Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Roadcruiser1]

Scanned a copy of the PDF. Credits to the ..........

 

http://roadcruiser1.deviantart.com/art/Second-Avenue-Subway-Nassau-Street-Alternative-388026961?ga_submit_new=10%253A1374732505

 

Edited July 25, 2013 by Roadcruiser1

[realizm]

Thank you Roadcruiser1 for the provided map. This creates a good talking point.

 

 

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.

I agree. The Nassau Street Line is indeed underused and can handle the capacity, and as I've mentioned somewhere in the subway subforum, I can't even find it right now, it will also be a sureshot way for the MTA planners to develop an access point for the into the Downtown Manhattan Financial district then onward to the BMT South Brooklyn Div. via the Montauge St tunnel, as opposed to constructing a connection to the Manny B directly via unused sours from the former Chambers St loop (Don't think it's a good idea, it will result in congestion on the Manny B and stretch the weight loads of the bridge to its' limit. Or else the MTA would have retained the pre-Christie Cut alignment on the south side of the bridge with switch and track before the BMT Canal Street Station and not sever it, during the Christie St spur construction for IND 6th Ave access.)

 

Plus again, it is from a engineering standpoint, if traditional methods of cut and cover and drilling is used instead of TBMs given the geological problems involved, it should be an instant hit.

Edited July 25, 2013 by realizm

[Roadcruiser1]

I just realized the study map has an error. Since Houston Street is east of Bowery it would be required for the to stop at Bowery. Hopefully as part of the plan a transfer can be built between Grand Street and Bowery...........

[CenSin]

I just realized the study map has an error. Since Houston Street is east of Bowery it would be required for the to stop at Bowery. Hopefully as part of the plan a transfer can be built between Grand Street and Bowery...........

The map is full of errors, but it never claimed to be accurate. The current plan for 125 Street looks nothing like what is illustrated in your post. Futhermore, if previous IND projects are any indication, curves will have wide radii (as a rule). Will the curve leave enough room for the to stop at Bowery in this diagram? Yes, but the MTA will have to eliminate Bowery as a stop on the to stick to the rule of wide curve radii. Otherwise, we'll have those horribly screechy and slow curves found on the BMT and IRT. Bowery is not even a popular stop anyway.

[realizm]

The map is full of errors, but it never claimed to be accurate. The current plan for 125 Street looks nothing like what is illustrated in your post. Futhermore, if previous IND projects are any indication, curves will have wide radii (as a rule). Will the curve leave enough room for the to stop at Bowery in this diagram? Yes, but the MTA will have to eliminate Bowery as a stop on the to stick to the rule of wide curve radii. Otherwise, we'll have those horribly screechy and slow curves found on the BMT and IRT. Bowery is not even a popular stop anyway.

 

Yes I saw it but it is an official MTA preliminary map from the older environmental study that has the Nassau Street Option incorporated into it, before the final design phase of the subway, hence the differences between this layout and the current SAS map in circulation. 

[lupojohn]

Is it possible for the to stop at the existing Chambers Street station? Those middle tracks are unused.

[Roadcruiser1]

Is it possible for the to stop at the existing Chambers Street station? Those middle tracks are unused.

 

It would be but it's better if the ran to Brooklyn instead..........

[RTOPRO]

It would be best if it served the Lower East side as designed. The whole Nassau line alignment defeats the purpose which is to serve an area of Manhattan that's not already served with subway service. The Q has Brooklyn taken care of from 63rd Street to the north and the T will have connections to many of lines already serving Brooklyn.

 

Because even if the T ran to Brooklyn in the "underused" Montague Street tube and served the under utilized 4th Ave local station. Where in the world would it terminate that doesn't already have capacity nearly maxed out at said terminal? That's the one part I'm missing in all of this.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

It would be best if it served the Lower East side as designed. The whole Nassau line alignment defeats the purpose which is to serve an area of Manhattan that's not already served with subway service. The Q has Brooklyn taken care of from 63rd Street to the north and the T will have connections to many of lines already serving Brooklyn.

 

Because even if the T ran to Brooklyn in the "underused" Montague Street tube and served the under utilized 4th Ave local station. Where in the world would it terminate that doesn't already have capacity nearly maxed out at said terminal? That's the one part I'm missing in all of this.

