Comments on: To save a 7 station, an obvious redesign at 41st and 10th

By: Without a TIGER grant, 7 line supporters look to ARC funds :: Second Ave. Sagas

Without a TIGER grant, 7 line supporters look to ARC funds :: Second Ave. Sagas — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:46:01 +0000

[...] effort to save the 7 line extension‘s 41st St. and 10th Ave. station, the city in June applied for a $3 million TIGER II grant. With that money, the MTA would have studied the feasibility of building a non-island shell [...]

By: What Should Replace the Sheridan? TIGER II Could Fund an Official Answer « NYC

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:34:50 +0000

[...] an intermodal facility on Rockaway Parkway, presumably at the Canarsie terminus of the L [PDF]. As reported in June, NYC DOT also requested funds to study the inclusion of a station at Tenth Avenue along the 7 line [...]

By: Streetsblog New York City » What Should Replace the Sheridan? TIGER II Could Fund an Official Answer

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:17:04 +0000

By: A tale of two tunnel boring machines :: Second Ave. Sagas

A tale of two tunnel boring machines :: Second Ave. Sagas — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 04:58:44 +0000

[...] the residents who would stand to benefit with a station at 10th Ave. and 41st St. Maybe REBNY can deliver for them after [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:09:54 +0000

What redesign? There’s no redesign here. It looks like Bloomberg is simply announcing that the line can be built without a station, and adding a station later will be a trivial task. How he’s determined that it will be a trivial task is left unstated. The engineering study hasn’t been started yet. And the article doesn’t even quote anyone from MTACC or NYCT who might understand the issues.

If only it were so simple. I can think of several problems with assuming that a station with side platforms can be installed here at a later date.

First: This station, if it is ever built, will be deep. There will be escalators. There will be elevators. There will be emergency egress concerns. There will almost certainly be a mezzanine.

Second: The line will be on a fairly steep grade down from Times Square to the new terminal. If the station site is on a steep grade, then it cannot safely accommodate a station. The line needs to be designed with a station-friendly profile NOW if a station is to ever be built here.

Third: The signal system needs to be designed with a station in mind as well. (This may be moot if OPTO is up and running by the time the station opens.)

Fourth: Installing a station later would require major construction adjacent to the tunnels that would presumably require substantial shutdowns of the line. Not the end of the world, but installing at least a basic station shell now would avoid the issue entirely.

By: Brandi

Brandi — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:34:26 +0000

Well this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully they an at least find the money to make the shell so it can be built easily in the future. Surprised no one had thought of this before. Will there at least be a way to cross between the two sides at a mezzanine or will one have to go completely outside?

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:40:05 +0000

Forget the “can” question. New subway systems usually build two-track lines with island platforms, unless for legacy reasons they like side platforms. And unless there are tail tracks at least a full train length long, the terminal has to be with an island platform.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:35:44 +0000

At this stage in the design of Second Ave, that would require a massive design change and setback in schedule.

Besides, 72nd St can’t be changed since passengers on the uptown Q (assuming the Q comes back this way) could very conceivably transfer to a downtown T. 96th St is a terminal, at least for Phase 1, so it’s conceivable that a train might arrive, discharge uptown passengers, pick up downtown passengers, and turn around on the same track (like the 7 in Times Square with its island platform). And 86th St is so deep that excavation for entrances would be wasteful if it didn’t serve both directions.

For future phases, it’s a possibility. And I still question the need for a mezzanine when there is a single island platform.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:28:53 +0000

It doesn’t generally save money to build side platforms – the total amount of excavation is the same as or higher than with an island platform.

What they’re saying is different – it’s that for infill stations, side platforms are cheaper.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:31:50 +0000

I was wondering that too – it does allow for construction of a station after the 34th St extension is open, but I don’t hear people talking about excavating out a shell even to fit the “new” design. But they are correct, I suspect, that this would more-or-less allow for a station to be constructed after the fact without massive disruptions. Disruptions, particularly around platform construction, but not massive ones.