Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[MTA Dude]

Can't, you need something to host it. Unless you own a server, the moment you shut off the machine, the information wouldn't be accessible. Basically we would only be able to see anything you post while your PC is on and connected to the net.

 

 

Also, I don't get this issue about switches. I live near the Myrtle Ave el. And that has no switches between Myrtle and Metro. Train gets stuck, train gets stuck.

 

I guess it is so that 2nd Avenue people at least can get 72nd Avenue to Broadway, and have the cross platform transfer between the and .

[bobtehpanda]

I guess it is so that 2nd Avenue people at least can get 72nd Avenue to Broadway, and have the cross platform transfer between the and .

 

There used to be a three-platform design at 72 so that trains could short-turn if they ever decided to make it a thing. There was also a concern about capacity at 125, but 125 will have tail tracks so that's not really an issue.

[CenSin]

I guess it is so that 2nd Avenue people at least can get 72nd Avenue to Broadway, and have the cross platform transfer between the and .

That's actually a secondary purpose. The real purpose is to solve a common problem: when trains merge, one train stays behind while the other one goes ahead. Examples:

• I take the from Grand Street, but I really need the in Brooklyn. The and the are crossing the bridge simutaneously. But at the junction, the goes ahead first while the waits around 1 minute before the switches. Now I have to get off at 36 Street for the next that comes many minutes later.
• I take the from 42 Street–Bryant Park to 59 Street–Columbus Circle for the , but the pulls into 59 Street–Columbus Circle first and the waits in the tunnel making me miss the that inconveniently passes right by me.

The original 72 Street station design was to allow cross-platform transfers before train merged. The subway has some stations that are functionally similar:

• At Delancey Street–Essex Street, eastbound and trains can pull into the station at the same time for a cross-platform transfer before one of the trains leave the station first.
• At 36 Street going northbound during AM rush, if there are no trains approaching the station, sometimes trains will pull into the express track while trains pull into the local track for a cross-platform transfer before one of the trains pull out first (the switching back to the express track immediately north of the station). Normally, one of the trains would wait outside the station until the express track cleared at 36 Street.

At 72 Street, the old design would've facilitated such a transfer, but it would not be useful until a Bronx extension was actually built since both the and would be making the same stops anyway. If it had been built, it would've been a short turn station for a long time.

 

[MTA Dude]

That's actually a secondary purpose. The real purpose is to solve a common problem: when trains merge, one train stays behind while the other one goes ahead. Examples:

• I take the from Grand Street, but I really need the in Brooklyn. The and the are crossing the bridge simutaneously. But at the junction, the goes ahead first while the waits around 1 minute before the switches. Now I have to get off at 36 Street for the next that comes many minutes later.
• I take the from 42 Street–Bryant Park to 59 Street–Columbus Circle for the , but the pulls into 59 Street–Columbus Circle first and the waits in the tunnel making me miss the that inconveniently passes right by me.

The original 72 Street station design was to allow cross-platform transfers before train merged. The subway has some stations that are functionally similar:

• At Delancey Street–Essex Street, eastbound and trains can pull into the station at the same time for a cross-platform transfer before one of the trains leave the station first.
• At 36 Street going northbound during AM rush, if there are no trains approaching the station, sometimes trains will pull into the express track while trains pull into the local track for a cross-platform transfer before one of the trains pull out first (the switching back to the express track immediately north of the station). Normally, one of the trains would wait outside the station until the express track cleared at 36 Street.

At 72 Street, the old design would've facilitated such a transfer, but it would not be useful until a Bronx extension was actually built since both the and would be making the same stops anyway. If it had been built, it would've been a short turn station for a long time.

 

 

 

 

Oh now I get it. Thanks, I'm gonna fix my proposals that are saved on my computer.

[MTA Dude]

When SAS comes, are frequencies gonna be increased until the comes, or will they 7 minute headways?

[realizm]

When SAS comes, are frequencies gonna be increased until the comes, or will they 7 minute headways?

 

I think they start with 7 minute headway just to see how it goes while the R211s are manufactured and testing by the time it comes once bidding is complete and awarded.

[RollOver]

The will not be increased at all. It will stay with its 10-12 minute headway during the off-peak, and 6-8 minute headway (out of Brooklyn in the morning rush and back into Brooklyn in the evening rush).

 

The reroute to 96/2 is shorter than the current route to Astoria, as been explain countless times already. However, expect to see 9 trains entering Lex/63 in the morning rush between 8 and 9 am (and leaving Lex/63 in the evening rush between 5 and 6 pm). Other than that, it will be nothing but 6 trains an hour (10-12 minute headways).

