Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[bobtehpanda]

The reason on an extended Phase 2 I would go elevated at the end for the SAS is for the same reason the is elevated at that point: It's in a valley.

 

The 1 is actually on the same level at 125th as it is elsewhere, it's the street itself that comes down as far as it does.

 

That's why I would go elevated there.

Yes, but you are forgetting that:

 

1. 125th/Lexington on the SAS is going to be very deep, since it has to dive under the Park Av line and the Lexington Av line. This is the only section of Phase II that will be bored; all other interstation sections already exist as shallow cut-and-cover tunnels. Staying underground all the way to Broadway will not require a steep grade. (The steep grade of the valley only applies to the , since it crosses the valley instead of running alongside it as an SAS extension would.)

 

2. Going elevated would require going above ground somewhere. 125th is a very busy arterial, but is not wide enough to allow for the subway to ascend from the median (which would require a relatively steep grade). Since closing a block or two of 125th is not an option, the only other option would be to condemn a block of a very vibrant cultural and retail hub (not to mention, the historical center of African-American culture in the city). We don't need a subway Moses.

[Roadcruiser1]

For Wallyhorse,

 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

 

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html#fqcXyywHXRqvHQ3d.99

 

Back on topic. I doubt we will see the expansion of the Second Avenue Subway in our lifetimes. The needs to worry about the current phases that aren't even built yet. So how can they think about expanding it as of now? It's just impossible..........

[bobtehpanda]

For Wallyhorse,

 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

 

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html#fqcXyywHXRqvHQ3d.99

 

Back on topic. I doubt we will see the expansion of the Second Avenue Subway in our lifetimes. The needs to worry about the current phases that aren't even built yet. So how can they think about expanding it as of now? It's just impossible..........

 

The MTA is facing significant pressure from lawmakers, and the SAS certainly meets all FTA cost-per-rider guidelines even with its huge costs. Phase II is essentially a done deal, Phase III will be needed once East Side Access opens, and Phase IV is the logical conclusion of all of that. The city is nowhere near the fiscal brink and its economy is booming (with all the side effects that involves). The only funding question mark is that of the state, but the State hasn't provided much for the Capital Plan since Pataki. Once Phase I opens, the rest will snowball as the line gains popularity.

[Wallyhorse]

Yes, but you are forgetting that:

 

1. 125th/Lexington on the SAS is going to be very deep, since it has to dive under the Park Av line and the Lexington Av line. This is the only section of Phase II that will be bored; all other interstation sections already exist as shallow cut-and-cover tunnels. Staying underground all the way to Broadway will not require a steep grade. (The steep grade of the valley only applies to the , since it crosses the valley instead of running alongside it as an SAS extension would.)

 

2. Going elevated would require going above ground somewhere. 125th is a very busy arterial, but is not wide enough to allow for the subway to ascend from the median (which would require a relatively steep grade). Since closing a block or two of 125th is not an option, the only other option would be to condemn a block of a very vibrant cultural and retail hub (not to mention, the historical center of African-American culture in the city). We don't need a subway Moses.

I did forget about boring.

 

And yes, if it's more feasible to remain underground, then it should, especially if an extended Phase 2 would include a connection to the 8th Avenue line (in both directions) at St. Nicholas Avenue that would allow access to the Concourse line from the SAS as well as extreme upper Manhattan.

[realizm]

I did forget about boring.

 

And yes, if it's more feasible to remain underground, then it should, especially if an extended Phase 2 would include a connection to the 8th Avenue line (in both directions) at St. Nicholas Avenue that would allow access to the Concourse line from the SAS as well as extreme upper Manhattan.

 

But again with the planned spur into phase 2, the Bronx extension from 116th Street into either a new subway or to feed into the Dual Contracts era end of the IRT WPR or The IRT Pelham Bay, actually built to B division dimensions, will serve that very purpose in regards to Bronx access. Additionally it completely relieves the IRT Lexington Ave line. This allows the to become a Lexington Avenue Express if the new Bronx subway and IRT WPR option is taken upon expansion efforts. That was the objective of the SAS as outlined in the original MTA plan for action as I was alluding to previously. To provide a new way from the East Side into the Bronx utilizing existing Bronx infrastructure, to relieve the IRT, that was the point. Which the MTA as of now is still considering as a future plan after phase 4 is done to Hanover Square with the activated.

