Five Years of New South Ferry Station

[Lance]

The problem with extending the loop platform is that they'd have to extend it not five-cars longer but ten-cars to avoid the loop. With the extensive work involved in such an endeavor (boring, relocation of utilities, etc.), it probably made more sense to just build a brand new platform that could hold not one but two trains simultaneously.

[Union Tpke]

It allows for more capacity.

[AndrewJC]

This source has Horodniceanu saying that the previous capacity of the train line was 16-17 TPH.

 

I've heard that there was a plan to extend the platform north, but that got squashed once people found out the construction would have impacts on Battery Park. I have no idea if any of this stuff is actually true, but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

Horodniceanu was wrong. (He's a construction guy, not an operations guy.) If the capacity of the loop was 16-17 tph, then how is it possible that 19 tph operates on the 1 today?

 

There was never a plan to extend the platform north. It was one of several alternatives listed in the official planning document, but it hadn't been under serious consideration. This is the official reason it was rejected:

 

The construction of the additional 260 linear feet of platform at the north end of the 

station would be relatively straightforward as there are no major underground 

interferences in this area. However, sliding the entire station off of the existing loop is 

not feasible without relocating an existing track crossover. The crossover connects the 

East (45) and West (19) side subway lines and is critical to transit operation for 

handling subway service disruptions. The crossover also provides necessary flexibility 

for system operations to accommodate system maintenance. Therefore, eliminating this 

crossover is not considered a feasible option. Relocating the crossover from its existing 

position would be technically complicated because the tunnel structure just north of the 

crossover diverges into two separate tunnels, each with varying elevations. The only 

approach to resolving this issue would be to construct a new tunnel section north of the 

crossover and regrade the existing track profiles level.

 

 

However, if I'm not mistaken, the crossover in question is more than 260 feet past the end of the platform, so this isn't a particularly convincing argument. (Note that it jumps from constructing "260 linear feet of platform at the north end of the station" to "sliding the entire station off the existing loop"!) And even if the crossover ended up within station bounds, how is that actually a problem? A 1 train would still be fully platformed even if the last car or two were sitting on the switch - only a train crossing from the East Side wouldn't be able to open the rear section, but when was the last time a train came from the East Side and dropped off riders at South Ferry, and how is it better to have a new South Ferry station that can't be reached form the East Side at all?

 

The problem with extending the loop platform is that they'd have to extend it not five-cars longer but ten-cars to avoid the loop. With the extensive work involved in such an endeavor (boring, relocation of utilities, etc.), it probably made more sense to just build a brand new platform that could hold not one but two trains simultaneously.

 

It wouldn't have to have been extended ten cars. Wheelchair passengers are directed to the conductor's position (5th/6th cars), which would have to have been on a shallow enough curve. The first four cars could have retained their gap fillers.

 

It allows for more capacity.

 

It increased capacity from 21 tph to 24 tph, on a line that runs 19 tph. While I have no objection to increasing capacity, was it really worth $545 million?

[bobtehpanda]

Horodniceanu was wrong. (He's a construction guy, not an operations guy.)

 

There was never a plan to extend the platform north. It was one of several alternatives listed in the official planning document, but it hadn't been under serious consideration. This is the official reason it was rejected:

However, if I'm not mistaken, the crossover in question is more than 260 feet past the end of the platform, so this isn't a particularly convincing argument. (Note that it jumps from constructing "260 linear feet of platform at the north end of the station" to "sliding the entire station off the existing loop"!) And even if the crossover ended up within station bounds, how is that actually a problem? A 1 train would still be fully platformed even if the last car or two were sitting on the switch - only a train crossing from the East Side wouldn't be able to open the rear section, but when was the last time a train came from the East Side and dropped off riders at South Ferry, and how is it better to have a new South Ferry station that can't be reached form the East Side at all?

 

I'm not saying that he was right (and I don't think he is now); I was just providing a source.

 

Doesn't ADA require that any major transformation of a station be wheelchair accessible, and aren't gap fillers decidedly not wheelchair accessible? If the MTA wanted to build a new South Ferry for operations purposes, wouldn't getting rid of the gap fillers be a requirement (and thus, moving the entire station north?)

[Abba]

Here's some trivia for all of you - I worked the very last revenue train which arrived at South Ferry Terminal before the subway was closed for the storm, which as of now is STILL the very last revenue train to operate into South Ferry Terminal! Conductor's car was #2221, we left 242 at 1910 and arrived at 2008 (the last station that we picked up customers was 14 St, all stations below that had already had their turnstiles turned off (would have been right about 2000), but customers did continue to exit my train all the way into SFT). We then operated that train lite out of the station and laid it up on one of the express tracks adjacent to 79-Bway. And I tell you, one of my most vivid memories of working at NYCT was that lite trip up, seeing every single subway station completely deserted of people!

