Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[RailRunRob]

By the way, from the same pdf:

http://i.imgur.com/6qYX8jO.png

 

No surprise why the 125st could be that expensive 

Could they just build the 125st under the Park Ave instead of right underneath Lex?

So they don't need to build 3 tracks and two platforms under 2 levels of existing       platforms, but meanwhile it could still provide transfer between SAS and Lex. Everyone's still happy.

 

Seems some of the older plans were more in-line with your idea. Note the station he Extends further west in this concept past Park Ave. Still, would have to pin the Lex here as well as I said I think Lex and 63rd was just as challenging.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

This tunnel section under Lexington and Park is cutting through solid rock on 125th. I don't see the issue with pinning the existing lines you mean to tell me this station is that much harder than 63rd and Lex? You can literally hear the and rumble by from the Platform on 63rd they clear both levels's of the Lex there what am I missing?

That's why I question the $6 billion cost. How can it possibly cost that much even with the pre-existing tunnels? Is there a less expensive way to build Lex/125? There's got to be.

[bobtehpanda]

LOL! They are going to DESTROY the work from the 70’s to redo the whole thing?

 

To be fair I don't think this was ever really in question. 116 St was not designed as a station.

 

"Located within existing tunnel structures..." so no digging is needed. Still a (very) good news for the project 

 

Well, no, they're saying that the station footprint overlaps with the old tunnel, so to build the station they need to destroy the tunnel.

[RailRunRob]

That's why I question the $6 billion cost. How can it possibly cost that much even with the pre-existing tunnels? Is there a less expensive way to build Lex/125? There's got to be.

You got me. Everything is cut and cover with existing tunnel until 120th street. Then TBM across town to just past 5th Ave. I'd like to see where the money's going. Follow the paper trail.    

Edited January 8, 2017 by RailRunRob

[HenryB]

Well, no, they're saying that the station footprint overlaps with the old tunnel, so to build the station they need to destroy the tunnel.

 

 

It can't be avoided because those columns supporting the street now have to go. However it is still better than digging from the street to the platform from scratch

[Trainmaster5]

You got me. Everything is cut and cover with existing tunnel until 120th street. Then TBM across town to just past 5th Ave. I'd like to see where the money's going. Follow the paper trail.

 

Find the older Environmental Impact reports and you'll probably find the reasons. Perhaps the problem starts just north of 120th St and becomes more problematic as one turns towards the west? I don't remember the specifics but IIRC that was an argument that was brought up when the current SAS plan was being considered over the earlier plans alignments. I don't think that inflation is the sole reason. Just my two cents. Carry on.

[RailRunRob]

Find the older Environmental Impact reports and you'll probably find the reasons. Perhaps the problem starts just north of 120th St and becomes more problematic as one turns towards the west? I don't remember the specifics but IIRC that was an argument that was brought up when the current SAS plan was being considered over the earlier plans alignments. I don't think that inflation is the sole reason. Just my two cents. Carry on.

Got my hands on the 2004 report going to one over it again. You know you might have a point I already found something I missed. I see that this includes tail trains to 129th as well. At 120th the tracks seem to spilt and you have two levels for a few blocks until the curve onto 125th  and quite a bit of property to pull on that corner as well. 

[Trainmaster5]

Got my hands on the 2004 report going to one over it again. You know you might have a point I already found something I missed. I see that this includes tail trains to 129th as well. At 120th the tracks seem to spilt and you have two levels for a few blocks until the curve onto 125th  and quite a bit of property to pull on that corner as well.

 

I remember discussing those tail tracks with my RTO rabbi and his fellow supervisors who were pretty high up in the NYCTA food chain. My idea was to use those tracks for access to the Bronx. Since four of the group were Bronx residents and two had trained me as a C/R and as a M/M they always let me make my proposals followed by their critiques. I wanted a train yard a safe distance from the river in the Bronx. I saw the problems we had in Lenox Yard with flooding after heavy rains, especially on the vacuum cleaner track. They agreed with that point. I wanted to basically recreate the basic Third Avenue el alignment at that point on the Bronx side mainly to replace the BX55 route which was the el replacement. When we were talking about my plan and the "official" plans I pointed out something I'd learned from attending City Council meetings. While some of the people who attended these off the record meetings pointed out the population loss in the south and central areas of the borough I advised them to look at the five and ten year plans the city puts out. Whenever you see capital outlays for sewer projects, and electrical grid improvements with Con Ed I don't care what the street or area looks like today. Where most of us see only a wasteland city planners and real estate speculators and " insiders " see something else. Don't think the isn't aware of what's happening in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Heck, my master plan circa 1984 had a split in the south Bronx with train service branching eastward toward Throgs Neck or recreating the severed section of the Dyre line below 180th St. When they pointed out how expensive and ambitious my plans were my retort was that I was only correcting what the Board of Transportation, the NYCTA, and the City of New York screwed up in the first place, lol. As always transportation problems in NYC can always be traced back to lack of money, foresight or a combination of the two. As to the exorbitant money expenditures north of 120th St my guess is that the reasoning and justification are buried or covered up someway. My rant. Feel free to criticize it. Carry on.

