Comments on: Inside the MTA’s $29.5 billion program

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:50:01 +0000

Alon:
“But Phase 2 seems so easy… the tunnels are already there, except for the sections that will have to be cut up for the stations anyway.”

Marc:
“Not quite. Phase 2 still requires a good deal of tunneling. The existing tunnels run from 99th to 105th and from 110th to 119th. In phase 2, those two sections need to be joined. Then, they need to build a tunnel from 119th & Second to 125th and Fifth, plus an underground storage yard and connection to the 125th St. Lexington Avenue Line stop.”

So, first of all, the phase 1 work is actually tying into the tunnel at 99th. Second, the section from 105th to 110th is a planned station location.

Accordingly, the actual work consists of:
– 106th Street Station — as straightforward as any cut-and-cover
– 116th Street Station — as straightforward as any cut-and-cover
– 125th Street Station (including connections to Metro-North and Lexington Line). This is a truly complicated station due to the underpinning and the interchange elevators and escalators.
– tunnelling work between 119th and 125th, plus branches/bellmouths for future Bronx tunnel. This all has to be done by conventional mining and is a big pain in the neck. The “underground storage yard” is not a meaningful part of the work, it’ll just be longer tail track tunnels really.

Interestingly, phase 2 will quite likely not use any tunnel boring machines.

I’m also very suspicious that it will get broken into a “2a” through 116th St. and a “2b” with all the complicated tunnelling.

By: Second Ave. Sagas | Blogging the NYC Subways » Blog Archive » Sander unveils ambitious 40-year plan during State of the MTA

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 06:01:47 +0000

[...] the most part, though, the speech was as expected. Sander talked about the recently unveiled $29.5-billion, five-year capital plan; the planned service upgrades that should come in response to the fare hike; and the potential [...]

By: Max

Max — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:38:45 +0000

Mr. Knox: The Lexington Avenue line has some of the shortest scheduled headways and carries more passengers daily than the San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago rapid transit systems COMBINED, around one and a half million passengers each weekday. There is absolutely no question in any reasonable person’s mind that the East Side needs additional capacity.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:19:56 +0000

I deleted your last post because the last thirteen comments you’ve left have all said the same thing. Give it a rest or you’ll find that none of your comments will appear here. We know what you think, and we are all willing to agree that the Second Ave. Subway is overcost and over budget. We got it.

By: peter knox

peter knox — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:02:17 +0000

Kabak erased my last post for some reason, but I will keep trying to tell the truth. Would some reporter or public official someday ask “Lee” “Sander” how the price tag for the SAS could only have risen 500 million in 6 years, if the Javits Center project supposedly doubled in less time? And how could the city have spent 1.1B on a tunneling contract for East Side Access and the MTA supposedly only paid 337 million for the tunneling contract for the SAS? Clearly the MTA falsified the numbers right up front, knowing that the city would never even begin the project if the real numbers were known. And can someone explain how “Lee Sander” can claim that spreading the contracts out over a longer, a longer, repeat, a longer, period of time will actually be cheaper? And so, because of these unexamined falsehoods, the subways are still not substantially safer than they were on 9/12, and fares and tolls must go up, and congestion pricing must be enacted, and no one, but no one, will speak up for the common person. Certainly, not Bloomberg, the billionaire Censor, who stakes his all on issues like smoking in restaurants. C’est fou!

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:30:31 +0000

Ben, are you going to the State of the System address on Monday?

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:49:34 +0000

The problem at Franklin Avenue is that, on a brief segment, the 2, 3, and 5 trains have to share the same track. That bottleneck determines the capacity of the whole Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Bronx IRT. To fix it would require rebuilding the whole junction, but the payoff would be a significant increase in 2, 3, and 5 train capacity.

By the way, the same problem exists at 96th Street, where the 1, 2, and 3 services merge. By all rights, the 1 ought to be an express, and the 3 ought to be local. At one time, they did run that way. Rather than rebuild the junction, they solved the problem by swapping the 1 and the 3. This was done in the late 1950s, I believe.

The same could be done in Brooklyn, but there would be hell to pay, because it would mean swapping the 3 and 5 services, and Flatbush Avenue riders would lose their east side train. Understandably, the MTA does not want to do this.

By: The Secret Conductor

The Secret Conductor — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:43:46 +0000

what could they possibly do at franklin ave for the 2,3,4 and 5? build what where? the 2 merges with the 3 and the 5 merges with the 4 after crossing the 3 so I guess they will build a separate track spur north of president street and have it directly connect to the express track.

maybe have the 5 stop at bowling green? maybe have the 5 go to utica? drama to say the least.

As far as the 6 train being empty during rush hour… that must have been one of those dry moments. I remember coming home on the 6 for a good 4 months and it wasn’t crowded but there weren’t empty seat and that only lasted until we got to 53 and it got packed really quick. and yes it was pretty close to rush hour. a little after 5pm

to me 2 ave subway is needed and would be great if it went all the way to city hall, but the most important part is between 59 and 125. the rest might end up being dropped do to funding and other issues I think. same for the LIRR/grand central connection. the 7 being extended has to happen with its 2 stops due to potential profit for the city and development of the area. fulton street will not be the super mall that it could have been of which would have helped o pay for it

that is what i see. don’t see it changing.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:11:02 +0000

One thing you missed: the program includes $10 million for a study to relieve the bottleneck in Brooklyn, where the 2, 3, 4, and 5 trains merge. Unfortunately, it’s only a study, so you’re probably looking at least 10 years away for it to actually be fixed.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:55:21 +0000

From every rational data point available, including independent studies not dependent on the MTA, the Lex is over-crowded and at capacity. It cannot accommodate more rush hour trains. A downtown 6 at 96th Street in the evening is, as anyone would know, an “opposite-direction” commute. The problem at that time of day is uptown.