Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Via Garibaldi 8]

For areas that are being built from scratch, yes, it would make sense that an island platform would be cheaper.  However, the area around 116 St is different in that the 1970s plan on which the existing tunnel work was based did not include a station there.  So currently there's room for three tracks, except the MTA can't just place an island platform in the middle track since it wouldn't be wide enough (10 feet).  This means that putting an island platform there requires widening that middle area, and thus rebuilding that stretch of the SAS.

Yes I'm referring to 116th. Given the layout, sounds like it would be more expensive. Not only that, but those island platforms are stupid. Not enough space to stand. I always think of 72nd with those insanely narrow platforms.

[bobtehpanda]

Yes I'm referring to 116th. Given the layout, sounds like it would be more expensive. Not only that, but those island platforms are stupid. Not enough space to stand. I always think of 72nd with those insanely narrow platforms.

 

The tunnel has to be expanded anyways, side or island platforms, and I think it would be less with the island platforms. The more you expand to the side, the more precarious it is given that you have to maintain the structural integrity of the tunnel and the buildings around it as well.

[CenSin]

The tunnel has to be expanded anyways, side or island platforms, and I think it would be less with the island platforms. The more you expand to the side, the more precarious it is given that you have to maintain the structural integrity of the tunnel and the buildings around it as well.

At what point will this corner-cutting bite us back in the future?

[bobtehpanda]

At what point will this corner-cutting bite us back in the future?

 

I don't really see how this qualifies as 'corner-cutting' instead of 'let's make sure Second Avenue doesn't fall in on us'.

 

The Harlem segment has the lowest ridership projections of all the rest of the phases, anyways, and it's not like 116 is going to be a major stop.

Edited July 21, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

The Harlem segment has the lowest ridership projections of all the rest of the phases, anyways, and it's not like 116 is going to be a major stop.

That’s the point. Because it’s not a major stop, it can do with side platforms and no full-length mezzanine straddling an island platform.

I don't really see how this qualifies as 'corner-cutting' instead of 'let's make sure Second Avenue doesn't fall in on us'.

Making sure that the tunnel doesn’t collapse isn’t precluded by building side platforms. They can build side platforms and make sure the tunnel doesn’t collapse.

[rbrome]

The tunnel has to be expanded anyways, side or island platforms, and I think it would be less with the island platforms. The more you expand to the side, the more precarious it is given that you have to maintain the structural integrity of the tunnel and the buildings around it as well.

 

With an island platform, you also have to widen the approaches. 

[Bosco]

At what point will this corner-cutting bite us back in the future?

 

In a sense it's actually in some ways costing the MTA more money to reconfigure 116 St.  Between widening the existing structure and the approaches (as have been mentioned), the area around the tunnel has to be widened anyway.  And the MTA's hard-on for island platforms and full-length mezzanines isn't an excuse as the elusive 10 Avenue station on the was supposed to be two side platforms as well, with no mezzanine.  It would likely save money and would make a Bronx extension (getting ahead of ourselves) easier.  At the very least, that middle track could be used as a storage track.

[CenSin]

In a sense it's actually in some ways costing the MTA more money to reconfigure 116 St.  Between widening the existing structure and the approaches (as have been mentioned), the area around the tunnel has to be widened anyway.  And the MTA's hard-on for island platforms and full-length mezzanines isn't an excuse as the elusive 10 Avenue station on the was supposed to be two side platforms as well, with no mezzanine.  It would likely save money and would make a Bronx extension (getting ahead of ourselves) easier.  At the very least, that middle track could be used as a storage track.

That extra track could be used to help orchestrate southbound merges for a future Bronx extension like the using the middle track at 138 Street–Grand Concourse.

[Wallyhorse]

That extra track could be used to help orchestrate southbound merges for a future Bronx extension like the using the middle track at 138 Street–Grand Concourse.

And/or an extension to LaGuardia, Williets Point and maybe even JFK stopping at 124th/1st-2nd and Randalls Island before going to Queens.

[CenSin]

And/or an extension to LaGuardia, Williets Point and maybe even JFK stopping at 124th/1st-2nd and Randalls Island before going to Queens.

There’s already a connection to Queens post-phase 3. Another connection further north serves no major market.