[Fresh Pond]

LOL! They are going to DESTROY the work from the 70’s to redo the whole thing?

Think of it as a box within a box lol

[Eric B]

"Located within existing tunnel structures..." so no digging is needed. Still a (very) good news for the project

That means within the LENGTH of “existing tunnel structures”. It also says “tunnel demolition”, as the width and/or height won't be enough to fit a station with the wide island platforms and mezzanine like the others.

(So they'll jeopardize it ever being done any time soon, with the costs and all, insisting on that layout, instead of a smaller station with side platforms. The people who demanded a station there probably won't care which layout is used; the station will serve them just as well).

[Wallyhorse]

It can't be avoided because those columns supporting the street now have to go. However it is still better than digging from the street to the platform from scratch

Why not build side platforms with no mezzanine?  If you do that, you may need two ADA-compliant platforms, but with no mezzanine that would cut the cost in all likelihood.   That would allow the tunnel to be preserved otherwise.  

[bobtehpanda]

Why not build side platforms with no mezzanine?  If you do that, you may need two ADA-compliant platforms, but with no mezzanine that would cut the cost in all likelihood.   That would allow the tunnel to be preserved otherwise.  

 

You'd still need to take out the columns; is that inspection area wide enough for two trains passing side by side?

[MysteriousBtrain]

Why not build side platforms with no mezzanine? If you do that, you may need two ADA-compliant platforms, but with no mezzanine that would cut the cost in all likelihood. That would allow the tunnel to be preserved otherwise.

This is actually one of the smartest things you ever said wally. Not only is it easier,tge middle track can be used for storage and whatnot.

 

But of course, the MTA loves making island platforms on Second Av, so this is a likely loss unless they decide to do more cuts by reconfiguring the rebuild of the tunnel.

You'd still need to take out the columns; is that inspection area wide enough for two trains passing side by side?

That area should be with 3 tracks, with the middle being the inspection track. Even if they have to remove the inspection area, it could be possible to make 116th street a two side platform station.

 

Again, not like this is gonna happen.

[MHV9218]

That side platform idea is appealing to me too.

 

Can anybody explain to me what exactly the point of the massive mezzanines is? I've heard various claims from fire rescue, evacuation, and even terrorism, but all I can think of is the complete overbuilding of the IND lines constructed in the 1930s with massive mezzanines eventually partially closed or riddled with crime. Surely this is part of the absurd $2.2b/km cost of the system, which is almost exponentially more than other major systems being constructed.

[CenSin]

Can anybody explain to me what exactly the point of the massive mezzanines is? I've heard various claims from fire rescue, evacuation, and even terrorism, but all I can think of is the complete overbuilding of the IND lines constructed in the 1930s with massive mezzanines eventually partially closed or riddled with crime. Surely this is part of the absurd $2.2b/km cost of the system, which is almost exponentially more than other major systems being constructed.

Whoever is in charge has a big mezzanine fetish. I don’t know if it is necessary though, because 41 Street/10 Avenue wasn’t going to get a huge mezzanine.

[Around the Horn]

I think it may have to do with the fire code, but I'm not sure.

 

In any event, they aren't really that massive and from what I've seen, help with platform crowding by getting people up off the platform first, before heading towards whichever exit they need, regardless of where they are on the platform.

[HenryB]

Side platforms wouldn't help reduce the amount of work because you still need to remove the columns....

[Around the Horn]

Side platforms wouldn't help reduce the amount of work because you still need to remove the columns....

 

Uh, no you wouldn't...

 

The side platforms would be built anew on the side of the current tunnel.

[RailRunRob]

Whoever is in charge has a big mezzanine fetish. I don’t know if it is necessary though, because 41 Street/10 Avenue wasn’t going to get a huge mezzanine.

But with 10th Ave you kinda do have a mezzanine it's just split in half. But your still controlling flow and that mezzanine seems to still travel above a good amount of the platform at 10th Ave on both sides.

