Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Sparen of Iria]

It's a worthwhile approach in the end. The REAL limiting design here is that SAS is a pitiful 30TPH line with no reroute opportunities in case of construction, and it's being built with no connection to QBL/63 (I think), and it's not being built with a track connection at Grand St (which train yard do the plan to use?!), and they're leaving no provisions for a S4 St line that would relieve the and . And there's no TPH provisioning for a 3rd Avenue Line in the Bronx, unless you send the up 3rd Avenue and hope that the can handle 125th. Which it probably can't. Granted, the probably won't be able to handle SAS on Opening Day.

 

I'm going to go off on a limb and say that the MTA might have to revive the as a rush hour/weekday 6 Av line simply because the can't handle the Upper East Side with its (comparatively) pitiful TPH.

[S78 via Hylan]

With the on 6 Av, the is not coming back.

[bobtehpanda]

It's a worthwhile approach in the end. The REAL limiting design here is that SAS is a pitiful 30TPH line with no reroute opportunities in case of construction, and it's being built with no connection to QBL/63 (I think), and it's not being built with a track connection at Grand St (which train yard do the plan to use?!), and they're leaving no provisions for a S4 St line that would relieve the and . And there's no TPH provisioning for a 3rd Avenue Line in the Bronx, unless you send the up 3rd Avenue and hope that the can handle 125th. Which it probably can't. Granted, the probably won't be able to handle SAS on Opening Day.

 

I'm going to go off on a limb and say that the MTA might have to revive the as a rush hour/weekday 6 Av line simply because the can't handle the Upper East Side with its (comparatively) pitiful TPH.

 

There will be a 129th St yard. You also have yard access to Coney Island already through the Broadway Line, so another track connection at Grand is not necessary.

 

It's not unreasonable to have 15TPH running on the to serve 125th whenever that happens. 15 TPH is also not unreasonable for Third Av, and may actually be higher than what's running on the and today.

 

Of course there are no reroute opportunities for during construction. If the MTA built a brand-new line that needed GOs from the get-go, we would have more serious issues than a lack of rerouting opportunities.

There's a flaw in that logic, and it comes down to design at the end of the day. The effects of that limited design will rear it's ugly head in the future when they are planning yet another East Side subway. 

 

Ah yes, the future world of 2099. It's not as if we built a third subway system way overbudget to account for system expansions that never materialized, and are never going to materialize because the plans are ridiculously out of date. If we did, I would sure hope we learn from those mistakes.

[CenSin]

Of course there are no reroute opportunities for during construction. If the MTA built a brand-new line that needed GOs from the get-go, we would have more serious issues than a lack of rerouting opportunities.

But you know the inevitable. It's a failure to plan for the future.

 

 

Ah yes, the future world of 2099. It's not as if we built a third subway system way overbudget to account for system expansions that never materialized, and are never going to materialize because the plans are ridiculously out of date. If we did, I would sure hope we learn from those mistakes.

In the minds of the system designers, it could be completed. And it would have been if not for a string of unpredictable events like World War 2.

[Mysterious2train]

 

The MTA already indicated in the FEIS that they plan to run up to 14 trains per hour southbound during the AM Rush (except for Phase 2, which is supposed to run 19 trains per hour. It's also mentioned elsewhere that northbound AM Rush service would be bumped up to 12 trains per hour, although it wasn't clear if that would be initially or not until later phases.) I sure hope they don't try to start off with anything less than 14 trains per hour.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Mysterious2train

[Sparen of Iria]

 

The MTA already indicated in the FEIS that they plan to run up to 14 trains per hour southbound during the AM Rush (except for Phase 2, which is supposed to run 19 trains per hour. It's also mentioned elsewhere that northbound AM Rush service would be bumped up to 12 trains per hour, although it wasn't clear if that would be initially or not until later phases.) I sure hope they don't try to start off with anything less than 14 trains per hour.

Thanks for the chart. It clears up quite a few questions I had. But why not 16 TPH on the ? The tracks can handle it.

[bobtehpanda]

Thanks for the chart. It clears up quite a few questions I had. But why not 16 TPH on the ? The tracks can handle it.

 

It would be really weird to schedule 16/14. With 14/14 you just alternate between and trains.

 

The FEIS is also from 2004, so anything could happen between then and the opening of Phase III.

[bobtehpanda]

But you know the inevitable. It's a failure to plan for the future.

 

In the minds of the system designers, it could be completed. And it would have been if not for a string of unpredictable events like World War 2.

 

It's not that short-sighted, since it's being designed like every other metro system in the world. The tunnels are in separate tubes, so single tracking from 96th-63rd is possible, and in addition if you need to work on 125th to 96th just stop running service all the way.

