Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Lance]

Any track map or high-level diagram of the plan?

No track maps or diagrams unfortunately, but I do have information from the '51 expansion plans approved by the city (I'll link to them later today). Chrystie St as is exists today was only one-half of the original plans for the area. Beyond the 6th Avenue connections to the Manhattan Bridge and the Jamaica line, there was also planned connections from the 2nd Avenue line to both the Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridges along with Nassau St to the west. Before anyone says something, please remember that through the '50s and '60s, that entire area was on the decline and was thus expendable, much different from the climate today. I will say that it would be interesting to see how the various contemporary services ran had this iteration of the Second Avenue line been completed.

 

As far as Second Ave into Brooklyn the is fine the way it is. Constructing a brand new Atlantic Ave Tunnel for the and lines will streamline operation on Second Ave with the tying in with Fulton Ave Local tracks to Euclid Ave and the tying in with Culver Ave Express tracks to Coney Island. In the case with Bergen Ave, this now justifies re-doing Bergen Ave lower level station.

It was just an idea using a potential connection. I agree with you that a new tunnel should be considered for 2nd Avenue over a Nassau St connection. There's more room for actual service expansion as opposed to simply a reshuffling of the existing services to fit another line through DeKalb Junction.

[2Line1291]

It was just an idea using a potential connection. I agree with you that a new tunnel should be considered for 2nd Avenue over a Nassau St connection. There's more room for actual service expansion as opposed to simply a reshuffling of the existing services to fit another line through DeKalb Junction.

Yeah my bad that came out wrong, the idea just popped up in my head .

[Italianstallion]

I'd like to see an actual estimated cost difference between building the current version of Phase II and sending it up to 149th Street & Third Avenue. Surely the must have studied this option.

 

 

Especially since 'The Hub' is already an established center of activity, which itself validates the need for another subway line, connections aside. Maybe if the neighborhood were pumped and trumped up even more, it would catch more serious attention from the .

 

If Phase II does get built as currently planned, I hope they at least come around to building tail tracks on Second Avenue. We'll have both the and the services, so one can go to 125th Street and the other can go to 149th Street.

 

The Hub already has excellent subway service. Anyone wanting to get to the SAS from the Bronx need only transfer at 125th. That stop has the 4, 5 and 6 -- plus MNRR -- while the Hub only has the 2/5 as transfer connections.

[Lance]

To follow up on my previous post, here is the full information as it regards the 1951 version of the Second Avenue plans:

 

 

And here is the map of the Chrystie St area. Note the Second Ave - Nassau St connection

 

 

Also, for those interested, here is a full map of the 1951 subway expansion proposal (click for a PDF version)

 

 

The full proposal packet can be found here.

[Wallyhorse]

And all for little gains at that? Yeah, I don't care how the neighborhood changes in the coming decades, there's little benefit from a 2nd Avenue - Nassau St rail connection. An "easy" southern terminal does not make up for the cost of creating a hairpin turn-style tunnel connection and the necessary work involved therein. And that's taking a shallow Chrystie build into consideration. A deep-build tunnel would be even more costly as it would involve a steep rise of the diverging tracks to reach Nassau St from its deep depth immediately passing under the existing Chrystie St connection. Also, if by some miracle, a connection is built to Nassau St, then what? You have another line that terminates at Broad St or Chambers St. Big whoop. You're never going to be able to send another full-time service to Brooklyn as DeKalb Junction is full; at least not without removing one of the existing services in the area.

 

In my opinion, a better idea would be to create a connection to the Jamaica line eastward, as was intended in the original Chrystie St plans of the '50s. It's a more useful proposition as it could theoretically free up tracks on 6th or 8th Avenue by for instance, diverting the to 2nd Avenue while otherwise maintaining the current service.

I was really thinking more for G.O.'s and emergencies than regular service on Nassau now as opposed to my earlier posts (especially since I also think you can do Phase 4 with provisions to connect it to the Fulton line in Brooklyn via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel).

 

If you can have a connection to the SAS from both the Jamaica and Broadway-Brooklyn lines, that would work as well, as that would open up also for example having the instead of running to 125 running to 71st-Continental to replace the there while the goes up 2nd Avenue to 125/Lex (or even by then, perhaps 149/3rd in The Bronx) OR the stays as it does now, and the becomes a third, full-time line on Broadway-Brooklyn, running on the SAS to 125 (maybe that can be the driving force to also lengthen all stations on the Broadway-Brooklyn line to 600 feet).

 

 

You honestly think people will be happy with ripping up literally half the neighborhood? In the Lower East Side? Seriously?!

No, I don't.   The point was, things can change if people see a need to do such and they see the long-term benefits of doing so.  

 

Will that happen?  Probably not, but things can change over time.  

