Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Around the Horn]

but should hundreds of millions of dollars be going to building a connection that serves no day-to-day purpose

trains have to be serviced, stored and washed somewhere.

 

With this connection, they can be stored and serviced at 207 and washed at Concourse, which is the most likely place to store them unless you're willing to pony up money to rebuild/expand 36th Street yard in Brooklyn.

 

This connection in addition to providing yard access for trains is also providing additional back up reroutes for the .

And before you say that the chances of a disruption that would require this connection are one in a million, there was a situation on CPW last month that created total chaos.

 

If the SAS and this connection were around, trains could be rerouted without issue:

: Follow route to Lex-63rd, switch to and resume service at W4 via 8 Av Local

: Follow route to Lex-63rd,switch to and switch to express track just before 47th-50th.

OR Follow route to Houston Street and switch to Bridge tracks just before Grand Street

[bobtehpanda]

trains have to be serviced, stored and washed somewhere.

 

With this connection, they can be stored and serviced at 207 and washed at Concourse, which is the most likely place to store them unless you're willing to pony up money to rebuild/expand 36th Street yard in Brooklyn.

 

This connection in addition to providing yard access for trains is also providing additional back up reroutes for the .

And before you say that the chances of a disruption that would require this connection are one in a million, there was a situation on CPW last month that created total chaos.

 

If the SAS and this connection were around, trains could be rerouted without issue:

: Follow route to Lex-63rd, switch to and resume service at W4 via 8 Av Local

: Follow route to Lex-63rd,switch to and switch to express track just before 47th-50th.

OR Follow route to Houston Street and switch to Bridge tracks just before Grand Street

 

They're already considering expanding 36th St yard; where do you think trains are supposed to go when 125th St/Lex opens? Redundancy is a good thing, but redundancy is not worth several hundred million dollars of construction, planning, eminent domain takings and the resulting opportunity cost of not using the money somewhere else or not taking out the debt required. Money doesn't grow on trees, and let's not pretend like it does.

 

If you have to cherry pick your arguments because your idea doesn't support a simple cost/benefit analysis, the idea is bad.

Edited April 25, 2016 by bobtehpanda

[EvilMonologue]

Regarding Phase 3 and a transfer at 42nd St, I was wondering if there would be any way to have a 7 stop at 1st-2nd Ave. Is it technically possible? If so, how much would it cost and would it be worth it? Just wondering.

[Javier]

No one answered my question; did Phase 3 & 4 merge into one?

[Threxx]

No one answered my question; did Phase 3 & 4 merge into one?

 

As far as I know there has been no info about Phase 3 & 4 past the initial public plans. Wait and see.

[Fresh Pond]

Regarding Phase 3 and a transfer at 42nd St, I was wondering if there would be any way to have a 7 stop at 1st-2nd Ave. Is it technically possible? If so, how much would it cost and would it be worth it? Just wondering.

The crossover & emergency exit before the tunnel begins is approximately at 1 Av...or York Av, one of them two streets lol.

 

In any case, it's not really worth it, especially since there's an exit to 3 Av & 42 St.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Fresh Pond

[bobtehpanda]

Regarding Phase 3 and a transfer at 42nd St, I was wondering if there would be any way to have a 7 stop at 1st-2nd Ave. Is it technically possible? If so, how much would it cost and would it be worth it? Just wondering.

 

At 1st or 2nd Av the tunnels are descending, so no, it wouldn't be possible.

[EvilMonologue]

The before the tunnel begins is approximately at 1 Av...or York Av, one of them two streets lol.

 

In any case, it's not really worth it, especially since there's an exit to 3 Av & 42 St.

 

At 1st or 2nd Av the tunnels are descending, so no, it wouldn't be possible.

 

Thanks

[HenryB]

I wonder phase 3 could be built like this or not:

 

 - 2nd Ave Express. goes back to 53rd street tunnel after 42nd street

-> terminate at 55th Street on weekend and late nights

-> Since   leaves 6th Ave,   will run more frequently, maybe some   running express in Brooklyn during rush hours

 

 - 2nd Ave local. Chamber Street <-> 125th Street

 

 - 2nd Ave Express. 55th Street, 2nd avenue <-> Bay Pkwy (West End) OR Bay Ridge

-> no weekend and late nights services 

 

 

Current track map: http://nycsubway.org.s3.amazonaws.com/images/trackmap/pm_lower_manhattan.png

 

Track map after phase 3:

Edited May 15, 2016 by HenryB

[Union Tpke]

get rid of the 10th Street station

[Around the Horn]

get rid of the 10th Street station

I'd keep that station, just at St Mark's Place instead of 10 Street. It could serve the area by Tompkins Square Park.

