Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Javier]

Isn't Second Av suppose to be built with CBTC or will it use modern signalling? 

[bobtehpanda]

Isn't Second Av suppose to be built with CBTC or will it use modern signalling? 

 

It will probably not use CBTC. Construction started before CBTC had been fully ironed out, and there wouldn't be any point in having CBTC on it since it will basically just function as a underutilized branch of the Broadway Express, especially since putting CBTC on it would require the to have all of its trains retrofitted with CBTC.

[LTA1992]

It will probably not use CBTC. Construction started before CBTC had been fully ironed out, and there wouldn't be any point in having CBTC on it since it will basically just function as a underutilized branch of the Broadway Express, especially since putting CBTC on it would require the to have all of its trains retrofitted with CBTC.

That's going to happen regardless since it looks like they want to equip the Brighton Line with CBTC around 2025.

[Javier]

They're ALREADY talking about putting CBTC on Brighton? How wonderful.

[R10 2952]

Just curious- did they ever consider building a station at 79th Street? On one hand, I don't blame them for wanting to minimize the amount of stations, but skipping over such a major cross street just seems like an error in judgment...

[Wallyhorse]

The idea was to speed up service.  There are going to be entrances at 72nd Street and also at 83rd Street, so 79th is not important here.

If I ever got to build a new tunnel to Queens (that would include activating the never-opened upper level of Roosevelt if possible), I would be looking to after 72nd Street have it go through a new tunnel at 79th Street with a new stop at 79th and York-1st Avenues.

Just my thought. 

[trainfan22]

Just curious- did they ever consider building a station at 79th Street? On one hand, I don't blame them for wanting to minimize the amount of stations, but skipping over such a major cross street just seems like an error in judgment...

I thought it was a mistake to not put a station at 116th for Phase 2 as well..

[B46 via Utica]

Just curious- did they ever consider building a station at 79th Street? On one hand, I don't blame them for wanting to minimize the amount of stations, but skipping over such a major cross street just seems like an error in judgment...

If it's less than 1,000 feet away from another station than nope it is completely appropriate not to have a station there but I do agree that not having a station at a major cross street is unusual. Edited November 16, 2015 by B46 via Utica

[Trainmaster5]

The at Lex/125 would give Metro-North riders an easier trip to West Midtown. Right now if you’re a MNR rider going to somewhere like Herald Square or Columbus Circle you have to make 2 transfers after getting off at Grand Central.  The will shorten those trips. This is a perfectly legitimate riderbase that’s being overlooked. Why? It’s no different from how LIRR riders transfer to the at Woodside or Hunterspoint to get to the East Side. There are many LIRR trains that don't stop at Woodside and Hunterspoint Av is rush hours only, but that doesn't mean that there's a lack of demand. 

 

Also, while I don’t think a westward extension down 125 St is an upmost priority, people here are really underestimating its usefulness. It would help riders in the Bronx by connecting all the north-south routes. I mean, right now traveling between the east and west sides of the Bronx and Upper Manhattan is a complete pain (and a few Select Bus Service routes does not negate that point). Being able to easily get from the to the via the would make a lot of Bronx trips shorter. Trainmaster, you say that Harlem has adequate subway coverage now but you seem to be ignoring the fact that these new connections would benefit people beyond those who live/work in Harlem. That's like me saying the MTA shouldn't have spent money to build the transfer at Jay St-Metrotech because Downtown Brooklyn already has adequate subway service. The Jay St transfer obviously benefits people whose destinations are not Downtown Brooklyn.

 

Don't get me wrong, I obviously think a Bronx segment should be built, but it and a 125/Lex stop are not mutually exclusive. One isn't preventing the other. If the MTA suddenly decided tomorrow to scrap the 125/Lex stop and just build a terminal station at 125 St and 2 Av instead that wouldn't make a Bronx extension come along any faster.  

 

Censin does have a point on the reduction in capacity but most of the Bronx's local stations have 15 TPH or less so express stations aside the most major loss is a possible 2nd branch which is even further down the line than a 1st one. 

