Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[LTA1992]

How about extending the and to Broadway/125 Street

so it would also stop at:

5 Avenue

Lenox Avenue

St. Nicholas Avenue

Broadway

I'm one of the few would have preferred sending both services to The Bronx and splitting it up there. I just cannot see why entire sections of that borough are going to be denied transit in order to serve 125th Street.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

[Tonyboy515]

You must be new to this forum cause we've mentioned this ALOT!

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Yes, I am new, and I don't have time to read 238 pages of posts.

Just don't add a stop at Fifth Avenue and the plan is good.

I guess 5th avenue is pretty much pointless.

[Tonyboy515]

I'm one of the few would have preferred sending both services to The Bronx and splitting it up there. I just cannot see why entire sections of that borough are going to be denied transit in order to serve 125th Street.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

 

I live in Brooklyn so I don't know how it will affect service, though I can see that there is a big subway gap in the Bronx.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Yes, I am new, and I don't have time to read 238 pages of posts.

I guess 5th avenue is pretty much pointless.

Yeah because at the Lex station, there is a plan for a park Avenue entrance, and the distance between there and 5 Av, as well as Lenox and 5 Avs, the station would be redundant.

[Tonyboy515]

Yeah because at the Lex station, there is a plan for a park Avenue entrance, and the distance between there and 5 Av, as well as Lenox and 5 Avs, the station would be redundant.

 

Just to add on, there are also no transfer points at 5th Avenue... so I just wasn't thinking right... It really is pointless.

[rbrome]

Releasing a newsletter every month is interesting because it shows just how slowly the work is going at Lex-63rd! Even reading the announcements section makes it sounds like there was little to no progress. Can't wait to see almost the exact same wording in next month's newsletter (Maybe the plaza by the new station entrances will finally open, if we're lucky - MTACC has been "finalizing turnover to the Royale" for months now)

 

Agreed, and I thought the same from visiting in person. I was there a few months ago, and it looked close to being done. Then I went just a week ago, and was shocked to see relatively little progress. I mean it's mostly finishes work, but there's a lot left to be done, even though it seems like it should be complete by now. They seem to be dragging their feet just because that station is the furthest along, but I worry it will be a tortoise-and-hare situation in a few months, where the other stations catch up and suddenly everyone wonders why 63rd isn't 100% finished. 

 

At least the plaza is open now. 

[Tonyboy515]

​How about...

​- Extending the to South Ferry to connect with the and trains

-​ OR making a connection tunnel to Wall Street  at Hanover Square

- ​OR making a connection tunnel to Broad Street  at Hanover Square

Edited July 18, 2016 by Tonyboy515

[Mysterious2train]

2003 MTA says:

 

 

Comment 52: The project’s southern terminus should be farther south than Hanover Square. The termination north of Whitehall Street does not allow for service diversions. Why was the Whitehall terminus/station eliminated? (Shachter)

 

The Second Avenue Line should run through the South Ferry line and have a South Ferry terminal. A provision for Brooklyn service could be made at South Ferry. (Hassan, Kupferberg)

 

Response: The Hanover Square Station is being designed at a depth that would facilitate a future extension to Brooklyn to be constructed deep in rock. In the interim, storage tracks are proposed south of the Hanover Square Station, which would allow trains going out of service to layup during the midday and overnight. The train storage would not be feasible if the Second Avenue Line were extended to a terminus at Whitehall Street. Continuing the service westward past Whitehall Street would be very difficult, because of the presence of numerous other tunnels in this area (which include three subway tunnels that pass under Water Street on their way to Brooklyn, the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, and the Battery Park underpass).

 

As described in Appendix B, two alternatives were studied that would provide service as far south as Whitehall Street and allow for transfer passageways to the service and to the routes at South Ferry. These alternatives were eliminated because they did not attract enough riders, given the Whitehall Street Station’s distance to large office buildings, to offset their higher cost in relation to the other options. In addition, they would have resulted in impacts to Battery Park and Peter Minuit Plaza. These alternatives would have required possible vent structures, emergency exits, and/or station entrances into or near one or both of the parks. Minimizing impacts to both open spaces was among the reasons considered in selecting the terminal location. 

 

 

Link, on page 24

Edited July 18, 2016 by Mysterious2train

[Tonyboy515]

@mysterious2train I get it, but how about passages to Wall Street or Broad Street?

[Wallyhorse]

I'm one of the few would have preferred sending both services to The Bronx and splitting it up there. I just cannot see why entire sections of that borough are going to be denied transit in order to serve 125th Street.

125 is a very important block where you can have connections to ALL of the other lines that serve it (plus, you can create a connection at St. Nicholas with the 8th Avenue Line that also would allow for an SAS via Concourse to be used if needed).  Also, as well noted by me Columbia University is undergoing a massive expansion that will be complete by the time such expansion happened.  