 

Edit: The and will also stay at their 10-12 minute off-peak headways and 6-8 minute rush hour headways. Similar to the and as well.

Edited September 24, 2014 by RollOver

[CenSin]

When this thread first started, it was primarily about how the MTA was working against future expansion of the Second Avenue Subway―specifically towards the Bronx. And I quoted a lengthy post from a site (which is now dead) that explained what the MTA was doing or planned to do that led the author to his conclusion. I revisited what the author wrote, and I've come to the conclusion that the second phase of the Second Avenue Subway should end at 116 Street; the 125 Street station must not be built.

 

There are a few reasons why realizing the current plan for phase 2 would be bad for the future of the Second Avenue Subway:

1. Deep stations are bothersome
2. Practically precludes extension into the Bronx until the completion of phase 3
3. Diminishes incentive to extend into the Bronx
4. Provides less service for the Bronx if extended

Deep Stations Are Bothersome

At 125 Street and Lexington Avenue, lies an existing station serving the Lexington Avenue Line. It's a bilevel station with a level each for northbound and southbound trains as well as a mezzanine level above them, making the current station 3 levels at the deepest. The platform for the Second Avenue Subway will be another 3 levels below that. This makes the Second Avenue Subway unattractive for people who:

1. are already on the , , or .
2. are in a hurry to catch a train from street level.
3. prefer faster/more frequent service.

The only people taking the 2 Avenue Line will be those who need to get to the far east side, are going to the west side of Midtown Manhattan, or want a faster ride to Brooklyn.

 

Precludes Bronx Extension Before Phase 3

If the 125 Street station is built, then phase 3 has to be built too before an extension to the Bronx. This stems from the fact that the MTA cannot split service such that both a Bronx extension and 125 Street are served adequately. The (Q)'s frequency is already lessened by the fact that it shares tracks with other services along its route, and splitting the further between 125 Street and the Bronx would make it an unattractively low-frequency service. And until phase 3 is built, one of the Queens Boulevard locals is going to come from 6 Avenue, which prevents 6 Avenue from assisting the Second Avenue Subway.

 

Diminishes Incentive to Extend to the Bronx

If politicians' love of supporting new bus routes over building rail were any indication, political support for new transit options almost always gravitates towards those that can be implemented within an election cycle. This mentality carries over to building subway infrastructure, where a good-enough solution ensures that no better options are explored for a long time. By building a station at 125 Street, politicians can use the excuse that a connection to the Metro-North Railroad, , , and meets the goal of connecting the Second Avenue Subway to large swaths of the Bronx, and is good enough to avert paying for a politically risky subway project into the Bronx.

 

Provides Less Service to the Bronx (If Extended)

In the case where the Second Avenue Subway overcomes all odds and is actually extended into the Bronx, the 125 Street station becomes a problem as explained in the section about phase 3 precluding a Bronx extension. This is predicated on the fact that the MTA strongly prefers to limit any pair of tracks in the subway system to 2 services each. And the Second Avenue Subway, having only 1 pair to boot would support only 2 services maximum along the portion of the line we're concerned with. The problem is at the junction where a stub serving 125 Street splits off. The MTA now has to split service between a multi-billion-dollar stub station that serves the Metro-North Railroad and Lexington Avenue Line and a line that serves the Bronx. In the Bronx, the Second Avenue Subway would have a connection to the at the very least and maybe and . But there is no way the MTA would (or be allowed to) abandon an expensive station that also connects to the Metro-North, , , and since it will most likely not have a Metro-North or connection in the Bronx. So then, the MTA is forced to split service evenly between the stub in Manhattan and the Bronx making the Bronx extension uncompetitive relative to the high frequency of service found along all of the other Bronx lines.

 

 

It's obvious that the MTA must not build a station at 125 Street, nor a stub for the above reasons. But what should it do instead?

[lupojohn]

What exactly is the point of the being re-routed to 125th? Does the not think the can handle the line on its own?

[MTA Dude]

I... honestly don't know.

[Lance]

Before Phase III opens, there won't be any line space for the T.  If the MTA ran the T before Second Ave was extended beyond the 63rd Street turnoffs, it would have to run either via Broadway or via 6th Ave. Both of those lines are tied up with N,Q,R and B,D,F,M respectively. Adding another line into that chaos is ill-advised and is for the most part, impossible without causing significant delays.

 

Even if they could fit this hypothetical line in somewhere (likely down Broadway), the track layout does nothing to assist with running the T this early. Using the more likely Broadway option, it would have to run express so as not to cause more merging delays on a line that has more than enough already. Then there's the question of where the line would run to. As an express, it has the option of running across the Bridge to Brighton or the 4th Ave express. While there's the option of running via the tunnel and/or local along 4th Ave, those merging problems would still be in play. So this new line would either duplicate the D/N or the Q, which is unnecessary.

