Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[realizm]

So explain how the local tracks on Broadway can handle three local services at once?  Why make the W express in Manhattan? The N serves three boroughs the W does not. Wouldnt it make more sense then to restore service to the way it was, pre 2010 Doomsday cuts?

 

Remember that the N express was slashed because of budget cuts not necessarily because of lack of passenger demand. 

Edited August 14, 2014 by realizm

[Armandito]

So explain how the local tracks on Broadway can handle three local services at once? Why make the W express in Manhattan? The N serves three boroughs the W does not. Wouldnt it make more sense then to restore service to pre 2010 Doomsday cuts service?

It wouldn't make sense because running the as an express on weekdays and as a local on weekends would be too inconsistent, and having the run local at all times would mean a more uniform service pattern for customers. Edited August 14, 2014 by lara8710

[RollOver]

No.

 

Realizm is right. Why would you have both the and crossing at Prince Street to get to their respective track for? You'd be backing up all other trains behind in both directions. Either you restore the pre 2010 service patterns or leave the Broadway Line alone.

 

The is not going to be an express in Manhattan. If it's going straight down to Lower Manhattan, then it stays on the local track all the way there.

 

Point blank.

Edited August 14, 2014 by RollOver

[Armandito]

Nevertheless, the will still have to cross to the express tracks at Prince St to access the Manhattan Bridge should it run local on weekends. In that case, I would suggest running the as an express in Manhattan at all times except late nights and the as a local to Whitehall St during those times, with rush hour trains extending to Bay Pkwy. Late nights the and would run as locals in Manhattan via Whitehall St and the Manhattan Bridge, respectively. The and would not run during late nights (late night trains will operate as a shuttle between 95 St and 36 St/4 Av).

Edited August 14, 2014 by lara8710

[RollOver]

That's what they did before the got cut, but there's simply no reason why the shouldn't run local during weekends though. The alone cannot handle the crowds. Most Bay Ridge residents will prefer to take the express first and then get the at the last transfer point at 59th-4th.

[Armandito]

Again, my plan is to run the between Astoria and Whitehall St at all times except late nights. So there you go, the local stops will be served by both trains on weekends so the can run express at those times.

Edited August 14, 2014 by lara8710

[RollOver]

No.

 

Because GOs and/or flagging affect damn near every line in the system, even the ones that aren't even a full suspension. So that means on weekends, there's no need for the to Brooklyn, the weekday-only and , as well as the on 6th Avenue/Queens Blvd.

[realizm]

Nevertheless, the will still have to cross to the express tracks at Prince St to access the Manhattan Bridge should it run local on weekends. In that case, I would suggest running the as an express in Manhattan at all times except late nights and the as a local to Whitehall St during those times, with rush hour trains extending to Bay Pkwy. Late nights the and would run as locals in Manhattan via Whitehall St and the Manhattan Bridge, respectively. The and would not run during late nights (late night trains will operate as a shuttle between 95 St and 36 St/4 Av).

Hes talking about the track configuration at Canal and Prince St. It will not have to be as necessarily used to create a congestion point as it is now. Better to keep N trains aligned with its path with the Manhattan Bridge by running on the express tracks with the Q. All trains stopping by from the tunnel, or beginning from Whitehall Street, let it stay on the local tracks. That way those set of switches can function the way it was originally designed to work as - a BMT flying junction.

Edited August 14, 2014 by realizm

[Armandito]

No.

 

Because GOs and/or flagging affect damn near every line in the system, even the ones that aren't even a full suspension. So that means on weekends, there's no need for the to Brooklyn, the weekday-only and , as well as the on 6th Avenue/Queens Blvd.

What are GOs? What does flagging mean in subway operations?

[RollOver]

GO = General Order, construction work requires constant weekend/night suspensions. FASTRACK also features the same thing.

 

And trains run at slower speeds through the flagging areas to accommodate the track/signal maintenance workers there.

[realizm]

What are GOs? What does flagging mean in subway operations?