 

The First System was already massively overbudget, even as parts of it were finished in a period of deflation during the Great Depression. Considering how ridiculously ambitious it was, the Second System if built would've needed some severe compromising, and it'd also probably bring forward the fiscal crisis that much earlier. System ridership peaked during WWII, so it's not as if there was an overly compelling reason to sink that much money into such overengineering.

[bobtehpanda]

It's a worthwhile approach in the end. The REAL limiting design here is that SAS is a pitiful 30TPH line with no reroute opportunities in case of construction, and it's being built with no connection to QBL/63 (I think), and it's not being built with a track connection at Grand St (which train yard do the plan to use?!), and they're leaving no provisions for a S4 St line that would relieve the and . And there's no TPH provisioning for a 3rd Avenue Line in the Bronx, unless you send the up 3rd Avenue and hope that the can handle 125th. Which it probably can't. Granted, the probably won't be able to handle SAS on Opening Day.

 

I'm going to go off on a limb and say that the MTA might have to revive the as a rush hour/weekday 6 Av line simply because the can't handle the Upper East Side with its (comparatively) pitiful TPH.

 

There are supposed to be storage tracks between 9th and 21st St at a lower level. Presumably you could use those to make a S 4 St line to Utica Av (although I'm not sure S 4 St would be the optimal Williamsburg routing today, but whatever)

[Union Tpke]

There are supposed to be storage tracks between 9th and 21st St at a lower level. Presumably you could use those to make a S 4 St line to Utica Av (although I'm not sure S 4 St would be the optimal Williamsburg routing today, but whatever)

what would be the optimal routing in your opinion?

[R3216068E]

I agree the should revive or service since the won't have enough trains to handle the upper east side same story as the in astoria

Edited June 16, 2015 by R3216068E

[LegoBrickBreaker101]

I agree the should revive or service since the won't have enough trains to handle the upper east side same story as the in astoria

 

The , i don't see a point, as a last resort, but the will definitely be able to handle the SAS.

[R3216068E]

The , i don't see a point, as a last resort, but the will definitely be able to handle the SAS.

The might not be able to handle the upper east side by its self coney island yard doesn't have enough trains the is experiencing a major train shortage since the R44s retired

[RollOver]

The is not ever coming back, because the was already rerouted from Lower Manhattan and South Brooklyn to Midtown Manhattan and Queens Boulevard to replace the aside from 2 Avenue.

 

And the does indeed have enough trains to be rerouted from Astoria to SAS. It will most likely remain at its current headways. There's no need for more service or more trainsets because off-peak ridership on the Brighton Line is lower. There's also no need to run many more trains on the entire line just for 3 new stops in addition to Lex Av-63 St. Remember, the Lex also serves the upper east side. People will take either the Lex or SAS if they live by it or work by it.

 

Once the R179s retire the R32s and R42s, there will be enough cars to permanently reroute the from Astoria to SAS, either by more trains on the entire line or a restored to keep weekday service frequency levels on the Astoria Line the way it is now. The latter is more likely.

Edited June 16, 2015 by RollOver

[R3216068E]

The is not ever coming back, because the was already rerouted from Lower Manhattan and South Brooklyn to Midtown Manhattan and Queens Boulevard to replace the aside from 2 Avenue.

 

And the does indeed have enough trains to be rerouted from Astoria to SAS. It will most likely remain at its current headways. There's no need for more service or more trainsets because off-peak ridership on the Brighton Line is lower. There's also no need to run many more trains on the entire line just for 3 new stops in addition to Lex Av-63 St. Remember, the Lex also serves the upper east side. People will take either the Lex or SAS if they live by it or work by it.

 

Once the R179s retire the R32s and R42s, there will be enough cars to permanently reroute the from Astoria to SAS, either by more trains on the entire line or a restored to keep weekday service frequency levels on the Astoria Line the way it is now. The latter is more likely.

yeah I agree but they probably won't ever restore the as well because there won't be enough train sets for the and all the was ever good for was causing congestion on the broadway line when it was in service there won't be enough R179s to go around since they are mostly going to be on the , and (and a couple on the ) and they are not going to be full length Edited June 16, 2015 by R3216068E

[N6 Limited]

Less stations makes the trains a little faster. It also cuts down on costs. 86 St station will have an entrance at 83 St, which is only a few blocks from 79 St.

 

Here's what the MTA's response was:

Oh ok, I was wondering because 79th street connects to the M79 bus.

[Sparen of Iria]

Oh ok, I was wondering because 79th street connects to the M79 bus.

Honestly, I think that if they're going to add intermediate stations, they should put one between 55th and 72nd. I believe that it's the biggest gap in between stations. The problem, of course, is that there's no place to put it between 62nd and 72nd, and if it were put at 60 St, it would be too close to 55th (which honestly should be 53rd, in my opinion)

 

Does anyone know if the station platform at 72nd st extends south, north, or is about center on 72nd st?