 

A Bronx SAS also is needed, as I would do it to replace what was lost when the 3rd Avenue EL was torn down.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Wallyhorse

[richardye1]

125 is a very important block where you can have connections to ALL of the other lines that serve it (plus, you can create a connection at St. Nicholas with the 8th Avenue Line that also would allow for an SAS via Concourse to be used if needed).  Also, as well noted by me Columbia University is undergoing a massive expansion that will be complete by the time such expansion happened.  

 

A Bronx SAS also is needed, as I would do it to replace what was lost when the 3rd Avenue EL was torn down.

this has been over repeated in this forum ^

 

don't think the 125 crosstown is feasible, since it doesn't build any new stations. this would be hard to market for politicians, and it would not relieve lexington avenue

[LTA1992]

this has been over repeated in this forum ^

 

don't think the 125 crosstown is feasible, since it doesn't build any new stations. this would be hard to market for politicians, and it would not relieve lexington avenue

Exactly. A line up Third Avenue and East to Co-op City as well as a line through the southeast Bronx via Lafayette Avenue would to the most to relieve congestion in the Lex.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Agreed. But if you build those two services as part of a future Bronx SAS extension, what would then happen to Lex/125th? Would you still keep SAS service to that station and have three SAS services between 125th and 63rd streets? That would strongly limit the amount of rush hour service you can provide on each branch. Or do you abandon SAS service to Lex/125th so you can provide more service on the two Bronx branches?

[Javier]

Ok. Here's what I think is going to happen (basing on everything thats going around.)

 

The will become part of the SAS on weekends, not terminate at 57th St-6 Av as others are suggesting, during the shutdown and the shutdown. This is to insure riders from the still have direct access into Midtown and the Upper East Side.

 

- from Coney Island-Stillwell Av to 96th St-2 Av via Brighton Local/Broadway Express/2nd Av Local.

 

- from Metropolitan Av-Middle Village to 96th St-2 Av via its normal route, but after Essex St will go via the to Lex Av-63rd then use the switches north of that station to go to 96th St. This is to give SAS riders direct access to the Sixth Av/Nassau/Culver/West End Lines and the Broadway/Brighton/Sea Beach/4th Av lines.

[Caelestor]

Agreed. But if you build those two services as part of a future Bronx SAS extension, what would then happen to Lex/125th? Would you still keep SAS service to that station and have three SAS services between 125th and 63rd streets? That would strongly limit the amount of rush hour service you can provide on each branch. Or do you abandon SAS service to Lex/125th so you can provide more service on the two Bronx branches?

 

Half the trains would run under 125 St, and the other half would run to the Bronx. Presumably, the would run under 125 St and the would be extended into the Bronx.

 

For 125 St, the stations would be Lexington / Park Aves, Lenox Ave, St. Nicholas Ave, and Broadway, offering transfers to all existing north-south lines. I don't agree with the proposal of sending the line up 8th Ave / Concourse, since I think most riders will want to use the line to go to City College or Columbia.

 

For the Bronx, only one line can be built since SAS is 2 tracks. The logical extension runs to Fordham before turning right and going to Co-op City via Pelham Parkway.

 

 

Ok. Here's what I think is going to happen (basing on everything thats going around.)

 

The will become part of the SAS on weekends, not terminate at 57th St-6 Av as others are suggesting, during the shutdown and the shutdown. This is to insure riders from the still have direct access into Midtown and the Upper East Side.

 

- from Coney Island-Stillwell Av to 96th St-2 Av via Brighton Local/Broadway Express/2nd Av Local.

 

- from Metropolitan Av-Middle Village to 96th St-2 Av via its normal route, but after Essex St will go via the to Lex Av-63rd then use the switches north of that station to go to 96th St. This is to give SAS riders direct access to the Sixth Av/Nassau/Culver/West End Lines and the Broadway/Brighton/Sea Beach/4th Av lines.

 

First of all, riders already have access via a transfer at Union Square. The will offer an admittedly slower connection at Bleecker St and Herald Square. Next, I doubt that the MTA will run more service to the SAS on weekends than weekdays. 57 St is the natural terminus, but if the MTA is willing to pay, the could be extended to Roosevelt Island to enable the cross-platform transfer to the . Unlikely imo though.

[LTA1992]

Agreed. But if you build those two services as part of a future Bronx SAS extension, what would then happen to Lex/125th? Would you still keep SAS service to that station and have three SAS services between 125th and 63rd streets? That would strongly limit the amount of rush hour service you can provide on each branch. Or do you abandon SAS service to Lex/125th so you can provide more service on the two Bronx branches?

I'm saying they should axe Lex and 125th altogether. More relief would come from transfers made at third and 138th along with third and 149th anyway.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

I'm saying they should axe Lex and 125th altogether. More relief would come from transfers made at third and 138th along with third and 149th anyway.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

I agree. I'd love to see phase 2 built from 96 Street to 3 Avenue-149 Street and phase 3 to Houston Street built at the same time, but knowing the MTA this won't happen.

