Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[checkmatechamp13]

To be fair, if Lex Ave - 125 St is going to cost $3 billion to build, so are 3 Ave -138 St and 3 Ave - 149 Sts combined, and the underwater tunnel will cost a few billion too. Taking SAS into the Bronx just provides more immediate impact, since a station at the Hub not only relieves the Lexington Ave express tracks, but also the 7 Ave express services as well. The is already overcrowded, and currently there's no relief on the horizon, since the UWS objectively doesn't need another subway. SAS would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Plus, there's no projected timeline for Phase 3, which is absolutely critical to make any of the SAS 125 St stations truly work. If SAS Phase 3 gets delayed indefinitely, then a Phase 2 into the Bronx is objectively more valuable than turning left onto 125 St.

 

To be fair, if the Hudson Line had its branch to Penn Station built, you would see a little bit of relief depending on where the stations were placed. But yes, I do agree that an extension to The Hub would be more beneficial than curving west to 125th. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes, the "precious" Metro-North connection that might not even get much use. Not very many Metro-North riders connect with the there as it is, so how would the , located at a much deeper platform, fare any better.

 

They really have to rethink the 125/Lex station. I mean, if they want to build a 125th St crosstown subway as a future phase, that would be great. The 125/Lex station should be part of that phase. Including it as part of Phase 2 is making it prohibitively expensive and may doom the project entirely. We don't want that to happen.

As a Metro-North rider, actually you would be wrong about that.  You're basing this off of what exactly?  

[bobtehpanda]

Just stop the line at the 116 St station and build the tail to 129th, but no further (so avoid that entire turn to Lenox/125 completely). We don't have money to go to the Bronx yet, but that doesn't mean we have to shoot ourselves in the foot by building 125/Park.

[CenSin]

Agreed and that's why I find that Lex/125's usefulness as a subway transfer/railroad connection to be a bit overhyped. I really don't think a lot of and Metro-North riders are going to switch to the at 125 if the platform is inconveniently located several stories deep. A transfer has to be convenient, quick and easy.

If I were coming in from the Bronx on the , I would see a clock showing a parade of and trains 2 minutes apart. Then I would think to myself… It takes 2 minutes to descend the stairs/escalators and the trains leave every 3 minutes. Hmm… I think I’ll save my strength and stand here.

 

Metro-North riders are going to avoid the 8-stop cup handle detour and go straight down to Grand Central for the or to Times Square–42 Street.

[BayParkwayW]

Personally, I would like to see 125/2nd with maybe a stop at 3rd Avenue/149. But just on a side note, does anyone else find the 55th Street station a little awakward? It would be such a long transfer to the at 51st, and personally, despite additional costs, I would prefer a 60th Street Station and a 51st Street Station on the .

[Around the Horn]

Personally, I would like to see 125/2nd with maybe a stop at 3rd Avenue/149. But just on a side note, does anyone else find the 55th Street station a little awakward? It would be such a long transfer to the at 51st, and personally, despite additional costs, I would prefer a 60th Street Station and a 51st Street Station on the .

The transfer would be long at all...

 

The southern exit wouldn't be at 53rd Street and the distance from 2nd Avenue to the 3rd Avenue mezzanine is about 3/4ths of a block.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Around the Horn

[Caelestor]

Personally, I would like to see 125/2nd with maybe a stop at 3rd Avenue/149. But just on a side note, does anyone else find the 55th Street station a little awakward? It would be such a long transfer to the at 51st, and personally, despite additional costs, I would prefer a 60th Street Station and a 51st Street Station on the .

 

Riders at 55 St aren't expected to transfer to the , but rather to the for Queens. The 55 St station would have an entrance on 53 St, so the transfer distance would be comparable to the existing one between the and today.

 

There's a few disadvantages to building two stations at 51 and 60 Sts. First, every stop added to a subway service increases trip journeys by about 45 seconds, and time matters since the SAS is entirely local. Second, it's not exactly cost-effective to serve that area with 2 stops, since modern stations have entrances at both their northern and southern ends. Having two Midtown stations with entrances at 42, 44, 53, and 55 Sts will be nearly as effective as three with entrances at 42, 44, 49, 51, 57, and 60 Sts. A 60 St station would also be very difficult to build, since it needs to accommodate both the 60 St tunnel and an expected connection to the 63 St tunnel for Queens. From a system perspective, a transfer to Lex Ave - 53 St has higher utility than a transfer to Lex Ave - 59 St.

