Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[LOQV]

They should just build a station at 120 street and 2nd Avenue, then terminate the line at 125 street and Lexington avenue for phase 2.

[NewFlyer 230]

Two sections of tunnel in East Harlem built in the 1970s:

 

First segment is from 99 St to 105 St; this section is already connected to the Phase 1 tunnels and has track, signals and other infrastructure and will be used to store trainsets during Phase 1.

 

Second segment is from 110 St to 120 St. It will have to be partially demolished and rebuilt to make room for a station at 116 St, since the 1970s plans (and the tunnel segment) did not include a station at 116 St.

Phase two should be built quicker since the tunnels are mostly there. All you have to do is built 106th street station. Connect 106th street to the second built tunnels make 116th street station and they you just have the will have to work up to 125th. It shouldn't take as long though since the tunnels are there. Just laying the tracks down and building stations.

[Art Vandelay]

While I don't want to underestimate the amount of work the 116th street station will take, the old plans did have a center track at this location, so the tunnel is already rather wide there. 

Edited March 5, 2016 by Art Vandelay

[Sparen of Iria]

It would be nice if 116 St was actually made with three tracks. That way, if a Bronx extension ever happens, you can split either the northbound and onto different tracks and allow for more effective cross-platform transfers

[CenSin]

It would be nice if 116 St was actually made with three tracks. That way, if a Bronx extension ever happens, you can split either the northbound and onto different tracks and allow for more effective cross-platform transfers

That area would be much easier to make a triple-tracked station since it isn’t one hell of a deep station like 72 Street.

[Around the Horn]

It would be nice if 116 St was actually made with three tracks. That way, if a Bronx extension ever happens, you can split either the northbound and onto different tracks and allow for more effective cross-platform transfers

This, ENY, is the first thing you should send to the MTA board.

 

MTA, get it done!

[Wallyhorse]

This, ENY, is the first thing you should send to the MTA board.

 

MTA, get it done!

Yeah, have to agree on this.

 

The needs to do that, making 116 a three-track station (or even four tracks if possible) as then it allows for a Bronx portion (most likely replacing what was lost when the Bronx 3rd Avenue El was torn down).  A four-track setup would be idea since then perhaps the middle tracks (that also would have yard access at 129/2) could then go under (maybe to a stop at 125/2 before doing so) and go to stops in the Bronx 

[Eric B]

If the shell was built wide enough for three tracks, then perhaps that is needed for them to be able to add a [two track] station there without demolishing and building the structure all over again, which will save a lot of time and money. Any Bronx extension will probably have the provisions built in where the currently planned line begins to turn towards the 125th St. station. (I would rather 72nd St. have kept the the 3 track configuration).

[NewFlyer 230]

To be honest at this point the MTA wants to get Phase 1 and Phase 2 done as quickly as possible. So while it would have been ideal to make the line with express tracks to even take some load off the and , it's quicker and cheaper to make it two tracked. The stations however are spaced out which is not that bad.

[Union Tpke]

To be honest at this point the MTA wants to get Phase 1 and Phase 2 done as quickly as possible. So while it would have been ideal to make the line with express tracks to even take some load off the and , it's quicker and cheaper to make it two tracked. The stations however are spaced out which is not that bad.

 

having two tracks sure won't help capacity, and won't provide it for needed growth in the Bronx!

[bobtehpanda]

having two tracks sure won't help capacity, and won't provide it for needed growth in the Bronx!

 

There's no place to hook up two express tracks to. The Sixth Avenue Line did not start with express tracks.

 

I know this site is full of foamers and crayonistas (myself included), but "needed growth" is a long ways in the future considering it took us 100+ years to get this crap done.

[Union Tpke]

There's no place to hook up two express tracks to. The Sixth Avenue Line did not start with express tracks.

 

I know this site is full of foamers and crayonistas (myself included), but "needed growth" is a long ways in the future considering it took us 100+ years to get this crap done.

 

Phase 3 would have four tracks, and express tracks would be built underneath the local tracks in Phase 1 and 2.

[RollOver]

I know this site is full of foamers and crayonistas (myself included)

Lol, bobthepanda.

[LTA1992]

There's no place to hook up two express tracks to. The Sixth Avenue Line did not start with express tracks.

 

I know this site is full of foamers and crayonistas (myself included), but "needed growth" is a long ways in the future considering it took us 100+ years to get this crap done.

The Sixth Avenue Line is a terrible example as it was built in a way that express tracks could be built in the future. It was always in the plans and the 1945 plans for Second Avenue made it necessary.

 

A better example would be a line that was never planned to have express tracks and there is none. It only took so long for this to get done because of a variety of factors. From business in the areas demands to demolish the Els before the subway was built, to the Great Depression occurring six weeks after the plan was revealed, to World War II. With perpetual war in our future, it would be more prudent to plan for these things now so they they are there. They can be built later. However, building things later will naturally be more expensive than building them now.