 

So the likely option would be to reroute one of the other lines to fit this T in. And at that point, what would be different from what's already proposed? The present proposal has the Q running to the Upper East Side, later Harlem, the N as the Broadway express and the return of the W to help out the Astoria line. Using the T as a route now, all we'd be doing is shuffling the letters around.

[RollOver]

What exactly is the point of the being re-routed to 125th? Does the not think the can handle the line on its own?

The current setup is relatively fine, despite the negative feedback (in terms of headways and the not the Bway express anymore). Maybe the is doing this as a given. Who knows.

[bobtehpanda]

What exactly is the point of the being re-routed to 125th? Does the not think the can handle the line on its own?

 

In addition to what Lance said, it is the most reasonable use of the Broadway express tracks, since they were built to extend north (and the tracks currently go as far north as Lex-63, a connection that has been used in the past.)

[bobtehpanda]

When this thread first started, it was primarily about how the MTA was working against future expansion of the Second Avenue Subway―specifically towards the Bronx. And I quoted a lengthy post from a site (which is now dead) that explained what the MTA was doing or planned to do that led the author to his conclusion. I revisited what the author wrote, and I've come to the conclusion that the second phase of the Second Avenue Subway should end at 116 Street; the 125 Street station must not be built.

 

There are a few reasons why realizing the current plan for phase 2 would be bad for the future of the Second Avenue Subway:

1. Deep stations are bothersome
2. Practically precludes extension into the Bronx until the completion of phase 3
3. Diminishes incentive to extend into the Bronx
4. Provides less service for the Bronx if extended

Deep Stations Are Bothersome

At 125 Street and Lexington Avenue, lies an existing station serving the Lexington Avenue Line. It's a bilevel station with a level each for northbound and southbound trains as well as a mezzanine level above them, making the current station 3 levels at the deepest. The platform for the Second Avenue Subway will be another 3 levels below that. This makes the Second Avenue Subway unattractive for people who:

1. are already on the , , or .
2. are in a hurry to catch a train from street level.
3. prefer faster/more frequent service.

The only people taking the 2 Avenue Line will be those who need to get to the far east side, are going to the west side of Midtown Manhattan, or want a faster ride to Brooklyn.

 

Precludes Bronx Extension Before Phase 3

If the 125 Street station is built, then phase 3 has to be built too before an extension to the Bronx. This stems from the fact that the MTA cannot split service such that both a Bronx extension and 125 Street are served adequately. The (Q)'s frequency is already lessened by the fact that it shares tracks with other services along its route, and splitting the further between 125 Street and the Bronx would make it an unattractively low-frequency service. And until phase 3 is built, one of the Queens Boulevard locals is going to come from 6 Avenue, which prevents 6 Avenue from assisting the Second Avenue Subway.

 

Diminishes Incentive to Extend to the Bronx

If politicians' love of supporting new bus routes over building rail were any indication, political support for new transit options almost always gravitates towards those that can be implemented within an election cycle. This mentality carries over to building subway infrastructure, where a good-enough solution ensures that no better options are explored for a long time. By building a station at 125 Street, politicians can use the excuse that a connection to the Metro-North Railroad, , , and meets the goal of connecting the Second Avenue Subway to large swaths of the Bronx, and is good enough to avert paying for a politically risky subway project into the Bronx.

 

Provides Less Service to the Bronx (If Extended)

In the case where the Second Avenue Subway overcomes all odds and is actually extended into the Bronx, the 125 Street station becomes a problem as explained in the section about phase 3 precluding a Bronx extension. This is predicated on the fact that the MTA strongly prefers to limit any pair of tracks in the subway system to 2 services each. And the Second Avenue Subway, having only 1 pair to boot would support only 2 services maximum along the portion of the line we're concerned with. The problem is at the junction where a stub serving 125 Street splits off. The MTA now has to split service between a multi-billion-dollar stub station that serves the Metro-North Railroad and Lexington Avenue Line and a line that serves the Bronx. In the Bronx, the Second Avenue Subway would have a connection to the at the very least and maybe and . But there is no way the MTA would (or be allowed to) abandon an expensive station that also connects to the Metro-North, , , and since it will most likely not have a Metro-North or connection in the Bronx. So then, the MTA is forced to split service evenly between the stub in Manhattan and the Bronx making the Bronx extension uncompetitive relative to the high frequency of service found along all of the other Bronx lines.

