Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Union Tpke]

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.

 

In Moscow they have clocks to the nearest second. I wish we had that, and I wish trains could run more efficiently. I wish that passengers in rush hours could understand that the next train is often right behind.

[CenSin]

In Moscow they have clocks to the nearest second. I wish we had that, and I wish trains could run more efficiently. I wish that passengers in rush hours could understand that the next train is often right behind.

Average service frequency here is just high enough that people don’t schedule their trips, but low enough that people aren’t willing to wait for the next one. I know that if I see a , I must get on no matter what because the next one is 10 minutes away. With up to 40 trains per hour, those Russians in Moscow can board a train every 90 seconds. I would be in no hurry to rush myself to the doors if I could have that here.

[Union Tpke]

Average service frequency here is just high enough that people don’t schedule their trips, but low enough that people aren’t willing to wait for the next one. I know that if I see a , I must get on no matter what because the next one is 10 minutes away. With up to 40 trains per hour, those Russians in Moscow can board a train every 90 seconds. I would be in no hurry to rush myself to the doors if I could have that here.

 

I am specifically talking about the and the which all have frequent service. When I am taking a from Main Street the doors open and close 5 or 6 times because people are not willing to wait for the next train, which would be leaving in less than 2 minutes.

[Jchambers2120]

I am specifically talking about the and the which all have frequent service. When I am taking a from Main Street the doors open and close 5 or 6 times because people are not willing to wait for the next train, which would be leaving in less than 2 minutes.

 

I think the entire IRT has frequent enough service to the point where if you miss a train it's no big deal. 

[Union Tpke]

I found a list of very weird and interesting alternatives for the Manhattan East Side Access study. A few of them sound like they came out of Wallyhorse's mouth.

http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/mesa_scoping.pdf

[bobtehpanda]

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.

 

Paris can push out 40 TPH on RER A, which uses double-deck consists with generally higher dwell time. Milan Metro is building a line that can handle 75s headways; 90s is actually just what most places use to build in some recovery time.

[Union Tpke]

Paris can push out 40 TPH on RER A, which uses double-deck consists with generally higher dwell time. Milan Metro is building a line that can handle 75s headways; 90s is actually just what most places use to build in some recovery time.

 

What do you think should be done to allow this to happen here?

[Mysterious2train]

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. 

 

Did you see the plaza open or hear about it? Because I swung by 3 Av & 63 St on Friday and it was still fenced off, with construction materials still strewn on the ground. 

 

​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

 

Simple about the connections, the benefits would probably not justify the cost, to put it lightly. Wall St from Broad St to Water St especially would be over 1,000 feet long making it one of the if not the longest transfer passages we have, and who would use it? train riders would be backtracking south to the very end of the line just to go back north. Even if a Brooklyn-Nassau St service returns, I'm still skeptical about usage. At least for me, 9 times out of 10 to go from the to the I would add in the extra leg taking the one stop. Water St to William St would be over 700 feet, not exactly short either. 

[CenSin]

What do you think should be done to allow this to happen here?

4-track stations for double-tracked lines is the answer. As soon as one train pulls into the station, the high-speed switches align to direct the following train to the other track. They alternate tracks as long as frequency demands it. That can get the efficiency down to the theoretical maximum. If a train can run 30 seconds apart, they can also make stops 30 seconds apart. This is provided that they ditch the rule where trains must slow down before switches. I believe currently, as mentioned by an MTA employee, the slowing down is also to allow for dispatchers to basically halt a train at will to redirect trains in any manner they choose; high-speed switches wouldn't require trains to slow down much for any other reason.

[bobtehpanda]

4-track stations for double-tracked lines is the answer. As soon as one train pulls into the station, the high-speed switches align to direct the following train to the other track. They alternate tracks as long as frequency demands it. That can get the efficiency down to the theoretical maximum. If a train can run 30 seconds apart, they can also make stops 30 seconds apart. This is provided that they ditch the rule where trains must slow down before switches. I believe currently, as mentioned by an MTA employee, the slowing down is also to allow for dispatchers to basically halt a train at will to redirect trains in any manner they choose; high-speed switches wouldn't require trains to slow down much for any other reason.

