Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Lawrence St]

14 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The buildings are quite old, and the MTA certainly doesn't have the money to compensate the owners should they wreck it. The other issue is that the original Chrystie St connection plan called for the platforms to be narrower than modern accessibility requirements mandate, so they'd essentially wreck the only park in a poor neighborhood and be building right up to the building wall. In the best case scenario this is hugely disruptive; in the worst case scenario they accidentally condemn half a neighborhood.

It's also not like the shallow option is easier to build; unlike Lex-63, there is no false wall and trackway in place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a side note, I really hope they expand the Grand St station entrances, because the current ones are already full. It would be nice if there were an underground connection directly to the Bowery or to Canal St across from the Manhattan Bridge, and even nicer if the SAS platforms were shifted ever so silghtly north to connect to Bowery (J)(M)(Z). That station really needs some TLC.

You do know the dosent stop at Bowery any more right?

[s111limited]

On 11/15/2017 at 6:09 PM, LGA Link N train said:

Anyways, back to The Second Avenue Subway, who wants to talk about 14 St - 2 Av proposed station 

A station at 14 St-2 Av would definitely benefit 3 Av on the . I take the  frequently and I never saw that station as crowded as many of the other stations on the line.

[bobtehpanda]

21 hours ago, Skipper said:

A poor neighborhood? In that part of Manhattan? Not wealthy, but hardly poor...

All those buildings can be propped up, something renovators do all the time, and the park could be easily rebuilt and improved. There's space for wider platforms too, since it's not an island platform. It makes more sense to use what's there rather than burrow under it which takes for bloody ever, as we've seen.

The Lex-63 station didn't even involve much "building" in the traditional sense. The core structure had already long since been built; they mostly needed to open it up and beautify the interior. They could have just finished the escalator banks that were already half-built, but chose to go with elevators instead, so that's on them.

The notion that Chinatown isn't poor is pretty rich...

The notion that we could build at the same level as existing Grand Street with equal or less disruption and time is also pretty rich, since the existing Grand St station walls are load-bearing. It's really not all that different.

The way you guys make it sound, a staircase down one level is literally the end of the world.

8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

You do know the dosent stop at Bowery any more right?

Mental slip. Happens. The connection wouldn't be half bad though.

[Daniel The Cool]

8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

You do know the dosent stop at Bowery any more right?

Actually the last few northbound  Trains during the weekdays ends at Chambers Street before getting laid up on the abandoned platforms at Canal Street and Bowery during the overnight/weekend. 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Daniel The Cool

[R42N]

8 hours ago, Daniel The Cool said:

Actually the last few northbound  Trains during the weekdays ends at Chambers Street before getting laid up on the abandoned platforms at Canal Street and Bowery during the overnight/weekend. 

It's still weird to hear trains going down to Chambers Street as "Northbound".

Edited November 19, 2017 by R42N

[CenSin]

2 hours ago, R42N said:

It's still weird to hear trains going down to Chambers Street as "Northbound".

 

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The connection wouldn't be half bad though.

It makes me think connecting the Williamsburg Bridge to 6 Avenue was a bad idea. Perhaps the connection was only meant to be temporary until 2 Avenue came into being. As it is currently, the will have no convenient transfers to the and the one under consideration at 55 Street will be a bloody long walk.

[Porter]

On 11/18/2017 at 8:49 AM, CenSin said:

Pick one:

• We will take away half your park and do construction work on adjecent buildings for 5 years for the shallow option;
• or we will have construction adjacent to the park (making it half inaccessible anyway) for 10 years to build the deep option.

100% the first option, no hesitation.

[P3F]

16 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The way you guys make it sound, a staircase down one level is literally the end of the world.

Well, it does give all the elderly people one extra flight of stairs to climb or descend.

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, P3F said:

Well, it does give all the elderly people one extra flight of stairs to climb or descend.

I’m fit and exercise quite often. But even I dread extra flights of stairs. If I have to choose between different stops to get off to reach my destination or which station to transfer trains, I will inevitably choose the one that requires less climbing.

[bobtehpanda]

14 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I’m fit and exercise quite often. But even I dread extra flights of stairs. If I have to choose between different stops to get off to reach my destination or which station to transfer trains, I will inevitably choose the one that requires less climbing.

I mean, the connection would still be easier than any 6th Av - Lex connection in existence today. So what exactly are we losing?

[RR503]

25 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I mean, the connection would still be easier than any 6th Av - Lex connection in existence today. So what exactly are we losing?

An even easier connection...

Doing the across-the-platform xfer also could allow for crossovers to be installed btwn 2nd and 6th, giving another route for non-revs to/from CI/38th St (which was looked at as a passenger stock yard site when SAS fleet expansion kicks in). 

Edited November 20, 2017 by RR503

[CenSin]

55 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I mean, the connection would still be easier than any 6th Av - Lex connection in existence today. So what exactly are we losing?

 

30 minutes ago, RR503 said:

An even easier connection...

Doing the across-the-platform xfer also could allow for crossovers to be installed btwn 2nd and 6th, giving another route for non-revs to/from CI/38th St (which was looked at as a passenger stock yard site when SAS fleet expansion kicks in). 

Every single day, the MTA exercises operational flexibility to reroute trains due to problems in the system. This is another corridor that rerouted trains could borrow to avoid piling trains onto 6 Avenue every time something goes down.

A cross-platform transfer also means one less set of escalators/elevators to maintain should this be forced to be ADA-compliant. Escalator and elevator maintenance is an ongoing cost.

[Around the Horn]

To be fair, you could still do the connection from 2nd to the Bridge without the across the platform transfer, using the space from the old north side connection ramping down to the level of the 2nd Avenue tracks

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

An even easier connection...

Doing the across-the-platform xfer also could allow for crossovers to be installed btwn 2nd and 6th, giving another route for non-revs to/from CI/38th St (which was looked at as a passenger stock yard site when SAS fleet expansion kicks in). 

So just because we built it on another level means we can't somehow connect tracks on these different levels? It'd require the same amount of punching through existing tunnels to do, since the existing trackways have no accommodation for Second Avenue at all. If those trackways existed, sure, I buy that we should do shallow Chrystie, but as it is they don't.

 

[RR503]

9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

To be fair, you could still do the connection from 2nd to the Bridge without the across the platform transfer, using the space from the old north side connection ramping down to the level of the 2nd Avenue tracks

 

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

So just because we built it on another level means we can't somehow connect tracks on these different levels? It'd require the same amount of punching through existing tunnels to do, since the existing trackways have no accommodation for Second Avenue at all. If those trackways existed, sure, I buy that we should do shallow Chrystie, but as it is they don't.

Think about this for a sec.

Yes, you could build ramp tracks from Second to Sixth. However, doing so would be much, much more expensive than just building everything on the same level. You'd first have to put together either a sloping TBM tunnel, or dig deep trenches on either side of the 6th tracks -- both without disturbing  and service too much. And yes, while punching through the connections onto 6th wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world, just imagine the underpinning that building an interlocking cavern directly below two active tracks would require.

IMHO, two shallow tunnels and a crossover switch would be just a tad easier. 

[bobtehpanda]

17 hours ago, RR503 said:

 

Think about this for a sec.

Yes, you could build ramp tracks from Second to Sixth. However, doing so would be much, much more expensive than just building everything on the same level. You'd first have to put together either a sloping TBM tunnel, or dig deep trenches on either side of the 6th tracks -- both without disturbing  and service too much. And yes, while punching through the connections onto 6th wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world, just imagine the underpinning that building an interlocking cavern directly below two active tracks would require.

IMHO, two shallow tunnels and a crossover switch would be just a tad easier. 

As opposed to the work required when smashing the load-bearing walls of the current Chrystie St connection? There's no provisioning at all, so I don't understand how this is supposed to be any less disruptive. If anything, shallow is probably more disruptive.

[BreeddekalbL]

Well they are in a bid to get costs down so why not build using the provisions maybe this will be the only time margaret chin will do something productive mobilizing the community  instead of selling them out to the developers

[RR503]

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

As opposed to the work required when smashing the load-bearing walls of the current Chrystie St connection? There's no provisioning at all, so I don't understand how this is supposed to be any less disruptive. If anything, shallow is probably more disruptive.

Both will require “smashing.” The deep option requires a ton of underpinning — including the construction of a mezzanine below active tracks. Moreover, the TBM tunneling will entail a longer work window, a more complex station, and produces a worse final product. And this is to say nothing of the fact that it’ll be more expensive.

A dose of skepticism towards the MTA’s plans for SAS is always healthy. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by RR503

[Fresh Pond]

On 11/17/2017 at 7:00 PM, Skipper said:

But...to which station should it connect? I'm mostly concerned about having an connection at Second Avenue—a very crucial transfer.

Is there really a problem with using the "Shallow Chrystie Option"? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just use the existing tunnels and have cross-platform transfers at Grand Street?

 

On 11/17/2017 at 9:03 PM, Lance said:

3 Avenue. The station footprint stretches from Third Ave to Second Ave, whereas the footprint of the 1 Avenue station is between First Ave and Avenue A. In regards to the connection with the , I think that was always included since the line would literally run below the 2 Avenue line station.

The problem with a shallow Chrystie option is that it's more disruptive to the neighborhood than the deep option. Of course, when the deep option takes forever, like it did with the first segment of the Second Ave line, the benefits negate themselves.

 

There will be a connection for the at Houston St, as it will be the southern terminal for Phase 3 and the debut of the actual

 

However, instead of using the pre-existing station she'l above the platform, it'll run below the station instead.

[vngannxx]

Building a cross platform transfer at grand st with 2nd/6th Ave crossovers and rerouting the route south of Chatham square to merge with the JZ at Chambers St would present additional operational flexibility.

- it would allow B/D trains coming from 6th ave to access Montague. 

- allow the T to bypass the midtown portions of 2nd ave due to construction/stall train, travel via 6th ave to lex 63st, where it can continue from 72-125st. 

- provide the T with transfer options at Fulton st. 

[quadcorder]

25 minutes ago, vngannxx said:

Building a cross platform transfer at grand st with 2nd/6th Ave crossovers and rerouting the route south of Chatham square to merge with the JZ at Chambers St would present additional operational flexibility.

- it would allow B/D trains coming from 6th ave to access Montague. 

- allow the T to bypass the midtown portions of 2nd ave due to construction/stall train, travel via 6th ave to lex 63st, where it can continue from 72-125st. 

- provide the T with transfer options at Fulton st. 

It would also be impossible, if you look at the physical street geometry between Chatham Square and Nassau-Chambers, to build this connection. And again, the Nassau St platforms are currently 480ft.

[Wallyhorse]

5 hours ago, quadcorder said:

It would also be impossible, if you look at the physical street geometry between Chatham Square and Nassau-Chambers, to build this connection. And again, the Nassau St platforms are currently 480ft.

The Nassau platforms can be extended to 600 feet as part of a much bigger plan to long-term extend ALL platforms in the Eastern Division to such.  

As for connecting the SAS to Nassau, as previously noted, I would do it by setting it up so that the abandoned side of Bowery and Canal Street are re-activated with the  /  coming in on what would be the "express" tracks at those stations while the would come in on what would be the "local" tracks at those stations with the permanently cut back to Chambers (where it would terminate on the "express" tracks) and the continuing to Broad and via Montague to Court and Jay-Metrotech and after DeKalb most likely running via 4th Avenue and West End Local to Bay Parkway.  That said, the DeKalb junction is the main reason why that would be difficult, if not impossible for that to happen. 

[R42N]

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The Nassau platforms can be extended to 600 feet as part of a much bigger plan to long-term extend ALL platforms in the Eastern Division to such.  

As for connecting the SAS to Nassau, as previously noted, I would do it by setting it up so that the abandoned side of Bowery and Canal Street are re-activated with the  /  coming in on what would be the "express" tracks at those stations while the would come in on what would be the "local" tracks at those stations with the permanently cut back to Chambers (where it would terminate on the "express" tracks) and the continuing to Broad and via Montague to Court and Jay-Metrotech and after DeKalb most likely running via 4th Avenue and West End Local to Bay Parkway.  That said, the DeKalb junction is the main reason why that would be difficult, if not impossible for that to happen. 

I know that there is a problem with a report due to a sharp curve, but they would be absolutely foolish if they do not do this.

It would make no sense to build expensive new tunnels when you have perfectly usable and un-used tunnels a few blocks away. I’d close off the entire Nassau Street line for five years while you completely renovate these dire stations, and then you can re-open it like new. 

[quadcorder]

40 minutes ago, R42N said:

I know that there is a problem with a report due to a sharp curve, but they would be absolutely foolish if they do not do this.

It would make no sense to build expensive new tunnels when you have perfectly usable and un-used tunnels a few blocks away. I’d close off the entire Nassau Street line for five years while you completely renovate these dire stations, and then you can re-open it like new. 

Again, unless you can show me cost estimates that suggest that a 5-year closure of the Nassau St line and complete rebuilding would cost less than extending an already-under-construction tunnel another few blocks, then I'm inclined to advocate the construction plan which meets modern needs AND is less destructive of existing infrastructure, both transit and otherwise, especially given that people who know a lot more than either of us agree with me.

"I know that there is a problem with a report due to a sharp curve, but they would be absolutely foolish if they do not do this." reads to me like "I know that the plan has a fatal flaw, but if we ignore the flaw it has all the benefits we want."

[Around the Horn]

I would suggest you read the EIS for the full SAS before you call the Water Street option foolish. There's multiple reasons why they've chosen to eliminate Nassau from contention...