 

 

It's obvious that the MTA must not build a station at 125 Street, nor a stub for the above reasons. But what should it do instead?

 

 

If I remember correctly, tail tracks for the SAS will extend east of Park (where the station is) to at least as far as Lenox; the MTA has talked about a 125th St crosstown before, which in my head is a great deal more important than having two Bronx extensions.

 

There should be two phases to be built at any point after phase 3; let's call them A and B. Phase A would see 125th extended west, hopefully to Broadway. Phase B would see, at least initially, a subway extension along Third Av in the Bronx to 149th St, but should also design it in such a way that either Third Av, Melrose/Webster, or Melrose/MNRR remain options.

[CenSin]

If I remember correctly, tail tracks for the SAS will extend east of Park (where the station is) to at least as far as Lenox; the MTA has talked about a 125th St crosstown before, which in my head is a great deal more important than having two Bronx extensions.

 

There should be two phases to be built at any point after phase 3; let's call them A and B. Phase A would see 125th extended west, hopefully to Broadway. Phase B would see, at least initially, a subway extension along Third Av in the Bronx to 149th St, but should also design it in such a way that either Third Av, Melrose/Webster, or Melrose/MNRR remain options.

That's one way to salvage a stubway (kind of like what they did with 63 Street), but is the crosstown link important enough to syphon off a portion of the traffic at the expense of the Bronx? There are 3 main corridors in the Bronx currently (and I count the , , and as part of one), each being served by multiple routes or a single high-frequency route (). Typically, during rush hour, all the tracks are maxed out in usage. This won't be the case for a Bronx extension of the Second Avenue Subway if the 125 Street station is built as currently planned, since the Bronx extension will never see both tracks used to full capacity. Relative to waiting times on the other Bronx lines, waiting times will be doubled.

[bobtehpanda]

That's one way to salvage a stubway (kind of like what they did with 63 Street), but is the crosstown link important enough to syphon off a portion of the traffic at the expense of the Bronx? There are 3 main corridors in the Bronx currently (and I count the , , and as part of one), each being served by multiple routes or a single high-frequency route ( ). Typically, during rush hour, all the tracks are maxed out in usage. This won't be the case for a Bronx extension of the Second Avenue Subway if the 125 Street station is built as currently planned, since the Bronx extension will never see both tracks used to full capacity. Relative to waiting times on the other Bronx lines, waiting times will be doubled.

 

The thing is, if you have a crosstown that serves the UES, you open up a lot of possibilities that are currently either really slow or require diverting into Midtown for. Crosstown traffic on 125th hovers around 5mph, if that, and a subway would be a significant improvement, and would probably also divert enough people from other crosstown corridors as well. In the study of the M60 SBS it was noted that over half of the people who got on at 125th also got off along 125th, so the market is very significant.

 

The difference between this and the '70s plan is that the '70s terminal had a station at 125 and 2nd. That location would've been about as suitable as 21st St-Queensbridge was; no one would get on there because it's a highway offramp, and no one would transfer from the if they had to walk. So the decision to terminate at 125/Park instead of 125/Lex is a difficult choice, because on the one hand you have a crap terminal for the couple decades that we won't see a Bronx extension, and on the other hand we cut off two extensions to the Bronx forever.

 

To be honest, there are only maybe three viable corridors I can see the SAS potentially being extended down. We've got the University Av corridor, the Third/Webster/MNRR, and the Amtrak ROW by the Bruckner. Of these, University is very geologically difficult, so that's not happening. Third is more of a priority than the Bruckner, simply because there's more people there and it would potentially relieve three subway lines (Jerome, Concourse, WPR). Either way Bronx extensions aren't going to happen till the SAS is over by 2030.

[Wallyhorse]

If I remember correctly, tail tracks for the SAS will extend east of Park (where the station is) to at least as far as Lenox; the MTA has talked about a 125th St crosstown before, which in my head is a great deal more important than having two Bronx extensions.

 

There should be two phases to be built at any point after phase 3; let's call them A and B. Phase A would see 125th extended west, hopefully to Broadway. Phase B would see, at least initially, a subway extension along Third Av in the Bronx to 149th St, but should also design it in such a way that either Third Av, Melrose/Webster, or Melrose/MNRR remain options.

As well noted I agree about going all the way across 125th.  If that happens, as noted before I would include connections to the 8th Avenue line that in this case would mainly be for re-routes or G.O.'s (and for yard moves if needed) but also allow for a future SAS line via the Concourse line or from extreme upper Manhattan if warranted.  Any stations west of Lexington/125 would as I would do it include connections to any and all stations along 125th Street.

