Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Wallyhorse]

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 best thing for Phase 2 might be to build a portal at the end of the existing portion of the tunnel that will be used for it and have the last part be elevated (and if necessary, high enough to go OVER the MNRR tracks at Park Avenue) with the line at least initially ending at 125th and Lexington-Park Avenue with the provision to go all the way across.  That would be cheaper and would eliminate any potential problems with 125th Street being a fault line, especially if such eventually went all the way across to effectively have the SAS double as a 125th Street crosstown.

 

And as for extending Phase 2 all the way across 125th Street, whether elevated or tunnel that may need to be done anyway with Columbia's expansion likely to be complete by the time such would happen.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The best thing for Phase 2 might be to build a portal at the end of the existing portion of the tunnel that will be used for it and have the last part be elevated (and if necessary, high enough to go OVER the MNRR tracks at Park Avenue) with the line at least initially ending at 125th and Lexington-Park Avenue with the provision to go all the way across.  That would be cheaper and would eliminate any potential problems with 125th Street being a fault line, especially if such eventually went all the way across to effectively have the SAS double as a 125th Street crosstown.

 

And as for extending Phase 2 all the way across 125th Street, whether elevated or tunnel that may need to be done anyway with Columbia's expansion likely to be complete by the time such would happen.

An elevated train over 125th St would require the taking of property in order to have convenient transfer facilities with the existing north-south subway lines. Property acquisition for such transfer facilities will not go over well with Harlem businesses, politiicans and various other people with a stake in this project, so that's a non-starter. And don't forget about the construction headaches they will have to face while such an el would be under construction or the uninviting shadow it will cast over 125th St once it's completed. An el over 125th St (a street that's not a very wide, divided roadway like a Pelham Parkway or Ocean Parkway) in this day and age is a non-starter, so forget about it, please!

Edited August 18, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

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.

 

It was considered as part of Eliot Sander's 40-Year plan, but that went out the door with him when he left.

[Wallyhorse]

An elevated train over 125th St would require the taking of property in order to have convenient transfer facilities with the existing north-south subway lines. Property acquisition for such transfer facilities will not go over well with Harlem businesses, politiicans and various other people with a stake in this project, so that's a non-starter. And don't forget about the construction headaches they will have to face while such an el would be under construction or the uninviting shadow it will cast over 125th St once it's completed. An el over 125th St (a street that's not a very wide, divided roadway like a Pelham Parkway or Ocean Parkway) in this day and age is a non-starter, so forget about it, please!

As said, whether elevated OR tunnel.  Either way, they may have to look at going across 125th Street, especially with Columbia's expansion.

 

Looking at 125 on Google Maps, I see the issues, however, this to me might also be one case where having an El may actually help, especially if such an el allows for an easy transfer between ALL of the subway lines that go across 125, which in turn would make 125 more attractive as a whole.

 

The issue there is would tunneling at 125th as planned affect the fault line there?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

No such el will offer an easy transfer to the existing subways without the taking and condemning of property. That's why it won't be an el. You can be sure of that.

[CenSin]

As said, whether elevated OR tunnel.  Either way, they may have to look at going across 125th Street, especially with Columbia's expansion.

You justify a line for all the wrong reasons. Some singular building, community, or other development popping up is not a reason for expensive subway expansion. Subway expansion is to cover deficiencies in service (such as the over-capacity Lexington Avenue line), reach new areas (such as the extension to 34 Street and 11 Avenue), or provide much needed transit options. In this case, a 125 Street crosstown extension would make travelling between the west side of Manhattan and the east side of the Bronx easier.

 

 

Looking at 125 on Google Maps, I see the issues, however, this to me might also be one case where having an El may actually help, especially if such an el allows for an easy transfer between ALL of the subway lines that go across 125, which in turn would make 125 more attractive as a whole.

How does making it an elevated "help" or make the street more "attractive?" You already know why they were taken down in the first place… As for "easy" transfer, why don't you try transferring from the West End to Sea Beach line at 62 Street and New Utrecht Avenue or the other way around. Getting from a below-ground line to an elevated is a lot of work.

 

 

The issue there is would tunneling at 125th as planned affect the fault line there?

There aren't many geologist and engineers around here, and neither you nor I are of either profession. Let's drop the "fault line" crap.

[Roadcruiser1]

I am more focused on the attention of finishing the Second Avenue Subway in the first place. Instead of just coming up with random ideas how about waiting till the Second Avenue Subway is complete first? Phase 3, and phase 4 hasn't even happened yet, and we are talking about expanding it already

[CenSin]

I am more focused on the attention of finishing the Second Avenue Subway in the first place. Instead of just coming up with random ideas how about waiting till the Second Avenue Subway is complete first? Phase 3, and phase 4 hasn't even happened yet, and we are talking about expanding it already

It's plausible that phase 2 can be completed in less than 2 decades. But between extending the line crosstown from there or starting on phase 3, the former is likelier than the latter, hence it's even more worthy of discussion than phase 3 or 4.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I sure hope they can complete Phase 2 in less than two decades. With roughly 16 blocks of unused subway tunnel already in place above 96th St, there's really no good reason that it can't be.

