Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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."

Even if they aren't... The serves more than just West Midtown. All of the hospitals along York Avenue... Those people now have access to the and I'm sure some of live in Westchester. They could avoid a long walk to the . I know a guy who lives in Westchester who faces this very dilemma. Edited January 21, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[bobtehpanda]

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.

 

This would require the MTA, an organ of the state of New York, to admit that it can learn from best practices elsewhere, which is giving them way more credit than they deserve.

Edited January 21, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[R10 2952]

Well, the IRT did it in 1911 with 191st, so if the current people in charge aren't willing to take a page from the playbook of New York subways past, then that'll be another couple of million thrown away.

[HenryB]

By the way, it might not need any tunnel to go 149st-Grand Concourse. 

An EL might actually work this time, where it runs on top of highways and MN tracks, and avoid the commercial and residential streets.

 

[BayParkwayW]

By the way, it might not need any tunnel to go 149st-Grand Concourse. 

An EL might actually work this time, where it runs on top of highways and MN tracks, and avoid the commercial and residential streets.

 

 

I think someone else said this, but the MTA hasn't built any new elevated structures in a while (besides the Archer Avenue approach and the Franklin Shuttle). And some more things: where would the tunnel portal be built, and wouldn't it be a little cumbersome to have to build over/under the Metro-North just before the station?

[HenryB]

I think someone else said this, but the MTA hasn't built any new elevated structures in a while (besides the Archer Avenue approach and the Franklin Shuttle). And some more things: where would the tunnel portal be built, and wouldn't it be a little cumbersome to have to build over/under the Metro-North just before the station?

 

 

No tunnel at all after 129st tail track. The track climbs up in Harlem river park, then runs on top of Harlem river drive and go to the Bronx as an EL on top of MN track

[bobtehpanda]

The general idea is not bad.

 

Downsides of this alignment: you miss Pelham completely, the SAS will flood every time it rains, SAS should be pointed up the Harlem Line ROW

Edited January 21, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[Union Tpke]

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.

 

191st Street was not an infill station. It just wasn't finished. The elevators were not yet completed.

[HenryB]

The general idea is not bad.

 

Downsides of this alignment: you miss Pelham completely, the SAS will flood every time it rains, SAS should be pointed up the Harlem Line ROW

 

 

Flooding issue...pretty sure there will be a way to solve it. Even 116st and 137st on   don't get flooded every time when it rains.

Pelham...no idea, unless it is a subway becuase EL couldn't run on 3rd avenue 

Edited January 22, 2017 by HenryB

[R10 2952]

191st Street was not an infill station. It just wasn't finished. The elevators were not yet completed.

Okay then, 59th Street on the (4)/(5). They did a pretty good job with that...

[CenSin]

Okay then, 59th Street on the (4)/(5). They did a pretty good job with that...

That is what you call a good job? LMAO

[R10 2952]

You do realize that Grand Central would be a complete disaster without the express platforms at 59th Street offloading some of the crush, right? Or do you not see that? 

[CenSin]

You do realize that Grand Central would be a complete disaster without the express platforms at 59th Street offloading some of the crush, right? Or do you not see that? 

You seem to be putting words in my mouth here. It’s a necessary station, but definitely not a good job.

 

Subway Nut:

 

The options to reach the deep lower-level platform are quite limited and consist towards the southern end of the platforms of a single, long up escalator/stair combination shaft from each platform to the respective upper-level local platform near the exits to 59th Street, these rise fifty vertical feet. The other exits are from the decent-sized lower mezzanine area on the level between the BMT N,Q,R Lexington Avenue Station platforms and this platform. Two staircases lead up to it from each of the lower-level express platforms, and there are three staircases up to the BMT N,Q,R Lexington Avenue's island platforms. There is also a single escalator, always running in the up direction that leads 39 feet directly up to the upper-level local 6 train platforms.

 

Yelp: (Lauren S.)

 

It's difficult to express how much I absolutely hate this station.

There are seemingly endless flights of stairs. There's the long flight to get into the station, then, if you miraculously entered on the correct side of the street, you have to walk down a long, narrow, precipitous flight to the express trains. You entered on the wrong side? You're in for a treat. Go down the long flight into the station, then go down more stairs, then up more stairs to get to the other side. Express train? Down more stairs.

The filth. True, the majority of stations are filthy. This is extra filthy.

