park lots of great housing stock along that Corredor you're going to see values go up regardless of whether an elevated's there, especially in 21st-century New York.  Park is nothing like let's say Atlantic Ave probably because of the zoning.

I don't know if I fully agree with your statement that people with money don't want to be near a subway. New York is very unique in this regard there are quite a few people of that upper bracket that ride the subway. I think with gentrification and the population boom the city's experiencing some of the traditional notions of neighborhoods and areas are going to start to change.

I said didn't want to (past tense), and yes the rich were extremely influential in what transportation ran where.  They certainly got their way on 5th Avenue.  That is why there is no subway along 5th today, and the areas east of Park Avenue weren't as well heeled, but even there, they fought to get rid of the EL.  Today it's a different story. People are moving to the city for easier commutes, but that doesn't mean that people want an EL in their neighborhood.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said didn't want to (past tense), and yes the rich were extremely influential in what transportation ran where.  They certainly got their way on 5th Avenue.  That is why there is no subway along 5th today, and the areas east of Park Avenue weren't as well heeled, but even there, they fought to get rid of the EL.  Today it's a different story. People are moving to the city for easier commutes, but that doesn't mean that people want an EL in their neighborhood.  

5th Ave was well established going back to the mid 19th-century I don't think there was any question there. Old old old money. Park is the new kid on the block compared to it's sisters Fifth and Madison Avenues. It wasn't really until the current  Grand Central was finished and the railroad placed underground that Park flourished that's a 20th-century affair. Thus my point of the planning and it's effect.  The people on the eastside made a major choice based on something that was never delivered a lot of people fought for the Third Ave El by the time they cut yard access and capacity by pushing it back to Chatham it was already doomed. I wonder If I went back to 1950 and told them they wouldn't have service until 2017 and even then it would be three stops would they have pushed as hard? I doubt it there would have been a possibility they would've have made something work with the El itself. Maybe in some parallel universe, the 3rd Ave still runs. We'll never know. I'm not questioning the fact that we'll more then likey never see elevateds in Manhattan again. Just thinking adaptively and asking the questions. 

Edited by RailRunRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5th Ave was well established going back to the mid 19th-century I don't think there was any question there. Old old old money. Park is the new kid on the block compared to it's sisters Fifth and Madison Avenues. It wasn't really until the current  Grand Central was finished and the railroad placed underground that Park flourished that's a 20th-century affair. Thus my point of the planning and it's effect.  The people on the eastside made a major choice based on something that was never delivered a lot of people fought for the Third Ave El by the time they cut yard access and capacity by pushing it back to Chatham it was already doomed. I wonder If I went back to 1950 and told them they wouldn't have service until 2017 and even then it would be three stops would they have pushed as hard? I doubt it there would have been a possibility they would've have made something work with the El itself. Maybe in some parallel universe, the 3rd Ave still runs. We'll never know. I'm not questioning the fact that we'll more then likey never see elevateds in Manhattan again. Just thinking adaptively and asking the questions. 

I think what people understood then and NOW is transportation has a profound impact on how neighborhoods are shaped.  For years, housing has been cheaper in Yorkville because of a lack of subway access and the distance to get to the (4)(5)(6) line.  We will see a serious transformation of Yorkville as a result of this extension of the (Q) line.  They are already predicting rents to go up as much as $500.00 a month in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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