Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[bobtehpanda]

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

 

The Bronx, in its inception, was first mostly undeveloped, and then mostly tenements. People have every right to a higher quality of life these days, and an El literally feet away from windows is not going to fly. Sure, we have two-lane roads like Roosevelt Avenue that host three-track Els very tightly today, but we would never build those today if those didn't previously exist.

 

The El was also built with significantly tighter clearances than we would be building with today, including smaller side platforms. They certainly were not built to 21st century standards of construction or ADA accessibility.

Edited October 21, 2014 by bobtehpanda

[realizm]

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 T will not be activated until Phase 3 and 4 is built. I think there may be a bit of logistics involved. But one think for sure the most logical thing to do is the extend the Q considering we dont have a huge surplus of cars. Also I do not thing and T LED display programsn even exist. Can that be a deterrant your guess is as good as mine.

Edited October 21, 2014 by realizm

[Lance]

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).

 

 

The Bronx, in its inception, was first mostly undeveloped, and then mostly tenements. People have every right to a higher quality of life these days, and an El literally feet away from windows is not going to fly. Sure, we have two-lane roads like Roosevelt Avenue that host three-track Els very tightly today, but we would never build those today if those didn't previously exist.

 

The El was also built with significantly tighter clearances than we would be building with today, including smaller side platforms. They certainly were not built to 21st century standards of construction or ADA accessibility.

Honestly, this is getting old very fast. Strike that, it was old a while ago. Regardless how many times you mention it Wallyhorse, this isn't like Beetlejuice. The 3rd Ave elevated will not come back, even if it would make sense. Regarding the logistical impossibilities with rebuilding the line, the original line was built to IRT specifications with tight curves in spots. Any new line, subway or elevated, will need more room for softer curves and wider trains. That would require eminent domain for a lot of properties, especially along the curves.

 

The T will not be activated until Phase 3 and 4 is built. I think there may be a bit of logistics involved. But one think for sure the most logical thing to do is the extend the Q considering we dont have a huge surplus of cars. Also I do not thing and T LED display programsn even exist. Can that be a deterrant your guess is as good as mine.

I just explained why you won't see the T any time soon. And it has nothing to do with the electronic signs. These aren't the old days of only printed sign curtains that only contain certain routes. While it seems like it takes forever and a day to update the electronic signage and announcements, that will never be a deterrent to the creation of a new route.

[CenSin]

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

Why not ask yourself this: where does the T run and how many connections will it have to other subway lines? The is a sorely needed enhancement to the line considering how horrendous the transfers will be (and I'm speaking about all 4 phases of the line). Tentative plans mark all of the transfers as "under consideration" and a few of them are going to be very long walks if ever implemented:

• Lexington Avenue/53 Street: The 53 Street Line's platforms reach 3 Avenue, one avenue over.
• Grand Central–42 Street: The Flushing Line's platform are just touching 3 Avenue, one avenue over, but the railroad terminal is 3 avenues over.
• 3 Avenue: The Canarsie Line's platforms spans from 3 Avenue to 2 Avenue with the easternmost end touching the middle of 2 Avenue.
• 2 Avenue: The 6 Avenue Line's Lower East Side–2 Avenue station spans from 2 Avenue to 1 Avenue, with the westernmost end of the platforms about a third of a block away from Bowery. The station was built with space above for the Second Avenue Subway, but if the platforms were built below the existing station instead, it would be a long walk up.

You'd understand if you tried using the Lexington Avenue/53 Street connection to 51 Street.

 

 

This, by the way, is what the structures look like underground for the connection to 63 Street:

[Quill Depot]

Why not send the to 125-Lex and the to Bronx

That is if Phase 3 and 4 are ever completed. My plan would be do Phase 3 to Grand Central and then that's it.

