Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[CenSin]

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

I looked at the area with Google Maps. Those blocks on 2 Avenue are just undeveloped parking lots and auto repair shops. The MTA would have little problem acquiring property there. The station would probably come much cheaper than the one at Lexington Avenue. They could even get away with a deep cut and cover and use the chance to build a huge underground yard for the same price.

[RailRunRob]

Right. And no mezzanine means cost savings.

 

 

 

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.

With cost and investment in infrastructure, Time is also something to be measured your building for Harlem 40-50 years from now as well. That's like buying your child a pair of boots you want them to wear for two years and not accounting for the growth of their feet over that time. You buy a size or two bigger to get more for your buck even if you spend a few more dollars up front. But you make it up for 2 other pairs you didn't have to buy in the time between. Built cheaply now and you might have to put more money in a generation if you don't plan. Edited January 8, 2017 by RailRunRob

[vngannxx]

How about this idea.

 

Reroute the M train to the Nassau line in manhattan. 

 

Restore the V train as Culver express to second ave 96 st.  

 

Keep the F the same.

[Around the Horn]

How about this idea.

 

Reroute the M train to the Nassau line in manhattan. 

 

Restore the V train as Culver express to second ave 96 st.  

 

Keep the F the same.

 

No thanks...

[trainfan22]

How about this idea.

 

Reroute the M train to the Nassau line in manhattan. 

 

Restore the V train as Culver express to second ave 96 st.  

 

Keep the F the same.

Riders along the line in Brooklyn aren't giving up their midtown service.

[bobtehpanda]

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.

 

Then the real question becomes, why the hell does MTA have special requirements for emergencies that subway systems that have experienced actual fires, terrorist attacks, etc. do not have? I don't see London or Moscow doing it, even though they are way more at risk than we are.

How about this idea.

 

Reroute the M train to the Nassau line in manhattan. 

 

Restore the V train as Culver express to second ave 96 st.  

 

Keep the F the same.

 

Not going to happen. The M/V combo is way more useful than them separate, even if you do make the go to Culver.

[RailRunRob]

Then the real question becomes, why the hell does MTA have special requirements for emergencies that subway systems that have experienced actual fires, terrorist attacks, etc. do not have? I don't see London or Moscow doing it, even though they are way more at risk than we are.

 

Hey, That's a great question. You know the American way "If you stay ready you never have to get ready!" (Flag waves in the wind) 

Edited January 8, 2017 by RailRunRob

[MHV9218]

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.

 

They're pleasant and air-y, but they are massively expensive and lead to an incredibly deep platform. If the cost of a station with a mezzanine means less money to build other stations, I think we should question the mezzanines.

 

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.

 

The coding has changed, sure, but is it really possible it's all just ADA and fire code stuff? I find that hard to believe. Those rooms generally fit into former bathrooms and newsstands on the old IRT lines.

 

Then the real question becomes, why the hell does MTA have special requirements for emergencies that subway systems that have experienced actual fires, terrorist attacks, etc. do not have? I don't see London or Moscow doing it, even though they are way more at risk than we are.

 

Exactly. I'm not sure that NYC is less 'at risk,' but surely there can't be something so essential that those major systems are leaving out. Our subway is costing $2.2bil per km, and that's for the cheaper Phase 1. Other subways in full cities are being constructed at roughly $200mil/km. Union labor, American supplies, that all adds up, but something in the design and construction has got to be making a difference.

[RailRunRob]

They're pleasant and air-y, but they are massively expensive and lead to an incredibly deep platform. If the cost of a station with a mezzanine means less money to build other stations, I think we should question the mezzanines.

 

 

The coding has changed, sure, but is it really possible it's all just ADA and fire code stuff? I find that hard to believe. Those rooms generally fit into former bathrooms and newsstands on the old IRT lines.

 

 

Exactly. I'm not sure that NYC is less 'at risk,' but surely there can't be something so essential that those major systems are leaving out. Our subway is costing $2.2bil per km, and that's for the cheaper Phase 1. Other subways in full cities are being constructed at roughly $200mil/km. Union labor, American supplies, that all adds up, but something in the design and construction has got to be making a difference.

  I just don't see the mezzanine, especially at 116th, being that much more costly. You're gutting tunnel anyway. I'll give you some of the deeper stations. Question did they released a new plan for phase 2 with this new $6 Billion price tag? What were the 2004 estimates? I couldn't find anything. The 1975 estimate was a tad over 2 billion for everything that's somewhere around $11 Billion in 2016 dollars.

Edited January 8, 2017 by RailRunRob

[R42N]

Looks like my fear of riders getting confused by seeing a going to 96th street was completely un-warrented. Two trains came up as ’s via Sea Beach and both had “last stop” going southbound until at least Lexington-63rd, where I was watching them, I’m assuming the programing commenced at 57th/7th.