If it did, the most probable terminal would be 9th Avenue,Bay Parkway, or 25th Avenue (only if it was based out of CIY)

Edited July 26, 2013 by Q23 Central Terminal

[RTOPRO]

Then if that were to be feasible that then bring up how much money would need to be spent on even more rolling stock and where this extra rolling stock could be laid up. Incorporated into SAS costs are dollars for new rolling stock, but covering Brooklyn, especially deep into Brooklyn would call for even more which means even more millions would need to be spent.

 

That's the one area I don't think everyone takes into consideration. We know we want the T and even propose (on the surface and without a detailed study) a cheaper alternative yet we don't remember that more rolling stock raises those costs significantly. Each car costs about $2 million. That's not cheap at all. $20 million per 10 car train is not a drop in the bucket.

[Roadcruiser1]

Then if that were to be feasible that then bring up how much money would need to be spent on even more rolling stock and where this extra rolling stock could be laid up. Incorporated into SAS costs are dollars for new rolling stock, but covering Brooklyn, especially deep into Brooklyn would call for even more which means even more millions would need to be spent.

 

That's the one area I don't think everyone takes into consideration. We know we want the T and even propose (on the surface and without a detailed study) a cheaper alternative yet we don't remember that more rolling stock raises those costs significantly. Each car costs about $2 million. That's not cheap at all. $20 million per 10 car train is not a drop in the bucket.

But billions would be spent on Phase 4 if it was built and billions more will be spent later on when the needs to be extended to Brooklyn..........

[RTOPRO]

The only people saying the T needs to be extended to Brooklyn are those typing on this message board. The Second Avenue Subway calls for 4 phases. Each one needing to be approved and funded after completion of the previous phase. There currently is no phase 5 or Brooklyn extension plans. As a matter of fact I doubt the T will ever be extended into Brooklyn and I'm willing to bet that the R line would be sent to Staten Island or AirTrain or LIRR brought into Lower Manhattan via a new river tunnel long before the SAS is ever extended into Brooklyn.

 

The need for said extension is being created here. The MTA drew up the phases with connections to almost every Manhattan truck line in order to avoid having to worry about sending the line into Brooklyn. The Q is apart of the package because it is the defacto SAS line to Brooklyn.

[Roadcruiser1]

The only people saying the T needs to be extended to Brooklyn are those typing on this message board. The Second Avenue Subway calls for 4 phases. Each one needing to be approved and funded after completion of the previous phase. There currently is no phase 5 or Brooklyn extension plans. As a matter of fact I doubt the T will ever be extended into Brooklyn and I'm willing to bet that the R line would be sent to Staten Island or AirTrain or LIRR brought into Lower Manhattan via a new river tunnel long before the SAS is ever extended into Brooklyn.

 

The need for said extension is being created here. The MTA drew up the phases with connections to almost every Manhattan truck line in order to avoid having to worry about sending the line into Brooklyn. The Q is apart of the package because it is the defacto SAS line to Brooklyn.

That's where you are partially wrong. The Second Avenue Subway is being built currently so there would be provisions to extend it into the Bronx and Brooklyn later on. What you are suggesting will cost more as it will require the to have it's own tunnel to get to Brooklyn, but at least if it runs on the Nassau Street Line you won't have to spend all that money to build all that infrastructure..........http://observer.com/2008/03/sander-imagines-second-avenue-subway-all-the-way-to-queens/

[RTOPRO]

You're posting an article based on Lee Sanders vision yet Lee Sanders is no longer the President of the MTA. As a matter of fact he's been replaced three times over. The problem the state saw with Sanders is the fact that he had a lot of grand visions without approval or money to pay for them. Albany likes leaders who worry about dealing with what's currently going on instead of focusing on grand visions. I'm not going to get into how wrong that thinking is but that's real life politics in NY.

 

Going back to what you mentioned about provisions. Yes provisions are being made for future expansion into Brooklyn and Bronx however with no promise of ever doing so. Once again you're missing the point. There are 4 phases approved by the feds for funding and potential funding. Phase 1 is approved for funding. Phases 2-4 are approved for potential funding meaning the feds have approved that they will sit down and visit the issue and vote on whether or not to fund the next phase and how much based on what happens with Phase 1. That's why the EIS suggested the Phases, in order to make funding possible. If you understand the history of the false starts on 2nd Avenue then you'll understand why it's done this way. Money has gone down the drain just trying to get the ball rolling. They don't want that to happen again. Now having said all of that.