 

The IND Grand Concourse cannot handle that capacity with the current problem with 205th Street being only 2 tracks that is another point to consider.

Edited December 5, 2013 by realizm

[bobtehpanda]

But again with the planned spur into phase 2, the Bronx extension from 96th into either a new subway or to feed into the Dual Contracts era end of the IRT WPR or The IRT Pelham Bay, actually built to B division dimensions, will serve that very purpose in regards to Bronx access. Additionally it completely relieves the IRT Lexington Ave line. This allows the to become a Lexington Avenue Express if the new subway or IRT WPR option is taken upon expansion efforts. That was the objective of the SAS as outlined in the original MTA plan for action as I was alluding to previously. To provide a new way from the East Side into the Bronx, that was the point. Which the MTA as of now is still considering as a future plan after phase 4 is done to Hanover Square with the activated.

 

The IND Grand Concourse cannot handle that capacity with the current problem with 205th Street being only 2 tracks that is another point to consider.

 

Now, I don't think they'll make the an express (because the stop spacing is so wide that it would be faster than walking to Lex and boarding an express there), but the SAS is long-term being considered for both a northern and southern extension (there are provisions for a extension past Hanover Square included in the Phase IV design).

 

The most obvious conclusion to draw from the existence of a northern stub is the replacement of all of the Third Av El; if I remember correctly, didn't the 1970s plan also include stations at the Third Av stations on the and ?

[realizm]

Now, I don't think they'll make the an express (because the stop spacing is so wide that it would be faster than walking to Lex and boarding an express there), but the SAS is long-term being considered for both a northern and southern extension (there are provisions for a extension past Hanover Square included in the Phase IV design).

 

The most obvious conclusion to draw from the existence of a northern stub is the replacement of all of the Third Av El; if I remember correctly, didn't the 1970s plan also include stations at the Third Av stations on the and ?

 

http://www.thejoekorner.com/lines/progforaction.htm

 

And to quote: http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/The_New_York_Transit_Authority_in_the_1970s

 

"The line would continue from 138th St along the ROW of the former New York, Westchester, and Boston Railway to Dyre Ave. The stations along the Dyre Ave. line would be restored to their original widths (they were "expanded" somewhat to accommodate IRT trains).

 

The junction at East 180th Street, as well as the approach of the IRT White Plains Road Line to East 180th St would be reconstructed to allow cross-platform transfers between White Plains Road and Second Avenue trains, as well as remove the sharp curves along that area of the line to improve travel times. There would be a connection with the IRT Pelham line at Whitlock Ave. and stations would be shaved back for the larger IND/BMT subway cars. The IRT Pelham Line would terminate at Hunts Point Avenue.

 

Second Avenue trains, like today's White Plains Road line above 180th Street, would have two branches - one to Dyre Avenue, one to Pelham Bay Park. In conjunction with this project, the sharp curves connecting the Lexington Avenue Line to the White Plains Road line at 149th Street and the Grand Concourse would also be eliminated."

 

Now as for the southern extension provision, that I was'nt specifically aware of until you highlighted that for me. Which leads me to the next question: Where was it planned to connect to? BMT or IND trackage in Brooklyn?

Edited December 5, 2013 by realizm

[Wallyhorse]

But again with the planned spur into phase 2, the Bronx extension from 116th Street into either a new subway or to feed into the Dual Contracts era end of the IRT WPR or The IRT Pelham Bay, actually built to B division dimensions, will serve that very purpose in regards to Bronx access. Additionally it completely relieves the IRT Lexington Ave line. This allows the to become a Lexington Avenue Express if the new Bronx subway and IRT WPR option is taken upon expansion efforts. That was the objective of the SAS as outlined in the original MTA plan for action as I was alluding to previously. To provide a new way from the East Side into the Bronx utilizing existing Bronx infrastructure, to relieve the IRT, that was the point. Which the MTA as of now is still considering as a future plan after phase 4 is done to Hanover Square with the activated.

 

The IND Grand Concourse cannot handle that capacity with the current problem with 205th Street being only 2 tracks that is another point to consider.