 

 

 

[Lance]

I'm not going to delve too deeply into this, but you cannot justify building a connection simply by its potential to reroute trains in an emergency. It needs to be justified by providing a route that people will use during non-emergency periods, even more so when the costs are so high.

 

Take for instance a couple of the purpose-built connections we have now. Since we're on the subject, even as built, Chrystie St was designed not to simply reroute trains between 6th Avenue and the Jamaica line, but to provide a much-needed connection between the two subdivisions of the lettered lines. Prior to that, the former BMT lines only had access to Lower Manhattan and midtown via the isolated Canarsie line. Also, the BMT practically had a monopoly on the South Brooklyn routes while the IND lines were limited to the Culver line.

 

Another example would be the 60th Street connection from the '50s. With the  and  both severely overcrowded and the local tracks woefully underutilized, it was decided to build such a connection to allow Broadway trains to access the Queens Blvd line. Again, that wasn't built simply for the sake of reroutes, but to allow for a better distribution of riders on the cross-river routes.

 

These are things that need to taken into consideration when planning a route or line somewhere, not whether some route will be useful in the short-term, but rather if it will have long-term sustainability.

[GojiMet86]

Why bother? He's never going to stop with it, no matter how many times everyone tells him.

[Wallyhorse]

I'm not going to delve too deeply into this, but you cannot justify building a connection simply by its potential to reroute trains in an emergency. It needs to be justified by providing a route that people will use during non-emergency periods, even more so when the costs are so high.

 

Take for instance a couple of the purpose-built connections we have now. Since we're on the subject, even as built, Chrystie St was designed not to simply reroute trains between 6th Avenue and the Jamaica line, but to provide a much-needed connection between the two subdivisions of the lettered lines. Prior to that, the former BMT lines only had access to Lower Manhattan and midtown via the isolated Canarsie line. Also, the BMT practically had a monopoly on the South Brooklyn routes while the IND lines were limited to the Culver line.

 

Another example would be the 60th Street connection from the '50s. With the  and  both severely overcrowded and the local tracks woefully underutilized, it was decided to build such a connection to allow Broadway trains to access the Queens Blvd line. Again, that wasn't built simply for the sake of reroutes, but to allow for a better distribution of riders on the cross-river routes.

 

These are things that need to taken into consideration when planning a route or line somewhere, not whether some route will be useful in the short-term, but rather if it will have long-term sustainability.

I was just saying it was too bad you could not build it as an option for later on as well as emergencies and G.O.'s.

 

Building connections to BOTH the Broadway-Brooklyn and Queens Boulevard Line to/from the SAS are WAY more important anyway.  That can be the kind of event that can spearhead a longer-term plan to lengthen ALL of the Broadway-Brooklyn and Nassau line platforms to 600 feet 

[Italianstallion]

To follow up on my previous post, here is the full information as it regards the 1951 version of the Second Avenue plans:

 

 

And here is the map of the Chrystie St area. Note the Second Ave - Nassau St connection

 

 

Also, for those interested, here is a full map of the 1951 subway expansion proposal (click for a PDF version)

 

 

The full proposal packet can be found here.

 

Interesting that a few of these things actually got done: the 180th St./ Dyer connection, the 11th St. cut, the Chrystie connection, the 6th Ave. express, the Culver/IND connection.  But the longer trunk lines did not.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Italianstallion

[Caelestor]

I'm not going to delve too deeply into this, but you cannot justify building a connection simply by its potential to reroute trains in an emergency. It needs to be justified by providing a route that people will use during non-emergency periods, even more so when the costs are so high.

 

Take for instance a couple of the purpose-built connections we have now. Since we're on the subject, even as built, Chrystie St was designed not to simply reroute trains between 6th Avenue and the Jamaica line, but to provide a much-needed connection between the two subdivisions of the lettered lines. Prior to that, the former BMT lines only had access to Lower Manhattan and midtown via the isolated Canarsie line. Also, the BMT practically had a monopoly on the South Brooklyn routes while the IND lines were limited to the Culver line.

 

Another example would be the 60th Street connection from the '50s. With the  and  both severely overcrowded and the local tracks woefully underutilized, it was decided to build such a connection to allow Broadway trains to access the Queens Blvd line. Again, that wasn't built simply for the sake of reroutes, but to allow for a better distribution of riders on the cross-river routes.

 

These are things that need to taken into consideration when planning a route or line somewhere, not whether some route will be useful in the short-term, but rather if it will have long-term sustainability.

 

In general, building underground is an order of magnitude more expensive than above ground. For that reason, a lot of transit systems build terminals, crossovers, and storage yards above ground.