 

The idea is dead in the water but I am intrigued by his double deck local- express setup. And why Is 3rd Av on the called Stuyvesant Square?

Edited May 15, 2016 by Around the Horn

[HenryB]

I'd keep that station, just at St Mark's Place instead of 10 Street. It could serve the area by Tompkins Square Park.

 

The idea is dead in the water but I am intrigued by his double deck local- express setup. And why Is 3rd Av on the called Stuyvesant Square?

 

 

I worry that we can't run many trains per hour as possible because of the capacity limit on Nassau. That's why i suggested   goes 2nd ave too.

 

the 3rd Av station on   ....just tried to rename it after new platforms for 2nd Ave are built

(something like "Stuyvesant Square - 3 Av" "14st - 3 Av" etc)

Edited May 15, 2016 by HenryB

[Lance]

One thing to remember when referencing those maps: they are not to scale. What may look like a lot of space on the Dougherty maps really isn't in real life. From the existing 2 Avenue station to Bowery on the Centre St line, it's about 1,400 feet or just over two full-length trains.

 

Also, that gentle curve from the 2nd Ave line to Canal St on the Centre St line is not possible. Not without digging through half of Nolita. If anything, such a connection would require dipping below the current Chrystie St connection before turning west towards Bowery, and probably below the existing station. Only after that could I see a merge for service to continue down to Broad St and Brooklyn.

 

One final thing that should be noted is that a 2nd Ave/Jamaica connection would probably require a complete of Chrystie St.

[RollOver]

-> Since   leaves 6th Ave,   will run more frequently, maybe some   running express in Brooklyn during rush hours

 

The currently runs at 15 tph during the rush, much like the does. When both lines run together on the Queens Boulevard Express, that's 30 tph combined, meaning that's a train every 2 minutes. It's impossible for a train to run more than 2 minutes apart. So basically, there's no other way you could run express service on the Culver Line in Brooklyn. The can't run more frequently because of its merging with the in Queens and for the reasons I've mention in the second sentence on this post. Unless you want to lower the 's headways (which can't happen due to ridership on the Jamaica Center branch and the 53rd Street branch) to allow more trains. While it's possible to run more midday/evening service (which currently runs 8-9 tph like the ), I doubt ridership during middays/evenings is high.

Edited May 15, 2016 by RollOver

[CenSin]

One thing to remember when referencing those maps: they are not to scale. What may look like a lot of space on the Dougherty maps really isn't in real life.

And the Centre Street line’s track map is still wrong. I was a wee tot when they changed the track configuration.

[HenryB]

One thing to remember when referencing those maps: they are not to scale. What may look like a lot of space on the Dougherty maps really isn't in real life. From the existing 2 Avenue station to Bowery on the Centre St line, it's about 1,400 feet or just over two full-length trains.

 

Also, that gentle curve from the 2nd Ave line to Canal St on the Centre St line is not possible. Not without digging through half of Nolita. If anything, such a connection would require dipping below the current Chrystie St connection before turning west towards Bowery, and probably below the existing station. Only after that could I see a merge for service to continue down to Broad St and Brooklyn.

 

One final thing that should be noted is that a 2nd Ave/Jamaica connection would probably require a complete of Chrystie St.

 

 

Yea there is a mistake in my drawing. It should go under Bowery St station. Thanks for pointing it out

By the way, what do you mean by "a complete of chrystie st"?  

Edited May 15, 2016 by HenryB

[Wallyhorse]

 

I wonder phase 3 could be built like this or not:

 

 - 2nd Ave Express. goes back to 53rd street tunnel after 42nd street

-> terminate at 55th Street on weekend and late nights

-> Since   leaves 6th Ave,   will run more frequently, maybe some   running express in Brooklyn during rush hours

 

 - 2nd Ave local. Chamber Street <-> 125th Street

 

 - 2nd Ave Express. 55th Street, 2nd avenue <-> Bay Pkwy (West End) OR Bay Ridge

-> no weekend and late nights services 

 

 

Current track map: http://nycsubway.org.s3.amazonaws.com/images/trackmap/pm_lower_manhattan.png

 

Track map after phase 3:

 

There is no need (as noted elsewhere) for a 10th Street station.  That can be covered if you make the exits at 14th Street 11th and 14th Street while on Houston the exits Houston(/1st) Street and 4th Street.  That can cover the East Village without the need for a 10th (or St. Mark's Place) station.