 

On a related note, what's the consensus on the 116 Station given the existing tunnel between 110 and 120 Sts? Build under the existing tunnel, use cut-cover to build the 116 stop and crossover with likely long-term disruption, or just build a 125 St stop instead of the 116 St station?

Edited January 21, 2017 by Caelestor

[T to Dyre Avenue]

If I were coming in from the Bronx on the , I would see a clock showing a parade of and trains 2 minutes apart. Then I would think to myself… It takes 2 minutes to descend the stairs/escalators and the trains leave every 3 minutes. Hmm… I think I’ll save my strength and stand here.

 

Metro-North riders are going to avoid the 8-stop cup handle detour and go straight down to Grand Central for the or to Times Square–42 Street.

That's what I've been trying to say!

As a Metro-North rider, actually you would be wrong about that. You're basing this off of what exactly?

 

I'm basing this off of how deep the platforms at 125 are projected to be. They would have to be deep enough to clear all three levels of the Lexington Ave subway and not compromise the structure. Between that and the elevated Metro-North platforms, you're looking at roughly the length of a 7-storey building between from Metro-North to the . Who would want to make that kind of connection? Twice a day, five days a week? We're talking about a connection that's anything but quick and easy. Not to mention super-expensive. Edited January 21, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

On a related note, what's the consensus on the 116 Station given the existing tunnel between 110 and 120 Sts? Build under the existing tunnel, use cut-cover to build the 116 stop and crossover with likely long-term disruption, or just build a 125 St stop instead of the 116 St station?

 

116 is not the useless stop, 125 is. Since 116 will have exits at 116 and 118, and 106 has exits at 106 and 109, 116 is perfectly situation to maximize geographic coverage of the area. 125 has two major disadvantages; one, it's in a much higher-risk flood zone than 116, and two, with the bus depot, the Triboro approaches, and the rivers so close by, the potential ridership catchment is much lower.

Edited January 21, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

But just on a side note, does anyone else find the 55th Street station a little awakward? It would be such a long transfer to the at 51st, and personally, despite additional costs, I would prefer a 60th Street Station and a 51st Street Station on the .

A 59 Street station should have exits at 58~59 Street and 61~62 Street if the current station design patterns hold (exits 3 blocks apart). And then there should be a transfer to the Lexington Avenue/59 Street station.

 

The other station should be 50 Street as an east-side analogue to the 8 Avenue station on the west side. That station would have exits at 50 Street and 53 Street. There would be a more convenient transfer to 53 Street by having one end of the platforms be actually under 53 Street instead of spanning 54—56 Streets to barely cover both 53 and 57 Streets.

 

Coverage would be as follows assuming the current stations and these projected ones:

• 96 Street ← 1 block → 95 Street ← 1 block → 94 Street ← 8 blocks →
• 86 Street ← 3.5 block → 83~84 Streets ← 11.5 blocks →
• 72 Street ← 3 blocks → 69 Street ← 7 blocks →
• 61~62 Street ← 3 blocks → 58~59 Street ← 5.5 blocks →
• 53 Street ← 3 blocks → 50 Street ← 7 blocks →
• 42~43 Street ← 2 block → 41~42 Street ← 7.5 blocks →
• 34 Street ← 2.5 blocks → 31~32 Street ← 6.5 blocks →
• 25 Street ← 2 blocks → 22~23 Streets ← 8.5 blocks →
• 14 Street ← 3 blocks → 11 Street ← 8 blocks →
• 3 Street ← 3 blocks → East Houston Street ← 5.5 blocks →
• Broome Street~Bowery ← 2 blocks → Grand Street ← ? blocks →

Edited January 21, 2017 by CenSin

[bobtehpanda]

A 59 Street station should have exits at 58~59 Street and 61~62 Street if the current station design patterns hold (exits 3 blocks apart). And then there should be a transfer to the Lexington Avenue/59 Street station.

 

The other station should be 50 Street as an east-side analogue to the 8 Avenue station on the west side. That station would have exits at 50 Street and 53 Street. There would be a more convenient transfer to 53 Street by having one end of the platforms be actually under 53 Street instead of spanning 54—56 Streets to barely cover both 53 and 57 Streets.