 

This may have been on purpose, but then again SAS Automated Announcements have been completely off lately. 

 

On an un-related note, can someone please explain to me why the destination sign is now reading “Broadway Local” instead of “Broadway Lcl”. Doesn’t really make a difference, just never seen it that way before two weeks ago. 

[Around the Horn]

On an un-related note, can someone please explain to me why the destination sign is now reading “Broadway Local” instead of “Broadway Lcl”. Doesn’t really make a difference, just never seen it that way before two weeks ago. 

 

I assume that's just temporary, so the MTA can easily identify train sets with the updated announcements. Its a "trick" that they've done before.

[N6 Limited]

With all the testing they've been doing the past few months how come the automated announcements weren't ready?

 

Also, the announcement at Lex/63rd st hasn't been modified. They should single out the transfer then announce the "free" walking transfer.

[Wallyhorse]

With cost and investment in infrastructure, Time is also something to be measured your building for Harlem 40-50 years from now as well. That's like buying your child a pair of boots you want them to wear for two years and not accounting for the growth of their feet over that time. You buy a size or two bigger to get more for your buck even if you spend a few more dollars up front. But you make it up for 2 other pairs you didn't have to buy in the time between. Built cheaply now and you might have to put more money in a generation if you don't plan.

There is truth to that, however, the main thing is getting Phase 2 of the SAS done.  If two side platforms (even with full ADA access) for 116th can be done cheaper without a mezzanine, then that is what should be done.

 

  I just don't see the mezzanine, especially at 116th, being that much more costly. You're gutting tunnel anyway. I'll give you some of the deeper stations. Question did they released a new plan for phase 2 with this new $6 Billion price tag? What were the 2004 estimates? I couldn't find anything. The 1975 estimate was a tad over 2 billion for everything that's somewhere around $11 Billion in 2016 dollars.

The idea is in my version, the tunnel would NOT be gutted.  It would be kept and incorporated into the system, where you also would have a third track available for reroutes and storage as needed in that area.  And as noted before, you can add a stop for the at 126th and 2nd Avenue if you ever extend the to The Bronx.  That last parts notes this:

 

I looked at the area with Google Maps. Those blocks on 2 Avenue are just undeveloped parking lots and auto repair shops. The MTA would have little problem acquiring property there. The station would probably come much cheaper than the one at Lexington Avenue. They could even get away with a deep cut and cover and use the chance to build a huge underground yard for the same price.

That in turn likely makes it easier to build a yard in the area as well if you include provisions for a 126th Street/2nd Avenue station in the event the line does go to The Bronx (126 so its after the main line makes its curve for 125/Lex).  

Edited January 9, 2017 by Wallyhorse

[RailRunRob]

There is truth to that, however, the main thing is getting Phase 2 of the SAS done. If two side platforms (even with full ADA access) for 116th can be done cheaper without a mezzanine, then that is what should be done.

 

The idea is in my version, the tunnel would NOT be gutted. It would be kept and incorporated into the system, where you also would have a third track available for reroutes and storage as needed in that area. And as noted before, you can add a stop for the at 126th and 2nd Avenue if you ever extend the to The Bronx. That last parts notes this:

 

That in turn likely makes it easier to build a yard in the area as well if you include provisions for a 126th Street/2nd Avenue station in the event the line does go to The Bronx (126 so its after the main line makes its curve for 125/Lex).

How do we know two-sided platforms would even be possible? Especially if you're talking about leaving Tunnel as is and not reconfiguring. What about the surrounding buildings and property lines? Give me some Math,measurements give me an idea of where you're coming from and how you're coming to your conclusions. I might be missing something.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Edited January 9, 2017 by RailRunRob

[Eric B]

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

That means lengthwise; the station will be within the length of one of the tunnel sections. It does mention "tunnel demolition". It's the height and width that won't fit the station with this island platform with massive mezzanine layout they are insisting on.

It seems they are willing to risk it never being built, as costs skyrocket, and time increases, just to have that same format. 

It was the people in the area who demanded a station there, and they didn't demand that particular layout, and so two side platforms without a mezzanine would still be a station for them, and that's what they're concerned about.

[Wallyhorse]

How do we know two-sided platforms would even be possible? Especially if you're talking about leaving Tunnel as is and not reconfiguring. What about the surrounding buildings and property lines? Give me some Math,measurements give me an idea of where you're coming from and how you're coming to your conclusions. I might be missing something.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

From what I saw on Google Maps, the entire area from 115th-120th Street on second avenue has only ONE building above six floors total (a new building that only went up in recent years) on that stretch (plus one more currently going up on 120th Street itself), and many of the structures there are much less than that (including some single-story buildings).  That likely makes it easier to build side platforms underneath there and preserve the original tunnel that would allow for three tracks in that area instead of two.  