[Caelestor]

Yea there is a mistake in my drawing. It should go under Bowery St station. Thanks for pointing it out

By the way, what do you mean by "a complete of chrystie st"?  

 

A complete reconfiguration of Chrystie St presumably. Some of my thoughts:

 

• The 10th St station: I'm in agreement with the other posters that it's not necessary. Under current plans, the 14th St and Houston St stations are both double-ended, with entrances at 12th and 3rd Sts respectively, so those stations are less than half a mile apart. More relevantly, adding another stop just incurs an extra $1 billion in cost and jeopardizes the project.
• Feasibility of express service: I doubt that SAS will ever support an express service. All the stops btwn 72nd and Houston Sts serve major intersections and destinations, so no station should be skipped. Moreover, it's unlikely that SAS will have high demand for express service, since it's going to take a long time for it to be extended to the Bronx or Brooklyn. It's better to just configure the line such that it supports 30 tph right off the bat, and if additional service is ever warranted, I would just build a 3rd Ave express service then.
• I'm a fan of connecting SAS to Nassau St, but I fully acknowledge doing it btwn Canal St and Houston St might not be feasible. What is the possibility of doing it btwn Grand and Chambers Sts by reusing the space containing the old Manhattan Bridge Tracks to Nassau St? The center tracks north of Chambers would be configured to fly under the NB local track.
• I think that somehow connecting SAS to the Culver Line may be more feasible than adding another connection to the Williamsburg Bridge, since the former is less at capacity. The BMT Eastern division trains only have 8 cars, and connecting to the IND Brooklyn lines will probably offer more potential service to more destinations in the long run.

[Javier]

I am also a fan of connections SAS to both Nassau and the line, because if any construction were to happen on the (J)/®, the or can replace it.

[Wallyhorse]

 

A complete reconfiguration of Chrystie St presumably. Some of my thoughts:

 

• I think that somehow connecting SAS to the Culver Line may be more feasible than adding another connection to the Williamsburg Bridge, since the former is less at capacity. The BMT Eastern division trains only have 8 cars, and connecting to the IND Brooklyn lines will probably offer more potential service to more destinations in the long run.

That is something if it can be done I'd be seriously looking at and make the lower end of the line MUCH more useful after Phase 3.  It also potentially (if they build the SAS Connection to QB) be done where the could use it when needed on a re-route.  

 

This could in fact be a new train that is an SAS/Culver Express that operates all times to Coney Island while the becomes a full-time local to Church Avenue.

[Lance]

In order to make a 2nd Ave/Culver connection without building a new East River tunnel, the 2nd Ave line would have to connect to the 6th Avenue line between 2 Av and Delancey St, most likely as the latter line curves south towards the Rutgers tubes. In order for that to happen without a bunch of sharp curves, the 2nd Avenue line would have to run down Avenue A at some point.

[HenryB]

Thanks for the comments~ Here's the updated version:

 

 - 2nd Ave Express (4 tracks phase 3)/Local (2 tracks phase 3), 125th Street, 2nd avenue <-> Culver

 ->  and  , either one of them goes Church Avenue using Culver local, and another one goes Coney Island using Culver express

 

 - 2nd Ave Local, 55th Street <-> Bay Pkwy (West End) OR Bay Ridge

​-> Terminate at Chamber Street, weekend and late nights

 

 

Problems:

-  and   alone don't use all the capacities of 4 tracks design

- Platforms of station on Nassau Street Line need to be lengthened (see B-31, http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/appendixb.pdf )

-  's platforms in Houston Street station would be fair away from  's after making turn from E 1st street to 2nd avenue 

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by HenryB

[bobtehpanda]

I have no idea why people on this forum are so allergic to the deep Chrystie, Water St option. It's the only option that doesn't require evicting a neighborhood.

Edited May 17, 2016 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

I have no idea why people on this forum are so allergic to the deep Chrystie, Water St option. It's the only option that doesn't require evicting a neighborhood.

It’s one of those opportunities that cannot be gotten again once passed up.

[Lance]

I have no idea why people on this forum are so allergic to the deep Chrystie, Water St option. It's the only option that doesn't require evicting a neighborhood.

I think it's because the section was built with the purpose of being used for the 2nd Avenue line.

 

Personally, I'm more in favor of the so-called teacup option that takes the line down Avenue B/C and avoids Chrystie St entirely.