 

Bronx and Brooklyn are not included in any of the approved phases. As a matter of fact the MTA didn't even originally draft phases 3-4 until residents, businesses and politicians put the pressure on for the need of a full length line. The MTA then drafted the EIS to include those phases and submitted them for review to the feds.

 

You're saying the Nassau connection would be cheaper. I'm telling you you're wrong and that it would be a waste of money. You're forgetting the fact that every Nassau station would have to be extended to accommodate 10 cars but everyone makes it seem so easy and cheap. Are we forgetting how long and expensive it was just to extend Bleecker Street a little to the south and how much of the above sidewalk had to be turn apart to relocate utilities? And since you're extending you might as well rehab the entire station. Now you're rehabilitating all of the Nassau stations? Cheap? No! And since the intent was always to build the full length SAS line as a fully integrated CBTC line. Now you have to work on converting the Nassau line and it's existing switches signals and switches to CBTC? That's not cheap at all. It's actually cheaper to build signals out brand new into a freshly built tunnel with no preexisting complicated switches. Then once again in order for the T to run to Brooklyn you have to buy more rolling stock than what you originally intended for a Manhattan line north to south then you have to build more facilities to lay up these trains. The extra rolling stock cost money and the additional spur, lay up, siding and yard area tracks to be built are additional costs.

 

Everyone is pulling random estimates out of the sky based on personal theories yet no one here is a transit planner nor has anyone pulled out the calculator. It's cheaper to build a brand new line in an area where there is no line than to connect to an existing line that's currently inadequate and would need to go through major structural changes to accommodate all of the requirements of said new service not to mention the fact that the connection to the existing line would defeat the purpose of what the people demanded which is a line along the east side all the way from the Upper East Side and East Harlem all the way to the Lower East Side and the Financial District along the eastern section. The plans were drafted based on pressure from the people. Not fantasy transit planning.

[bobtehpanda]

You're posting an article based on Lee Sanders vision yet Lee Sanders is no longer the President of the MTA. As a matter of fact he's been replaced three times over. The problem the state saw with Sanders is the fact that he had a lot of grand visions without approval or money to pay for them. Albany likes leaders who worry about dealing with what's currently going on instead of focusing on grand visions. I'm not going to get into how wrong that thinking is but that's real life politics in NY.

 

Going back to what you mentioned about provisions. Yes provisions are being made for future expansion into Brooklyn and Bronx however with no promise of ever doing so. Once again you're missing the point. There are 4 phases approved by the feds for funding and potential funding. Phase 1 is approved for funding. Phases 2-4 are approved for potential funding meaning the feds have approved that they will sit down and visit the issue and vote on whether or not to fund the next phase and how much based on what happens with Phase 1. That's why the EIS suggested the Phases, in order to make funding possible. If you understand the history of the false starts on 2nd Avenue then you'll understand why it's done this way. Money has gone down the drain just trying to get the ball rolling. They don't want that to happen again. Now having said all of that.

 

Bronx and Brooklyn are not included in any of the approved phases. As a matter of fact the MTA didn't even originally draft phases 3-4 until residents, businesses and politicians put the pressure on for the need of a full length line. The MTA then drafted the EIS to include those phases and submitted them for review to the feds.

 

You're saying the Nassau connection would be cheaper. I'm telling you you're wrong and that it would be a waste of money. You're forgetting the fact that every Nassau station would have to be extended to accommodate 10 cars but everyone makes it seem so easy and cheap. Are we forgetting how long and expensive it was just to extend Bleecker Street a little to the south and how much of the above sidewalk had to be turn apart to relocate utilities? And since you're extending you might as well rehab the entire station. Now you're rehabilitating all of the Nassau stations? Cheap? No! And since the intent was always to build the full length SAS line as a fully integrated CBTC line. Now you have to work on converting the Nassau line and it's existing switches signals and switches to CBTC? That's not cheap at all. It's actually cheaper to build signals out brand new into a freshly built tunnel with no preexisting complicated switches. Then once again in order for the T to run to Brooklyn you have to buy more rolling stock than what you originally intended for a Manhattan line north to south then you have to build more facilities to lay up these trains. The extra rolling stock cost money and the additional spur, lay up, siding and yard area tracks to be built are additional costs.

