Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[LTA1992]

I didn't say anything about you saying it wouldn't be built. I focused on why plans were drawn without any focus towards making any Brooklyn connections hence me saying the purpose is to relieve the Lexington Avenue line. Brooklyn has many options and they left it at that during the planning.

Well, an extension to Bklyn has been mentioned quite a few times. If it ever did happen, I think it would just continue from the southern end of Hanover Square.

[Grand Concourse]

Well if it's going to cross the Manhattan Bridge doesn't it defeat the purpose too??????????

even if the grand st stop is being built as a 2 level stop, couldn't they have some track connections so that maybe the T could run over the bridge (non revenue service- yard access to ciy)?

 

As for the culver idea, i understand the thinking. The new M is likely never going away and you can't fit another line down 6th av. 2nd av is gonna need a 2nd line eventually, so maybe it could be called the V in sky blue like the T. I still think you can keep the T heading down to lower manhattan than just annexing it to the culver line only.

[RTOPRO]

In regards to that F line connection. First of all. The 2nd Avenue station for the F is directly under Houston Street and the 2nd Avenue line will run down 2nd Avenue under that station. That connection is already defeated by the existence of the 2nd Avenue F station.

 

In regards to yard access. The line will have access to Jamaica Yard in Queens via the 63rd Street connection from downtown. No matter what it will have access to 207th because 63rd allows for a variety of moves to get the equipment there. The plan calls for building storage tracks/tail tracks below Hanover Square and at 125th Street. The existing portion in Chinatown near Pell St will be used as storage tracks. The plans calls for exploring storage tracks between 21st and 9th streets. So that's well covered.

 

As for the line itself. It will have what probably can be considered to be the largest number of transfers/connections of any single line in all of Manhattan. 125th-4/5/6, 63rd-F, 55th-E/M, 42nd-4/5/6/7/S, 14th-L, Houston-F, Grand-B/D, (This one is debatable at the moment) Seaport-2/3/4/5/A/C/J/Z. That's a lot of connections to Brooklyn. Having the line physically go there would be nice but it's kind of overstated.

[Roadcruiser1]

In regards to that F line connection. First of all. The 2nd Avenue station for the F is directly under Houston Street and the 2nd Avenue line will run down 2nd Avenue under that station. That connection is already defeated by the existence of the 2nd Avenue F station.

 

In regards to yard access. The line will have access to Jamaica Yard in Queens via the 63rd Street connection from downtown. No matter what it will have access to 207th because 63rd allows for a variety of moves to get the equipment there. The plan calls for building storage tracks/tail tracks below Hanover Square and at 125th Street. The existing portion in Chinatown near Pell St will be used as storage tracks. The plans calls for exploring storage tracks between 21st and 9th streets. So that's well covered.

 

As for the line itself. It will have what probably can be considered to be the largest number of transfers/connections of any single line in all of Manhattan. 125th-4/5/6, 63rd-F, 55th-E/M, 42nd-4/5/6/7/S, 14th-L, Houston-F, Grand-B/D, (This one is debatable at the moment) Seaport-2/3/4/5/A/C/J/Z. That's a lot of connections to Brooklyn. Having the line physically go there would be nice but it's kind of overstated.

 

Well you could still technically have a connection to the from the Second Avenue Subway can't you?

[RTOPRO]

Why? The station is right there. To make that connection happen spur tunnels would have to be built from the 2nd Avenue line to meet the F line after F's 2nd Avenue station which spans the length of Houston from 2nd Avenue & Chrystie St to 1st Avenue and Allen St.  The F line is closer to grade so as these spurs would come closer to grade you run into problems of what's above on grade level like buildings and parks. Buildings are for certain and some of these buildings would have to be acquired and/or demolished or the wildest proposed underpinning I've seen yet would have to be done. The cost at the end of the day is not worth it just to be able to say it was done.

[LTA1992]

In regards to that F line connection. First of all. The 2nd Avenue station for the F is directly under Houston Street and the 2nd Avenue line will run down 2nd Avenue under that station. That connection is already defeated by the existence of the 2nd Avenue F station.

 

In regards to yard access. The line will have access to Jamaica Yard in Queens via the 63rd Street connection from downtown. No matter what it will have access to 207th because 63rd allows for a variety of moves to get the equipment there. The plan calls for building storage tracks/tail tracks below Hanover Square and at 125th Street. The existing portion in Chinatown near Pell St will be used as storage tracks. The plans calls for exploring storage tracks between 21st and 9th streets. So that's well covered.