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this. My comment about Harlem having excellent service wasn't meant to be limited to the Harlem residents themselves. I was trying to point out that people who wanted to reach points along the 125th St corridor had many access points from Broadway on the west to Lexington on the east. I see your point about cross-Bronx travel and Wallyhorse's Columbia ideas but any projections I've seen or heard about show a population increase in Bronx County. It's my opinion that if the City of New York and the have sold this idea of the SAS as a replacement for the torn down Second Avenue Elevated then any talk of a cross 125th St extension by any official, not representing Harlem, should be suspect. Your point about the Metrotech connection in downtown Brooklyn benefiting many residents is spot on. It was constructed for that very reason because the stations were 1 block apart. What the 125th St extension is entails building another line that has nothing to do with what was proposed in the first place. That's the basis for my beef with these extraneous proposals. Build what was blueprinted before veering off the agreed upon path. Although it was the city's money I think the money spent on the extension to Hudson Yards was done wrong. IMO the unbuilt 10th Avenue station would have served a more immediate need then what was ultimately constructed. Hudson Yards will be a real estate bonanza according to the writings in business pages for the last decade. The casual New Yorker, as well as many railfans, see it as transport to the Javits Center. Those same business pages have been saying that the Javit's Center is inadequate for modern conventions and that it should be demolished and relocated. Has everyone forgotten the proposal to relocate it near JFK airport, the Belt Parkway, and Aqueduct. The one where the racetrack was to be demolished with downstate racing relocated to Belmont Park. Go back and look at Governor Cuomo's statements about Aqueduct. Like they said back in the Watergate days, "follow the money". I don't trust most politicians nor the when they make these pronouncements. They hope your attention span gets diverted by the new and shiny proposal. Mine doesn't. Carry on.

[Wallyhorse]

I certainly have not forgotten about the idea of a convention center at Aqueduct, BUT my way of doing it preserves the racetrack and casino there AND with underground tunnels can have outdoor space inside the turf course at the Big A for such events throughout the year (a lot of what Cuomo said is also in my view because of what happened in 1994 when the then-NYRA board (most of whom are no longer with us) endorsed George Pataki over his father).  You could build major indoor space for such above the existing casino/grandstand and clubhouse as well as additional space between the clubhouse and first turn and also on the opposite side of the train tracks.  That can also be incorporated into a rebuild of the Rockaway Beach Branch to encourage using train travel there as well.  If this is done, the at Hudson Yards actually becomes more important because you likely will see additional office/residential/retail development there. 

Getting back on topic, there definitely needs to be a Bronx extension of the SAS that I would do as elevated along the route of the former Bronx 3rd Avenue El with provisions for a future rebuild of the 3rd Avenue El (as BMT/IND) that I still think may eventually be needed in addition to the full SAS, and even more so if we see the kind of development that is expected to take place in midtown.  The 125th Street crosstown extension of Phase 2, however, is something that also needs to be done with the development of 125th Street, such with transfers to and from every other subway line that stops at 125 (including a direct connection to the 8th Avenue Line that can be used for G.O.s or if the 8th Avenue Line needs to access the SAS for any reason or if warranted having the SAS run on the Concourse line, at least for Yankee Stadium specials) with a terminal at Broadway-12th Avenue.  Such I think would be heavily used and it would not just be for those who work or go to school at Columbia that live on the upper east side.

[Lance]

Just curious- did they ever consider building a station at 79th Street? On one hand, I don't blame them for wanting to minimize the amount of stations, but skipping over such a major cross street just seems like an error in judgment...

Poor man's express.

[CenSin]

Changing the subtopic to Phase 3…

 

I've been using the Broadway–Lafayette Street station frequently recently, and peering down the tunnel has given me a bit of insight into the layout of the area. Firstly, the express tracks (and the northbound connector from the Jamaica line) fly over the southbound local track, bringing it closer to street level than the main trunk. Before its construction, the entire tunnel from 1 Avenue to Broadway would have been two levels deep thanks to 2 existing lines crossing perpendicularly overhead, and 1 planned line (2 Avenue) also crossing perpendicularly overhead.

 

The current 2 Avenue station was designed with the new line in mind, and with 4 tracks. However, the design predates the Chrystie Street tunnel, and now I'm wondering if it's even possible to use the upper level of the 2 Avenue station for a perpendicular line. The 6 Avenue express tracks and the northbound local track connection gets pretty close to the 2 Avenue station itself. And a few streets down, the Nassau Street line crosses the area. I believe that tunnel is also 2 levels down (or sloping towards it) since the Bowery station is 2 levels down with provisions for another line running over it along the Bowery.

 

Adding those facts up, digging the 2 Avenue line 3 levels down may be the only option for phase 3 and 4 in the vicinity of Houston Street and Delancey Street. But the possibility of a cross-platform transfer is still open since the express tracks slope down towards the station at either end. The 2 Avenue line can slope up to meet at the same level.