Edited January 8, 2017 by RailRunRob

[BayParkwayW]

Side platforms wouldn't help reduce the amount of work because you still need to remove the columns....

I'm not too big of a fan of side platforms, especially if 116th ends up being the last stop in Manhattan before a Bronx extension (which won't likely happen in 100 years). Building an island platform saves resources (elevators, stairs, tiles, etc.) and allows easy cross-platform transfers.

[RailRunRob]

Should we be asking does the mezzanine level play a role in the things that maybe we can't see? Like the SAS stations have areas for emergency staging ect. A lot of requirements have changed over the last 40 or 50 years by law. What about the electrical ,pumps, ancillary signaling? These are all things that might use the mezzanine as well on top of rider flow.

[Around the Horn]

Should we be asking does the mezzanine level play a role in the things that maybe we can't see? Like the SAS stations have areas for emergency staging ect. A lot of requirements have changed over the last 40 or 50 years by law. What about the electrical ,pumps, ancillary signaling? These are all things that might use the mezzanine as well on top of rider flow.

 

Thats at the ends of the station box I think...

[RailRunRob]

I remember discussing those tail tracks with my RTO rabbi and his fellow supervisors who were pretty high up in the NYCTA food chain. My idea was to use those tracks for access to the Bronx. Since four of the group were Bronx residents and two had trained me as a C/R and as a M/M they always let me make my proposals followed by their critiques. I wanted a train yard a safe distance from the river in the Bronx. I saw the problems we had in Lenox Yard with flooding after heavy rains, especially on the vacuum cleaner track. They agreed with that point. I wanted to basically recreate the basic Third Avenue el alignment at that point on the Bronx side mainly to replace the BX55 route which was the el replacement. When we were talking about my plan and the "official" plans I pointed out something I'd learned from attending City Council meetings. While some of the people who attended these off the record meetings pointed out the population loss in the south and central areas of the borough I advised them to look at the five and ten year plans the city puts out. Whenever you see capital outlays for sewer projects, and electrical grid improvements with Con Ed I don't care what the street or area looks like today. Where most of us see only a wasteland city planners and real estate speculators and " insiders " see something else. Don't think the isn't aware of what's happening in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Heck, my master plan circa 1984 had a split in the south Bronx with train service branching eastward toward Throgs Neck or recreating the severed section of the Dyre line below 180th St. When they pointed out how expensive and ambitious my plans were my retort was that I was only correcting what the Board of Transportation, the NYCTA, and the City of New York screwed up in the first place, lol. As always transportation problems in NYC can always be traced back to lack of money, foresight or a combination of the two. As to the exorbitant money expenditures north of 120th St my guess is that the reasoning and justification are buried or covered up someway. My rant. Feel free to criticize it. Carry on.

I forgot about the track connection below 180th on the NYBW I remembering seeing trains lay up on that side as a kid in the early to mid 80's. The removal of the 3rd Ave IMO added to the demise of the South Bronx or at least helped to ensure it. That area's in major need of transit . The money always seems to get covered with the SAS look at the 1970's money paid in full by the taxpayers with bonds. A billion just went missing vanishes into thin air .The 70s in New York politically was an interesting place. Just reading up on that and the long arduous road to get back I kinda see why people thought this would never happen even with the three stations. Have to keep the momentum going somehow. The New York of 2060 is counting on it. Edited January 8, 2017 by RailRunRob

[Wallyhorse]

Uh, no you wouldn't...

 

The side platforms would be built anew on the side of the current tunnel.

Right.  And no mezzanine means cost savings.

 

 

I'm not too big of a fan of side platforms, especially if 116th ends up being the last stop in Manhattan before a Bronx extension (which won't likely happen in 100 years). Building an island platform saves resources (elevators, stairs, tiles, etc.) and allows easy cross-platform transfers.

 

Even with that factored in, in this case, it would save more in the long-term because no mezzanine would be needed, plus, a third track could be built there for storage, G.O.'s etc.

 

And if the does go to The Bronx, you could add a stop at 126th/2nd for such trains.  

[RailRunRob]

Thats at the ends of the station box I think...

But even looking at that way if you're blasting a cavern for a station like 72nd or in this case at 116th you have box that you're going to gut anyways doesn't seem too crazy to add a walkway (Mezzanine) above the 600 ft of station platform you have anyways. You future-proof your investment and growth. I don't see 116th having 60-foot ceilings but you have to give it some space. Maybe Jamaica Van Wyck-ish with 10 more feet and more modern design materials. Side walkways and space in the center.

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by RailRunRob