 

As for the line itself. It will have what probably can be considered to be the largest number of transfers/connections of any single line in all of Manhattan. 125th-4/5/6, 63rd-F, 55th-E/M, 42nd-4/5/6/7/S, 14th-L, Houston-F, Grand-B/D, (This one is debatable at the moment) Seaport-2/3/4/5/A/C/J/Z. That's a lot of connections to Brooklyn. Having the line physically go there would be nice but it's kind of overstated.

I have absolutely no clue why what you just said was so interesting to me, but I like the sound of that.

Edited July 12, 2013 by LTA1992

[CenSin]

Why? The station is right there. To make that connection happen spur tunnels would have to be built from the 2nd Avenue line to meet the F line after F's 2nd Avenue station which spans the length of Houston from 2nd Avenue & Chrystie St to 1st Avenue and Allen St.  The F line is closer to grade so as these spurs would come closer to grade you run into problems of what's above on grade level like buildings and parks. Buildings are for certain and some of these buildings would have to be acquired and/or demolished or the wildest proposed underpinning I've seen yet would have to be done. The cost at the end of the day is not worth it just to be able to say it was done.

Having something like 149 Street–Grand Concourse would be a total pain in the ass, and not only for the engineers, but the equipment that has to be worn out by the sharp curve and the speed reduction going through it. 2 Avenue–Lower East Side was also designed with space for another line to run over it. You can see it in the ceiling structure. However, the current proposed plan is to build under that (even deeper). Why they keep eschewing already-built infrastructure is beyond me. It seems like a grand waste of money. If their design choices are any indication, they might not even use the pre-built tunnels in lower Manhattan.

[LTA1992]

Because the provision for the original SAS station is part of the Mezzanine. Fully integrated. And no, they aren't using the Pell Street section.

Edited July 12, 2013 by LTA1992

[RTOPRO]

According to some of the post documents on the phase 4 plan the Pell St location is likely to be incorporated into a future layup, spur or other equipment type location.

[mtattrain]

According to some of the post documents on the phase 4 plan the Pell St location is likely to be incorporated into a future layup, spur or other equipment type location.

Heard they were going to convert those tunnels to equipment areas so you're right.

[CenSin]

According to some of the post documents on the phase 4 plan the Pell St location is likely to be incorporated into a future layup, spur or other equipment type location.

IMO, should be saved for increasing capacity later on, if not a pair of express tracks (which wouldn't be functionally express in a region like lower Manhattan).

[bobtehpanda]

Re: any talk of connecting to the Manhattan Bridge - the only Brooklyn connections that would make any long term sense would be to a converted Atlantic Branch, because then you have capacity for future extensions into Brooklyn and/or Queens.

[Wallyhorse]

 

 

I think that's exactly what's going to happen in Dec 2016 when the SAS is open for business. B'way Express to 2nd Ave, B'way local service restored to Astoria, and B'way service express all the way from Coney Island to Astoria.

 

BUT...

 

 

What CenSin is talking about is the Nassau St/Montague tunnel option and the train. Now that depends on the needs of the system decades from now according to demographics of the surrounding neighborhoods on the BMT Southern Division *if* that's where the MTA or it's successor to run this mass transit network decides to do. It depends on the changing scene of the Brooklyn population. Many things can change in a matter of 20 years or so. 

 

Who knows man? They may decide to construct an Ashland Place* type connection from Dekald to the Fulton Street Line if the demographics changes in the neighborhoods that the Fulton Street line serves.

 

The sky's the limit with the SAS, but as you suggested if only we had the money.......

 

*Note: The Asland Place Connection was originally a BMT proposal to connect a reconstructed Fulton St El for heavy steel trains such as the BMT Standards or the Multi's over the Manhattan Bridge from the overhauled Fulton St el before the BOT and IND killed it with the IND Fulton St subway.

Exactly.  We are a LONG way off from actually worrying about Phase 4.  

 

By the time that phase comes up, we could see things being entirely different.  That said, the most sense to me would be to connect the to the Nassau line, which would involve re-opening the abandoned platform at Canal Street (and possibly the Bowery) with the running on the "express" tracks (from the original setup) at that(/those) station(s) before merging with the south of Canal and continuing to Brooklyn via Montauge, most likely to 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway.  That would provide major relief for the and between 125th and Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center.

