Jump to content

Plans move forward for SAS Phase II


Lawrence St

Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, BreeddekalbL said:

supposedly they are aiming to sign off on construction at the end of next year

At least it's moving forward.. Even tho I feel they're missing some major opportunities to improve life for a lot of riders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

plus 116 where existing tunnel is will have to be rebult

I would just build two side platforms at 116 and not rebuild the rest.  That would be easier and also allow for a storage area for trains on the middle track. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

I would just build two side platforms at 116 and not rebuild the rest.  That would be easier and also allow for a storage area for trains on the middle track. 

ADA compliance standards might force them to have to do a bit more work.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it won't be done until 2029, then just scrap phase 2. Better redo it with it to Fordham Plaza via 3rd and with a full cost analysis. To be honest I think this whole phase thing was a mistake as each part takes years with studies and junk... if they built the whole line at once they could have saved at least a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they're very hesitant to do a large scale build like that. If I recall correctly, the original '68 plan was for most of the line north of the 63rd Street junction to be built in one shot. We all know how that turned out. The '90s proposal splitting the construction into four segments through Manhattan was considered and eventually given the go ahead because it was believed to be more likely to actually see some progress with smaller portions than trying to get the entire thing done all at once. They weren't wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lance said:

I think they're very hesitant to do a large scale build like that. If I recall correctly, the original '68 plan was for most of the line north of the 63rd Street junction to be built in one shot. We all know how that turned out. The '90s proposal splitting the construction into four segments through Manhattan was considered and eventually given the go ahead because it was believed to be more likely to actually see some progress with smaller portions than trying to get the entire thing done all at once. They weren't wrong.

Even with phases, I think they should have done the phases a different way... here is what I would do:

Phase 1: Lex-63rd to 125th (station would be relocated to 3rd Av versus the current proposed terminal at Park/Lex)

Phase 2: 125th to 168th/3rd and 72nd to 14th/2nd (transfer to (L) at 1st or 3rd Av)

Phase 3: southern end extended to Hanover Sq, northern end extended to Fordham Plaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lance said:

I think they're very hesitant to do a large scale build like that. If I recall correctly, the original '68 plan was for most of the line north of the 63rd Street junction to be built in one shot. We all know how that turned out. The '90s proposal splitting the construction into four segments through Manhattan was considered and eventually given the go ahead because it was believed to be more likely to actually see some progress with smaller portions than trying to get the entire thing done all at once. They weren't wrong.

They had two phases, but they started construction on them simultaneously because Shelly Silver was not happy about it. Which kind of defeated the whole point of staging it in two phases, but whatever.

That's why there's an SAS tunnel segment in Chinatown. (It isn't very long or useful and will not be used as part of Phase IV.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

They had two phases, but they started construction on them simultaneously because Shelly Silver was not happy about it. Which kind of defeated the whole point of staging it in two phases, but whatever.

That's why there's an SAS tunnel segment in Chinatown. (It isn't very long or useful and will not be used as part of Phase IV.)

When we are still discussing this, does anyone wonder if cut-and-cover will be ever used again? I think it could help speed up some projects... obviously for places like Utica, 2nd and Fordham boring is the way to go, but if you extended the (D) to Co-Op City, cut-and-cover could make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

ADA compliance standards might force them to have to do a bit more work.

  

Yes, but you likely regardless have to build two elevators anyway.  This would actually be simpler in that regard with two side platforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Yes, but you likely regardless have to build two elevators anyway.  This would actually be simpler in that regard with two side platforms. 

Yes and no.

With a mezz and Island platforms you need one elevator to fare control/mezz, and one to the platform.

With side platforms, they'll need at least 3.

If they could put a fare control room at surface level then they could get away with one elevator if they stack the platforms, or do like 72nd st IRT, have the entrance in the median of the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

When we are still discussing this, does anyone wonder if cut-and-cover will be ever used again? I think it could help speed up some projects... obviously for places like Utica, 2nd and Fordham boring is the way to go, but if you extended the (D) to Co-Op City, cut-and-cover could make sense.

Tunneling is not the most expensive part of the projects; IIRC the stations, which are cut-and-cover, were like 75% of the cost of the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Tunneling is not the most expensive part of the projects; IIRC the stations, which are cut-and-cover, were like 75% of the cost of the project.