[BronxBombers]

Honestly, I think that if they're going to add intermediate stations, they should put one between 55th and 72nd. I believe that it's the biggest gap in between stations. The problem, of course, is that there's no place to put it between 62nd and 72nd, and if it were put at 60 St, it would be too close to 55th (which honestly should be 53rd, in my opinion)

 

Does anyone know if the station platform at 72nd st extends south, north, or is about center on 72nd st?

 

There are are exits at 69th Street and 72nd Street

[trainfanrod]

i agree about the gap between 72 n 55 i guess they think theres so much trains crossing that its not needed the NR a 59 and lex

[CenSin]

Honestly, I think that if they're going to add intermediate stations, they should put one between 55th and 72nd. I believe that it's the biggest gap in between stations. The problem, of course, is that there's no place to put it between 62nd and 72nd, and if it were put at 60 St, it would be too close to 55th (which honestly should be 53rd, in my opinion)

 

Does anyone know if the station platform at 72nd st extends south, north, or is about center on 72nd st?

Get rid of 55 Street, and replace that with 59 Street and 51 Street. Stations should be closer together in Midtown Manhattan and the Financial District. I’ve always been of the opinion that station centers should be approximately 10 streets apart and not station exits. Building local stops so far apart simply creates another barrier to building express tracks.

[bobtehpanda]

Honestly, I think that if they're going to add intermediate stations, they should put one between 55th and 72nd. I believe that it's the biggest gap in between stations. The problem, of course, is that there's no place to put it between 62nd and 72nd, and if it were put at 60 St, it would be too close to 55th (which honestly should be 53rd, in my opinion)

 

Does anyone know if the station platform at 72nd st extends south, north, or is about center on 72nd st?

 

Keep in mind that the southern segment requires clearance from the turnout that's supposed to be built from 63rd st going south, so that's one reason why the 55th station is not both a 59th and a 51st st station. 

 

72 St station will run from 69-72 Sts.  86th Sts will run from 83rd-87th, which is a 11 block difference - not too terrible. 55 St will run from 52-56 St, which is a 13 block difference. IMO we shouldn't bother connecting the Astoria Lines to the Second Ave Subway, because the Lex-59 St transfer is so convenient that there is no way the Second Avenue Subway two blocks over is going to be able to poach much ridership on it, that wouldn't be better off taking the Lex and then walking to their destination.

[Wallyhorse]

Stations for that segment (Phase 3) are where they should be, plus there is supposed to be a transfer to the and at the 55th Street station (and via that platform, the at 51st/Lex) so assuming that happens, it will be conceivable to make a midtown transfer to the , albeit via a very long walk.

What will be interesting will be whether or not they build a transfer to the (and through that, transfers to the and a walkway to Grand Central) at the 42nd/2nd station and the ability from there to walk all the way from 2nd to Madison underground.

[bobtehpanda]

Stations for that segment (Phase 3) are where they should be, plus there is supposed to be a transfer to the and at the 55th Street station (and via that platform, the at 51st/Lex) so assuming that happens, it will be conceivable to make a midtown transfer to the , albeit via a very long walk.

 

What will be interesting will be whether or not they build a transfer to the (and through that, transfers to the and a walkway to Grand Central) at the 42nd/2nd station and the ability from there to walk all the way from 2nd to Madison underground.

 

Hopefully by the time Phase III is rolling around the MTA is not stupid and uses moving walkways in these transfers like the rest of the developed world.

 

A connection to Grand Central is a must, given that East Side Access is the prime reason for building Phase III. It also wouldn't be unprecedented, because such a walkway used to exist between Herald Square and Penn Station for access to PATH.

[Sparen of Iria]

btw

 

Is there a cost estimate anywhere for the price difference between cut and cover and bored tunnels? I ask because it's actually EASY to build space for four tracks if it's done cut and cover, the main exception being the Midtown Tunnel, where you have to bore the tunnels or do something stupid/probably hopeless like deepen the tunnel approach and run SAS elevated (but below street level) 

[bobtehpanda]

btw

 

Is there a cost estimate anywhere for the price difference between cut and cover and bored tunnels? I ask because it's actually EASY to build space for four tracks if it's done cut and cover, the main exception being the Midtown Tunnel, where you have to bore the tunnels or do something stupid/probably hopeless like deepen the tunnel approach and run SAS elevated (but below street level) 

 

The tunnels have to be partially bored anyways to connect to the 63rd St line, which is built at a very deep level, and also to build out the outer ends of Phases II and IV (since the SAS has to dive under all the existing lines). That being said, TBMs are not the main reason SAS is expensive; according to page 4 of this document, the actual tunneling only cost about $380M, which is only a small part of the $4B+ project.

 

In contrast, according to the same page excavating the 96th St station alone cost that much. Most of the cost comes from excavating, building, and then installing systems in the stations, which are all built using cut-and-cover (with the exception of Lex-63rd for obvious reasons)

Edited June 19, 2015 by bobtehpanda