[Union Tpke]

Exactly.  We are a LONG way off from actually worrying about Phase 4.  

 

By the time that phase comes up, we could see things being entirely different.  That said, the most sense to me would be to connect the to the Nassau line, which would involve re-opening the abandoned platform at Canal Street (and possibly the Bowery) with the running on the "express" tracks (from the original setup) at that(/those) station(s) before merging with the south of Canal and continuing to Brooklyn via Montauge, most likely to 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway.  That would provide major relief for the and between 125th and Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center.

I totally agree. It's a great excuse for rehabillitating the closed platforms and abandoned tracks of the Nassau St Line.

[bobtehpanda]

Exactly.  We are a LONG way off from actually worrying about Phase 4.  

 

By the time that phase comes up, we could see things being entirely different.  That said, the most sense to me would be to connect the to the Nassau line, which would involve re-opening the abandoned platform at Canal Street (and possibly the Bowery) with the running on the "express" tracks (from the original setup) at that(/those) station(s) before merging with the south of Canal and continuing to Brooklyn via Montauge, most likely to 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway.  That would provide major relief for the and between 125th and Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center.

 

Because DeKalb can totally handle more trains, right?

 

The only connection that has enough TPH to support Second Avenue Service would be a brand new tunnel into Brooklyn, linking up to either Court St (probably not happening due to the existence of the Transit Museum) or the Atlantic Branch, because it provides either more service on a trunk line, or creates an entirely new trunk line, opening the doors to expansion later on. A Montague connection would be extremely short sighted.

[LTA1992]

It should. The line would have to be local, but it should.

[AndrewJC]

Because DeKalb can totally handle more trains, right?

 

The only connection that has enough TPH to support Second Avenue Service would be a brand new tunnel into Brooklyn, linking up to either Court St (probably not happening due to the existence of the Transit Museum) or the Atlantic Branch, because it provides either more service on a trunk line, or creates an entirely new trunk line, opening the doors to expansion later on. A Montague connection would be extremely short sighted.

 

We know that DeKalb can handle more tunnel trains to/from 4th Avenue, since the 6 tph M was dropped in 2010. Clearly, another 6 tph, and probably 10 tph, could be added. I'm not convinced it's needed, but if the track connection were in place, it could be used.

 

I don't see anything short sighted about it.

 

I do, however, think that Phase 4 should run down Water Street, as planned, simply because of the major office development along Water Street that isn't well served by the subway. And if it were connected to Montague and extended to Brooklyn, it would be more popular than the M was.

[Wallyhorse]

We know that DeKalb can handle more tunnel trains to/from 4th Avenue, since the 6 tph M was dropped in 2010. Clearly, another 6 tph, and probably 10 tph, could be added. I'm not convinced it's needed, but if the track connection were in place, it could be used.

 

I don't see anything short sighted about it.

 

I do, however, think that Phase 4 should run down Water Street, as planned, simply because of the major office development along Water Street that isn't well served by the subway. And if it were connected to Montague and extended to Brooklyn, it would be more popular than the M was.

If that can be done, definitely.  I would think you could find another location for the Transit Museum if you did wind up connecting Water Street to the Fulton line via a new tunnel and Court Street, which would be good especially if you then have the SAS also go across 125th Street in Phase 2 that can include a connection to the 8th Avenue line (that would mainly be used for G.O.'s and perhaps special SAS service to/from Yankee Stadium) but can also be used for train moves, especially between the Broadway and 8th Avenue lines).  Doing that would allow the and to when needed on a G.O. use the SAS to 125th before re-joining the 8th Avenue line there. 

[bobtehpanda]

We know that DeKalb can handle more tunnel trains to/from 4th Avenue, since the 6 tph M was dropped in 2010. Clearly, another 6 tph, and probably 10 tph, could be added. I'm not convinced it's needed, but if the track connection were in place, it could be used.

 

I don't see anything short sighted about it.

 

I do, however, think that Phase 4 should run down Water Street, as planned, simply because of the major office development along Water Street that isn't well served by the subway. And if it were connected to Montague and extended to Brooklyn, it would be more popular than the M was.