Edited March 6, 2016 by LTA1992

[bobtehpanda]

The Sixth Avenue Line is a terrible example as it was built in a way that express tracks could be built in the future. It was always in the plans and the 1945 plans for Second Avenue made it necessary.

 

A better example would be a line that was never planned to have express tracks and there is none. It only took so long for this to get done because of a variety of factors. From business in the areas demands to demolish the Els before the subway was built, to the Great Depression occurring six weeks after the plan was revealed, to World War II. With perpetual war in our future, it would be more prudent to plan for these things now so they they are there. They can be built later. However, building things later will naturally be more expensive than building them now.

 

See, a lot of this response can be summed as "...but it didn't happen in New York!"

 

No one new builds four-track express anymore. New York hasn't considered building it since 1968. Given that the City no longer has the financial resources to fart out 20 or so miles of track at once, implementing four-track express and local is basically impossible because expresses are useless in a phased approach. Sure, they can be built at once, if you have unlimited financial resources and expect the express tracks to snake across the five boroughs in ten years, but that's not realistic, especially since the city is already developed. If you want fantasy, there's a separate thread for that.

[richardye1]

I agree. Express options save only a little amount of time. Express tracks should only be implemented when theres a need for such capacity. 2nd avenue, although very densely populated will not need an express under 63rd street (why do they need more capacity and where is this coming from?). An express above 63rd st is debatable, but with its new tunnel design, it is cost prohibitive. 

[Union Tpke]

I agree. Express options save only a little amount of time. Express tracks should only be implemented when theres a need for such capacity. 2nd avenue, although very densely populated will not need an express under 63rd street (why do they need more capacity and where is this coming from?). An express above 63rd st is debatable, but with its new tunnel design, it is cost prohibitive. 

 

it would provide a crosstown line via 125th Street, a Bruckner Line, and a Third Avenue/Pelham Parkway Line.

[bobtehpanda]

it would provide a crosstown line via 125th Street, a Bruckner Line, and a Third Avenue/Pelham Parkway Line.

 

You can already do 2/3 of this with what you have. We should not be spending an additional $17B for another pair of tracks for some far off expansion that isn't going to immediately link up.

[Caelestor]

On the topic of express capacity: Not really needed, since SAS runs outside Manhattan's core, and won't have even half the ridership of the Lexington Ave line. Even assuming 15 tph running along 125th St, it's doubtful that more than 15 tph would run along a hypothetical Fordham Line. Crosstown lines in the Bronx won't be built, since the ridership potential won't be able to justify the cost compared to existing buses and other north-south lines need to be prioritized.

 

On the topic of northern extensions: A 125th St spur would reduce the number of trains running into the Bronx in the future, but again, not certain if the Bronx even needs that many more trains. The logical extension via Melrose Ave and the MNR ROW to Fordham Plaza probably only needs 4 minute headways at most, considering many riders are just going to transfer to the and at 3rd Ave - 149 St. In any case, there shouldn't be a station at 125th St / 2nd Ave, since the area is too close to the river and major expressways and will have poor ridership potential. Spend the $1 billion to fast-track a tunnel under the Harlem River instead, and build an entrance to the 116th St station at 119th St.

 

Last notes: The 125th St / Park Ave station only needs 2 tracks, since it won't forever be a terminal with a potential extension towards Broadway. I'd redirect the savings into fast-tracking the 138th St and 149th St stations along 3rd Ave. A 2-track SAS can support quite a bunch of new services actually (see below):

 

A New Program for Action:

 

Second Avenue Subway: Assuming phases 1, 2, and 3 are built, with room for changes in Phase 4 onwards

• 2 northern branches: 125th St line, 3rd St / Webster Ave / MNR ROW line (exact route undetermined)
• Southern branches undetermined
• Three services:  ,  , 
• : Fordham to Coney Island via Broadway express, provision for extension north to Bedford Park Blvd or east along Fordham Road
• : Manhattanville / 125th St (Broadway) to Lower Manhattan, provision for extension into Brooklyn
• : See section below

Queens Bypass: Extension of 63rd St line along LIRR row to Forest Hills - 71 Ave. Not calling the line a superexpress because a few key transfer stations should be built. Two services:   ,   .

• Sunnyside - 39th St: Potential station to serve projected development at the Sunnyside Yards, potential transfer to future Sunnyside LIRR / MNR station
• Woodside - 61st St: Transfer to the   and LIRR
• 51st Ave: Potential station to connect to Triboro RX /   extension along the Bay Ridge branch
• Woodhaven Blvd - Rego Park: Transfer station for the Rockaway branch 
• Forest Hills - 71 Ave: Express station below existing station, connects to existing tracks at Union Turnpike.
•  runs between Jamaica / 179 St and Coney Island via 6th Ave, 63rd St / Queens Bypass. Express east of Union Turnpike on weekdays, local all other times.
•  runs the same route, serving local stations east of Forest Hills on weekdays.
•  now runs express between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills, and local to Jamaica / 179 St.
•  re-extended to Forest Hills to provide local service.