White Plains road is a better option for sure, and should be done if possible if it allows the current to become a Lexington Avenue Express while the current would probably be cut back to 125th or 149th ( platform in that case) ) and become a local.

 

The idea of connecting the SAS to the 8th Avenue line would be for limited rush hour service to 168th or somewhere along the Concourse line, but mainly to provide service on the SAS to/from Yankee Stadium on game days as well as for G.O.'s that would allow the 6th and 8th Avenue lines to access the SAS when needed.

[realizm]

White Plains road is a better option for sure, and should be done if possible if it allows the current to become a Lexington Avenue Express while the current would probably be cut back to 125th or 149th ( platform in that case) ) and become a local.

 

The idea of connecting the SAS to the 8th Avenue line would be for limited rush hour service to 168th or somewhere along the Concourse line, but mainly to provide service on the SAS to/from Yankee Stadium on game days as well as for G.O.'s that would allow the 6th and 8th Avenue lines to access the SAS when needed.

 

Well 149th Street-Grand Concourse will be eliminated as that is a huge congestion point into the WPR currently. I can see the public benefits cooperation or agency of the future however having an interest in retaining the Dyre Ave line. From 180th Street onward the WPR will be incorporated into the SAS. If the MTA sticks around by then which they may.

 

The pre Dual Contracts era section of the El basically will be demolished and replaced by a subway, while WPR north will be modified for 10 ft wide trains according to the 1968 plan and suggested by current phase 2 plans with the spur to be built at 116th Street.

Edited December 7, 2013 by realizm

[bobtehpanda]

 

http://www.thejoekorner.com/lines/progforaction.htm

 

And to quote: http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/The_New_York_Transit_Authority_in_the_1970s

 

"The line would continue from 138th St along the ROW of the former New York, Westchester, and Boston Railway to Dyre Ave. The stations along the Dyre Ave. line would be restored to their original widths (they were "expanded" somewhat to accommodate IRT trains).

 

The junction at East 180th Street, as well as the approach of the IRT White Plains Road Line to East 180th St would be reconstructed to allow cross-platform transfers between White Plains Road and Second Avenue trains, as well as remove the sharp curves along that area of the line to improve travel times. There would be a connection with the IRT Pelham line at Whitlock Ave. and stations would be shaved back for the larger IND/BMT subway cars. The IRT Pelham Line would terminate at Hunts Point Avenue.

 

Second Avenue trains, like today's White Plains Road line above 180th Street, would have two branches - one to Dyre Avenue, one to Pelham Bay Park. In conjunction with this project, the sharp curves connecting the Lexington Avenue Line to the White Plains Road line at 149th Street and the Grand Concourse would also be eliminated."

 

Now as for the southern extension provision, that I was'nt specifically aware of until you highlighted that for me. Which leads me to the next question: Where was it planned to connect to? BMT or IND trackage in Brooklyn?

 

Note in that diagram that there is a Phase II line roughly paralleling the Third Av Line using the MNR right-of-way on Park. I feel like in the current day and age, the priorities would be switched around; you'd have a Third Av corridor service first, and then Dyre and PBP service, to provide more options to a transit starved community. The 1968 Plan didn't foresee removal of the Third Av Line until the parallel subway would be constructed, which obvioiusly didn't happen.

 

I'd also point out that in the original plans, what is now Phase II terminated at 125th and 2nd. This service pattern somehow foresees three local services being shoved down a single pair of tracks, which makes me a bit uneasy (is there capacity for such a move?). Add in the likely 125th St crosstown service (or service to the spur line to 125th/Park) and you now have four services running down a single pair of tracks.

 

The southern provision in Phase IV is from the '90s incarnation of the SAS. From the 2004 FEIS Executive Summary:

 

 

 

Approximately 25 10-car, 600-foot-long trains for the Second Avenue Subway would need to be

stored overnight. Specific designs for the configuration of the train storage are being developed. The new storage and maintenance facilities being considered are described below. Since a few trains could also be stored on existing tracks at night, all of these facilities would not be required; rather, a combination of some of these storage options would be selected to handle the project’s storage needs:

• Two underground storage tracks west of the 125th Street Terminal, extending to approximately 525 feet west of Fifth Avenue, could provide storage for up to four trains. One train could also be stored on the line at the 125th Street and 72nd Street Stations.