 

New subway lines can do 30 TPH if I remember correctly. Given that the full-length SAS was estimated to have over 500k daily ridership, and that a connection to Brooklyn would only add more riders, 10 TPH on the lower half of the SAS could lead to overcrowding.

[Roadcruiser1]

Actually Wallyhorse your idea will not work as the has pointed out that a Nassau Street Connection is next to impossible. The soil problem makes it impossible. Page 22 of this PDF. 

http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/final_summary_report.pdf

[RTOPRO]

The report mentions environmental impact but makes no mention of the soil making the job impossible. As a matter of fact the soil in the 2nd Avenue and 82 street area was probably more of a concern as they had to freeze the ground before sending the TBM through the area.

[bobtehpanda]

To be quite honest, soil makes things difficult, but not impossible. Los Angeles is building a subway through tar, for crying out loud

[itmaybeokay]

Actually Wallyhorse your idea will not work as the has pointed out that a Nassau Street Connection is next to impossible. The soil problem makes it impossible. Page 22 of this PDF. 

http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/final_summary_report.pdf

 

Actually, page 25 of that document notes that using a Tunnel Boring Machine anywhere between 4th street  and governeur lane is pretty much a non-starter due to the depth of the bedrock. Regardless of the alignment they choose, it can't all be bored out of bedrock like the uptown segments. 

 

 

 

As such, at this time it is anticipated that cut-and-cover construction would be 

employed between 4th Street and Gouverneur Lane for a Water Street alignment to construct 

the running tunnels, the stations, and the ancillary facilities. At Gouverneur Lane, the bedrock

surface rises back up, which allows for mined tunnel construction of the tunnels to the terminus 

at Whitehall. 

 

 

 

The soft soil does pose a few complications for the Nassau St. option, but nothing more than the Water St option. 

 

 

For the optional connection to the Nassau line, the soft soils south of 4th Street make use of a 

TBM impossible. In this area, cut-and-cover construction or a drilling machine appropriate for

soft soils (known as an Earth Pressure Balance Machine, or EPBM), may be used. In addition, 

the connection requires a shallow profile to join with the existing Nassau line, which is just

below the surface along Kenmare Street. This shallow profile, combined with the need to 

construct both the Houston Street station and the Nassau line connection with cut-and-cover 

methods, make use of a soft-soil tunneling approach, such as an EPBM, more difficult. 

 

 

That says that one approach for construction is made more difficult - not that the connection is impossible. 

Edited July 16, 2013 by itmaybeokay

[CenSin]

impossible

You should use words with more precision.

[realizm]

Actually Wallyhorse your idea will not work as the has pointed out that a Nassau Street Connection is next to impossible. The soil problem makes it impossible. Page 22 of this PDF. 

http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/final_summary_report.pdf

 

itmaybeokay and the others highlighted the proper context given by the engineers in the citations of this study from already (not page 22, page 25 of the pdf.) indicating that according to the study that the TBM option is not feasible in soft soil. However if you look at page 25 it does mention that cut and cover methods will have to suffice as the method of construction if the Nassau Street option is ever implemented as an altternative to current Phase 4 plans on the table. On top of that the study also mentions that the Nassau Street option (page 17, same .pdf) would clearly be the most cost efficient way to complete the Second Ave Subway with connection to Brooklyn if ever NYS ever comes into future financial problems regarding funding for the project.

 

To quote:

 

Second Avenue Connection to the Nassau Line:

 

Several options were examined to reduce property impacts, reduce construction along the existing Nassau line, and coordinate better with NYCT’s planned Nassau line reconfiguration. Of the three options and seven suboptions examined, the routing via Chrystie Street with connections to tracks J1 and J2 was recommended. This option allows for cross platform transfers at both the Canal and Chambers Street stations from the J/M/Z routes to the new Second Avenue Subway line. This option also had the lowest level of operational constraints or construction impacts.

 

And....

 

As such, at this time it is anticipated that cut-and-cover construction would be employed between 4th Street and Gouverneur Lane for a Water Street alignment to construct the running tunnels, the stations, and the ancillary facilities. At Gouverneur Lane, the bedrock surface rises back up, which allows for mined tunnel construction of the tunnels to the terminus  at Whitehall. 

 

That says alot about the feasibility of contractors and civil engineers being able to successfully tackle the challenge if this was ever implemented in the future.

Edited July 21, 2013 by realizm