 

Everyone is pulling random estimates out of the sky based on personal theories yet no one here is a transit planner nor has anyone pulled out the calculator. It's cheaper to build a brand new line in an area where there is no line than to connect to an existing line that's currently inadequate and would need to go through major structural changes to accommodate all of the requirements of said new service not to mention the fact that the connection to the existing line would defeat the purpose of what the people demanded which is a line along the east side all the way from the Upper East Side and East Harlem all the way to the Lower East Side and the Financial District along the eastern section. The plans were drafted based on pressure from the people. Not fantasy transit planning.

 

I'd also like to point out that reworking a junction that is subsurface is probably more expensive than possibly a new river tunnel. A new river tunnel doesn't have to wind and weave through existing tunnels, and in any case we have very detailed knowledge on what the existing environment looks like due to the need to dredge for the harbors and where the river tunnels are. Lower Manhattan is a crapshoot when it comes to stuff like that - there are old streams, archaeological remains of Nieuw Amsterdam and the older Native American settlements, and ConEd, Verizon, and other infrastructure has never been properly mapped. Boring tunnels using TBMs has been chosen as the preferred construction method for this reason (and also because there were problems with flooding on the cut and cover segments of the SAS attempt in the '70s).

 

Tunnels are cheap. Stations and interlockings are expensive, and every current transit project is expensive because the stations involved are all gigantic caverns (Fulton is a giant aboveground cavern, WTC is both an aboveground and underground cavern, and ESA, ARC, and 34th St/11th Av are all large caverns. The Second Avenue Subway has multiple huge cavernous stations. That's why they're the only transit projects in the world that have ever clocked above $1.1B per km.)

[RTOPRO]

I'd also like to point out that reworking a junction that is subsurface is probably more expensive than possibly a new river tunnel. A new river tunnel doesn't have to wind and weave through existing tunnels, and in any case we have very detailed knowledge on what the existing environment looks like due to the need to dredge for the harbors and where the river tunnels are. Lower Manhattan is a crapshoot when it comes to stuff like that - there are old streams, archaeological remains of Nieuw Amsterdam and the older Native American settlements, and ConEd, Verizon, and other infrastructure has never been properly mapped. Boring tunnels using TBMs has been chosen as the preferred construction method for this reason (and also because there were problems with flooding on the cut and cover segments of the SAS attempt in the '70s).

 

Tunnels are cheap. Stations and interlockings are expensive, and every current transit project is expensive because the stations involved are all gigantic caverns (Fulton is a giant aboveground cavern, WTC is both an aboveground and underground cavern, and ESA, ARC, and 34th St/11th Av are all large caverns. The Second Avenue Subway has multiple huge cavernous stations. That's why they're the only transit projects in the world that have ever clocked above $1.1B per km.)

Excellent point which leads right into another point. And that's the reasons for even going the direction of large station caverns. Yes the technique is very expensive however cut and cover with steel beams to support the tunnel structure is now a high cost technique because steel is no where near as cheap as it used to be. I would even say it's no longer cheap period. Also it's better to invest more now to save a ton later. The island platform via mezzanine set up reduces the ADA costs. Two elevators, two banks of escalators. One of each for street level and one of each for Mezz to Plat level. Obvious escalators there may be more of depending on the number of entrances but the big piece of the costs for ADA requirements revolve around elevators. Not only that but the cavern's support system is the cavern itself helping to reinforce itself with any additional pressure applied.

 

Which brings up a point I forgot. The MTA is required to build elevators and escalators into any newly constructed line to meet it's ADA requirements. A Nassau option would require that each one of the Nassau stations receive ADA compliance work. Even though they are already existing stations part of the compliance requires a certain number of key stations receive ADA compliance work during their rehabilitation yet Nassau would fall under the new line, ADA requirement because all other stations would have ADA compliant elevators and escalators meaning you would be stranding disabled riders at the last newly built station leaving them with very little options.

 

The costs would be enormous. These are all of apart of the issues many are not considering.

[Grand Concourse]

If new river tunnels aren't a big deal, then why stop with giving the SAS a new tunnel? Why not replace the out of date Steinway tubes that were never meant to handle subway trains in the first place? Maybe then the 7 won't need 11 car a division sized trains.

[RTOPRO]

Because in order to replace an existing tube you have to shut down service in the existing tube for an extensive amount of time. What bob was referring to was building a new river tunnel outright.