• Underground storage tracks beneath Second Avenue north of 125th Street to 129th Street could store up to four

trains (a decrease from nine trains as described in the SDEIS) on two tracks

overnight.

• Two midline underground storage tracks between 21st and 9th Streets could store eight trains.

• New above-ground storage tracks for eight trains (instead of nine described in the SDEIS) in a portion of the existing 36th-38th Street Yard in Brooklyn.

• Two tail tracks south of the Hanover Square Station to store up to four trains. These tracks could enable possible future expansion of the Second Avenue Subway to Brooklyn.

[realizm]

Note in that diagram that there is a Phase II line roughly paralleling the Third Av Line using the MNR right-of-way on Park. I feel like in the current day and age, the priorities would be switched around; you'd have a Third Av corridor service first, and then Dyre and PBP service, to provide more options to a transit starved community. The 1968 Plan didn't foresee removal of the Third Av Line until the parallel subway would be constructed, which obvioiusly didn't happen.

 

I'd also point out that in the original plans, what is now Phase II terminated at 125th and 2nd. This service pattern somehow foresees three local services being shoved down a single pair of tracks, which makes me a bit uneasy (is there capacity for such a move?). Add in the likely 125th St crosstown service (or service to the spur line to 125th/Park) and you now have four services running down a single pair of tracks.

 

The southern provision in Phase IV is from the '90s incarnation of the SAS. From the 2004 FEIS Executive Summary:

 

 

 

 

I see. 

 

As for why the MTA planned to shove three routes into one trunk line? I don't know. That really doesn't make sense to me either now that you mentioned it. Now as for the tail tracks at Hanover Square, yes, we can both agree to the fact that the provision is a necessity. We can be sure that the MTA will have to construct it. But what I'm wondering again now is where is that  heading to in Brooklyn? South Brooklyn BMT or Fulton Street IND? IND Culver Viaduct? Either which way they will have to construct a new underriver tunnel.

 

Hard to tell or even speculate on because demographics may change drastically in the next 20 to 30 years in Brooklyn. 

[bobtehpanda]

I see. 

 

As for why the MTA planned to shove three routes into one trunk line? I don't know. That really doesn't make sense to me either now that you mentioned it. Now as for the tail tracks at Hanover Square, yes, we can both agree to the fact that the provision is a necessity. We can be sure that the MTA will have to construct it. But what I'm wondering again now is where is that  heading to in Brooklyn? South Brooklyn BMT or Fulton Street IND? IND Culver Viaduct? Either which way they will have to construct a new underriver tunnel.

 

Hard to tell or even speculate on because demographics may change drastically in the next 20 to 30 years in Brooklyn. 

 

In 1929, the Fulton Local was planned to operate to Court St, and would have connected to the SAS under one of the many plans considered for the trunk line at the time.

 

Come 2019, the Atlantic Branch of the LIRR may be turned into a shuttle between Atlantic and Jamaica. While this is regrettable (because the connection is fairly useful), this is also a potential set of tracks for SAS to tie into, although the engineering could be tricky.

 

In a perfect world, the ideal situation for the LIRR would have been to build a tunnel connecting Atlantic to GCT and then the Main Line, with stops at Fulton and GCT. But I digress.

Edited December 8, 2013 by bobtehpanda

[Wallyhorse]

In 1929, the Fulton Local was planned to operate to Court St, and would have connected to the SAS under one of the many plans considered for the trunk line at the time.

 

Come 2019, the Atlantic Branch of the LIRR may be turned into a shuttle between Atlantic and Jamaica. While this is regrettable (because the connection is fairly useful), this is also a potential set of tracks for SAS to tie into, although the engineering could be tricky.

 

In a perfect world, the ideal situation for the LIRR would have been to build a tunnel connecting Atlantic to GCT and then the Main Line, with stops at Fulton and GCT. But I digress.