 

As for a Bronx SAS, I personally think the best chance to do that would be to re-build the Bronx portion of the 3rd Avenue El.  This would most likely be with a portal once in The Bronx, BUT in the Bronx also include provisions for a future re-build if needed of the Manhattan 3rd Avenue El that I do think may eventually be needed IN ADDITION TO the full SAS because of all the additional building in midtown.

 

 

[Lance]

Connecting the 2nd Ave line to 8th Ave is a complete waste. Riders on the east side have both the 4 and D trains for Jerome/Concourse service and the west side already has direct connections to the Concourse. Building such a connection for yard moves would be an expensive mistake as well. The costs of these things need to have some kind of overreaching benefit to be justified. Yard moves hardly fit the bill.

 

And you can forget about rebuilding the 3rd Ave elevated. That ship sailed over 40 years ago when the remaining Bronx portion was torn down in '73.

[lupojohn]

The present proposal has the Q running to the Upper East Side, later Harlem, the N as the Broadway express and the return of the W to help out the Astoria line. Using the T as a route now, all we'd be doing is shuffling the letters around.

I've heard rumblings about a return of the . Would this be a definite and if it returns, would it reprise going from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Whitehall Street or different terminals?

[bobtehpanda]

As well noted I agree about going all the way across 125th.  If that happens, as noted before I would include connections to the 8th Avenue line that in this case would mainly be for re-routes or G.O.'s (and for yard moves if needed) but also allow for a future SAS line via the Concourse line or from extreme upper Manhattan if warranted.  Any stations west of Lexington/125 would as I would do it include connections to any and all stations along 125th Street.

 

As for a Bronx SAS, I personally think the best chance to do that would be to re-build the Bronx portion of the 3rd Avenue El.  This would most likely be with a portal once in The Bronx, BUT in the Bronx also include provisions for a future re-build if needed of the Manhattan 3rd Avenue El that I do think may eventually be needed IN ADDITION TO the full SAS because of all the additional building in midtown.

 

 

 

Given the physical layout of 125th today and the surrounding area, there is little to no benefit to building such a large disruptive connection. If FASTRAK needs to be done, you can just shut it down and shuttle people over to the , , and . It's not a hundreds-of-millions, if not billion dollar problem.

 

The Third Av El is never happening; Third Av is only two lanes wide at certain points (not including parking), and is way too narrow.

[Lance]

I've heard rumblings about a return of the . Would this be a definite and if it returns, would it reprise going from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Whitehall Street or different terminals?

When it comes to the MTA, you should know by now that nothing is definite. However, based on the fact that the N will not be able to handle Astoria on its own and that it would be quite wasteful to run double the amount of N trains between Ditmars and Stillwell, something has to replace the Q when it starts running to 96 St.

[lupojohn]

When it comes to the MTA, you should know by now that nothing is definite. However, based on the fact that the N will not be able to handle Astoria on its own and that it would be quite wasteful to run double the amount of N trains between Ditmars and Stillwell, something has to replace the Q when it starts running to 96 St.

And the terminals?

[RollOver]

And the terminals?

 

Whitehall.

 

Where else?

[lupojohn]

Whitehall.

 

Where else?

Well, Lance said the can't handle Astoria to Coney Island itself, so I thought maybe CI, but its old route makes more sense, I guess.

[Wallyhorse]

Given the physical layout of 125th today and the surrounding area, there is little to no benefit to building such a large disruptive connection. If FASTRAK needs to be done, you can just shut it down and shuttle people over to the , , and . It's not a hundreds-of-millions, if not billion dollar problem.

 

The Third Av El is never happening; Third Av is only two lanes wide at certain points (not including parking), and is way too narrow.

Then how did the old 3rd Avenue El (which was THREE TRACKS across) work?

 

The most likely way a new version in Manhattan would work now would be to have it be two levels of single tracks (something that has been suggested in a few places) with spots where both tracks are on the same level to allow for switches in a few spots in case of emergencies with platforms on the same side like on CPW (this is actually a cutback for me from my previous idea of four tracks on two levels for local and express).  The Bronx portion in this scenario would be home to BOTH an Bronx SAS and 3rd Avenue line. 

 

Main point is, with all the new space being built in Manhattan and the ever increasing density on the UES, another line in addition to the FULL SAS may very well be needed in the future (whether it's subway OR elevated), which was my point here.  If that happens, an El would be a quicker and cheaper option, especially if it can be built to withstand storms twice as strong as Sandy as I would be looking to do (as also said before, Sandy in my view should have forced a re-evaluation on transit, including building new Els that may be unpopular but may be necessary).