 

Grand Central to Bronx

125-Lex to Coney Island

@CenSin: Part of the reason why Parts 3 and 4 will probably end up underused

[RailRunRob]

Why not ask yourself this: where does the T run and how many connections will it have to other subway lines? The is a sorely needed enhancement to the line considering how horrendous the transfers will be (and I'm speaking about all 4 phases of the line). Tentative plans mark all of the transfers as "under consideration" and a few of them are going to be very long walks if ever implemented:

• Lexington Avenue/53 Street: The 53 Street Line's platforms reach 3 Avenue, one avenue over.
• Grand Central–42 Street: The Flushing Line's platform are just touching 3 Avenue, one avenue over, but the railroad terminal is 3 avenues over.
• 3 Avenue: The Canarsie Line's platforms spans from 3 Avenue to 2 Avenue with the easternmost end touching the middle of 2 Avenue.
• 2 Avenue: The 6 Avenue Line's Lower East Side–2 Avenue station spans from 2 Avenue to 1 Avenue, with the westernmost end of the platforms about a third of a block away from Bowery. The station was built with space above for the Second Avenue Subway, but if the platforms were built below the existing station instead, it would be a long walk up.

You'd understand if you tried using the Lexington Avenue/53 Street connection to 51 Street.

 

 

This, by the way, is what the structures look like underground for the connection to 63 Street:

So they built the tail tracks for Phase 3? S1 and S2?

[bobtehpanda]

Why not ask yourself this: where does the T run and how many connections will it have to other subway lines? The is a sorely needed enhancement to the line considering how horrendous the transfers will be (and I'm speaking about all 4 phases of the line). Tentative plans mark all of the transfers as "under consideration" and a few of them are going to be very long walks if ever implemented:

• Lexington Avenue/53 Street: The 53 Street Line's platforms reach 3 Avenue, one avenue over.
• Grand Central–42 Street: The Flushing Line's platform are just touching 3 Avenue, one avenue over, but the railroad terminal is 3 avenues over.
• 3 Avenue: The Canarsie Line's platforms spans from 3 Avenue to 2 Avenue with the easternmost end touching the middle of 2 Avenue.
• 2 Avenue: The 6 Avenue Line's Lower East Side–2 Avenue station spans from 2 Avenue to 1 Avenue, with the westernmost end of the platforms about a third of a block away from Bowery. The station was built with space above for the Second Avenue Subway, but if the platforms were built below the existing station instead, it would be a long walk up.

You'd understand if you tried using the Lexington Avenue/53 Street connection to 51 Street.

 

If the MTA does the connections correctly, they'll have moving walkways in both directions (similar to the one-directional setup at Queens Plaza). It would be quite silly for them to build such passageways without that connection. Besides, the Lex-53 connection is no more terrible than the existing one to 51st St, and the deep Chrystie option is not particularly deep; it's just one level below the existing Grand St station, which wouldn't be a very hard walk up at all. Plus, it makes things significantly easier for Culver, Brighton, and West End riders trying to go downtown or to the East Side, thus also indirectly reducing congestion in the Brooklyn tunnels by allowing a better redistribution of passengers.

 

Why not send the to 125-Lex and the to Bronx

That is if Phase 3 and 4 are ever completed. My plan would be do Phase 3 to Grand Central and then that's it.

 

Grand Central to Bronx

125-Lex to Coney Island

@CenSin: Part of the reason why Parts 3 and 4 will probably end up underused

 

Phases III and IV are useful in their own way. Phase III will provide an easy transfer to the and easier access for people trying to get to the hospitals and Alphabet City, and Phase IV with both connect the 6th Avenue lines to Downtown Manhattan and link the Water St skyscraper corridor with the subway for the first time. There is also a connection on the 63rd St line from east to west, meaning that if a Queens Blvd Bypass is ever built, trains can come from Eastern Queens into the East Side of Manhattan.

 

As you can see in the following figure, the ridership estimates for Phases III and IV, while low, are still very high (and certainly higher than a Bronx extension would be without the full Phases III and IV.