The Fulton line option to me is still the best option for extending the SAS to Brooklyn even though that would mean having to move the Transit Museum to another location (perhaps the abandoned portion of the Bowery Station?) since Court Street would likely be re-activated for service in such a scenario.  If that happened, the could become the full-time Fulton Local to Euclid Avenue while the and both run express with one going to Lefferts and the other to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park full-time (it would be done this way because the would be coming in on what is currently the non-active track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn while the and would continue to come in on what is actually the express track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, meaning those trains would also have to open the doors on both sides there).  Couple that with an add-on to Phase 2 that would go across 125th Street and allow for a connection to the 8th Avenue line and you could have the potentially run to 168 or 207 via Fulton and the SAS if that happened.

 

As for the connection to what is planned to be the Brooklyn Scoot, that would be very difficult because of all the existing tracks there I believe.

[Union Tpke]

I personally think they should build phases 3 and 4 with 4 tracks. A rote via the Williamsburg bridge(a rerouting of the M.) A new V would run exp via Culver and 6 Av

A route via Nassau St to Bay Pkwy via West End. Some sort of route in the LES. Express for Phases 1 and 2 can be added below the local tracks in a different tunnel like the Lex

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[Roadcruiser1]

I personally think they should build phases 3 and 4 with 4 tracks. A rote via the Williamsburg bridge(a rerouting of the M.) A new V would run exp via Culver and 6 Av

A route via Nassau St to Bay Pkwy via West End. Some sort of route in the LES. Express for Phases 1 and 2 can be added below the local tracks in a different tunnel like the Lex

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

There's no money, and no need for four tracks since the current service ideas would work well.

 

I think a better idea for a Culver express would be this........

 

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/349/0/5/2nd_avenue_subway_proposals_by_roadcruiser1-d6y519q.jpg

[realizm]

There's no money, and no need for four tracks since the current service ideas would work well.

 

I think a better idea for a Culver express would be this........

 

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/349/0/5/2nd_avenue_subway_proposals_by_roadcruiser1-d6y519q.jpg

Good thinking there, Nice map, good job. But there are some slight bugs infrastructure-wise that the MTA will need to work out for this to work:

 

1) The Manhattan Bridge cannot handle all of that traffic (it will literally cause the bridge itself to sway. The NYDOT may not approve of that.) This is a very old bridge. Two B'Way, one 6th Ave one 2nd Ave, cannot all smash into the Dekalb interlocking without delays as it is now accommodating 3 trunk lines not two. The Dekalb interlocking will need to be overhauled. If they can mitigate the problems then it can work, I dont see why not.

 

2) Studies had been done pre 2010 budget cuts on the feasibility of sending the from its then current terminus, 2nd Ave to Brooklyn via the Culver Viaduct before they decided 2 years later to activate the 6th Ave . They discovered that with the there creates a major congestion point at 2nd Ave station that causes dramatic delays on the from/to Brooklyn. Therefore the theory by the MTA heads to send it to Brooklyn via the Viaduct instead. The to Brooklyn technically can work on paper as you have shown if sent to the Viaduct, let the become a express, done.

 

3) I like the to the IND QBL idea. Makes sense, the spur is there so why not use it? But then where will the terminate? Forest Hills is packed, so is Jamaica Center so thats out. It will have to travel the ROW to 179th Street with 8 track capacity.

 

4) But in all estimation I think a new tunnel to feed into the IND Fulton line with all the branches it serves in the Rockaways plus in between would be the ultimate solution. The Fulton Street IND needs more service and the Cranberry St tubes are at capacity. The IND screwed up, this was not the way it was supposed to happen with Fulton Street. Why they only created a stub end Court Street stop and not with a provision for a tunnel, preoccupied with South 4th Street I will never know...

 

 

In 1929, the Fulton Local was planned to operate to Court St, and would have connected to the SAS under one of the many plans considered for the trunk line at the time.

Edited December 16, 2013 by realizm

[bobtehpanda]

There's no money, and no need for four tracks since the current service ideas would work well.

 

I think a better idea for a Culver express would be this........

 

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/349/0/5/2nd_avenue_subway_proposals_by_roadcruiser1-d6y519q.jpg

 

This is a terrible idea, because

 

1. The earliest the can switch to the Chrystie St tracks is at West 4th St. Express feeds into the bridge, and local feeds into Rutgers. This is the optimal rush-hour configuration.