[Wallyhorse]

I sure hope they can complete Phase 2 in less than two decades. With roughly 16 blocks of unused subway tunnel already in place above 96th St, there's really no good reason that it can't be.

Right, and even more so if they did decide to make the final part elevated after the existing portion ends.

 

We are still a good 15 years or so off from that anyway.

 

Oh, and as for the fault line on 125th, I was not the one who first brought that up.  Forgot who did or where, but it has been brought up in a few places.

[CenSin]

Right, and even more so if they did decide to make the final part elevated after the existing portion ends.

Your obstinacy with this "elevation" thing is simply galvanizing.

[Wallyhorse]

Your obstinacy with this "elevation" thing is simply galvanizing.

It's more like some of us who have lived near els understand their importance and if it's the best way to do it, so be it. 

[bobtehpanda]

It's more like some of us who have lived near els understand their importance and if it's the best way to do it, so be it. 

 

Your concept of "best way to do it" seems to be 150 years behind the times, since modern countries do not build els in narrow rights of way adjacent to historic and new densely packed buildings anymore, particularly if these buildings weren't designed to deal with the amount of vibrations and noise from an elevated train line. (Japan kind of does, but when it comes to railways Japan is so strange compared to the rest of the world that it isn't useful as a guide, and the closeness of buildings to rail-rights of way in Japan has resulted in serious injury and property destruction when crashes do occur.)

Edited August 19, 2014 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

It's more like some of us who have lived near els understand their importance and if it's the best way to do it, so be it.

I live next to 4 elevated lines (1 of which becomes an open-cut immediately after leaving the neighborhood) all converged to one massive station. Using the station to get almost anywhere, I think I understand the importance of it as much as anyone. But I don't think they are important because they are elevated, and it probably goes for most people too. That's an important distinction! And it's obvious that most people would love if the existing elevated lines were replaced by subways.

 

We've also discussed the "best way" aspect. In fact, within the preceding 137 pages of discussion, I've found a bunch of things that seems to have been forgotten:

An elevated train over 125th St would require the taking of property in order to have convenient transfer facilities with the existing north-south subway lines. Property acquisition for such transfer facilities will not go over well with Harlem businesses, politiicans and various other people with a stake in this project, so that's a non-starter. And don't forget about the construction headaches they will have to face while such an el would be under construction or the uninviting shadow it will cast over 125th St once it's completed. An el over 125th St (a street that's not a very wide, divided roadway like a Pelham Parkway or Ocean Parkway) in this day and age is a non-starter, so forget about it, please!

You can forget about an elevated line being built pretty much anywhere nowadays, especially in such a dense area as East Harlem.

 

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.

 

Nothing equal about it. Elevateds get shut down a LOT more than subways. Especially in manhattan, it would cost more to build an elevated considering the amount of land you would have to take to build the portal.

And regardless of what anyone says, the NIMBY reaction would be not only universal but also wholly justified.

 

It's already been said that the fault is only applicable to the far west side. In fact, this was a response to a very comment you made about the same issue:I'm sure you've read the post before responding.

It appears that the only thing stopping the from being underground is the deep valley caused by the fault. The fault didn't really stop 3 other lines from being built underground, and according to the MTA's documents on the Second Avenue Subway's construction further north, it doesn't seem like it'll make a difference there either.

As for tunneling under 125 Street across, it's a gentle slant along the valley so it might be a non-issue. Here's a topographic map of the area:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.807954,-73.940728&spn=0.030696,0.066047&t=t&z=15

Here's some materials I referenced quickly:

• http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~mwest/scrap/NYseismicity.pdf
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparks1524/4842819292/

Okay, so the fault isn't an issue. I've had others (on other boards) mention that as a bigger issue than it actually seems to be about going across 125.

 

The real issue there is a matter of money. To me, Phase 2 at the very least gets done to 116th Street because the only part (besides the two stations between 96th and 116th) that has to be built is that between 105th and 110th streets since the rest was built 35-40 years ago. The part between 116th and 125th is really the only part of Phase 2 to me in question, and whether or not being able to go elevated north of 120th or so (where the existing part ends) to 125/Lex had much more to do with whether it was cheaper to go elevated and whether or not that would make the difference in getting the terminal done (with provisions for further expansion west at a later time) if it came down to that from a money standpoint.