[CenSin]

If a triple-tracked station at 125 Street is too costly, they could possibly save some money by utilizing the existing third trackway. They already cut the yard tracks at 2 Avenue and 129 Street, so they’ll need to find some better alternative anyway. The length of the existing third trackway more than covers the lost yard capacity due to cost-cutting. I get they they chose to overload the other yards in the system instead of building yards directly attached to 2 Avenue, but that’s like moving the back to Astoria and claiming that it technically still has access to a yard.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

At what point will this corner-cutting bite us back in the future?

pretty damn soon.

With the current climate, what future?

[Wallyhorse]

There’s already a connection to Queens post-phase 3. Another connection further north serves no major market.

The idea is, this Queens connection would be in place of the AirTrain. to LaGuardia and also give riders from Flushing an option to the UES without having to deal with the at Grand Central.

[CenSin]

The idea is, this Queens connection would be in place of the AirTrain. to LaGuardia and also give riders from Flushing an option to the UES without having to deal with the at Grand Central.

Again, those are specialized markets, and it doesn’t make sense on several levels:

• Geometrically, it’s a path that zigzags its way to midtown Manhattan, making it relatively inefficient. The Astoria Line would do the same, but it’s already been built anyway and there isn’t any other place for it to go.
• Operationally, it introduces a situation where there are 3 services using a pair of tracks (reducing service levels for all), because all three branches will require service: 125 Street/Lexington Avenue, the Bronx, and Queens. Extending the Astoria Line does not pose such a problem, because it is a simple extension which does not decrease service levels for any of the existing stations. Any extension would probably be an improvement for the Astoria Line by giving it a better terminal.
• Economically, it’s a poor use of money since tunneling to the Upper East Side (where most people are not going to from the airport) will be a huge money pit for not much in return. We don’t hear too many people clamoring for a direct Flushing–Upper East Side connection either. Would that not be covered by a connection to the and (in the future) ?

[CenSin]

There has been no mention of how to run the at 19 TPH after the opening of phase 2. Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue was subject to jams from Sheepshead Bay even before the opening of phase 1. The conga line of trains during rush hours is not going to get better without improvements to terminal capacity at the southern end.

 

My guess is that the or will have to be drafted as a secondary 2 Avenue service at the expense of Astoria. Whatever route left would pick up the slack. Track layout would dictate that the Broadway local serves Astoria and the Broadway express serves 2 Avenue, but the sole Astoria route must be full-time and the secondary 2 Avenue route should be part-time. This is quite different than the current setup where the can be retired on the weekends without much adjustment to its compadres—the , , and .

 

Proposal 1

125 Street / Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue via 2 Avenue, Broadway express, Manhattan Bridge, 4 Avenue express, Sea Beach

Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard / Whitehall Street–South Ferry or 9 Avenue via Broadway local, Montague Street tunnel, 4 Avenue local, West End

 

Proposal 2 (contingent on connecting the Broadway local tracks to 63 Street)

Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard / Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue via Broadway express, Manhattan Bridge, 4 Avenue express, Sea Beach

125 Street / Whitehall Street–South Ferry via 2 Avenue, Broadway local, Montague Street tunnel, 4 Avenue local, West End (no evening or weekend service)

 

I don’t see any way we could boot the off the Brighton Line without affecting the , , , and .

[danielhg121]

There has been no mention of how to run the at 19 TPH after the opening of phase 2. Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue was subject to jams from Sheepshead Bay even before the opening of phase 1. The conga line of trains during rush hours is not going to get better without improvements to terminal capacity at the southern end.

 

My guess is that the or will have to be drafted as a secondary 2 Avenue service at the expense of Astoria. Whatever route left would pick up the slack. Track layout would dictate that the Broadway local serves Astoria and the Broadway express serves 2 Avenue, but the sole Astoria route must be full-time and the secondary 2 Avenue route should be part-time. This is quite different than the current setup where the can be retired on the weekends without much adjustment to its compadres—the , , and .

 

Proposal 1

125 Street / Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue via 2 Avenue, Broadway express, Manhattan Bridge, 4 Avenue express, Sea Beach

Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard / Whitehall Street–South Ferry or 9 Avenue via Broadway local, Montague Street tunnel, 4 Avenue local, West End

 

Proposal 2 (contingent on connecting the Broadway local tracks to 63 Street)

Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard / Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue via Broadway express, Manhattan Bridge, 4 Avenue express, Sea Beach

125 Street / Whitehall Street–South Ferry via 2 Avenue, Broadway local, Montague Street tunnel, 4 Avenue local, West End (no evening or weekend service)

 

I don’t see any way we could boot the off the Brighton Line without affecting the , , , and .

