Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[P3F]

@roadcruiser1's proposal:

 

Moving the from Brighton Exp to Culver Exp would shove all of the riders on the and that is not something you want to do. The and are both crowded in the morning, especially the because it's an express and many local riders transfer to it.

 

TL;DR, the Brighton Line needs its express.

[Roadcruiser1]

@roadcruiser1's proposal:

 

Moving the from Brighton Exp to Culver Exp would shove all of the riders on the and that is not something you want to do. The and are both crowded in the morning, especially the because it's an express and many local riders transfer to it.

 

TL;DR, the Brighton Line needs its express.

 

That's why I planned to send the down there, but forget it now due to the fact it won't work.........

[AndrewJC]

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.

 

Grand Street was intended to be potentially converted in the future to a four-track station. But it wasn't built as one. There are no tracks or trackways behind the walls.

[realizm]

Thanks for the clarification on this with the posts. Answers my questions sufficiently.

[RTOPRO]

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

Now when the 63rd St connection was being built, getting the 6th & 7th Avenue connections done was a huge fight and the reason was because it involved cut and cover in that section of the park. Now the 70s was even worse for these types of fights and yes Grand St was built for the potential future expansion of the station but the builders didn't envision any hurdles digging through the park or on the other side under buildings, but there is a reason subway lines are built to run under streets and not under real estate. Subway vibrations are a big issue when it comes to infrastructure stability.

[CenSin]

Now when the 63rd St connection was being built, getting the 6th & 7th Avenue connections done was a huge fight and the reason was because it involved cut and cover in that section of the park. Now the 70s was even worse for these types of fights and yes Grand St was built for the potential future expansion of the station but the builders didn't envision any hurdles digging through the park or on the other side under buildings, but there is a reason subway lines are built to run under streets and not under real estate. Subway vibrations are a big issue when it comes to infrastructure stability.

All of the new deep-bore tunnels, however, seem not to have this problem. Maybe there's a certain depth at which this becomes not a problem, or real estate rights are superceded by city/state/federal rights. The extension's curves go right under private property.

[bobtehpanda]

All of the new deep-bore tunnels, however, seem not to have this problem. Maybe there's a certain depth at which this becomes not a problem, or real estate rights are superceded by city/state/federal rights. The extension's curves go right under private property.

 

Real estate in this country separates property and land rights (which is why different people will own the land and the mining rights for said land), if I recall.

 

This isn't really an issue with the current extensions; in the areas with deep-bore, the bedrock is very close to the surface, and the foundations only need to reach bedrock to support buildings. The current skyline of Manhattan coincides with the depth of bedrock in Manhattan; Midtown and the Financial District are the places with the shallowest bedrock.

[RTOPRO]

All of the new deep-bore tunnels, however, seem not to have this problem. Maybe there's a certain depth at which this becomes not a problem, or real estate rights are superceded by city/state/federal rights. The extension's curves go right under private property.

But the point that is missed with this is exactly why the current Grand Street station cannot be used in connecting track to the SAS with two island platforms.

[Roadcruiser1]

Here is what the has to say about it. http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/final_summary_report.pdf!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

• Water Street Alignment (Grand Street Station Configuration): Several options were 

examined to minimize environmental impacts during construction to the existing Sara 

Delano Roosevelt Park and the surrounding neighborhood. Of the four Grand Street station 

options examined, the leading option locates the Second Avenue station below the existing 

Grand Street station. This option would tend to limit impacts on Sara Delano Roosevelt 

Park and would maintain a consistent Second Avenue Subway station design with island 

platforms.

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by Roadcruiser1

[bobtehpanda]

 

Here is what the has to say about it. http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/final_summary_report.pdf!!!!!!!!!!

 

...which confirms everything we've said so far. The station is being built below the existing platforms so that there is room for island platforms, which would prevent any sort of reasonable connection to the bridge.

[Eric B]

Wow, they actually considered tying the upper Lexington into the 63rd St. line (right near where SAS ties in). Never heard of that one before.

[CenSin]

Wow, they actually considered tying the upper Lexington into the 63rd St. line (right near where SAS ties in). Never heard of that one before.

It's under 2C on page 7 in the report (http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/final_summary_report.pdf) if anyone else is wondering where that was found.

[Eric B]

That's where I saw it in the link above.

[RTOPRO]

It's from "long list of alternatives".  When performing such studies they have to throw in even the most ridiculous ideas no matter the cost just to say that it was considered. That being said we know such a thing would never before we all would end up dead. And we also know they honestly didn't seriously consider it.

[realizm]

There's even a Second Ave Elevated build option on those pages of the document? I loled hard at that one reading it in the summary report.