 

2. Grand St is planned to be deep-bore due to the disruption involved to connecting it to the current Grand St station. This would make crossovers virtually impossible (not necessarily a bad thing, since this reduces the scope for delays).

 

3. All Queens trunk lines are at capacity except the , which I would hope you're not talking about connecting to.

As for the connection to what is planned to be the Brooklyn Scoot, that would be very difficult because of all the existing tracks there I believe.

 

You would not necessarily have to connect to the Brooklyn Scoot at Atlantic itself; that would basically be impossible. You could, however, build a deep-bore station under the complex and then have it rise to meet the Atlantic Branch east of Atlantic (say, at Nostrand), and close off the LIRR terminal.

Edited December 16, 2013 by bobtehpanda

[Roadcruiser1]

This is a terrible idea, because

 

1. The earliest the can switch to the Chrystie St tracks is at West 4th St. Express feeds into the bridge, and local feeds into Rutgers. This is the optimal rush-hour configuration.

 

2. Grand St is planned to be deep-bore due to the disruption involved to connecting it to the current Grand St station. This would make crossovers virtually impossible (not necessarily a bad thing, since this reduces the scope for delays).

 

3. All Queens trunk lines are at capacity except the , which I would hope you're not talking about connecting to.

 

 

You would not necessarily have to connect to the Brooklyn Scoot at Atlantic itself; that would basically be impossible. You could, however, build a deep-bore station under the complex and then have it rise to meet the Atlantic Branch east of Atlantic (say, at Nostrand), and close off the LIRR terminal.

 

1. I don't really know. Now looking at it this plan clearly it might jam the trains at Broadway Lafayette Street. It's probably not impossible, but hard to plan out.

 

2. Phase 4 isn't planned yet, but I believe that using the current Grand Street Station would give the Second Avenue Subway a good chance of using the Chrystie Street Connection, and the Manhattan Bridge making it a better concept.

 

3. That 63rd Street Tunnel link is already planned by the as it can be seen on the planned track maps. I didn't say it would be in service. My map just shows future connections already planned by the except for the Manhattan Bridge connection which is fantasy.

 

I am looking at all the track maps. It looks like during the construction of the connection at Chrystie Street the neglected to think about the future problems on the Culver Line resulting in the situation we see now. Too bad you can never alter what happened in the past. It would have been better if the problems were checked before construction. It's now pretty difficult.........

Edited December 16, 2013 by Roadcruiser1

[realizm]

This is a terrible idea, because

 

 

 

Man I felt hurt to the heart when I read your response but fine your opinion is respected.

[RTOPRO]

Sorry to kill all of your hopes about making Grand Street an double island platform station but one of the main reasons it was decided to go with a double level station is because the island platforms would be extremely narrow as the street itself is very narrow. The side opposite the park would require an extensive EIS into whether underpinning of the above buildings would be needed if the line could be built out that close to the basements of those properties or if acquisition of the above properties across from the park would be required.

 

Grand Street is a typical close to surface station. TBM could not be used in this instance for a 4 track across build.

 

The platforms would be narrow enough to cause a crowd flow problem as well as complicate ADA access from the platform itself possibly leading to a repeat of Atlantic Av. Cost and logistics is why the deep Chrystie option was chosen. 

[bobtehpanda]

1. I don't really know. Now looking at it this plan clearly it might jam the trains at Broadway Lafayette Street. It's probably not impossible, but hard to plan out.

 

2. Phase 4 isn't planned yet, but I believe that using the current Grand Street Station would give the Second Avenue Subway a good chance of using the Chrystie Street Connection, and the Manhattan Bridge making it a better concept.

 

3. That 63rd Street Tunnel link is already planned by the as it can be seen on the planned track maps. I didn't say it would be in service. My map just shows future connections already planned by the except for the Manhattan Bridge connection which is fantasy.

 

I am looking at all the track maps. It looks like during the construction of the connection at Chrystie Street the neglected to think about the future problems on the Culver Line resulting in the situation we see now. Too bad you can never alter what happened in the past. It would have been better if the problems were checked before construction. It's now pretty difficult.........