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Subway_FAQ:_Subway_Terminology_Glossary

[Armandito]

Nevertheless, the will still have to cross to the express tracks at Prince St to access the Manhattan Bridge should it run local on weekends. In that case, I would suggest running the as an express in Manhattan at all times except late nights and the as a local to Whitehall St during those times, with rush hour trains extending to Bay Pkwy. Late nights the and would run as locals in Manhattan via Whitehall St and the Manhattan Bridge, respectively. The and would not run during late nights (late night trains will operate as a shuttle between 95 St and 36 St/4 Av).

This service model is like the IND Queens Blvd Line, where local trains terminate at Forest Hills to access the yard and express trains continue to Jamaica. Edited August 14, 2014 by lara8710

[realizm]

This service model is just like the IND Queens Blvd Line, where local trains terminate at Forest Hills to access the Jamaica Yard and express trains continue to Jamaica

 

 

Yeah but you are suggesting making the W express only on off peak hours which still can create problems with the switches at Prince Street as RollOver was explaining. Late nights it wouldn't matter as the W will run as a weekday only service. Point is to end a train from Whitehall express you have to dispatch the train across those switches which creates delays as it does now. Wont work in an ideal situation with the Q to 96th Street/Lower East Side. The N should run as an express and the W remain as a local along with the R for these reasons.

Edited August 14, 2014 by realizm

[Lance]

The W will never be the Broadway Express unless it's brought back in its 2001-04 setup. Otherwise it would just delay the entire line for no real reason because it would have to switch between the local and express tracks twice; once at 34 St and the other at Prince St. While I also don't think the N should return as the Broadway express when Second Ave opens, I understand why it has to be express. There simply isn't enough room for the N, R and W as locals along Broadway. They'd all fit, but it'd be a tight squeeze.

[realizm]

The W will never be the Broadway Express unless it's brought back in its 2001-04 setup. Otherwise it would just delay the entire line for no real reason because it would have to switch between the local and express tracks twice; once at 34 St and the other at Prince St. While I also don't think the N should return as the Broadway express when Second Ave opens, I understand why it has to be express. There simply isn't enough room for the N, R and W as locals along Broadway. They'd all fit, but it'd be a tight squeeze.

 

Exactly.

[Armandito]

Does it work running the and express in Manhattan at all times except late nights?

[realizm]

It sure did prior to the 2010 doomsday cuts....

[T to Dyre Avenue]

 

Regarding Second Ave via Nassau St, I still think it should at least be considered. If anything, it'll make Nassau St actually useful for the first time in a very long time. It gives the line a link to midtown and points north without having to transfer to another line. It's the reason why the M is so damn popular. The added transfers the Second Ave line would gain through a Nassau St connection is simply a bonus in my opinion.

 

 

 

Because the environmental impact will be too much as that option will necessitate cut and cover method of construction in the middle of the heart of Manhattan. Relocation of utility lines also may create more problems for a Nassau St connection. So for these reasons the MTA are planning to go along with Phase 3 and 4 using TBMs. Much of the provisions already in place from 1968 on the Lower East Side and Chinatown will not be used.

I have to agree with Lance. They really should re-consider the Nassau alignment. Maybe connect the to the in a different place than what was looked at in the original alternatives study. Making the connection between Bowery and Essex would be disruptive with all the subway tunnels and utilities crossing in that area, so if that's what they looked at, then I can see the reason for going with Water St, transfers and dodging other subway tunnels be damned. But maybe the tie-in can be made in a different place - perhaps between Chambers and Canal, with the turning off Centre St east onto Worth, then turning north at Chatham Sq to go up Chrystie St and 2nd Ave. You'd still get the transfer to the and at Grand (the "deep Chrystie" option, which the MTA selected anyway), plus all the transfers the Nassau Line has. Yes, utilities would have to be relocated, but that's going to happen no matter where the line goes. Perhaps not to the same extent if the goes via Water, but utility relocation or "shoring up" will still have to be done. And of course, you still have to go over or under the Cranberry St and Clark St tunnels to get to Hanover Sq.