Edited January 9, 2017 by Wallyhorse

[RailRunRob]

From what I saw on Google Maps, the entire area from 115th-120th Street on second avenue has only ONE building above six floors total (a new building that only went up in recent years) on that stretch (plus one more currently going up on 120th Street itself), and many of the structures there are much less than that (including some single-story buildings).  That likely makes it easier to build side platforms underneath there and preserve the original tunnel that would allow for three tracks in that area instead of two.  

So your building below the basement line? You'd have underpin not shore up two blocks of property that's a fair amount of work. I don't know if would be that much easier than just gutting the tunnel and just reconfiguring. The area you see below during the construction would be what you have to work with in essence abit of room there. Operations wise you need a third track here why? You have tail trains from 125th to 129th same as always plus track from Park ave to almost Lenox. The purpose here? you have 10 blocks of tunnel if you need flexibility just run 900 feet of middle track between stations at 106th and 116th Your not talking two islands platforms so it's not to short turn or terminate don't see the point.

Gut it and re-reconfigure as I said build a new Jamaica Van Wyk with a few more feet in height and call it a day.

 

116th to 118th on Second Ave

116th -118 st area under construction quite a bit of room to re work with.

Edited January 9, 2017 by RailRunRob

[T to Dyre Avenue]

How about this idea.

 

Reroute the M train to the Nassau line in manhattan.

 

Restore the V train as Culver express to second ave 96 st.

 

Keep the F the same.

I don't have a problem with a train running from 96th and 2nd to the Culver Line express tracks, as long as there is enough track/signal capacity for it. Perhaps when CBTC comes to the 6th Ave Local tracks, then it might be possible to have it.

 

I do have a problem with putting the back on the Nassau St Line, where it is not needed.

Edited January 9, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[TheNewYorkElevated]

The stations are very nice, spacious. The art pieces are beautiful.

[IAlam]

  I just don't see the mezzanine, especially at 116th, being that much more costly. You're gutting tunnel anyway. I'll give you some of the deeper stations. Question did they released a new plan for phase 2 with this new $6 Billion price tag? What were the 2004 estimates? I couldn't find anything. The 1975 estimate was a tad over 2 billion for everything that's somewhere around $11 Billion in 2016 dollars.

Just out of curiosity could the mezzanine be built under the tracks? The could install escalators the come out from the side and have the portals at 116th st instead of 2nd av.

[HenryB]

 

 

 

116th to 118th on Second Ave

116th -118 st area under construction quite a bit of room to re work with.

 

 

Wow, there are lots of spaces.

It seems like it has same or even move room compare to the stations in Phase 1

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mtaphotos/sets/72157640788621035

Edited January 10, 2017 by HenryB

[RailRunRob]

Just out of curiosity could the mezzanine be built under the tracks? The could install escalators the come out from the side and have the portals at 116th st instead of 2nd av.

 You could but what would the difference be? You'd just be shifting the same area from the top of a box to the bottom of a box. What's your pro's and advantages? And are you talking about this plan instead of a reconfiguration?  

[vngannxx]

I don't have a problem with a train running from 96th and 2nd to the Culver Line express tracks, as long as there is enough track/signal capacity for it. Perhaps when CBTC comes to the 6th Ave Local tracks, then it might be possible to have it.

 

I do have a problem with putting the back on the Nassau St Line, where it is not needed.

 

The plan might work if SAS phase 3. 

Run Culver express trains via rutgers to 2nd ave phase 3 to pair with the T.

Keep the M on the 6th ave line.

 

Maybe have the T use the nassau line to save costs and run it via montague to brooklyn.

[Mtatransit]

I believe that UNTIL we get the QBlvd Bypass where we could add more trains coming from Queens, it will just be the T and the Q

Edited January 10, 2017 by Mtatransit

[Around the Horn]

The plan might work if SAS phase 3. 

Run Culver express trains via rutgers to 2nd ave phase 3 to pair with the T.

Keep the M on the 6th ave line.

 

Maybe have the T use the nassau line to save costs and run it via montague to brooklyn.

 

 

I believe that UNTIL we get the QBlvd Bypass where we could add more trains coming from Queens, it will just be the T and the Q

I had a similar idea to you two where the / were kind of a pair: the is the Culver Express, the becomes the local. The operates via the 6th Avenue line and Queens Blvd while the operates via 2nd Avenue and the Queens Blvd bypass. Both lines would start at Jamaica-179th St and the would end at Coney Island with the ending at Kings Highway.