Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Wallyhorse]

And such connection to the Nassau line would have the side benefit of allowing the SAS to access either the Brighton, West End or Sea Beach line and most important give major help to the and between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and 125th Street (and in Brooklyn, that would be extended to Prospect Park if it operated via the Brighton line).

[realizm]

And such connection to the Nassau line would have the side benefit of allowing the SAS to access either the Brighton, West End or Sea Beach line and most important give major help to the and between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and 125th Street (and in Brooklyn, that would be extended to Prospect Park if it operated via the Brighton line).

 

He's right on the money. For the clear reason that the Montague Street tunnel, as we already know, is networked to the Nassau Street Line to bring local trains into Dekalb Avenue on the 4th Ave BMT.

 

However can Dekalb Avenue handle the extra TPH with it's current signal system and track switch configuration? But that is an easy engineering fix compared to the tunnel boring and cut and cover construction required to create the Nassau Street option from Second Avenue, again something that is absolutely possible (by traditional construction methods, such as techniques used in the construction of the 63rd Street connector when it began in 1995), although not possible with current TBM technology due to geographical challenges as other members highlighted for us from the citation to the MESA study provided.

Edited July 22, 2013 by realizm

[bobtehpanda]

He's right on the money. For the clear reason that the Montague Street tunnel, as we already know, is networked to the Nassau Street Line to bring local trains into Dekalb Avenue on the 4th Ave BMT.

 

However can Dekalb Avenue handle the extra TPH with it's current signal system and track switch configuration? But that is an easy engineering fix compared to the tunnel boring and cut and cover construction required to create the Nassau Street option from Second Avenue, again something that is absolutely possible (by traditional construction methods, such as techniques used in the construction of the 63rd Street connector when it began in 1995), although not possible with current TBM technology due to geographical challenges as other members highlighted for us from the citation to the MESA study provided.

 

It handled that rush hour service. I doubt it would be able to take full advantage of a SAS trunk line, however, so I would still support building it all the way to Hanover Square.

 

If such a junction is ever built, provisioning should be built for high-speed switches to lead to future express tracks, should the SAS ever be used as an actual trunk line. Since the connecting tracks would be very close to the surface, it wouldn't be very hard for the deep-bore SAS to build two additional express tracks descending below it. The tracks could then be extended underneath the Second Avenue Line on weekends, while segments of the line were closed (Nassau to 34th, 34th to 63rd, 63rd to 125th), allowing for complete phasing of an express track addition. But this is decades into the future we're talking about.

[realizm]

It handled that rush hour service. I doubt it would be able to take full advantage of a SAS trunk line, however, so I would still support building it all the way to Hanover Square.

 

If such a junction is ever built, provisioning should be built for high-speed switches to lead to future express tracks, should the SAS ever be used as an actual trunk line. Since the connecting tracks would be very close to the surface, it wouldn't be very hard for the deep-bore SAS to build two additional express tracks descending below it. The tracks could then be extended underneath the Second Avenue Line on weekends, while segments of the line were closed (Nassau to 34th, 34th to 63rd, 63rd to 125th), allowing for complete phasing of an express track addition. But this is decades into the future we're talking about.

 

Exactly. 

 

The engineering know-how and technology will be much more advanced in the future as well. Which reminds me about the circa 1980's < R > service, the GO's and the historic BMT Banker's specials that all also utilized the tunnel via Nassau now that you mention it.

[LTA1992]

As said before, DeKalb should be able to handle one more line. That line, would have to be local. In thinking about it, I would fully support the connection to the Nassau line because routing it, the , to the South (If they chose to route it via Sea Beach, West End, or Brighton) would give it direct access to a yard. (CI)

Edited July 23, 2013 by LTA1992

[Grand Concourse]

since this is all fantasy:

And does lower manhattan really need another subway line down there under water St? The J is underused. The main issue would be the platforms not being able to handle a 10 car train. Perhaps they could lock out the last 2 cars (get people to move to the front 8* cars to prevent anyone from accidentally exiting into a tunnel if those cars were to open). I think annexing the Nassau-Center st line would be cheaper than digging up another tunnel.