 

http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/figure3-18.pdf

[Wallyhorse]

And if Phase IV is built with provisions to go to Brooklyn, then as previously noted I would build what would be the Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would have:

The run to what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) and then via that to Hoyt-Schermerhorn (stopping on the currently-unused platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn)

The then becoming the Fulton Street local in Brooklyn to Euclid Avenue.  This would eliminate the track merge/un-merge of the 8th Avenue line trains in Brooklyn at Hoyt with the and BOTH express lines in Brooklyn:

The full-time to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (eliminating the need for the Rockaway Park there except perhaps in overnights)

The full-time to Lefferts as an EXPRESS as the Lefferts is now Brooklyn (the would replace the to Lefferts in the overnights).

Only drawback would be the and trains stopping at Hoyt-Schermerhorn would have to open doors on both sides when there to allow people to get to the and trains there (and in some cases, walk through the or to get to the opposite platform).

By the time Phase IV is built, if Brooklyn continues to be built up as it has been, this may very well be necessary as Fulton Street in Brooklyn is one of the next prime candidates to face gentrification over the next 30 years or so.

[CenSin]

If the MTA does the connections correctly, they'll have moving walkways in both directions (similar to the one-directional setup at Queens Plaza). It would be quite silly for them to build such passageways without that connection. Besides, the Lex-53 connection is no more terrible than the existing one to 51st St, and the deep Chrystie option is not particularly deep; it's just one level below the existing Grand St station, which wouldn't be a very hard walk up at all. Plus, it makes things significantly easier for Culver, Brighton, and West End riders trying to go downtown or to the East Side, thus also indirectly reducing congestion in the Brooklyn tunnels by allowing a better redistribution of passengers.

That's why I made no mention of Grand Street. I already know what the deep Chrystie option entails.

 

 

And if Phase IV is built with provisions to go to Brooklyn, then as previously noted I would build what would be the Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would have:

 

The run to what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) and then via that to Hoyt-Schermerhorn (stopping on the currently-unused platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn)

 

The then becoming the Fulton Street local in Brooklyn to Euclid Avenue.  This would eliminate the track merge/un-merge of the 8th Avenue line trains in Brooklyn at Hoyt with the and BOTH express lines in Brooklyn:

 

The full-time to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (eliminating the need for the Rockaway Park there except perhaps in overnights)

 

The full-time to Lefferts as an EXPRESS as the Lefferts is now Brooklyn (the would replace the to Lefferts in the overnights).

 

Only drawback would be the and trains stopping at Hoyt-Schermerhorn would have to open doors on both sides when there to allow people to get to the and trains there (and in some cases, walk through the or to get to the opposite platform).

 

By the time Phase IV is built, if Brooklyn continues to be built up as it has been, this may very well be necessary as Fulton Street in Brooklyn is one of the next prime candidates to face gentrification over the next 30 years or so.

Why again?

[Wallyhorse]

My bad:

Not everyone goes back and reads every post, and we do have some new people.  That's why I brought it up when Phase 4 came up.

[Union Tpke]

In theory like the metolink plan there could be a spur to Grand Central for some trains to terminate.

[RollOver]

And if Phase IV is built with provisions to go to Brooklyn, then as previously noted I would build what would be the Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would have:

 

The run to what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) and then via that to Hoyt-Schermerhorn (stopping on the currently-unused platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn)

 

The then becoming the Fulton Street local in Brooklyn to Euclid Avenue.  This would eliminate the track merge/un-merge of the 8th Avenue line trains in Brooklyn at Hoyt with the and BOTH express lines in Brooklyn:

 

The full-time to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (eliminating the need for the Rockaway Park there except perhaps in overnights)

 

The full-time to Lefferts as an EXPRESS as the Lefferts is now Brooklyn (the would replace the to Lefferts in the overnights).

 

Only drawback would be the and trains stopping at Hoyt-Schermerhorn would have to open doors on both sides when there to allow people to get to the and trains there (and in some cases, walk through the or to get to the opposite platform).