 

[Wallyhorse]

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me.  If you can tunnel it across 125th without messing with the fault, then by all means do it.

As said, the other reason I bring up Els a lot is that I deal with people from other countries a lot more.  As said before, with many coming from other countries a lot more who are used to Els a lot more, I still think you will see less of a cry from NIMBYs and more people who want faster transportation.

[bobtehpanda]

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me.  If you can tunnel it across 125th without messing with the fault, then by all means do it.

 

As said, the other reason I bring up Els a lot is that I deal with people from other countries a lot more.  As said before, with many coming from other countries a lot more who are used to Els a lot more, I still think you will see less of a cry from NIMBYs and more people who want faster transportation.

 

Other countries build els in wide rights of way with ample medians, which is not something that is very common in New York (except for Queens Blvd, Woodhaven, Grand Concourse, and Ocean Pkwy, all roads which have parallel or underground rights-of-way in use or available). Certainly no street as narrow as 125th St would be considered for an El in a developing country today, let alone a modern one with clear property rights.

[Lance]

@Wallyhorse: You keep bringing up how other countries do this and that, as if it matters. Regardless of any real or perceived benefits of elevated lines over subways, you will not see any elevated lines built in New York City, especially not in Manhattan. You can take that to the bank.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It's more like some of us who have lived near els understand their importance and if it's the best way to do it, so be it. 

It's not the best way to do it in this case. Not with all the inconvenience it would cause to merchants, shoppers and people going out for a night on the town.

 

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me.  If you can tunnel it across 125th without messing with the fault, then by all means do it.

 

As said, the other reason I bring up Els a lot is that I deal with people from other countries a lot more.  As said before, with many coming from other countries a lot more who are used to Els a lot more, I still think you will see less of a cry from NIMBYs and more people who want faster transportation.

No, you won't. And how would you know if these people are used to els in their own countries? Not that it matters here (because it doesn't), but perhaps those els are built using different materials than ours are. And perhaps they don't run directly above city streets. That's definitely not an option in the middle of Harlem.

[NYtransit]

Would this be possible and logical to happen?
Seeing as if the current is currently doing and and alot of people like it, it looks like it will be staying that way.

As for the 4th avenue line, it looks like it needs some help during the rush hours that the old brown used to provide. Would it be logical to bring back the the same route it was but instead but also bring down to 4th avenue local and go through the west end to bay 50th street like the old ? I mean I think that would be the best option for it  since the will eventually be going to 2nd avenue

Edited September 1, 2014 by NYtransit

[RollOver]

It doesn't make sense to discontinue the new , because it took over the entire former route. The will only go to and from Brooklyn when it starts service and ends service, like before. Other than that, you're just going to run a flood of empty local trains on the entire West End/Sea Beach corridor for no reason. How many times do I have to say this? Alot more people from South Brooklyn work in Midtown Manhattan than Downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan. Why do you think the Montague Street Tube is the least crowded of all East River crossings? Why do you think the , , and are relatively more crowded entering from the bridge to Manhattan and the is much, much less crowded?

[RollOver]

BTW - while the will still be based out of CI, there aren't enough cars for a Brooklyn extension, until at least, when the R211 order comes in. Until then of course, we are all gonna have to put up with it.

[Eric B]

Would this be possible and logical to happen?

Seeing as if the current is currently doing and and alot of people like it, it looks like it will be staying that way.

As for the 4th avenue line, it looks like it needs some help during the rush hours that the old brown used to provide. Would it be logical to bring back the the same route it was but instead but also bring down to 4th avenue local and go through the west end to bay 50th street like the old ? I mean I think that would be the best option for it  since the will eventually be going to 2nd avenue

Possible. They will probably do a study to see it that would be desired.

 

I wonder, with two "mainline" routes on there for the first time ever, if express service would be feasible (i.e. local riders would not have accepted just the M, but the , which is basically what they had 2001-4, would be more acceptable).

[RollOver]

Looking at the loads of the old is enough proof that there will not be an extension of the and , like many here want. So what study would they do?

 

If there were to be an express service on the West End branch during rush hours with another BMT lettered line, it would lead to a merging delay at both 9 Av and 36 St-4 Av, with the regular and . Both of those two lines combined run 18 tph out of Brooklyn in the AM rush. North of DeKalb, the merges with the , and the merges with the , effectively increasing delays further up the line. DeKalb already has capacity constraints as it is.

 

There is no need for a West End Express, because it would end up like the Jerome Express did. The handles its rush hour West End Local crowds quite well. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I can recall a transit employee on this forum saying that it's very important to minimize all delays during rush hours when you're going to work in the CBDs. Going by that logic, why add throw the to the equation and add even more fuel to the fire?