Of the station costs, how much were the mezannines? They are way too big... they should be much narrower (like TS on 8th) or should be cut except for small segments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Yes and no.

With a mezz and Island platforms you need one elevator to fare control/mezz, and one to the platform.

With side platforms, they'll need at least 3.

If they could put a fare control room at surface level then they could get away with one elevator if they stack the platforms, or do like 72nd st IRT, have the entrance in the median of the street.

Or just two elevators from street level to fare control, which is on platform level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2018 at 1:53 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

supposedly they are aiming to sign off on construction at the end of next year

If so, then that’s great news! Now if they can just get it done in less than ten years for much less than $6 Billion (too much to ask?).

1 hour ago, kosciusko said:

Or just two elevators from street level to fare control, which is on platform level.

Yes. Why can’t they just do this? It would be an example of how to keep the costs down an get the project done sooner.

On 6/20/2018 at 5:41 PM, Lance said:

I think they're very hesitant to do a large scale build like that. If I recall correctly, the original '68 plan was for most of the line north of the 63rd Street junction to be built in one shot. We all know how that turned out. The '90s proposal splitting the construction into four segments through Manhattan was considered and eventually given the go ahead because it was believed to be more likely to actually see some progress with smaller portions than trying to get the entire thing done all at once. They weren't wrong.

That I understand, though I do question the way they split the phases up. Phases 1 and 2 are considerably shorter in length and have fewer stations than Phases 3 and 4 do. It’s been alleged that the MTA really only wanted to do a SAS from 63rd to 125th and either do light rail or “improved” M15 bus service the rest of the way down 2nd Ave, Chrystie, Pearl and Water streets, but pols helped to force the MTA to include a full-length SAS in the 1995 study.

On 6/19/2018 at 10:15 AM, Lance said:

But how would that service run? Both Pelham and White Plains Rd are busy enough lines, enough so to warrant additional service, but I cannot see either needing another full-fledged service freed up by kicking the (4) off the Jerome Ave line. Send it up White Plains Rd, presumably to Nereid Av or 241 Street and you essentially have three services on the lower portion of the line. Overkill if you ask me, especially since it would likely just duplicate the present <5> service. Pelham, currently only with the (6), fares a little better by having the (4) bunk with it and creating that Pelham-Lex express mentioned above. but again, is such a service even viable? The (6) runs as smoothly as it does right now because there are very few merging points along the route. The only merges are at Parkchester and 3 Av-138 St where the (6) and <6> meet. Creating a new Pelham-Lex express service would introduce a new merge and likely require some IND-style junction to alleviate the potential for delays.

I believe that's why when something similar was proposed for the '50s 2nd Avenue projects, where 2nd Avenue would absorb the Pelham line in its entirety, the plan was for what's now the (5) line to become the Lexington Ave local, creating a new connection between the Mott Haven and Harlem River junctions.

Of course, I don't believe this is a course of action the MTA should consider in the first place as it spits in the face of those who do not presently have adequate transit options. Recapturing existing lines saves money, but it does little to expand the system beyond its existing layout.

I definitely wouldn’t want the MTA to spit in the face of Bronx residents who currently don’t have adequate transit options. I definitely don’t favor “recapturing” Jerome over going up 3rd. And I do agree that Lexington operations would become “complicated” if the (4) is booted off Jerome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Yes and no.

With a mezz and Island platforms you need one elevator to fare control/mezz, and one to the platform.

With side platforms, they'll need at least 3.

If they could put a fare control room at surface level then they could get away with one elevator if they stack the platforms, or do like 72nd st IRT, have the entrance in the median of the street.

 

18 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Or just two elevators from street level to fare control, which is on platform level.

That's the point.  There would be NO Mezzanine in this version of 116th Street.  Just the two side platforms straight from the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

How will you apply ADA standards if that’s going to be the case?

Like any other two-side platform station with no crossover:  Elevators on each side.  

Look at the some of the two-side platform stations on SEPTA in Philly (Market-Frankford and Broad Street Line north of Spring Garden).  Many of them have elevators on each side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (Q) should be extended crosstown via 125 to connect with CPW and terminate there while the (T) should be extended to the Bronx via 3rd Avenue to Fordham Plaza, this will give both Harlem a crosstown line and the central portion of the Bronx a line so neighborhoods like Belmont, Claremont, Morrisania and Tremont can finally have a subway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.