Rockaway Branch: Reactivation of the ROW for direct Midtown service via 63rd St. Three new stations at Metropolitan Ave, Jamaica Ave, and Atlantic Ave.

•  via Fulton St: Redirected to Rockaway Beach, Replaces Rockaway    shuttle
•  via Queens Bypass: New service from Far Rockaway via Rockaway Branch, Queens Bypass / 63rd St, and 2nd Ave to Lower Manhattan.

 Extension: Phase 1 of potential Triboro RX line. Extend the   past Middle Village into Queens

• Eliot Ave (optional)
• 51st Ave: Transfer to the  , 
• Roosevelt Ave (Phase 2): Free transfer available to either 69 St or 75 St - Roosevelt Ave.

Brooklyn extensions still under planning. Ignoring costs, comments welcome.

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Caelestor

[bobtehpanda]

On the topic of express capacity: Not really needed, since SAS runs outside Manhattan's core, and won't have even half the ridership of the Lexington Ave line. Even assuming 15 tph running along 125th St, it's doubtful that more than 15 tph would run along a hypothetical Fordham Line. Crosstown lines in the Bronx won't be built, since the ridership potential won't be able to justify the cost compared to existing buses and other north-south lines need to be prioritized.

 

On the topic of northern extensions: A 125th St spur would reduce the number of trains running into the Bronx in the future, but again, not certain if the Bronx even needs that many more trains. The logical extension via Melrose Ave and the MNR ROW to Fordham Plaza probably only needs 4 minute headways at most, considering many riders are just going to transfer to the and at 3rd Ave - 149 St. In any case, there shouldn't be a station at 125th St / 2nd Ave, since the area is too close to the river and major expressways and will have poor ridership potential. Spend the $1 billion to fast-track a tunnel under the Harlem River instead, and build an entrance to the 116th St station at 119th St.

 

Last notes: The 125th St / Park Ave station only needs 2 tracks, since it won't forever be a terminal with a potential extension towards Broadway. I'd redirect the savings into fast-tracking the 138th St and 149th St stations along 3rd Ave. A 2-track SAS can support quite a bunch of new services actually (see below):

 

I don't know if there will *never* be a crosstown line; going east to Co-op City, Fordham Rd/Pelham Pkwy is pretty wide and you could probably elevate the line (and make it cheaper). On top of that the Bx12 floats around second or third place in terms of ridership.

[Caelestor]

I don't know if there will *never* be a crosstown line; going east to Co-op City, Fordham Rd/Pelham Pkwy is pretty wide and you could probably elevate the line (and make it cheaper). On top of that the Bx12 floats around second or third place in terms of ridership.

 

Yeah, that's one of the alternatives for the line past Fordham Plaza, though I'd imagine there would be a connection to the Concourse Yard via Bedford Park Blvd.

[Union Tpke]

It the Second Avenue Subway had CBTC and could handle 40 TPH, two tracks north of 63rd could work.

[Mysterious2train]

I bring links.

 

Utility customers spared from having to pay for Second Avenue subway, other transit projects: (Crain's NY) Cuomo proposed to have Con Edison and other utility companies pay $375 million for utility relocations necessary for MTA projects, including SAS, although the state legislature rejected this.

 

Maloney: Second Avenue Subway Project Entrances To Open On Time:  (CBS Local) Pretty self-explanatory title, Congressman Maloney, who championed the project, is still confident the line will open on time.

 

This month's presentation on construction to the NYCT and Capital Program Oversight Committee boards (starts on page 8). Includes an accelerated construction schedule with completion dates for activities such as track work, elevator/escalator installation, fire safety testing etc. in order to meet the December 2016 deadline

 

Here's what's listed as the most pressing issues:

- Because construction is still not done, there will be less time for testing than originally intended (3-4 months vs. 10 months)

- Preparing to open 3 new stations at the same time will eat up resources 

- Not much room in the schedule for failure/retesting

- The station entrances at 72 St are not projected to be completed until the fall, which could delay fire alarm testing

- Small design changes are still being issued this late into construction

 

I want to be optimistic but I can't help but be cynical. Also, this is not an issue that would affect revenue service, but it's also listed that equipment testing at Lexington Avenue-63rd St station won't be finished until the end of April, one month later than expected. I'm not surprised, but disappointed since the renovation at that station has just limping along slowly with the completion date being constantly pushed back. A few months ago the MTA attributed delays on "contractor productivity rate", so I'm certainly not imagining things. Thankfully it's almost done. 

[Lance]

I read all that and all I see is "don't expect a December opening." I can see them delaying the opening simply to avoid embarrassing themselves by having to close the line for several weekends for "maintenance work".

[paulrivera]

I read all that and all I see is "don't expect a December opening." I can see them delaying the opening simply to avoid embarrassing themselves by having to close the line for several weekends for "maintenance work".

Here's the real reason why the Second Avenue subway construction has been lagging (but they won't tell you that.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlxAMWBXDx4