Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Mtatransit]

2 hours 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. 

Nassau Stations CAN NOT wait until they open Phase IV. They need a rehab NOW!

[R42N]

5 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

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...

Nohing is ever eliminated. Money turns heads, and the MTA knows that.

[R42N]

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Nassau Stations CAN NOT wait until they open Phase IV. They need a rehab NOW!

They won't do anything substantial other than patch some holes if the current ridership is what's expected. 

[R68OnBroadway]

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Nassau Stations CAN NOT wait until they open Phase IV. They need a rehab NOW!

The only stations in need of renovation are Bowery and Chambers. Bowery is the third-least used station in Manhattan, and the MTA will sooner close it than renovate it, which isn't really a bad idea per se as Delancy/Essex and Spring on the  are only a few blocks away. To renovate Chambers, I would convert the eastern side platform to storage and build over it. I would then restore and renovate the rest of station, but the central island platform will only get a moderate overhaul and could be used for special excursions similarly to what the old 59th inner platform was for.

[LGA Link N Train]

* Well, i've been talking to my friend about what if the MTA renovated Chambers St  

* but he opposed, saying that money plays a factor, it would take too long to renovate, and that doing that would kinda destroy the "historical feeling" of the station, and that the MTA is nearly broke

* I state that if Chambers WAS renovated, it have to be done under the history preservation act

* he agrees to that factor, but uses the other reasons to state it's opposition saying that it's not worth it

* I say that during renovation they can run a single track shuttle between Fulton Center and Broad St and that most people are headed to midtown

* he cringes

* the conversation continues

* but I'm not gonna post that

[R42N]

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The only stations in need of renovation are Bowery and Chambers. Bowery is the third-least used station in Manhattan, and the MTA will sooner close it than renovate it, which isn't really a bad idea per se as Delancy/Essex and Spring on the  are only a few blocks away. To renovate Chambers, I would convert the eastern side platform to storage and build over it. I would then restore and renovate the rest of station, but the central island platform will only get a moderate overhaul and could be used for special excursions similarly to what the old 59th inner platform was for.

Exactly. If this was the Lexington Avenue Line, then this would have been done decades ago, Nassau St is so under-used that there is almost no incentive to renovate it. 

Bowery can be patched up, but Chambers will need a complete, and I mean complete overhaul (in terms of working platforms and walls). There are puddles on the mezzanines at Chambers that have been present for decades. 

[CenSin]

19 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.

Why do you say that? The curve from Chambers Street to the Manhattan Bridge starts at White Street and follows Walker Street parallel to the current Broadway tracks. A pair of tracks flanking the 6 Avenue tracks would ramp down and curve towards those tracks midway between Hester Street and Canal Street. The new tunnel would run under the existing one and ramp up once positioned under Nassau Street.

Easy station and track connections at Fulton Street, Chambers Street, Grand Street, East Houston Street, and East 14 Street would make this line very useful as it would be better integrated into the existing system as well as allow for the service flexibility mentioned before.

[CenSin]

32 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

This would be less disruptive than connecting at Bowery, more feasible, and more cheap to do!

A simple Bowery connection is precluded since the Bowery platforms themselves end right under Chrystie Street. A lower level would have to be built or the tracks would have to make a wide turn under the park. With the mess of tunnels in that area from the 60s, who knows what’s possible…

But there is the appeal of having a connection to the (East 14 Street), (East Houston Street), (Bowery), (Canal Street), (Chambers Street), and (Fulton Street) in lower Manhattan.

I would, however, prefer the option that serves the most underserved areas:

• After the stop at 23 Street / 2 Avenue, the deep-bore tunnel would cut diagonally across Stuyvesant Town to reach Avenue C.
• There would be a station at 14 Street / Avenue C.
• There would be a station at Houston Street / Avenue C.
• There would be a station at Delancey–Grand Streets under Pitt Street.
• Then the tunnel would follow East Broadway east to Rutgers Street, going over the current East Broadway () station since the provisions are for a perpendicular line above it.
• There would be a stop at Chatham Square. And from there, it would continue as currently proposed to Seaport and Hanover Square.

It connects to pretty much nothing, and its link to the rest of the system up until 72 Street is pretty much at East Broadway. When folks realize it sucks without any connections, the MTA will have a case to push for more construction … into Brooklyn.

Edited November 30, 2017 by CenSin

[Around the Horn]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

Why do you say that? The curve from Chambers Street to the Manhattan Bridge starts at White Street and follows Walker Street parallel to the current Broadway tracks. A pair of tracks flanking the 6 Avenue tracks would ramp down and curve towards those tracks midway between Hester Street and Canal Street. The new tunnel would run under the existing one and ramp up once positioned under Nassau Street.

Easy station and track connections at Fulton Street, Chambers Street, Grand Street, East Houston Street, and East 14 Street would make this line very useful as it would be better integrated into the existing system as well as allow for the service flexibility mentioned before.

That's nowhere near easy lol. You're forgetting about the underground springs and water features near Canal Street and near Chambers...

[bobtehpanda]

17 hours 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. 

The problem, quite frankly, is that there isn't really a demand for service to the Nassau St line. Independent of anything else, ridership at those stations is much lower than at other Downtown stations.

Water St, on the other hand, is a major office corridor due to zoning that anticipated SAS, and is an inconvenient walk from most of the Downtown subway stations.

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, CenSin said:

A simple Bowery connection is precluded since the Bowery platforms themselves end right under Chrystie Street. A lower level would have to be built or the tracks would have to make a wide turn under the park. With the mess of tunnels in that area from the 60s, who knows what’s possible…

But there is the appeal of having a connection to the (East 14 Street), (East Houston Street), (Bowery), (Canal Street), (Chambers Street), and (Fulton Street) in lower Manhattan.

I would, however, prefer the option that serves the most underserved areas:

• After the stop at 23 Street / 2 Avenue, the deep-bore tunnel would cut diagonally across Stuyvesant Town to reach Avenue C.
• There would be a station at 14 Street / Avenue C.
• There would be a station at Houston Street / Avenue C.
• There would be a station at Delancey–Grand Streets under Pitt Street.
• Then the tunnel would follow East Broadway east to Rutgers Street, going over the current East Broadway () station since the provisions are for a perpendicular line above it.
• There would be a stop at Chatham Square. And from there, it would continue as currently proposed to Seaport and Hanover Square.

It connects to pretty much nothing, and its link to the rest of the system up until 72 Street is pretty much at East Broadway. When folks realize it sucks without any connections, the MTA will have a case to push for more construction … into Brooklyn.

The MTA studied something like this in the FEIS and concluded that the increased journey time would not sufficiently relieve the  . To relieve the Lex, it has to be time competitive, and riders coming from, say, Brooklyn would not really want to take the scenic tour of Losaida on their way to work in Midtown or the UES.

The LES will be better served once the Av A entrance opens at 14th/1st. Long term, the LES would be better served by a station at E 7 St and Avenue B, which would be on a spur from the extra storage tracks underneath 21st-9th Sts, and proceed to Brooklyn via Williamsburg and Myrtle Av to head to Utica.

[CenSin]

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The MTA studied something like this in the FEIS and concluded that the increased journey time would not sufficiently relieve the  . To relieve the Lex, it has to be time competitive, and riders coming from, say, Brooklyn would not really want to take the scenic tour of Losaida on their way to work in Midtown or the UES.

The LES will be better served once the Av A entrance opens at 14th/1st. Long term, the LES would be better served by a station at E 7 St and Avenue B, which would be on a spur from the extra storage tracks underneath 21st-9th Sts, and proceed to Brooklyn via Williamsburg and Myrtle Av to head to Utica.

I read it as well. But if the goal wasn’t just to twin the Lexington Avenue Line…

9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

That's nowhere near easy lol. You're forgetting about the underground springs and water features near Canal Street and near Chambers...

They aren’t insurmountable.

[Wallyhorse]

23 hours 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. 

That was my bad, what I meant was this:

/ ONLY would stop at Bowery (which would have both sides open) on the "express" track ("local" tracks would not be used here except to terminate trains).

The after Houston would continue along Chrystie to where it would then join the and SOUTH of Bowery and stop at Canal Street, which would be the first/last transfer point between those lines.  The would be be on the outer ("local") tracks and the  / on the inner ("express") tracks.  I had noted this before elsewhere.

[CenSin]

47 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

That was my bad, what I meant was this:

/ ONLY would stop at Bowery (which would have both sides open) on the "express" track ("local" tracks would not be used here except to terminate trains).

The after Houston would continue along Chrystie to where it would then join the and SOUTH of Bowery and stop at Canal Street, which would be the first/last transfer point between those lines.  The would be be on the outer ("local") tracks and the  / on the inner ("express") tracks.  I had noted this before elsewhere.

You must draw a diagram then. This sounds suspiciously more complicated than necessary.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

I read it as well. But if the goal wasn’t just to twin the Lexington Avenue Line…

Perhaps, but I think in this case we can have our cake and eat it too. I honestly don't think that Hanover Sq will be the most optimal terminal for 30+TPH of traffic. But I could be wrong.

[quadcorder]

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Perhaps, but I think in this case we can have our cake and eat it too. I honestly don't think that Hanover Sq will be the most optimal terminal for 30+TPH of traffic. But I could be wrong.

I don't expect 30 TPH to terminate at Hanover Square in the near future, since T + Q <= 30 on the Upper East Side and the Second Ave - 63 St Tunnel to Queens connection won't see trains until they have somewhere to put them on the Queens side (e.g. Queens Bypass)

[bobtehpanda]

1 minute ago, quadcorder said:

I don't expect 30 TPH to terminate at Hanover Square in the near future, since T + Q <= 30 on the Upper East Side and the Second Ave - 63 St Tunnel to Queens connection won't see trains until they have somewhere to put them on the Queens side (e.g. Queens Bypass)

The point being that I don't buy that the jughandle really solves anything. If anything, the jughandle makes it harder to build a connection to the (L), slows down trips, and makes the less attractive.

The major impetus for Phases III and IV will be the completion of East Side Access, because those LIRR riders heading downtown will just slam the Lex.

[quadcorder]

Just now, bobtehpanda said:

The point being that I don't buy that the jughandle really solves anything. If anything, the jughandle makes it harder to build a connection to the (L), slows down trips, and makes the less attractive.

The major impetus for Phases III and IV will be the completion of East Side Access, because those LIRR riders heading downtown will just slam the Lex.

Oh - I agree that the jughandle doesn't help, I wasn't directly commenting on that.

[Mysterious2train]

From this month's Capital Program Oversight Committee, update for 4th quarter 2017:

Basically the MTA has been performing community outreach and utility/building inspections so far. The next major milestones will be the completion of the phase 2 design and environmental re-review in 2018. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Mysterious2train

[LGA Link N Train]

6 hours ago, Mysterious2train said:

From this month's Capital Program Oversight Committee, update for 4th quarter 2017:

Basically the MTA has been performing community outreach and utility/building inspections so far. The next major milestones will be the completion of the phase 2 design and environmental re-review in 2018. 

Where can I download this 

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, ioas said:

But I'll use it! That makes it useful. 

Doesn't make it *at least a billion dollars* more useful.

[N6 Limited]

If the SAS becomes the 125th Crosstown then they should extend the line to NJ, perhaps Ft Lee

[BreeddekalbL]

Im suprise the new 1 vanderbuilt is not making noise for the 2nd ave subway 

[Mysterious2train]

On 12/9/2017 at 4:57 PM, LGA Link N train said:

Where can I download this 

Here: The MTA Board and Committee Meetings page on the website. Second Avenue Subway presentations are once a quarter (March, June, September, December) for now. It's part of the Capital Program Oversight Committee. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Mysterious2train

[MysteriousBtrain]

4 minutes ago, ioas said:

Hello,

I think the entire Second Avenue Subway project should be discontinued. Whatever exists of the line so far should be demolished. If the Upper East side really needs more service, we should 1) install CBTC on the  RIGHT AWAY and 2) rebuild the  along 1st Avenue, where it would be WAY more useful. It would far better serve the York Avenue market if rebuilt under 1st Avenue.

Also, after 116th Street, the  should NOT head crosstown under 125th Street to the West Side. Nor should it continue north to the Bronx. Instead, it should make a U-turn, heading south under 3rd Avenue to make up for the lack of service following the demolition of the 3rd Avenue El in 1955.

Good job on looking stupid. Can you at least look up the stuff you are "trying to talk about"?