 

They could always keep the segment to Grand st. The north segment of the SAS should be connected to the concourse line. This could allow B/D trains to be routed up 2nd av if there's issues on 6th av or CPW. It would also be a true parallel line for the 4, so people won't be jamming onto that line. Of course they should build the bronx 3rd av line, but should that fail, Concourse would be a decent alternative.

 

*or 9 if the platforms are the same length as the elevated segment.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Grand Concourse

[RTOPRO]

The whole point of going with Water St is the fact that there is demand on Water St since it's a huge part of the financial district. There are plenty of people who live along York, 1st and 2nd Avenues along the Upper East Side dying for a direct ride to work in the area of the Seaport, to Wall Street and Broad Streets.

[Grand Concourse]

Sure it's still a few blocks to Nassau st, but is it worth millions-billions to build it when there's already a line there that's only open 18/5? We'll be lucky they get to Houston or 14th st, after that it's anyone's guess.

[Vistausss]

Sure it's still a few blocks to Nassau st, but is it worth millions-billions to build it when there's already a line there that's only open 18/5? We'll be lucky they get to Houston or 14th st, after that it's anyone's guess.

 

On one hand I agree. But on the other hand: miracles can still happen. Look at Cuomo's funding a few days ago. The subway, bus and LIRR can make quite a few improvements due do that new suprising funding. If he or a future mayor agrees with on getting the 2nd Ave line to Hanover Square (or at least to phase II) then who knows what random funding might come.

I'm not too optimistic about it but I won't rule out that there might come some suprising funding sooner or later that will at least *help* getting the 2nd Ave line further down 2nd Ave.

[RTOPRO]

Sure it's still a few blocks to Nassau st, but is it worth millions-billions to build it when there's already a line there that's only open 18/5? We'll be lucky they get to Houston or 14th st, after that it's anyone's guess.

You named the biggest factor of the flaw in your plan. 10 cars vs 8 cars. Take for instance transit policy. It is against the rules and regulations to lock out a car, or multiple cars or a section of one car if a train over runs a station as a means of being able to open the doors that are on the platform. One of the reasons is because it's time consuming. The other reason is because of a massive amount of safety implications. If something goes wrong in the lock out process it could cost a customer their life and cost an employee his/her freedom. None of these possibilities are worth the savings you speak of because in reality the purpose of building the line out all the way to Hanover Square is to keep an eye on future growth in areas where current subway lines don't reach.

[Grand Concourse]

Fair enough^ But on the point of delays, holding the 1 at Chambers to make sure people have enough time to get to the front 5 cars is also time consuming. The main cost I would see is the need of a platform c/r to make sure everyone is off the last 2 cars. Or the mta would need to do some work to redesign the Canal to Broad st stops to accommodate a full 10 car train (which could still end up way cheaper than a brand new tunnel under water st).

But the 2nd point besides being cheaper in annexing the J line is to allow it a direct access to Brooklyn using the Montague tunnel (which is underused when the M was rerouted north up 6th av). Now if they were to use Water st and build a new river tunnel, where would it connect to? Fulton line? And would it have to go around the transit museum?

[bobtehpanda]

Fair enough^ But on the point of delays, holding the 1 at Chambers to make sure people have enough time to get to the front 5 cars is also time consuming. The main cost I would see is the need of a platform c/r to make sure everyone is off the last 2 cars. Or the mta would need to do some work to redesign the Canal to Broad st stops to accommodate a full 10 car train (which could still end up way cheaper than a brand new tunnel under water st).

But the 2nd point besides being cheaper in annexing the J line is to allow it a direct access to Brooklyn using the Montague tunnel (which is underused when the M was rerouted north up 6th av). Now if they were to use Water st and build a new river tunnel, where would it connect to? Fulton line? And would it have to go around the transit museum?