 

...except with a 62 St exit you barely have room to make the turnout from south to east.

[CenSin]

...except with a 62 St exit you barely have room to make the turnout from south to east.

The exit would be between 61 and 62 Street and an inclined escalator would meet the mezzanine at around 60~61 Street. The actual platforms would span 58~60 Streets. That leaves 3 blocks for the connection which is the same footprint as the one between 72 Street and Lexington Avenue/63 Street.

Edited January 21, 2017 by CenSin

[bobtehpanda]

Speaking of incline, but slightly OT, does anyone know how the elevator at 34-HY has been doing in terms of reliability?

[HenryB]

Just stop the line at the 116 St station and build the tail to 129th, but no further (so avoid that entire turn to Lenox/125 completely). We don't have money to go to the Bronx yet, but that doesn't mean we have to shoot ourselves in the foot by building 125/Park.

 

 

They are not shooting themselves. The tail track that goes beyond 125 st / 2 av is in the current plan.

[CenSin]

They are not shooting themselves. The tail track that goes beyond 125 st / 2 av is in the current plan.

Read the first post. You’ll understand why not building the 125 Street/Lexington Avenue station is necessary.

 

It’s not about 125 Street/Lexington Avenue station vs 129 Street tunnel. It’s about 125 Street/Lexington Avenue station and 129 Street tunnel vs just 129 Street tunnel.

[HenryB]

ok ok chill 

If they want a metro north connection to SAS and build SAS to the bronx, maybe they could just add a metro north 138st station and have connection with       

[checkmatechamp13]

On a related note, what's the consensus on the 116 Station given the existing tunnel between 110 and 120 Sts? Build under the existing tunnel, use cut-cover to build the 116 stop and crossover with likely long-term disruption, or just build a 125 St stop instead of the 116 St station?

 

Another possible idea is to build a station spanning between 110th & 107th/108th. 

 

ok ok chill 

If they want a metro north connection to SAS and build SAS to the bronx, maybe they could just add a metro north 138st station and have connection with       

 

If they built a Mott Haven/138th Street station on the MNRR, I think it would be better to just have some type of moving walkway or something to allow passengers to travel to the 138th Street/3rd Avenue station (instead of trying to squeeze between the & to build a station convenient to both 3rd/138th & GC/138th. 

[Caelestor]

Another possible idea is to build a station spanning between 110th & 107th/108th. 

 

 

If they built a Mott Haven/138th Street station on the MNRR, I think it would be better to just have some type of moving walkway or something to allow passengers to travel to the 138th Street/3rd Avenue station (instead of trying to squeeze between the & to build a station convenient to both 3rd/138th & GC/138th. 

 

The way I see it, there can either be stations at 106-108 Sts and 116-118 Sts, or 108-110 Sts and 120-122 Sts. The former is definitely better since 106 and 116 Sts are the main crosstown corridors, but will require a reconfiguration of the existing tunnel to make work.

 

I doubt many riders are going to utilize the transfer, so just build the connection to the stop.

 

 

ok ok chill 

If they want a metro north connection to SAS and build SAS to the bronx, maybe they could just add a metro north 138st station and have connection with       

 

I think the point is that there shouldn't be a MNR / SAS connection at any stop except maybe GCT / 42 St.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's what I've been trying to say!I'm basing this off of how deep the platforms at 125 are projected to be. They would have to be deep enough to clear all three levels of the Lexington Ave subway and not compromise the structure. Between that and the elevated Metro-North platforms, you're looking at roughly the length of a 7-storey building between from Metro-North to the . Who would want to make that kind of connection? Twice a day, five days a week? We're talking about a connection that's anything but quick and easy. Not to mention super-expensive.

So what? You think people backtrack to GCT because of how deep the subway is? Please. People are thinking about getting to their destinations as quickly as possible. I've used 125th plenty of times to get to MNRR. It easily saves me 20 minutes over going to GCT. As gentrification continues in Harlem, and with the SAS opening up more opportunities on the Upper East Side, I expect more people to use that connection. It's one stop from 86th to 125th. Edited January 21, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[bobtehpanda]

So what? You think people backtrack to GCT because of how deep the subway is? Please. People are thinking about getting to their destinations as quickly as possible. I've used 125th plenty of times to get to MNRR. It easily saves me 20 minutes over going to GCT. As gentrification continues in Harlem, and with the SAS opening up more opportunities on the Upper East Side, I expect more people to use that connection. It's one stop from 86th to 125th.