 

I absolutely disagree with bringing the train back to an express in Manhattan. It should remain as is: a local in Queens and Manhattan via the Manhattan Bridge and express in Brooklyn along 4 Av bypassing DeKalb Av. Once the is rerouted to 2 Av, the should be reborn to be an express in Manhattan, running between Astoria and Whitehall St on weekdays and extending via the Montague St tunnel to Bay Pkwy during rush hours, making all local stops in Brooklyn. That way, you get more consistent and uniform service on the Broadway Line for various times of the day.

 

My service plan is as follows:

Broadway Local between Astoria and Coney Island (as it runs today)

Broadway Express between 96 St/2 Av and Coney Island (local on 2 Av, express on Broadway and local in Brooklyn via Manhattan Bridge, skipping 49 St)

Broadway Local between Forest Hills and 95 St/4 Av (as it runs today)

Broadway Express between Astoria and Whitehall St, extending to Bay Pkwy/86 St via the Montague St tunnel and making all stops in Brooklyn during rush hours, and stopping at 49 St

You'd have and trains crossing in front of each other between Prince and Canal, delaying not just each other, but also and trains. And still three services stopping at 49th St, because you have the stopping there, so it would have to switch to the local tracks after 34th. The Broadway Line would experience complete pandemonium. And for what, so there can be "consistency" as to what train is the local? Sorry, it's not worth doing, especially considering they did "weekday local / weekend local " from 2004 to 2010 and with very few complaints, if any. If it would really be too confusing to run the local on weekends, then run more trains on the weekends. Would that really be so hard to do?

Edited August 15, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Wallyhorse]

I have to agree with Lance. They really should re-consider the Nassau alignment. Maybe connect the to the in a different place than what was looked at in the original alternatives study. Making the connection between Bowery and Essex would be disruptive with all the subway tunnels and utilities crossing in that area, so if that's what they looked at, then I can see the reason for going with Water St, transfers and dodging other subway tunnels be damned. But maybe the tie-in can be made in a different place - perhaps between Chambers and Canal, with the turning off Centre St east onto Worth, then turning north at Chatham Sq to go up Chrystie St and 2nd Ave. You'd still get the transfer to the and at Grand (the "deep Chrystie" option, which the MTA selected anyway), plus all the transfers the Nassau Line has. Yes, utilities would have to be relocated, but that's going to happen no matter where the line goes. Perhaps not to the same extent if the goes via Water, but utility relocation or "shoring up" will still have to be done. And of course, you still have to go over or under the Cranberry St and Clark St tunnels to get to Hanover Sq.

My original thinking on this was to after Houston Street have the go to the Canal Street station and join the Nassau Street line (that would become the south Manhattan portion of the SAS) there.  That might be the way to do it, though you'd still have to open up the currently abandoned portions of the Canal Street and Bowery Stations since the likely scenario would have the on the "express" track at those stations (and Chambers if it terminated there) while the would come in on the "local" tracks at Canal and remain on the local at Chambers and continuing to Fulton, Broad and then the Montauge Tunnel to Brooklyn. 

 

Perhaps such a route could be reconfigured to where the goes directly from Houston/2nd Avenue to Canal/Centre Street without the Grand Street stop since people on the looking for the Manny B would be able to transfer to the and at Canal Street.

[CenSin]

I have to agree with Lance. They really should re-consider the Nassau alignment. Maybe connect the to the in a different place than what was looked at in the original alternatives study. Making the connection between Bowery and Essex would be disruptive with all the subway tunnels and utilities crossing in that area

There's a tunnel just south of Canal Street that turns towards the Manhattan Bridge. Part of that tunnel could be reused to bring the Second Avenue Subway over to Chambers Street. This would, of course, also mean that the entire Nassau Street line from Essex Street to Chambers Street would have to be reconfigured with Jamaica service running along the center pair of tracks. At the moment, the eastern platform at Canal Street is inaccessible due to the sealing of the stairways. Work would be required at the Canal Street complex to reactivate the eastern platform.