 

The river tunnel would be a long ways off.

 

I'm just going to point out that there's a pretty intact rail line that only sees four trains an hour, max, underneath (and sometimes over) the street on Atlantic. You could build infill stations at select locations because the and are so close to the line, and voila - a new pair of "express" tracks going into Queens. Added benefits - it comes with a yard to store trains.

 

Long Islanders may loathe the loss of direct service to Downtown Brooklyn and a slightly slower ride to Lower Manhattan, but in terms of capacity ESA, HPA, and LIC should be able to cope with the diverted trains.

[Grand Concourse]

Come to think of it, annexing that Atlantic branch wouldn't be a bad idea. I did feel a little uneasy getting off the Nostrand station one time to take the B44. That point on i just stayed on to the terminal and take the 2 back.

The main loss for LIRR riders is the loss of direct LIRR service to the arena. Otoh, Fulton is also underused and could fit 1 more line provided they build a spur down Utica av.

[Wallyhorse]

You named the biggest factor of the flaw in your plan. 10 cars vs 8 cars. Take for instance transit policy. It is against the rules and regulations to lock out a car, or multiple cars or a section of one car if a train over runs a station as a means of being able to open the doors that are on the platform. One of the reasons is because it's time consuming. The other reason is because of a massive amount of safety implications. If something goes wrong in the lock out process it could cost a customer their life and cost an employee his/her freedom. None of these possibilities are worth the savings you speak of because in reality the purpose of building the line out all the way to Hanover Square is to keep an eye on future growth in areas where current subway lines don't reach.

Those stations could be extended to accommodate 10-car trains (might be tricky in some instances), which is something I would be looking at doing anyway as part of a long-term plan that would have ALL Manhattan stations on the AND all stations served by the extended to 10 cars.  There is PLENTY of time to do this if you put the on Nassau Street since the probably won't reach that far down for years anyway (and as I believe has been noted in the past, as it is, most of the stations can actually handle nine cars (on a tight fit) since those stations used to handle eight 67' BMT Standard cars).

[LTA1992]

Fulton may be the trickiest to extend.

Edited July 24, 2013 by LTA1992

[DJ MC]

Check out the photos showing the SAS construction progress. Also includes the 7 line extension.

 

http://www.mta.info/mta/news/books/docs/2013%20July%20Transit%20&%20Bus%20Committee_7Line_SAS.pdf

Edited July 24, 2013 by DJ MC

[RTOPRO]

Fair enough^ But on the point of delays, holding the 1 at Chambers to make sure people have enough time to get to the front 5 cars is also time consuming. The main cost I would see is the need of a platform c/r to make sure everyone is off the last 2 cars. Or the mta would need to do some work to redesign the Canal to Broad st stops to accommodate a full 10 car train (which could still end up way cheaper than a brand new tunnel under water st).

But the 2nd point besides being cheaper in annexing the J line is to allow it a direct access to Brooklyn using the Montague tunnel (which is underused when the M was rerouted north up 6th av). Now if they were to use Water st and build a new river tunnel, where would it connect to? Fulton line? And would it have to go around the transit museum?

The 1 does not hold at Chambers Street to allow people to move from the last five to the first five cars. The 1 holds at Chambers because it's early and the responsibility of a gap station such as Chambers is to cool of a hot train. There's no need for the 1 to rush off to Rector and South Ferry when the train at South Ferry isn't even scheduled to leave for some time. The other reason the 1 can be held at Chambers is due to general congestion such as during the morning rush.

 

Either way why the 1 does not compare is because the last five cars of the train do not open because the C/R does not and is not supposed to open the last five from his/her position and for obvious reasons. In a 10 car set up on a 8 car platform the C/R does not have the ability to only open the first three within the consist of the last five leaving the final two closed and for that very reason, which is a safety reason will such a thing never take place. Regardless if there is a transit employee present. Transit does not deal in chances. If those doors open there is a chance that someone could be hiding under the seats unseen and still find their way to the door and fall out or an employee could fall out.