You’re making a huge assumption that they would take service from Astoria to give to Second Avenue service. First, Astoria residents are gonna raise hell if you try to take any of their service. On weekends, it’s quite literally barebones with the supposedly running “10 minutes”. Second, so many passengers transfer at QBP on weekdays that it doesn’t justify such a drastic measure. You have and trains pulling in every 2 minutes and there’s barely any (N)/(W) to help out, it’s also a major artery for people trying to get to the Bronx because they can transfer to the Bway services and the Lex lines with just one stop. In the end, I only see you proposing this to justify your evil scheme of yours into effect.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Edited July 25, 2017 by danielhg121

[Bosco]

You’re making a huge assumption that they would take service from Astoria to give to Second Avenue service. First, Astoria residents are gonna raise hell if you try to take any of their service. On weekends, it’s quite literally barebones with the supposedly running “10 minutes”. Second, so many passengers transfer at QBP on weekdays that it doesn’t justify such a drastic measure. You have and trains pulling in every 2 minutes and there’s barely any (N)/(W) to help out, it’s also a major artery for people trying to get to the Bronx because they can transfer to the Bway services and the Lex lines with just one stop.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

Yeah, there is no way they are going to cut Astoria service.  And as it is, there are some trains that go up SAS, but that's only because of capacity constraints.

 

There has been no mention of how to run the at 19 TPH after the opening of phase 2. Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue was subject to jams from Sheepshead Bay even before the opening of phase 1. The conga line of trains during rush hours is not going to get better without improvements to terminal capacity at the southern end.

 

I don’t see any way we could boot the off the Brighton Line without affecting the , , , and .

Why would you need to do this at all?  There is extra space just west of Brighton, so I'd just send some trains to Brighton at rush hour.  That and increase the number of dispatchers and operators on the field so they can fumigate/turn back quickly enough so as not to interfere with service.

[Around the Horn]

You’re making a huge assumption that they would take service from Astoria to give to Second Avenue service. First, Astoria residents are gonna raise hell if you try to take any of their service. On weekends, it’s quite literally barebones with the supposedly running “10 minutes”. Second, so many passengers transfer at QBP on weekdays that it doesn’t justify such a drastic measure. You have and trains pulling in every 2 minutes and there’s barely any (N)/(W) to help out, it’s also a major artery for people trying to get to the Bronx because they can transfer to the Bway services and the Lex lines with just one stop. In the end, I only see you proposing this to justify your evil scheme of yours into effect.

 

You do realize that with the merge at 34th removed, you can run the by itself at the combined frequency of the current service, right?

[N6 Limited]

You do realize that with the merge at 34th removed, you can run the by itself at the combined frequency of the current service, right?

 

Why doesn't the switch at 57th st?

Edited July 25, 2017 by N6 Limited

[Around the Horn]

Why doesn't the switch at 57th st?

 

The switch at 57th has a speed restriction.

[N6 Limited]

The switch at 57th has a speed restriction.

Is that something they plan on fixing?

[Around the Horn]

Is that something they plan on fixing?

 

I doubt it, even if they fixed it, you're just moving the merge from 34th to 57th and not actually fixing any of the problems about the merge.

[CenSin]

You do realize that with the merge at 34th removed, you can run the by itself at the combined frequency of the current service, right?

And that’s exactly why I included this in the first proposal:

 

Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard / Whitehall Street–South Ferry or 9 Avenue

Whitehall Street–South Ferry can’t turn around trains as fast as Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard.

 

In the end, I only see you proposing this to justify your evil scheme of yours into effect.

What’s the evil scheme?

[CenSin]

Why would you need to do this at all?  There is extra space just west of Brighton, so I'd just send some trains to Brighton at rush hour.  That and increase the number of dispatchers and operators on the field so they can fumigate/turn back quickly enough so as not to interfere with service.

You would have to contend with the jam at DeKalb Avenue. Since the same number of trains would be running through DeKalb Avenue under proposal 1, there would be no increased strain on the junction.

[RR503]

I also vote for proposal 1. Broadway is extremely inefficient because trains switch from exp-local in regular service, and that plan would remediate that. It would also give Astorians a guaranteed one seet ride to the Financial District, and in doing so, vastly increase service on the line south of Canal, which may help alleviate congestion on other lines in the area.