[Union Tpke]

Table 3: Long List of Alternatives

Alternative

Description

1. Rapid Transit Alternatives under Second Avenue

1A. Original Full 1974 Alignment of the Second Avenue Subway

New full-length subway beneath Second Avenue, extending from the Bronx to Lower Manhattan. This subway would cross the Harlem River from the Bronx to Manhattan, and then travel under Second Avenue and then Chrystie Street ending beneath Water Street in Lower Manhattan.

1B. Second Avenue Subway North

New subway beneath Second Avenue from Upper Manhattan to Midtown.

1C. Second Avenue Subway South

New subway beneath Second Avenue from Midtown to Lower Manhattan.

1D. Second Avenue Subway Eastward Alignment

New full-length subway beneath Second Avenue, extending from the Bronx to Lower Manhattan. This alignment would be the same as the original alignment (1A, above), except that it would bend eastward to travel along East 10th Street, Avenue B, and East Broadway, so that it would serve the Lower East Side.

1E. Second Avenue Subway with Southbound Connection to/from GCT

Connection from Grand Central Terminal to Lower Manhattan, either as a subway or direct commuter rail link.

1F. Second Avenue Subway with 43rd Street Inter-line Connection

New full-length Second Avenue Subway with connection across 42nd Street to the Broadway line.

1G. Second Avenue Subway with 43rd Street New Jersey Connection

New full-length Second Avenue Subway with a connection to an east-west subway along 43rd Street.

2. Lexington Avenue Subway Service Improvements

2A. Signal Improvements

Signal improvements along the existing Lexington Avenue subway line, to increase capacity by allowing more trains per hour.

2B. Platform Extensions

Platform extensions at existing Lexington Avenue line stations, to allow use of 12-car trains rather than the existing 10-car trains. This would increase the capacity of the system by up to 20 percent.

2C. Segmented Connections to Other Subway Lines

Connection of the northern half of the Lexington Avenue line (either local or express tracks) with the Broadway line through a new tunnel connection to the 63rd Street tunnel at Lexington Avenue. The Lexington Avenue line north of 63rd Street would also be converted to “B” Division service. (“B” Division trains, which run on the Broadway line, are larger than the “A” Division trains that run on the Lexington Avenue line.) Service on the Lexington Avenue line south of 59th Street would remain in the “A” Division configuration and would terminate near 59th Street. This alternative was intended to increase capacity on the Lexington Avenue line by increasing train size and adding the Broadway line tracks.

2D. Local Service Extension

An extension of the Lexington Avenue subway local service to Lower Manhattan.

2E. Skip-Stop Operation

Skip-stop operation on the Lexington Avenue line to increase throughput.

3. New Metro-North Railroad Stations in the Bronx and Upper Manhattan

4. Bus Alternatives

4A. Bus Service on Dedicated Avenue

Dedication of either First or Second Avenue to two-way bus service with other traffic limited to local deliveries. This would allow increased bus speed and reduced travel time.

4B. Bus Service on Paired Avenues

Provision of two primary dedicated bus lanes each on First and Second Avenues.

4C. Trolley Bus on Dedicated Busway

Provision of dedicated lanes for trolley buses in either of the configurations described for 4A and 4B.

4D. FDR Drive Busway

Provision of a dedicated lane for buses and high-occupancy vehicles on the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) Drive.

Summary Report 7 10/11/2001

Second Avenue Subway Summary Report

MTA NYCT

Table 3: Long List of Alternatives

Alternative

Description

5. Light Rail Transit Alternatives

5A. Light Rail Service on Dedicated Avenue

New light rail transit (LRT) service on an avenue dedicated to its two-way service, extending from 125th Street to South Ferry in Lower Manhattan.

5B. Light Rail Service on Paired Avenues

New LRT service in dedicated lanes on both First and Second Avenues, extending from 125th Street to South Ferry in Lower Manhattan.

6. Private Franchised Jitney Service

7. Ferry Service on East River with Shuttle Bus Service

8. New East River Stops on Existing East-West Subway Service

New subway stations on three existing east-west subway lines: at First Avenue and 63rd Street on the Q route; at First Avenue and 59th Street on the Broadway line; First Avenue at 42nd Street on the 7 route; and Avenue C at 14th Street on the L route.

9. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Improvements

Alternative that meets goals and objectives of study to the extent feasible at relatively low cost. This alternative was a requirement for FTA alternatives analyses. Not yet defined when the long list of alternatives was developed; to be composed of elements identified during the development and screening of the long list of alternatives.

10. CombinationAlternative

Not yet defined when the long list was developed; to be created from alternatives that could not stand alone to meet project goals.

11. Elevated Transit

Elevated transit along Second or First Avenues.

12. No Action Alternative

All transportation facilities and services that will exist in 2020 without implementation of any improvements as a result of the MESA Study. This alternative was a requirement for the FTA alternatives analyses and NEPA.

[Lance]

There's even a Second Ave Elevated build option on those pages of the document? I loled hard at that one reading it in the summary report.

Was that portion ghost-written by Wallyhorse?