[Wallyhorse]

Looking at the loads of the old is enough proof that there will not be an extension of the and , like many here want. So what study would they do?

 

If there were to be an express service on the West End branch during rush hours with another BMT lettered line, it would lead to a merging delay at both 9 Av and 36 St-4 Av, with the regular and . Both of those two lines combined run 18 tph out of Brooklyn in the AM rush. North of DeKalb, the merges with the , and the merges with the , effectively increasing delays further up the line. DeKalb already has capacity constraints as it is.

 

There is no need for a West End Express, because it would end up like the Jerome Express did. The handles its rush hour West End Local crowds quite well. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I can recall a transit employee on this forum saying that it's very important to minimize all delays during rush hours when you're going to work in the CBDs. Going by that logic, why add throw the to the equation and add even more fuel to the fire?

Right.

 

The best hope for anything like that would be 20 years from now they decide it is better to do the Nassau connection and have the go down Nassau to Bay Parkway after its SAS run (with the current Nassau Street line becoming the lower Manhattan trunk of the SAS).

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It doesn't make sense to discontinue the new M, because it took over the entire former V route. The W will only go to and from Brooklyn when it starts service and ends service, like before. Other than that, you're just going to run a flood of empty local trains on the entire West End/Sea Beach corridor for no reason. How many times do I have to say this? Alot more people from South Brooklyn work in Midtown Manhattan than Downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan. Why do you think the Montague Street Tube is the least crowded of all East River crossings? Why do you think the B, D, N and Q are relatively more crowded entering from the bridge to Manhattan and the R is much, much less crowded?

A lot more people from Southern Brooklyn do indeed work in Midtown Manhattan vs. Lower Manhattan/Downtown Brooklyn. Midtown is a much larger CBD. But that doesn't mean no one works downtown, nor does it mean that all they're entitled to is minimal service during rush hours. Complaints repeatedly surface that the on its current headways is not sufficient to handle rush hour 4th Avenue Local and Lower Broadway. Either more frequent service ought to be looked at or running a second service, like the or . It doesn't have to be for the whole am and/or pm rush hour period, but certainly during the "peak of the peak," more frequent service should be looked into.

 

Looking at the loads of the old is enough proof that there will not be an extension of the and , like many here want. So what study would they do?

 

If there were to be an express service on the West End branch during rush hours with another BMT lettered line, it would lead to a merging delay at both 9 Av and 36 St-4 Av, with the regular D and N. Both of those two lines combined run 18 tph out of Brooklyn in the AM rush. North of DeKalb, the D merges with the B, and the N merges with the Q, effectively increasing delays further up the line. DeKalb already has capacity constraints as it is.

 

There is no need for a West End Express, because it would end up like the 4 Jerome Express did. The D handles its rush hour West End Local crowds quite well. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I can recall a transit employee on this forum saying that it's very important to minimize all delays during rush hours when you're going to work in the CBDs. Going by that logic, why add throw the W to the equation and add even more fuel to the fire?

Agreed that there's no need for a West End Express or a third 4th Avenue express service. But there may very well be a need for additional service on the local, which has far less than 18 tph. Not that it needs that much, mind you, but quite possibly more than what currently runs there.

 

The old ( M ) ran for the entire rush hour period in its last few years of operation, and before that it also ran middays to 9th Ave. That kind of service is clearly not needed now. It wasn't really needed then, either. The loads will show that when you look at them overall. But you can't really do that because service levels can vary from hour to hour. It's been said that from 8 to 9 in the morning and from 5 to 6 in the evening, the old ( M ) did get a fair amount of service. Not Lexington or Queens Blvd Express crush loading, but it wasn't exactly a ghost town either. So have rush hour service that only runs during the busiest part of rush hours. For choice of routes a limited is better - roughly 6-8 trains per rush hour period on 10-minute headways. Start them at Broadway Junction before / skip-stop service starts (which also runs only about an hour during each rush hour period) and it won't conflict with skip-stop service. Or if it's determined that demand is greater for the western part of Lower Manhattan, run an extended during the same period, although there may not be enough cars for that until the R211 cars come online. For 6-8 extended runs, there ought to be enough R179 cars. I'd be very surprised if there won't be.

 

Right.

 

The best hope for anything like that would be 20 years from now they decide it is better to do the Nassau connection and have the T go down Nassau to Bay Parkway after its SAS run (with the current Nassau Street line becoming the lower Manhattan trunk of the SAS).

Well, at least you got this back on topic. That said, I don't agree, especially if Lower Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn see more residents and investment. Neither area is a ghost town now on weekdays. Plus, the West End Line won't need two full time services in the and lines and it would be wasteful to terminate the at 9th Ave during all non-rush hour times.