 

You don't even need that. RER A, the busiest train line in the Western world, only really has two-track stations; trains just pull in as the other pulls out.

 

What do you think should be done to allow this to happen here?

 

New York's extensive use of interlining will make any such frequency levels impossible.

[Wallyhorse]

I found a list of very weird and interesting alternatives for the Manhattan East Side Access study. A few of them sound like they came out of Wallyhorse's mouth.

http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/mesa_scoping.pdf

Some are weirder than anything I have ever come up with.

 

63rd/1st Avenue from that proposal I would look at if it included an entrance at York Avenue. The Rockefeller University and New York Presbyterian Hospital are both not too far from where such an entrance would be and it would provide a direct entrance to the subway with a one-stop ride to where you can take the from the . 

[Union Tpke]

You don't even need that. RER A, the busiest train line in the Western world, only really has two-track stations; trains just pull in as the other pulls out.

 

 

New York's extensive use of interlining will make any such frequency levels impossible.

 

Is there any way to reduce some interlining?

[CenSin]

Is there any way to reduce some interlining?

See some fantasy maps some members posted in the past. There was a very good attempt, but the Dyre Avenue branch and White Plains Road branch had to be interlined for obvious reasons.

[CenSin]

Some are weirder than anything I have ever come up with.

 

63rd/1st Avenue from that proposal I would look at if it included an entrance at York Avenue. The Rockefeller University and New York Presbyterian Hospital are both not too far from where such an entrance would be and it would provide a direct entrance to the subway with a one-stop ride to where you can take the from the . 

It seems there were much less stations proposed in th earlier plan:

 

Original  Full  1974  Alignment  of  the  Second  Avenue  Subway

:  This  alternative

proposes  a  new  north-south  subway  line,  along  the  East  Side  of  Manhattan,  located

under  Second  Avenue  for  most  of  its  length.  A  variation  of  this  alternative  includes

a  possible  link  to  the  Lexington  Avenue  Line  at  the  north  end  of  the  study  area  for

connections  to  the  Bronx.  South  of  Houston  Street,  the  alignment  follows  the

Bowery,  St.  James  Place,  a  small  segment  of  Pearl  Street  and  Water  Street.  A

connection to and from Queens would be provided via the 63rd Street tunnel. Station

locations  could  include:  122nd,  106th,  96th,  86th,  69th,  58th,  45th  to  47th,  34th  to

37th,24th to 26th, and 13th to I 5th Streets, Houston to 2nd Street, Grand (Hester to

Broome),   Chatham   Square   (St.   James   to   Bowery),   Pine   (Wall   to   Pine),   and

Whitehall Street (Whitehall to north of Broad).

[bobtehpanda]

It seems there were much less stations proposed in th earlier plan:

 

It's only really missing a station between 122 and 106. Everything else is there, give or take a few blocks.

[Mysterious2train]

Here is the PDF link to the MTA's latest presentation to Manhattan Community Board 8. Includes lots of pictures, like...

 

 

 

• The Second Avenue Subway Project is on time and on budget for revenue service in December 2016

• Overall Construction is 96.3% complete as of July 1, 2016 • MTACC is confident revenue service will begin by the end of the year

• MTACC agrees with the Independent Engineering Consultant (IEC)’s assessment that there a number of challenges to overcome to achieve revenue service in December, but acceleration agreements and testing schedule and plans are in place to overcome these challenges

 

 

The MTA is optimistic as always, but the project's Independent Engineering Consultant is worried. (separate PDF link)

 

 

• 2 out of 8 of the schedule milestones due in June will meet their target dates within the 30 day grace period. The overall schedule milestone completion through the end of June is 23 of 33 (70%) which is less than the 80% reported last month for the milestones due through May. Delay in the provision of communications infrastructure was the primary cause of the disappointing performance in June.

 

• The test program has slipped further behind the schedule for test completion – out of a total of 608 tests scheduled through the end of June, 336 (55%) were completed by the end of June which is a reduction in the 67% of scheduled tests completed through the end of May.

 

• MTACC has postponed the scheduled start of Pre-Revenue Operations Training for NYCT by 30 days to October 1, 2016.