THE PEOPLE IN THIS STATION! This station is especially full of slow moving people lacking in spatial awareness. People will take up the whole escalator such that they can't be passed. So I take the stairs. Are they any better? Hardly. For whatever reason people walking down the stairs will take up the entire width of them and get belligerent about moving. Not to mention that the slope is so steep and the stairs so long, that if you fall, YOU WILL MOST LIKELY DIE!! Surely both of these (slow and horrific) options are a fire hazard.

 

Yelp: (Raffi M.)

 

A brief vignette of my commute every morning: I edge out of the N train at 59th Street Station from Astoria, and quickly seek the shelter of the center of the narrow platform, scurrying like some kind of crab among the thousands trying to get to work.  I wait for a few moments in the small area I've carved out for myself, looking for an opening, letting the more adventurous be taken away by the waves, and then dash to the stairs.  Failure - there are yet more hundreds lined up, fighting with the people coming up the stairs for purchase.  I scuttle downstairs, prodded by people behind, in front of, and to the side of me. Then it's on to the 4/5 platform, where one battles the lucky thousands that have survived the migration downwards to get into an express train.  Sometimes you succeed.  Othertimes, not so much.

All of this could be avoided if this were a better station.  Alas.

[danielhg121]

They both describe it perfectly. You can barely fit on a or train. The Broadway line has its own set of problems with the problem being 3 lines on 1 track and the platform so goddamn narrow. So if one was to wait for either or (N)/(W), if any one train were delayed, the platform is easily overfilled with those passengers. The Broadway line needs way more help than the Lex in any matter. To connect with any train you have to walk down some long staircases and up another flight.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Mysterious2train]

I went through the turnstile data for Second Avenue/Lexington Avenue stations on the Upper East Side to look at how many people are getting on. I picked Thursdays for the last several weeks, mostly arbitrarily. I only included entries and not exits. I added up the numbers manually, which is a little tedious, so I only included a few days; otherwise I would have included more data. Let's hope I added correctly.

Here's the turnstile data, which is updated every Saturday; click on "Current" to see how to read it.

I made some charts. We can see that ridership on the Lex starts dropping even before the SAS opens, presumably because of the holidays. So in a few weeks once everything is back in full swing, we'll hopefully get a clearer picture of what's going on. Right now, 72 St-2 Av has slightly surpassed 68 St-Hunter College and 96 St (Lex) in ridership, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changes once the schools fully start back up.

 

Just for comparison, here's the average weekday ridership from 2015:

 

68 St-Hunter College: 35,640

77 St: 36,797

86 St: 65,948

96 St: 28,060

Lex Av-63 St: 16,098

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Mysterious2train

[R10 2952]

At this rate, I seriously wonder if a two-track line will be enough to handle growing ridership 30-40 years down the line.  I understand that a 4-track line might have been excessive, but 3 tracks would have been worth serious consideration, and I'm not just talking about the original 72nd Street plans.

Just look at how the 14th Street-Canarsie Line has been limited by it's 2-track, twisted configuration.  CBTC and more trains-per-hour might be sufficient for now, but in the long-term they are stopgap measures.  What happens a generation from now if Williamsburg, Bushwick and Greenpoint continue to be overdeveloped and more riders pile on?

 

You can't force Niagara Falls down a drinking straw...

[danielhg121]

Yea good point with Canarsie, whenever some tiny thing goes down, all service is gone. You have trains terminating everywhere and your forced to another line. With 3 tracks, it limits the amount of people affected and reduces the stress on other lines.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Caelestor]

At this rate, I seriously wonder if a two-track line will be enough to handle growing ridership 30-40 years down the line.  I understand that a 4-track line might have been excessive, but 3 tracks would have been worth serious consideration, and I'm not just talking about the original 72nd Street plans.

Just look at how the 14th Street-Canarsie Line has been limited by it's 2-track, twisted configuration.  CBTC and more trains-per-hour might be sufficient for now, but in the long-term they are stopgap measures.  What happens a generation from now if Williamsburg, Bushwick and Greenpoint continue to be overdeveloped and more riders pile on?

 

You can't force Niagara Falls down a drinking straw...

 

Most cities actually build 2-track lines, and then plan for additional parallel 2-track lines 20-30 years in the future. NYC is unusual in that 1) capacity decreased because the elevated lines were torn down and 2) for various reasons, it hasn't been able to build full trunk lines since 1940, excluding the provisional 6 Ave express tracks. 3-track lines don't actually provide much additional capacity, but mainly flexibility if things go wrong. For various reasons most transit agencies outside of NA don't run into frequent operating problems because they have overnight hours for upkeep, so they're not common around the world.