 

I've already stated that the SAS - 63 St / QBL connection is too important to forgo because that connection will provide half the capacity of SAS south of 63 St. There doesn't need be a connection between SAS and the Manhattan Bridge at Grand St because the two-track SAS will not have the capacity to support reroutes efficiently. I'm also of the opinion that the extra storage tracks around 14 St are frankly unnecessary, and should be replaced by tail tracks in Phase 3. 

[Lawrence St]

I was really thinking more for G.O.'s and emergencies than regular service on Nassau now as opposed to my earlier posts (especially since I also think you can do Phase 4 with provisions to connect it to the Fulton line in Brooklyn via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel).

 

If you can have a connection to the SAS from both the Jamaica and Broadway-Brooklyn lines, that would work as well, as that would open up also for example having the instead of running to 125 running to 71st-Continental to replace the there while the goes up 2nd Avenue to 125/Lex (or even by then, perhaps 149/3rd in The Bronx) OR the stays as it does now, and the becomes a third, full-time line on Broadway-Brooklyn, running on the SAS to 125 (maybe that can be the driving force to also lengthen all stations on the Broadway-Brooklyn line to 600 feet).

 

 

No, I don't.   The point was, things can change if people see a need to do such and they see the long-term benefits of doing so.  

 

Will that happen?  Probably not, but things can change over time.  

 

 

Every time he gives a dumb and idiotic idea about how he's going to do these said dumb ideas, this video always pops up in my head, the only difference is SpongeBob is the train that he proposes to do the idea: 

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Lawrence St

[bobtehpanda]

Interesting that a few of these things actually got done: the 180th St./ Dyer connection, the 11th St. cut, the Chrystie connection, the 6th Ave. express, the Culver/IND connection.  But the longer trunk lines did not.

 

In general, the longer things got sunk by the things that happened after these things were built. The Korean War in the '50s stoked runaway inflation for construction materials otherwise needed for the war effort, so the City never got around to building the longer trunks.

[2Line1291]

What would have happened to the if the Pelham Line was converted to B division specs?

[Calvin]

This is random but as I was at 72 St for the to Coney Island, I see trash is being thrown on the tracks. Before, there was nothing there. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by CH3348

[bobtehpanda]

What would have happened to the if the Pelham Line was converted to B division specs?

 

Judging by that map, Lex service would've probably looked like this:

 

Lexington Express - Jerome

Lexington Express - Dyre

Lexington Local - Nereid

 

2nd Av takes over Pelham and 3rd in this scenario.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I think the plan for 2nd Ave in that map made much more sense than the later 1968 MTA proposal to convert Dyre and Pelham to B-Division and have them connect around Whitlock Ave. Going from elevated above Westchester Ave to the below-grade Northeast Corridor around Whitlock Ave (in the '68 plan) just didn't make sense with a perfectly good subway tunnel parallel to the Corridor.

Edited April 10, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[N6 Limited]

Judging by that map, Lex service would've probably looked like this:

 

Lexington Express - Jerome

Lexington Express - Dyre

Lexington Local - Nereid

 

2nd Av takes over Pelham and 3rd in this scenario.

Weren't they going to tear down the Jerome line?

[Lance]

The IND intended for this to happen with the Concourse line. However, as the Jerome Ave line remained as popular as ever, even after the opening of the nearby IND line, those plans were eventually dropped. Remember, Jerome had direct access to the east side whereas Concourse provided a direct link to Central Park West, 8th Avenue and eventually 6th Avenue.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Lance

[N6 Limited]

The IND intended for this to happen with the Concourse line. However, as the Jerome Ave line remained as popular as ever, even after the opening of the nearby IND line, those plans were eventually dropped. Remember, Jerome had direct access to the east side whereas Concourse provided a direct link to Central Park West, 8th Avenue and eventually 6th Avenue.

Could they have made the Concourse line a hybrid 4 track line with the IRT Local and the IND express or vice versa?

Are there tail tracks beyond 205th street?

[agar io]

Interesting that a few of these things actually got done: the 180th St./ Dyer connection, the 11th St. cut, the Chrystie connection, the 6th Ave. express, the Culver/IND connection.  But the longer trunk lines did not.

The projects that could be done easily, were done quickly. The bigger projects were "delayed" until the end of time (or in the case of the Second Avenue Subway, probably to the end of the 21st century).

I think the plan for 2nd Ave in that map made much more sense than the later 1968 MTA proposal to convert Dyre and Pelham to B-Division and have them connect around Whitlock Ave. Going from elevated above Westchester Ave to the below-grade Northeast Corridor around Whitlock Ave (in the '68 plan) just didn't make sense with a perfectly good subway tunnel parallel to the Corridor.

I was thinking about the 1968 plan too, and it looks like the Pelham line north of Hunts Point would have just connected to the 2 Av line instead, but below ground, with two underground stations at Hunts Point (one being the new Pelham terminus).

Could they have made the Concourse line a hybrid 4 track line with the IRT Local and the IND express or vice versa?