 

One stop on the Lex. Very few people are going to transfer from MNR to SAS because SAS is all-local (and will probably not save time), and very few people are going to make some sort of weird fish-hook commute to transfer from the to the SAS at 125 St. You can build the SAS without 125/Park and still have it relieve all the traffic coming from Harlem.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

One stop on the Lex. Very few people are going to transfer from MNR to SAS because SAS is all-local (and will probably not save time), and very few people are going to make some sort of weird fish-hook commute to transfer from the to the SAS at 125 St. You can build the SAS without 125/Park and still have it relieve all the traffic coming from Harlem.

You are going solely off of opinion. I'm going off of what I see with my eyes. People DO transfer from the to Metro-North. It isn't just about Manhattan. People coming from various parts of the Bronx transfer to there too.

[bobtehpanda]

You are going solely off of opinion. I'm going off of what I see with my eyes. People DO transfer from the to Metro-North. It isn't just about Manhattan. People coming from various parts of the Bronx transfer to there too.

 

If you read what I said carefully, I never actually say that they don't. The same conditions that allow for relatively easy transfers between the do not exist with the Second Avenue Subway, which is slower and has far more inconvenient, deeper stations.

 

125/Park has transportation value. The question is, once that updated analysis comes out, whether or not it has enough value to justify actually building it, since it's likely going to be the most expensive part of the project (given that no tunneling exists, you have to deal with a historic landmark structure, and the entire street runs on a fault line.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If you read what I said carefully, I never actually say that they don't. The same conditions that allow for relatively easy transfers between the do not exist with the Second Avenue Subway, which is slower and has far more inconvenient, deeper stations.

 

125/Park has transportation value. The question is, once that updated analysis comes out, whether or not it has enough value to justify actually building it, since it's likely going to be the most expensive part of the project (given that no tunneling exists, you have to deal with a historic landmark structure, and the entire street runs on a fault line.)

Oh I read carefully. You didn't exactly agree with my asessment either, and I don't like the idea of just discrediting a SAS connection because of how deep it would have to be. If anything, conduct a study to understand usage. Given the amount of gentrification happening throughout the city, we don't know what sort of travel patterns will develop. 125th is definitely becoming a key transit hub and all ways to enhance the rider's experience should be analyzed. What I would love to see is a stop between 125th and 42nd on MNRR, but will likely never happen. Have one stop at 86th and Park for UES access. Surely people would use it, but the folks on Park Avenue would raise hell.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

So what? You think people backtrack to GCT because of how deep the subway is? Please. People are thinking about getting to their destinations as quickly as possible. I've used 125th plenty of times to get to MNRR. It easily saves me 20 minutes over going to GCT. As gentrification continues in Harlem, and with the SAS opening up more opportunities on the Upper East Side, I expect more people to use that connection. It's one stop from 86th to 125th.

Backtracking to GCT? Who's backtracking to GCT? If you're traveling on Metro-North from Connecticut or Westchester to the UES, then it makes more sense to get off at 125 and connect to the or trains. I never questioned that. I'm questioning the belief that Metro-North commuters who are headed to west Midtown or Lower Manhattan will get off at 125th and take the . They won't. Not with GCT just one stop after 125 on MN and the 42 St and the Lex within close proximity of GCT's upper level.

 

You're right that people want to get to their destinations as quickly as possible. Well, walking what may end up being the equivalent of a 6- or 7-storey building at 125 and Lex/Park when there's an existing subway line already there - and much closer to the surface - isn't "as quickly as possible."

Edited January 21, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[R10 2952]

110th or 120th Street would be a good alternative location for a station.  But even if they want a station at 116th Street, that doesn't mean they need to tear up a perfectly good section of tunnel for it.  Look at 191^st Street on the , an infill station that was carved out of the tunnel walls without disrupting the street above.  116th might be closer to the surface, but with today's methods of underpinning, it could be done without too many problems.  And they need to stop wasting precious time and resources building those full-length mezzanines; just build two damn side platforms, some pocket entrances and call it a day.