 

Utilizing the Culver Express is sort of pointless since the journey from CI isn't terrible at all, and the Fort Hamilton line is as good as dead. If there were a southern extension of Culver in the works and a lot of people were riding from the CI end, then there would be a justification for Culver Express. At this point in time, it ranks among the things that were probably useful at one point but have outlived their purpose in this day and age (such as the Bankers Specials)

 

 

Sorry to kill all of your hopes about making Grand Street an double island platform station but one of the main reasons it was decided to go with a double level station is because the island platforms would be extremely narrow as the street itself is very narrow. The side opposite the park would require an extensive EIS into whether underpinning of the above buildings would be needed if the line could be built out that close to the basements of those properties or if acquisition of the above properties across from the park would be required.

 

Grand Street is a typical close to surface station. TBM could not be used in this instance for a 4 track across build.

 

The platforms would be narrow enough to cause a crowd flow problem as well as complicate ADA access from the platform itself possibly leading to a repeat of Atlantic Av. Cost and logistics is why the deep Chrystie option was chosen. 

 

This keeps being brought up because Wikipedia states that the current wall at Grand is a false wall. NYCSubway is not too sure about it, and unlike Lex-63rd (which I also used on a daily basis), there is no indication that Grand St has a false wall. In any case, ADA retrofit would be an issue (and should Phase IV be built, they should overhaul the Grand St complex and build a Grand/Bowery exit; as of right now, only one out of the four or five exits is heavily used, but it's used to the point where it might actually be dangerous if it gets more crowded)

[AndrewJC]

This keeps being brought up because Wikipedia states that the current wall at Grand is a false wall. NYCSubway is not too sure about it, and unlike Lex-63rd (which I also used on a daily basis), there is no indication that Grand St has a false wall. In any case, ADA retrofit would be an issue (and should Phase IV be built, they should overhaul the Grand St complex and build a Grand/Bowery exit; as of right now, only one out of the four or five exits is heavily used, but it's used to the point where it might actually be dangerous if it gets more crowded)

 

63rd/Lex was built as a four-track station from day one. A wall blocked off the pair of tracks that led nowhere, but the tracks were there from the start.

 

Grand Street, on the other hand, was never anything more than a two-track station.

[realizm]

63rd/Lex was built as a four-track station from day one. A wall blocked off the pair of tracks that led nowhere, but the tracks were there from the start. Grand Street, on the other hand, was never anything more than a two-track station.

 

What I'm wondering then is where the rumors start with this provision of overengineering on Grand? I always questioned the validity of it in itself. Maybe it was planned but not so sure if it was actually built for 100% sure.

[Roadcruiser1]

I found this plan from NYC Subway's website. In detail it explains the plan for the existing Grand Street Station. It does prove that Grand Street was designed to be have four tracks, and two island platforms. It explains in detail how the current Grand Street Station would be widened so it would go underneath the park. Remember this was in the 1970's when A.D.A. laws didn't exist so this was cheap and feasible....

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway:_Route_132-C_Phase_I_Report

Sara D. Roosevelt Park: Special consideration was given to the alignment of Route 132-C along Sara D. Roosevelt Park on the east side of Chrystie Street from Canal Street to East Houston Street. Because of the very heavy passenger transfer movement expected (approximately 13,000 passengers transferring during the peak hours) between the "B" and "D" services and the Second Avenue line at Grand Street Station, it is desirable to provide for a single level, across-the-platform type of passenger transfer movement in the existing Grand Street Station. This will necessitate spreading the tracks of Route 132-C to straddle the existing transit tunnel and widening the existing platforms of the Grand Street Station. The east wall of the existing stations is within one foot of the west boundary of the park. Because of the limited roadway width of Chrystie Street with no sidewalk on the east side, encroachment into Sara D. Roosevelt Park will be required from approximately Hester Street to Stanton Street for the construction of the new northbound track structure of Route 132-C..

Edited December 16, 2013 by Roadcruiser1

[Art Vandelay]

Grand street certainly has false walls along the platform. Very few stations don't. However, I am pretty sure that less than one foot behind that false wall, you'll find a solid wall.  

Ease of ADA compliance would actually be something supporting putting in island platforms. much easier to make a simple 4 track 2 island platform ADA compliant than a 2 level 4 track 2 side, 1 island platform station.