Also, I still haven't been to the South Ferry loop since it reopened. For the rest of the Fall 2012 pick, we operated first to 14 St for a couple weeks, then lite from Rector (lite from Chambers originally) through the loop and back to Rector.

 

 

That's gotta be at least 3 sips in the drinking game.

Sad I hope the new station is restored soon.

[Union Tpke]

I love the old station, I hope they find some way to be ADA accessible.

 

 

Using Tapatalk

 

 

[Lance]

I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It increased capacity from 21 tph to 24 tph, on a line that runs 19 tph. While I have no objection to increasing capacity, was it really worth $545 million?

And will cost even more to rebuild and safeguard from heavy flooding from what I've read. Not too long after Sandy,  I recalled seeing a figure of  ~$600 million to rebuild and safeguard New South Ferry. Wow.

 

The entire point of building the New South Ferry was to take advantage of federal dollars earmarked for Lower Manhattan. Extending the platform and providing for ADA could have been accomplished at much lower cost by extending the platform north. The other advantages, while nice, were simply not worth the immense price tag. And, before it closed in 2009, the loop station had an enclosed connection to the ferry terminal.

Was there no other project they could have undertaken to take advantage of the Federal dollars earmarked for Lower Manhattan after 9/11/01?

[bobtehpanda]

And will cost even more to rebuild and safeguard from heavy flooding from what I've read. Not too long after Sandy,  I recalled seeing a figure of  ~$600 million to rebuild and safeguard New South Ferry. Wow.

 

Was there no other project they could have undertaken to take advantage of the Federal dollars earmarked for Lower Manhattan after 9/11/01?

 

The Pataki administration tried (and failed) to get the Lower Manhattan-JFK link noticed as a "rebuilding" project. Obviously, that was not the case.

 

There wouldn't have been many projects to use it for. Maybe they could've passed off Phase IV of the SAS, but even by then the full SAS was only finalized around 2004.

[jay2]

Maybe what they should have done is build the new South Ferry with a layout similar to the Whitehall St station, roughly perpendicular to the South Ferry loop, at the same level.  This would pretty much mean demolishing both platforms, and gutting the entire area within the loop's alignment, and the 4 and 5 lines would be redirected through the new station, making a seamless transfer between the 1, 4, and 5 lines.

[ttcsubwayfan]

How's work on the new station coming along? When can we expect a reopening?

[MTA Bus]

How's work on the new station coming along? When can we expect a reopening?

The earliest is 2016.

[bobtehpanda]

Maybe what they should have done is build the new South Ferry with a layout similar to the Whitehall St station, roughly perpendicular to the South Ferry loop, at the same level.  This would pretty much mean demolishing both platforms, and gutting the entire area within the loop's alignment, and the 4 and 5 lines would be redirected through the new station, making a seamless transfer between the 1, 4, and 5 lines.

 

That would've been significantly more expensive, and "gutting the entire area within the loop's alignment" would probably require more construction, which would've been a big no no.

[Orion V 9441]

Maybe what they should have done is build the new South Ferry with a layout similar to the Whitehall St station, roughly perpendicular to the South Ferry loop, at the same level.  This would pretty much mean demolishing both platforms, and gutting the entire area within the loop's alignment, and the 4 and 5 lines would be redirected through the new station, making a seamless transfer between the 1, 4, and 5 lines.

That is a nice Idea, but I personally don't think that many passengers would be convenienced by this. The distance between the stations on the   and those on the  and   in the Financial District are very small. Additionally, If one wants to travel to the West Side of Manhattan from an IRT station in Brooklyn, the best option would be to take the  or   services and transfer to the  at one of the express stations in Manhattan. As a result, I do not think that that idea would be a good one, as it will cost more and will not help many people.

[AndrewJC]

Doesn't ADA require that any major transformation of a station be wheelchair accessible, and aren't gap fillers decidedly not wheelchair accessible? If the MTA wanted to build a new South Ferry for operations purposes, wouldn't getting rid of the gap fillers be a requirement (and thus, moving the entire station north?)

 

The conductor's position is the designated ADA boarding area. As far as I know, only the fifth and sixth cars need to comply. So the first four cars could still require gap fillers.