[CenSin]

I have to agree with Lance. They really should re-consider the Nassau alignment. Maybe connect the to the in a different place than what was looked at in the original alternatives study. Making the connection between Bowery and Essex would be disruptive with all the subway tunnels and utilities crossing in that area

There's a tunnel just south of Canal Street that turns towards the Manhattan Bridge. Part of that tunnel could be reused to bring the Second Avenue Subway over to Chambers Street. This would, of course, also mean that the entire Nassau Street line from Essex Street to Chambers Street would have to be reconfigured with Jamaica service running along the center pair of tracks. At the moment, the eastern platform at Canal Street is inaccessible due to the sealing of the stairways. Work would be required at the Canal Street complex to reactivate the eastern platform.

 

EDIT: Please delete this doubled post. There were probably networking problems.

Edited August 16, 2014 by CenSin

[RollOver]

If it would really be too confusing to run the local on weekends, then run more trains on the weekends. Would that really be so hard to do?

 

You know...I don't see how running more trains for 49th, 23rd, 28th, 8th and Prince (including City Hall, Cortlant, Rector and Whitehall) is so preferable to just simply restoring the weekday-only and running the local north of Canal on weekends...seems more like a colossal waste of money if you ask me, similar to running more trains on the entire or routes for Astoria and/or the Broadway local stops mentioned...that's like running more midday and trains on their entire routes just so the  won't go to Brooklyn at that time...and for what reason really...

Edited August 16, 2014 by RollOver

[bobtehpanda]

I have to agree with Lance. They really should re-consider the Nassau alignment. Maybe connect the to the in a different place than what was looked at in the original alternatives study. Making the connection between Bowery and Essex would be disruptive with all the subway tunnels and utilities crossing in that area, so if that's what they looked at, then I can see the reason for going with Water St, transfers and dodging other subway tunnels be damned. But maybe the tie-in can be made in a different place - perhaps between Chambers and Canal, with the turning off Centre St east onto Worth, then turning north at Chatham Sq to go up Chrystie St and 2nd Ave. You'd still get the transfer to the and at Grand (the "deep Chrystie" option, which the MTA selected anyway), plus all the transfers the Nassau Line has. Yes, utilities would have to be relocated, but that's going to happen no matter where the line goes. Perhaps not to the same extent if the goes via Water, but utility relocation or "shoring up" will still have to be done. And of course, you still have to go over or under the Cranberry St and Clark St tunnels to get to Hanover Sq.

 

Isn't Worth and Center Federal Plaza, with all the historic courthouses and federal buildings (not to mention the old site of the colonial Collect Pond, so the geology is probably not ideal for a cut-and-cover flying junction)? The Feds and City Hall have quashed transportation plans over less worrying and disruptive security concerns. In fact, using Worth and Centre was part of the reason why the Light Rail alternative was junked. Tying into the Nassau Line completely negates the benefits of Deep Chrystie, which would be to avoid excessive underpinning of historic, antiquated structures and disruption of service.

 

The Phase IV tunnels would be well below the existing tunnels in the bedrock (which would be good anyways, since the surface downtown is a widely varying mixture of schist and soil), which would also allow the extension of a tunnel southwards under the river, since the tunnels themselves are already so deep. This document shows the construction profiles of Deep Chrystie.

Edited August 16, 2014 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

This document shows the construction profiles of Deep Chrystie.

With Lenox Avenue being a stone's throw away from the end of the phase 2 tunnel, it looks crazier that the MTA did not even plan a crosstown extension for phase 5 or something. The tunnels end just half a block away from Lenox Avenue in the diagram. But then, they would have to extend the tail tracks to Fredrick Douglas Boulevard, and the community would demand another station at Saint Nicholas Avenue … and then Broadway.

[realizm]

With Lenox Avenue being a stone's throw away from the end of the phase 2 tunnel, it looks crazier that the MTA did not even plan a crosstown extension for phase 5 or something. The tunnels end just half a block away from Lenox Avenue in the diagram. But then, they would have to extend the tail tracks to Fredrick Douglas Boulevard, and the community would demand another station at Saint Nicholas Avenue … and then Broadway.

 

The findings from the pending FEIS update to be conducted for phase 2 may reveal more on the possible new Bronx line. From when the MTA procures funding to get the study started it may take up to five years. Maybe we may even get an answer even sooner.

 

The only hints we have leads to a dead MNRR acquisition proposal from 1968 which we know is not possible today. 

Edited August 16, 2014 by realizm