 

 

Based on the project’s reports and IEC field observations of station construction progress, the IEC finds that the project is not on schedule and has fallen further behind schedule in the month since our last report in June. The Project Team now needs to implement and maintain a revised schedule for completion of testing and for meeting the Revenue Service Date. 

 

2 pretty different perspectives depending on who you ask. 

Edited July 25, 2016 by Mysterious2train

[trainfan22]

Oh wow, the signals are up and running! I thought they would still have plastic bags over them.

[Union Tpke]

See some fantasy maps some members posted in the past. There was a very good attempt, but the Dyre Avenue branch and White Plains Road branch had to be interlined for obvious reasons.

 

I saw that. I am talking about a realistic attempt that does not screw up everyone's one seat rides.

 

Here is the PDF link to the MTA's latest presentation to Manhattan Community Board 8. Includes lots of pictures, like...

 

 

 

The MTA is optimistic as always, but the project's Independent Engineering Consultant is worried. (separate PDF link)

 

 

 

2 pretty different perspectives depending on who you ask. 

This is the real link. http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_pdf/CB8%20SAS%20Task%20Force%20July%2021%202016.pdf

[Caelestor]

I saw that. I am talking about a realistic attempt that does not screw up everyone's one seat rides.

 

It's not possible to remove all interlining without affecting one-seat rides: under complete interlining, a limited number of services run with very intense service (2 minute headways or better), and let people make convenient transfers between lines, usually cross-platform: see Hong Kong.

 

The IRT is not too difficult to deinterline.

• , , as is
• 7 Ave Express: - Eastchester or Wakefield to Flatbush Av,  - Harlem 148 St to New Lots Av
• Lex Ave Express: - Woodlawn to Utica via Eastern Parkway Exp
• No service

A completely interlining-free B Division is much harder to do, especially because the BMT and IND have been merged.

• Concourse - 8 Av Exp - Fulton:  - Norwood 205 St to Ozone Park or Far Rockaway via Concourse local (peak direction rush hour exp), Fulton exp;  - Bedford Park Blvd to Euclid Ave via Concourse local, Fulton local
• CPW Local - 6 Av Exp - Brighton: - Inwood 207 St to Coney Island ( express on Brighton)
• Nassau St: - Middle Village to Chambers St.  as is
• 14 St - Canarsie: as is
• SAS - Broadway Exp / bridge - 4 Av Exp - Coney Island: Sea Beach, West End

The remaining lines form one interconnected system:

• - Jamaica Center to Queens Blvd via 8 Av local, Queens Blvd exp
• - Jamaica Center to Coney Island via Queens Blvd exp, 63rd St, 6 Av local, Culver exp
• - Court Sq to Church Ave via Crosstown, Culver local
• - Forest Hills to Bay Ridge via Queens Blvd local, Bway local, local
• - Forest Hills to Church Ave via Queens Blvd local, 53rd St, 6 Av local, Culver local
• - Astoria to Whitehall, Bway local

The routes obviously don't follow current commuting paths, but the expected benefits would a reduction in delays and more efficient use of the fleet, which would outweigh any transfer penalties.

[bobtehpanda]

Keep in mind that the major reason that reducing interlines does not work is because transfer penalties in the system are so severe. Hong Kong allows you to switch to either direction cross-platform; whereas even relatively simple transfers like W4 can make a dash down the stairs a make or break situation.

 

It's not possible to remove all interlining without affecting one-seat rides: under complete interlining, a limited number of services run with very intense service (2 minute headways or better), and let people make convenient transfers between lines, usually cross-platform: see Hong Kong.

 

The IRT is not too difficult to deinterline.

• , , as is
• 7 Ave Express: - Eastchester or Wakefield to Flatbush Av,  - Harlem 148 St to New Lots Av
• Lex Ave Express: - Woodlawn to Utica via Eastern Parkway Exp
• No service

The routes obviously don't follow current commuting paths, but the expected benefits would a reduction in delays and more efficient use of the fleet, which would outweigh any transfer penalties.

 

This plan not only ignores current commuting patterns, but underserves certain portions of the system and overserves others.

For the IRT, to completely de-interline and maintain current levels of service, you would need the following:

 

from Wakefield to Flatbush. Expresses start from Nereid Av.

from Eastchester or 148 to Flatbush.

from Woodlawn to Utica

from 167 St to New Lots. Peak express service starting from Bedford Park Blvd.