[Grand Concourse]

But with all the disruptions due to the current tunnel, does it make a difference? That tunnel was for trolleys, it's even more of a problem than annexing Nassau imo. Steinway is probably going to make cbtc even worse for the 7.

I'd say get the new tunnels built (like how the 63rd st tunnel was built in sinking the segments to the river). And have a new modern tunnel fit for the needs of a subway line and maybe in the future set up so b division trains can run on the whole flushing line (provided the javits center extension is not built just to fit a division trains).

Edited July 27, 2013 by Grand Concourse

[RTOPRO]

The Javits Center extension was built for A division trains only. They used a smaller TBM to bore out the tunnels to 34th than what was used on Second Ave. At the end of the day everyone's dream of turning the 7 line into a B division line has died. It would be too expensive of a project anyway. The line is fine as is. Steinway tube is being carved out to properly fit the systems it needs to function as any other tube. Steinway will not hinder CBTC in the slightest just like 14th St does not hinder CBTC over there. CBTC will be hindered by everything else that can go wrong other than Steinway.

[bobtehpanda]

If anything, Steinway is just going to do what Steinway normally does - flood and cause lots of headaches. A new tube wouldn't really change that, and would be extremely disruptive - think of what the 63rd St work did to Queens Boulevard.

 

 

Excellent point which leads right into another point. And that's the reasons for even going the direction of large station caverns. Yes the technique is very expensive however cut and cover with steel beams to support the tunnel structure is now a high cost technique because steel is no where near as cheap as it used to be. I would even say it's no longer cheap period. Also it's better to invest more now to save a ton later. The island platform via mezzanine set up reduces the ADA costs. Two elevators, two banks of escalators. One of each for street level and one of each for Mezz to Plat level. Obvious escalators there may be more of depending on the number of entrances but the big piece of the costs for ADA requirements revolve around elevators. Not only that but the cavern's support system is the cavern itself helping to reinforce itself with any additional pressure applied.

 

Modern subway design elsewhere generally has wide island platforms linked by escalators to street mezzanines. Caverns are used, but they're usually not SAS big (the SAS caverns seem to be really tall for some reason...)

Cut and cover is still super cheap under a long, straight road. Second Avenue doesn't count because 63rd St is too damn deep, and by the time you ascend to  below street level you have to descend again to meet up with Houston and Grand, which really just isn't worth the trouble.

 

MTA has some weird thing with ADA costs, because in MTA world an above-ground elevator connecting two levels costs $10M. It is what it is, but that's ridiculous even for this agency.

 

As for a river tunnel, connect to the Atlantic Branch and you probably only have to build one station west of Atlantic at Court, and put infill stations at Utica, Crescent, Woodhaven, and Lefferts, and there's enough room at Jamaica Station for another island platform. SAS gains Atlantic Yard, and you have to find LIRR a new yard (even though Atlantic isn't particularly big). But before the MTA even does that, they'll probably reconstruct Nostrand Junction and extend tail tracks past Flatbush in the next Capital Plan, because those are serious IRT bottlenecks that'll solve a lot of problems.

Edited July 27, 2013 by bobtehpanda

[RTOPRO]

Where cut and cover costs start exploding is the utility relocation. NYC is not the city it used to be. The network under the street is massive. The amount of utilities to relocate are staggering. Especially depending on what's nearby above ground. Not directly above buildings close to where you want to cut. Like in the case of 96th and retaining/slurry wall had to be built to maintain the integrity of not only the box but the foundations of buildings along the street near the box and the utilities under the sidewalk.

 

It would've been way more beneficial if the subway line got there before the utilities did 90 years ago but hindsight is as they say 20/20.

[CenSin]

Where cut and cover costs start exploding is the utility relocation. NYC is not the city it used to be. The network under the street is massive. The amount of utilities to relocate are staggering. Especially depending on what's nearby above ground. Not directly above buildings close to where you want to cut. Like in the case of 96th and retaining/slurry wall had to be built to maintain the integrity of not only the box but the foundations of buildings along the street near the box and the utilities under the sidewalk.

 

It would've been way more beneficial if the subway line got there before the utilities did 90 years ago but hindsight is as they say 20/20.

It would be beneficial if the utility companies did not just do their own thing and coordinate for the future.

[RTOPRO]

Re-read that last sentence about hindsight....

[CenSin]

Re-read that last sentence about hindsight....

That's the sentence I'm replying to.