 

Don't take that too seriously.

[realizm]

Was that portion ghost-written by Wallyhorse?

 

Don't take that too seriously.

LOL

[CenSin]

Was that portion ghost-written by Wallyhorse?

 

Don't take that too seriously.

I doubt it. It leaves out several crucial ideas which have been the hallmark of his works. (Check post history to see what I mean.)

Edited December 23, 2013 by CenSin

[Wallyhorse]

Was that portion ghost-written by Wallyhorse?

 

Don't take that too seriously.

 

Sorry, can't take credit for that one!

[Xzylem]

I think that the   train should go on Second Avenue with the   . The   Starting from Seneca Avenue, then going up onto Queens Blvd Line, onto Second Avenue, then Fulton, and terminating at Lefferts Blvd. This will free up the    so it can go to Far Rockaway 24/7 and the    can go to Rockaway Park. I don't really care were the goes as long as there is Manhattan and Bronx service.

[RollOver]

I can assume that when 96th, 86th and 72nd Streets on this new corridor open (as well as the currently not-in-service tracks at Lexington Avenue/63rd Street), the southbound will slightly less frequently run 9 tph in the AM peak (and reverse northbound in the PM peak). The will most likely keep its current off-peak headway (10 minutes). The and trains also have that same exact peak and off-peak headway respectively (well, normally...). Though the negatives I see most likely, is that more and more trains would continue to be forced into Astoria since during the AM peak is when the northbound Broadway Line trains are slightly more frequent from Brooklyn (reverse goes true for southbound in the PM peak). With all trains being rerouted up via 63rd/Lex and SAS, I believe that the rush hour congestion at the Herald Square and 60th Street Tube bottlenecks will be more horrific like it is now. Some peak and trains can no longer terminate at 57th Street-7th Avenue and also with the in the way.

Edited February 16, 2014 by RollOverMyHead

[bobtehpanda]

I can assume that when 96th, 86th and 72nd Streets on this new corridor open (as well as the currently not-in-service tracks at Lexington Avenue/63rd Street), the southbound will slightly less frequently run 9 tph in the AM peak (and reverse northbound in the PM peak). The will most likely keep its current off-peak headway (10 minutes). The and trains also have that same exact peak and off-peak headway respectively (well, normally...). Though the negatives I see most likely, is that more and more trains would continue to be forced into Astoria since during the AM peak is when the northbound Broadway Line trains are slightly more frequent from Brooklyn (reverse goes true for southbound in the PM peak). With all trains being rerouted up via 63rd/Lex and SAS, I believe that the rush hour congestion at the Herald Square and 60th Street Tube bottlenecks will be more horrific like it is now. Some peak and trains can no longer terminate at 57th Street-7th Avenue and also with the in the way.

Will it really be an issue? As far as I know, the BMT express tracks lead directly to 63rd St, so you might actually end up decongesting that area.

[cl94]

I can assume that when 96th, 86th and 72nd Streets on this new corridor open (as well as the currently not-in-service tracks at Lexington Avenue/63rd Street), the southbound will slightly less frequently run 9 tph in the AM peak (and reverse northbound in the PM peak). The will most likely keep its current off-peak headway (10 minutes). The and trains also have that same exact peak and off-peak headway respectively (well, normally...). Though the negatives I see most likely, is that more and more trains would continue to be forced into Astoria since during the AM peak is when the northbound Broadway Line trains are slightly more frequent from Brooklyn (reverse goes true for southbound in the PM peak). With all trains being rerouted up via 63rd/Lex and SAS, I believe that the rush hour congestion at the Herald Square and 60th Street Tube bottlenecks will be more horrific like it is now. Some peak and trains can no longer terminate at 57th Street-7th Avenue and also with the in the way.

 

 

Will it really be an issue? As far as I know, the BMT express tracks lead directly to 63rd St, so you might actually end up decongesting that area.

 

I can't believe they'd have the stop at 49th because the 63rd Street tracks are accessible only from the express tracks (unlike the 60th Street tracks, which are accessible from both). The would have to switch over at Herald Square and switch back south of 57th. No reason. It only creates a bottleneck. It makes a tiny bit of sense now because the already takes the tunnel. If Astoria becomes an issue, short-turn at QBP or install a couple switches south of Astoria Boulevard so trains can turn there.

[RollOver]

Wait. If I have this down correctly, the 96th/2nd terminal can handle 9 tph at least, because that's what the peak will continue to do. I do understand that they can't cut service when it comes to ridership and how complex the B Division is. As for the and , the combined headway in Astoria will most likely continue running 12-15 tph.

 

Agreed that some peak trains should terminate at QBP since Astoria cannot handle more than 12 tph. Right? Take a look at the delays between 30th Avenue and Ditmars Blvd northbound in the AM peak.

Edited February 17, 2014 by RollOverMyHead