Edited July 26, 2016 by bobtehpanda

[Caelestor]

Keep in mind that the major reason that reducing interlines does not work is because transfer penalties in the system are so severe. Hong Kong allows you to switch to either direction cross-platform; whereas even relatively simple transfers like W4 can make a dash down the stairs a make or break situation.

 

 

This plan not only ignores current commuting patterns, but underserves certain portions of the system and overserves others.

For the IRT, to completely de-interline and maintain current levels of service, you would need the following:

 

from Wakefield to Flatbush. Expresses start from Nereid Av.

from Eastchester or 148 to Flatbush.

from Woodlawn to Utica

from 167 St to New Lots. Peak express service starting from Bedford Park Blvd.

 

This is the optimal way to reduce interlining, but I was under the assumption that the Rogers Ave junction doesn't get reconstructed. Right now, there's no way for the express tracks to access Nostrand Ave without interfering with the local tracks to Flatbush. 

I think this plan would work if the switches were moved appropriately, though.

[bobtehpanda]

This is the optimal way to reduce interlining, but I was under the assumption that the Rogers Ave junction doesn't get reconstructed. Right now, there's no way for the express tracks to access Nostrand Ave without interfering with the local tracks to Flatbush. 

I think this plan would work if the switches were moved appropriately, though.

 

I know. Under this plan all local trains go to Flatbush, the goes to Utica via express, and the goes to New Lots via the local after Franklin Av.

[CenSin]

I know. Under this plan all local trains go to Flatbush, the goes to Utica via express, and the goes to New Lots via the local after Franklin Av.

It would be functionally the same situation. 3 routes share 1 track for a short segment. If you stripped the designations from the trains running through the area, you would still have 2 trains from the local track going into the segment, 1 train switching to it from the express track, 2 trains leaving the segment towards Flatbush, and 1 train leaving the segment towards New Lots.

[CenSin]

Does anyone know what the 96 Street station will show up as on the FIND? The preliminary subway map by the MTA shows “96 St.” The in-station signage will likely show “96 Street.” But we’ve—so far—seen a few variants programmed into the NTTs: EAST SIDE-96 ST; and UPPER EAST SIDE-96 ST. I’ve seen people quoting “2 AV-96 ST” (analogous to “57 ST-7 AV”), but I don’t think it makes sense to include the “2 AV” part since it does not serve to disambiguate anything. The MTA already has a 96 ST station on 3 parallel lines and numerous other stations with identical names on other parallel trunks (like 23 ST). Just pronouncing the “2 AV” part would make the announcements longer when the MTA is trying to shorten them.

 

This goes for “57 ST-7 AV” as well. It seems pointless to throw in the extra syllables.

 

7 AV on the 53 Street line on the other hand, could use a little disambiguation since it is an abrupt departure from the pattern set by naming the stations after numbered streets. It should be 53 ST-7 AV. It also serves to distinguish that 7 AV from the one in Brooklyn for the (when it runs NTTs).

Edited August 21, 2016 by CenSin

[Around the Horn]

Does anyone know what the 96 Street station will show up as on the FIND? The preliminary subway map by the MTA shows “96 St.” The in-station signage will likely show “96 Street.” But we’ve—so far—seen a few variants programmed into the NTTs: EAST SIDE-96 ST; and UPPER EAST SIDE-96 ST. I’ve seen people quoting “2 AV-96 ST” (analogous to “57 ST-7 AV”), but I don’t think it makes sense to include the “2 AV” part since it does not serve to disambiguate anything. The MTA already has a 96 ST station on 3 parallel lines and numerous other stations with identical names on other parallel trunks (like 23 ST). Just pronouncing the “2 AV” part would make the announcements longer when the MTA is trying to shorten them.

 

This goes for “57 ST-7 AV” as well. It seems pointless to throw in the extra syllables.

So far I've seen the one program that says "EAST SIDE-96 ST" on the outside but interestingly says "TO 96 ST-2 AV" on the inside.

 

So far, this is the only program I've seen where interior signage is different from exterior signage, which is how you get those weird abbreviations on the interior.