[bobtehpanda]

Changing the subtopic to Phase 3…

 

I've been using the Broadway–Lafayette Street station frequently recently, and peering down the tunnel has given me a bit of insight into the layout of the area. Firstly, the express tracks (and the northbound connector from the Jamaica line) fly over the southbound local track, bringing it closer to street level than the main trunk. Before its construction, the entire tunnel from 1 Avenue to Broadway would have been two levels deep thanks to 2 existing lines crossing perpendicularly overhead, and 1 planned line (2 Avenue) also crossing perpendicularly overhead.

 

The current 2 Avenue station was designed with the new line in mind, and with 4 tracks. However, the design predates the Chrystie Street tunnel, and now I'm wondering if it's even possible to use the upper level of the 2 Avenue station for a perpendicular line. The 6 Avenue express tracks and the northbound local track connection gets pretty close to the 2 Avenue station itself. And a few streets down, the Nassau Street line crosses the area. I believe that tunnel is also 2 levels down (or sloping towards it) since the Bowery station is 2 levels down with provisions for another line running over it along the Bowery.

 

Adding those facts up, digging the 2 Avenue line 3 levels down may be the only option for phase 3 and 4 in the vicinity of Houston Street and Delancey Street. But the possibility of a cross-platform transfer is still open since the express tracks slope down towards the station at either end. The 2 Avenue line can slope up to meet at the same level.

 

If you're talking about a cross-platform transfer at Grand, it was decided that the cross-platform would not be worth it because Chrystie St, in that area, is not wide enough for a four-track platform. Any cross-platform transfer would require condemning property and destroying the park on Chrystie St to build a four-track tunnel. (This was also the plan during the IND days, since back then NIMBYs had no power.)

 

I believe the other reason to have it so deep is to make it easier to dive under all the East River Tunnels on the way to Hanover Sq. 50 feet isn't a particularly deep distance anyways.

[Wallyhorse]

If you're talking about a cross-platform transfer at Grand, it was decided that the cross-platform would not be worth it because Chrystie St, in that area, is not wide enough for a four-track platform. Any cross-platform transfer would require condemning property and destroying the park on Chrystie St to build a four-track tunnel. (This was also the plan during the IND days, since back then NIMBYs had no power.)

 

I believe the other reason to have it so deep is to make it easier to dive under all the East River Tunnels on the way to Hanover Sq. 50 feet isn't a particularly deep distance anyways.

Of course, Phase 4 is not going to be built for another 20 years and by the time it is, you could be very well looking at a completely different thought process where it's decided its better long-term to do cross-platform at Grand than going deep.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Wallyhorse

[bobtehpanda]

Of course, Phase 4 is not going to be built for another 20 years and by the time it is, you could be very well looking at a completely different thought process where it's decided its better long-term to do cross-platform at Grand than going deep.

 

The era of large-scale property and parks demolition for infrastructure is over, as much as you may want it in your el-crossed fantasy world. We saw this at South Ferry, where it was decided to dig deep instead of alter Battery Park, and even where large scale demolition did occur in the past decade, it only happened in the context of extensive property development under a pro-developer mayor.

[CenSin]

If you're talking about a cross-platform transfer at Grand, it was decided that the cross-platform would not be worth it because Chrystie St, in that area, is not wide enough for a four-track platform. Any cross-platform transfer would require condemning property and destroying the park on Chrystie St to build a four-track tunnel. (This was also the plan during the IND days, since back then NIMBYs had no power.)

 

I believe the other reason to have it so deep is to make it easier to dive under all the East River Tunnels on the way to Hanover Sq. 50 feet isn't a particularly deep distance anyways.

I already knew that. But just entertaining the possibilities here.

[Wallyhorse]

The era of large-scale property and parks demolition for infrastructure is over, as much as you may want it in your el-crossed fantasy world. We saw this at South Ferry, where it was decided to dig deep instead of alter Battery Park, and even where large scale demolition did occur in the past decade, it only happened in the context of extensive property development under a pro-developer mayor.

That's now.  The attitude by the time arrives for it to actually be built may be completely different. 

[CenSin]

FYI: the loss of operational flexibility is pretty much forever. A "deep Chrystie" option permanently excludes any possibility of track connections ever happening. It condemns the system forever. A park and buildings can be rebuilt after temporary work. Given the current state of Chinatown, if greedy real estate developers prevail, we may see most buildings torn down for high-rises anyway. Chrystie Street is ripe for that kind of development as the next street over (Bowery) and the streets after that (Elizabeth Street, Mott Street, and Mulberry Street) are getting this treatment already.