 

I could see a Third Ave line being built in the very long-term future. Fortunately, the B division trains have relatively high capacity for a subway system due to their length, so it'll take a long time for the SAS to be overcrowded. Most of the crowding in the subway lies on the IRT lines with trains limited to only 85 percent of the BMT / IND capacity.

[R10 2952]

But it would still be easier to build a line with extra capacity on Second Avenue to begin with, as opposed to having to build a parallel line on Third Avenue in 2050 or so.

The Canarsie Line is a perfect example of what happens when you don't plan ahead for the future.

[CDTA]

What if the reason they built full mezzanines at each station was so that they could be used as platforms for a four-tracked line in the future? 

[bobtehpanda]

But it would still be easier to build a line with extra capacity on Second Avenue to begin with, as opposed to having to build a parallel line on Third Avenue in 2050 or so.

The Canarsie Line is a perfect example of what happens when you don't plan ahead for the future.

 

Not really. Now that we do TBMs (because, theoretically speaking and not accounting for labor agreements, they are less staff-intensive), you would either need to double tunneling time or buy more TBMs, which would make the project take longer. Not to mention you would need to dig the stations deeper, when the stations are so expensive because they are so large. (I don't think that Second Avenue is wide enough for two SAS platforms side by side.)

[R10 2952]

The LA Red Line was built using a combination of mining and cut-cover.  People complained about traffic reroutes, but it's LA- there's always terrible traffic congestion, construction or otherwise.

 

Building a line that might not be able to handle increases in population density and ridership defeats the purpose of building any line in the first place.  Some methods that are used elsewhere might work, but building a two-track lines down a major trunk route in Manhattan is not one of them.  The idea that 3-and-4 track lines are obsolete is a complete fallacy; in New York, they are a must.

This is not London, Berlin, Tokyo or Beijing.  Apples to oranges. 

[bobtehpanda]

The LA Red Line was built using a combination of mining and cut-cover.  People complained about traffic reroutes, but it's LA- there's always terrible traffic congestion, construction or otherwise.

 

Building a line that might not be able to handle increases in population density and ridership defeats the purpose of building any line in the first place.  Some methods that are used elsewhere might work, but building a two-track lines down a major trunk route in Manhattan is not one of them.  The idea that 3-and-4 track lines are obsolete is a complete fallacy; in New York, they are a must.

This is not London, Berlin, Tokyo or Beijing.  Apples to oranges. 

 

...two out of four cities you just mentioned are denser, larger and more congested than this one. Not to mention, a pair of express tracks would be connected to... what, exactly? Aside from the Bronx, all the logical, feasible connections are accounted for with the single pair of tracks. Overengineering, in all of its forms, is what killed the IND; you can't somehow argue against mezzanines when the cost associated with doubling the floor space by building a four-track line is far greater.

 

Also noting, I never mentioned traffic or disruption as a reason not to build cut-and-cover.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

...you can't somehow argue against mezzanines when the cost associated with doubling the floor space by building a four-track line is far greater.

 

Also noting, I never mentioned traffic or disruption as a reason not to build cut-and-cover.

Why exactly do we need those ridiculous mezzanines? I don't see the point.  More crap to clean and replace and more potential for the homeless and music performers to clog up space... Waste of money.  I don't give a damn about artwork when my train is delayed.  The should focus more on prompt service and less on beautification.  Make stations that are functional, CLEAN with elevators, escalators and the like that work.  I was just watching the news this morning and they showed 72nd street with an entrance already closed for repair.  Their already doing repair work on a station that has been open for less than a month.  Ridiculous!

[Wallyhorse]

Why exactly do we need those ridiculous mezzanines? I don't see the point.  More crap to clean and replace and more potential for the homeless and music performers to clog up space... Waste of money.  I don't give a damn about artwork when my train is delayed.  The should focus more on prompt service and less on beautification.  Make stations that are functional, CLEAN with elevators, escalators and the like that work.  I was just watching the news this morning and they showed 72nd street with an entrance already closed for repair.  Their already doing repair work on a station that has been open for less than a month.  Ridiculous!

That's you.  A lot of others like seeing the artwork and so forth and the has to earmark 1% of money towards it by law.

 

I do agree on the mezzanines.  116th would be better to build two side platforms and keep the third track already in place for storage and emergencies (if you later do an extension to The Bronx, you can add an additional station at 126th Street/2nd Avenue past the curve for Lex).  

 

Some of this can be remedied by building a new 79th Street tunnel that can be done as the QB bypass with a three-track station done at 79th/York-1st Avenues that can be a short-turn terminal for the line with a new lower level of 72nd built underneath the existing platform (with connections to the Broadway Line where the current ones are).