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[CenSin]

I'm saying they should axe Lex and 125th altogether. More relief would come from transfers made at third and 138th along with third and 149th anyway.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

Cramming everyone into one station for a transfer isn’t a good idea anyway. People looking for the sould use one station, and people looking for the or should use another. In the reverse, people boarding the sould get on at different stops rather than all at one stop causing delays. In my honest opinion, 125 Street should be a cheap stop-gap measure until the Bronx extension can be built. Abandon Lexington Avenue/125 Street when that happens, because it won’t do a very good job. Edited July 21, 2016 by CenSin

[LTA1992]

Cramming everyone into one station for a transfer isn’t a good idea anyway. People looking for the would use one station, and people looking for the or would use the other. In the reverse, people boarding the would get on at different stops rather than all at one stop, causing delays. In my honest opinion, 125 Street should be a cheap stop-gap measure until the Bronx extension can be built. Abandon Lexington Avenue/125 Street when that happens, because it won’t do a very good job.

I agree on every point except the wasting of a billion on a station to be abandoned anyway.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

[RailRunRob]

Cramming everyone into one station for a transfer isn’t a good idea anyway. People looking for the sould use one station, and people looking for the or should use another. In the reverse, people boarding the sould get on at different stops rather than all at one stop causing delays. In my honest opinion, 125 Street should be a cheap stop-gap measure until the Bronx extension can be built. Abandon Lexington Avenue/125 Street when that happens, because it won’t do a very good job.

Couldn't you just use the Lexington Ave Station to serve Broadway service? ? Central and Eastern Bronx services continue up 2nd Ave into the Bronx?  Also, plans for the Second Ave service in the Bronx did it call for Subway or Elevated sections?

[Around the Horn]

Couldn't you just use the Lexington Ave Station to serve Broadway service? ? Central and Eastern Bronx services continue up 2nd Ave into the Bronx? Also, plans for the Second Ave service in the Bronx did it call for Subway or Elevated sections?

You have to have three services on. 2nd Avenue which according to other posters isn't a good idea, particularly if the comes back as a Queens-2nd Av service.

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Lance]

I don't know why we're so adverse to having three services on a two-track line. As long as there are no sharp curves or slow switches, it's not impossible to run the amount of service to serve the Bronx with two lines and West Harlem. Of course, if the plan is to extend the 2nd Avenue line into the Bronx, I would rather they build the line straight up 2nd Avenue to a cross-river tunnel. Even with the current plans for the line to curve to Lexington Ave, the likelihood of that leading to a 125th Street crosstown is very slim.

[CenSin]

I don't know why we're so adverse to having three services on a two-track line. As long as there are no sharp curves or slow switches, it's not impossible to run the amount of service to serve the Bronx with two lines and West Harlem. Of course, if the plan is to extend the 2nd Avenue line into the Bronx, I would rather they build the line straight up 2nd Avenue to a cross-river tunnel. Even with the current plans for the line to curve to Lexington Ave, the likelihood of that leading to a 125th Street crosstown is very slim.

That’s only secondary to the fact that Lexington Avenue/125 Street will be siphoning trains off a corridor that needs the traffic more. But seeing how the MTA generally tries to avoid 3 route on a pair of tracks, it’s common to extend the mentality to all newly constructed lines. If the rule-of-thumb is 30 trains per hour per pair of track, then there is a cause for concern as 10 trains per hour is pretty much the sweet spot between high frequency of service and high wastage. But this leaves very little room for adjustment. If you need to increase the frequency of any route, some other route will suffer a decrease in service much like the situation in Washington D.C. with the introduction of the Silver. As waits approach 10 minutes (6 trains per hour), service becomes less attractive. Maybe Lexington Avenue/125 Street will be that stub that gets less frequent service to give the Bronx the other 24 trains per hour. Then the transfer would be underutilized as people stick to the , , and . Folks who do need 2 Avenue would be transferring to the at 3 Avenue–149 Street () and 3 Avenue–138 Street () with a handful from the transferring at 125 Street who must have 2 Avenue service for destinations along the far east side of Manhattan.

Edited July 21, 2016 by CenSin

[Union Tpke]

With CBTC perhaps there could be 35 TPH?

[CenSin]

With CBTC perhaps there could be 35 TPH?

I’m not sure if it accounts for the 40 TPH max, but the Moscow Metro does it with 2 pairs of tracks, no interlining (although the physical connections are there), and a sprinkling of sidings here and there. The design for most of the lines are very similar to that of the Grand Concourse Line or the northern end of the 8 Avenue Line except that they are principally double-tracked for the entire length. Many of the non-revenue tracks used to connect otherwise isolated lines bear striking resemblance to those used in the DC Metro.

 

Some attribute the frequency to the efficiency of the no-nonsense “Russian way.” There are no platform screen doors, but anyone that goes under will probably be swept away by the cleaners with minimal disruption to service.