[Wallyhorse]

FYI: the loss of operational flexibility is pretty much forever. A "deep Chrystie" option permanently excludes any possibility of track connections ever happening. It condemns the system forever. A park and buildings can be rebuilt after temporary work. Given the current state of Chinatown, if greedy real estate developers prevail, we may see most buildings torn down for high-rises anyway. Chrystie Street is ripe for that kind of development as the next street over (Bowery) and the streets after that (Elizabeth Street, Mott Street, and Mulberry Street) are getting this treatment already.

Right, and I would think if we have that development, one provision that could be required is provisions be made so the "shallow Chrystie" option can be done when it's time to build Phase 4.  That could easily be worked into any land development deals and is something I would require in a proactive move on that front (or have it so they are required to let the do any such work before building new buildings so those parts of Phase 4 are done well ahead of the actual building of Phase 4). 

[bobtehpanda]

FYI: the loss of operational flexibility is pretty much forever. A "deep Chrystie" option permanently excludes any possibility of track connections ever happening. It condemns the system forever. A park and buildings can be rebuilt after temporary work. Given the current state of Chinatown, if greedy real estate developers prevail, we may see most buildings torn down for high-rises anyway. Chrystie Street is ripe for that kind of development as the next street over (Bowery) and the streets after that (Elizabeth Street, Mott Street, and Mulberry Street) are getting this treatment already.

 

Money used to make it operationally flexible is money that could be better spent somewhere else. DeKalb and the MB are at capacity as it is, so rerouting any actual regular service through such a connection would be very unlikely. DeKalb also provides a lot of operational flexibility; trains can be routed to either Sixth Avenue, Broadway via the Bridge, or Broadway and Nassau via Montague, so there's plenty of flexibility in the system already. The only service disruptions in which this would be useful in is a scenario where both Broadway and Sixth Avenue are out of service, but the Bridge isn't. How likely is that?

[CenSin]

Money used to make it operationally flexible is money that could be better spent somewhere else. DeKalb and the MB are at capacity as it is, so rerouting any actual regular service through such a connection would be very unlikely. DeKalb also provides a lot of operational flexibility; trains can be routed to either Sixth Avenue, Broadway via the Bridge, or Broadway and Nassau via Montague, so there's plenty of flexibility in the system already. The only service disruptions in which this would be useful in is a scenario where both Broadway and Sixth Avenue are out of service, but the Bridge isn't. How likely is that?

That's assuming it was for the sole benefit of the . It's still not quite certain where the will end up at the southern end. A connection to the Nassau Street line was one of the options. In such a scenario, a reroute down the bridge would be preferable to a detour from 72 Street down Broadway or 6 Avenue.

 

Or perhaps much like the Chrystie Street connection, the MTA will find it useful somewhere in the future.

[trainfanrod]

i would like to see the go to bay ridge or end somewhere close

[Sparen of Iria]

Personally, I find the down the IND Fulton to be the best option. It's the original plan (I think?) and will do much good for a growing population along that corridor. It will also send the to Lefferts, and will improve headways along the entire line.

[Wallyhorse]

Personally, I find the down the IND Fulton to be the best option. It's the original plan (I think?) and will do much good for a growing population along that corridor. It will also send the to Lefferts, and will improve headways along the entire line.

That's why I would do that, with what is currently the TM turned back into a regular station as part of such.  

 

Likely scenario in such would be the would be a Fulton Express to Leffets at all times (except late nights when the would be extended to Lefferts) while the would be express in Brooklyn at all times to the Rockaways (probably a 4/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park).  You could even perhaps have a peak-direction <A> or that skips the 80th, 88th and Rockaway Parkway stations as part of this as well.

[Fresh Pond]

That's why I would do that, with what is currently the TM turned back into a regular station as part of such.

 

Likely scenario in such would be the would be a Fulton Express to Leffets at all times (except late nights when the would be extended to Lefferts) while the would be express in Brooklyn at all times to the Rockaways (probably a 4/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park). You could even perhaps have a peak-direction <A> or that skips the 80th, 88th and Rockaway ParkwayBlvd stations as part of this as well.

A few things wrong with this...

 

1. Rockaway Blvd is too important of a stop to be skipped.

2. The swtiches that go to the middle is between 80 & 88 so all trains would have to stop at 80 St regardless.

3. Lefferts trains can't use that track to skip as it directly leads to the Rockaways lead.

4. That middle track is also a yard lead for trains to/from Pitkin yard.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Fresh Pond