[Far Rock Depot]

With all this talk of connecting the SAS to Nassau, one thing has not been brought up-Engineering. How is this to happen? Its not just platform lengths thats the issue, its also connecting the tunnels. Where would this happen? What kind of soil would have to be dug thru? at what depth? What about surrounding building foundations and utilities? To me, this sounds as expensive and lengthy as deep boring a new modern tunnel. 

[LTA1992]

They'll find a way. There's always a way. They'll freeze the ground if they have to.

[Roadcruiser1]

With all this talk of connecting the SAS to Nassau, one thing has not been brought up-Engineering. How is this to happen? Its not just platform lengths thats the issue, its also connecting the tunnels. Where would this happen? What kind of soil would have to be dug thru? at what depth? What about surrounding building foundations and utilities? To me, this sounds as expensive and lengthy as deep boring a new modern tunnel. 

 

Just read the PDF.......... http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/final_summary_report.pdf

[Eric B]

Even though it is not completely clear; I think the idea was to use the former bridge loop tracks under Canal St. That would connect with minimal construction on the Nassau line, except for perhaps eliminating the grade crossing to get to J2/R1 at Chambers.

[R10 2952]

I for one feel that it would be good if they used the SAS to revive the Nassau Street Line.  A train going through Bowery would probably be more than enough to bring that station back from decades of stagnation.

[Tokkemon]

Guys, sending the down Water street makes far more sense in terms of population distribution. I didn't realize this until I actually started working on Wall Street. The population concentration of actual workers (not the stockbrokers at NYSE or the gobs of tourists looking at said NYSE) is heavily concentrated toward the shores of the island. This is why (among other reasons) that the Nassau St line is so little used, because its right in the middle of a dead spot in the neighborhood, near Broad Street. Having a dedicated subway line more toward the shore would aleviate the congestion on the IRT down there (yes the , as well) and give the UES the option for Western AND Eastern Lower Manhattan. This may not seem like a big deal, especially since everything is so tightly packed down there, but every block closer you can get counts. And when there's so many skycrapers and a non-grid street system, walking somewhere that looks like a short distance on a map may be far longer on the ground than it seems on paper. 

 

And, of course, Hanover Square needs a subway stop, there's no question about that one.

[Grand Concourse]

But on the flip side, the reason not many uses the J in that area is because it goes to Brooklyn instead of some part of upper Manhattan. The 4/5 are always packed, if the T was to take over the J in that area, it would be a total parallel for the 4/5 and could do the job of relieving those lines. 

I'm not saying they can't build down Water St, but in terms of getting a line to Brooklyn done sooner, the J is perfectly set up (platform length the main issue), but is very underused (and no wonder the M is so well used now serving a more desirable midtown area). As for where to connect the SAS to the J, I think maybe it should be somewhere just south of Canal and using the eastern most tracks at Chambers st. That way no need to deal with the lengthening of the Bowery and Canal platforms.

 

Eric: very good points about those former bridge tail tracks. That would be my idea of where the SAS could join the J to Chambers, as for how to set up the station: the SAS on the outer most tracks and the J in the center 2, or the J on one side and the T on the other with the s/b track to Fulton being rebuilt to connect to the former 'n/b express' track is the other issue. I would lean more with the latter and totally abandoning that tail track.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Grand Concourse

[CenSin]

Even though it is not completely clear; I think the idea was to use the former bridge loop tracks under Canal St. That would connect with minimal construction on the Nassau line, except for perhaps eliminating the grade crossing to get to J2/R1 at Chambers.

Here's something for the grade crossing: start digging from within the tunnel. It certainly would be a lot cheaper than digging from the streets above (which may not even be easy with the existing buildings above). If there is nothing underneath the tunnels, this should be easy as cut and cover minus the relocation of vital structures.