 

By the time Phase IV is built, if Brooklyn continues to be built up as it has been, this may very well be necessary as Fulton Street in Brooklyn is one of the next prime candidates to face gentrification over the next 30 years or so.

 

I thought we've been pretty clear about why they can't send all 's to/from the Rockaways (alternating between both peninsulas)...

[Wallyhorse]

The way I would do that would be for the to be on a 5/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park rush hours and except overnights a 4/3 split (four to Far Rockaway for every three to Rockaway Park)  If necessary some could short-turn at Howard Beach and in rush hours supplement the (that would be express in Brooklyn in this setup to Lefferts).

As also said, this is a LONG way off and by the time we would be looking at this, we may be looking at a MUCH different standpoint population wise.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Wallyhorse

[bobtehpanda]

The way I would do that would be for the to be on a 5/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park rush hours and except overnights a 4/3 split (four to Far Rockaway for every three to Rockaway Park)  If necessary some could short-turn at Howard Beach and in rush hours supplement the (that would be express in Brooklyn in this setup to Lefferts).

 

As also said, this is a LONG way off and by the time we would be looking at this, we may be looking at a MUCH different standpoint population wise.

 

The Rockaways is not likely to see a huge population increase, considering some people can't even sell their homes with the new flood insurance premiums post-Sandy...

[Wallyhorse]

That's now.  30-40 years from now (when this would happen) may be a MUCH different situation.

[bobtehpanda]

 

That's now.  30-40 years from now (when this would happen) may be a MUCH different situation.

 

Unless they are about to elevate the entire peninsula or build a giant seawall into the Atlantic, the Rockaways are and will continue to be a major flood risk. We should not be densifying areas at great risk of flooding, and in any case there are many more areas that should be densified first, that are closer in and have access to better educational, health, and transportation services.

[Sparen of Iria]

Good grief just send the A trains that would have gone to Lefferts to Howard Beach, which actually needs the service since there's an airport connection there. 

[trainfanrod]

my thought would to try to send the T line to chambers along the previous M line to bay ridge

[MTA Dude]

And you don't care about Utica Avenue?

[trainfanrod]

Yeah but who's gonna build an underground subway under utica today I would eventually like to see it happen but there not even thinking Bout it

MTA is worried about spending $$ so why not just connect the line to a used line n help that R

[Andres]

Are there going to be provisions on the Second Ave Line for storage tracks? Like maybe a couple here and there. Because where's the fleet supposed to go if they are not constructing a yard under ground attached to it.

[Union Tpke]

Are there going to be provisions on the Second Ave Line for storage tracks? Like maybe a couple here and there. Because where's the fleet supposed to go if they are not constructing a yard under ground attached to it.

there is going to be a connection to the Queens Boulevard line for access to Jamaica Yard.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Are there going to be provisions on the Second Ave Line for storage tracks? Like maybe a couple here and there. Because where's the fleet supposed to go if they are not constructing a yard under ground attached to it.

I believe there will be a yard in Harlem around 125 Street for the 2 Avenue line. It would be similar to the 137 Street yard on the 7 Avenue line.

[bobtehpanda]

I believe there will be a yard in Harlem around 125 Street for the 2 Avenue line. It would be similar to the 137 Street yard on the 7 Avenue line.

 

No yard.

 

Phase I will use the tunnels up to 106 that already exist for storage. Phase II will have two sets of storage tracks; tail tracks west of 125th, and tail tracks that extend north from 125th and 2nd to 129th St.

[MysteriousBtrain]

 

 

No yard.

 

Phase I will use the tunnels up to 106 that already exist for storage. Phase II will have two sets of storage tracks; tail tracks west of 125th, and tail tracks that extend north from 125th and 2nd to 129th St.

This is a track map that I saw a while ago on an MTA document:

It's not a big yard but it is a yard that could hold 2 Avenue trains.

The track map shows all the 2 Avenue stations. The only differences are that 55 Street is known as 57 Street and 72 Street has two island platforms and 3 tracks instead of one island platform and two tracks.