Are there tail tracks beyond 205th street?

 

1) Probably, though it would be more than inefficient given the different signaling systems, train widths, and tripcocks on each division. This setup is already done in Philadelphia (Market-Frankford and trolley), London, and even Tokyo.

2) Yes, that's what the uses to turn.

[N6 Limited]

The projects that could be done easily, were done quickly. The bigger projects were "delayed" until the end of time (or in the case of the Second Avenue Subway, probably to the end of the 21st century).

I was thinking about the 1968 plan too, and it looks like the Pelham line north of Hunts Point would have just connected to the 2 Av line instead, but below ground, with two underground stations at Hunts Point (one being the new Pelham terminus).

 

1) Probably, though it would be more than inefficient given the different signaling systems, train widths, and tripcocks on each division. This setup is already done in Philadelphia (Market-Frankford and trolley), London, and even Tokyo.

2) Yes, that's what the uses to turn.

Honestly if the MTA stopped wasting money and letting contractors bilk them, they could get the Utica Ave and 3rd Ave-Bronx lines built as well as the extension of the Nostrand Ave Line, etc.

 

The tail Tracks dip under Bronx Park? Do they reach Burke Ave? 

[Lance]

Could they have made the Concourse line a hybrid 4 track line with the IRT Local and the IND express or vice versa?

Are there tail tracks beyond 205th street?

When the IND built the Concourse line in the late '20s and early '30s, their main goal was to put the competition out of business. They would not do anything to jeopardize that goal, much less build a combined IRT/IND line.

 

Honestly if the MTA stopped wasting money and letting contractors bilk them, they could get the Utica Ave and 3rd Ave-Bronx lines built as well as the extension of the Nostrand Ave Line, etc.

 

The tail Tracks dip under Bronx Park? Do they reach Burke Ave? 

Now that is something we can all agree on.

 

In regards to the Concourse line tail tracks, they extend to near Webster Ave.

 

In regards to the Concourse line tail tracks, they extend to near Webster Ave.

[Wallyhorse]

When the IND built the Concourse line in the late '20s and early '30s, their main goal was to put the competition out of business. They would not do anything to jeopardize that goal, much less build a combined IRT/IND line.

That's some a lot of people today fail to realize.  The IND did what they did in an attempt to put the IRT and BMT out of business (which they essentially did with the 1940 merger).  

 

Honestly if the MTA stopped wasting money and letting contractors bilk them, they could get the Utica Ave and 3rd Ave-Bronx lines built as well as the extension of the Nostrand Ave Line, etc.

As Lance said, we can all agree on that.  There needs to be a way to get these contractors under control, especially those who intentionally bid way low figuring they can make it back on overruns and "unforeseen" circumstances (some of which are actually truly unforeseeable, but I think that can be overblown quite a bit). 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

As Lance said, we can all agree on that.  There needs to be a way to get these contractors under control, especially those who intentionally bid way low figuring they can make it back on overruns and "unforeseen" circumstances (some of which are actually truly unforeseeable, but I think that can be overblown quite a bit). 

Here's the thing though.  The could limit some of these issues if they were allowed to hire an outside consultant to assist them with these projects.  To my knowledge they only have PMs (Project Managers) from within, and apparently not enough of them for scale and size of these jobs. When I worked in the construction field as a project manager, some people and or companies (we worked on commercial and residential projects) were either too busy or too inexperienced to know how to proceed on their own, so they would hire a GC (General Contractor) as a consultant who would be in on all meetings to review the day-to-day operations.  In such a role, the GC acts to protect the client from cost overruns and provides a second voice if you will.  For example, they can look at certain costs and scrutinize them more carefully since they have more of an idea of what the costs should actually be from experience.  And yes, you definitely have contractors that will bid low and then look to recoup such costs by jacking up their fees elsewhere.  

 

The other thing that can become costly are change orders (modifications to the original work).  Get enough of those and the project costs can balloon fairly easily.  The other reason that some of these guys are able to bid so low is due to them hiring shady subcontractors.  When I worked in the insurance department, we would constantly screen our subcontractors because some of these guys don't have enough liability coverage, which allows them to come in so low. Insurance isn't cheap, and for me that was definitely a red flag, because some of these guys are basically fly by night companies that can vanish in the snap of a finger. If subs don't have enough coverage to work on the site, the project could be delayed adding more costs down the line, so it's extremely important.  I'm not sure what sort of vetting procedures the has in place, but they definitely need retooling.  

Edited April 12, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[agar io]

The other thing that can become costly are change orders (modifications to the original work).  Get enough of those and the project costs can balloon fairly easily.

If the MTA didn't have a habit of changing minor things so much (like the shade of sidewalk above Second Avenue), this wouldn't be happening.