Speaking of crosstown service, I noticed on this map that the 42nd St. shuttle is not planned to extend across to the new Second Ave. line:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...way_Map_vc.jpg

I understand that the trackwork that made the shuttle possible is pretty random and complicated, but it goes without saying that extending that shuttle across would be huge. There was a proposal to extend the shuttle to Grand Central, so there might be a way to get past it toward Second Ave.

Also, looking at the Phase 3 and 4 plan again, it's unfortunate that the line won't be able to interchange with 6 or 7 of the lines that it crosses, at least under the tentative plan. Are they planning an underground walk to connect the 14th St. station with the two nearby L stations? If so, it's not indicated on these graphics.

I think by building this bashful all-local Second Ave. line they're missing the opportunity to build an all-new line that introduces a greater depth of redundancy into the overall system that will enable the city to keep moving when there is an accident or need for extended repairs to the north/south lines that have express tracks.

^ it would be nice, but we have not and most likely will not be getting express service tunnels for second avenue subway. other than that phase three and four plans and stations are pretty tentative.

afaik there is zero movement on it and they won't happen for a long, long time, especially if the go forward on more crosstown work along 125th st.

extending the 42nd st shuttle to 2nd ave would also be nice, but i havent heard anything about that either. i have heard grumbling to move forward building another 7 train station at 10th ave in hudson yards that was controversially left out when the extension was built due to money issues. the 7 train basically covers the same ground as the shuttle in manhattan and it needs a 2nd ave station too. so while the 42nd st shuttle is well used you can see it's kind of an anachronism these days -- plus not even sure how it could be extended east.

this is of course all about money and priorities issues -- and there are plenty of projects i would put ahead of these. ie., my big peeve and dream is triboro rx, but even in manhattan 2nd ave phase three or extending the 7 train south are others (the 7 is actually already tunneled down to w25th st -- that's where the launchbox is).

I don't see that a Second Ave. station will be added to the 7, so there won't be a way to travel across the island from the future T train in this area. If this is the plan, it's a bad plan.

Same with the L. The Second Ave. line will need to deviate from its namesake avenue in order to interchange directly with the L's First Ave. or Third Ave. station.

Right now the Q's east/west route under Central Park works really well. But an uptown-bound passenger who originates in phases 3 or 4 won't be able to travel to the west side of the island in the same way, at least not in any plan I've seen so far, with the exception of a transfer to the Sixth Ave. trains at Grand Ave.

Didn't we already know that though? There is no mystery that Bronx ESA is happening even if we haven't seen any construction yet. I just hope this Amtrak/MTA project is done correctly and not in some hamhanded way that would preclude other future accomidations along the r.o.w. like the TriboroRX (X) concept that could possibly share the space for all or part of its route in the Bronx and would provide the interboro connectivity for Astoria that the New Haven East Bronx ESA likely will not due to the expense and structural limitations of constructing a station along the Hell Gate approach viaduct. That's right I'm talking about a Mott Haven/Randall Is/Astoria tunnel which would also allow the (N) or another Broadway service to leave Ditmars (after another branch goes to LGA) and head back into Manhattan and along 125th after skirting the S. Bronx. Unfortunately I've seen no evidence this is on the MTA's radar even provisionally since the SAS whip onto 125th shows no signs of 125th St tunnel provisions for a north-south Bronx connection though the provision to the Bronx will be built into the tunnel under Second.

i haven't seen any plans for 2nd ave subway phase three or four that is much more than tentative.

42nd st will get a 7 train transfer, if not a direct ped tunnel connection. in fact i am almost certain it would get the latter. those are too many people in queens to leave hanging or walking in and out the system.

the 14st L train connection is quite a bit of a different situation. it would be done with a ped tunnel. there are already similar long ped tunnels for the L train on the west side. one is an unused tunnel between 7-8av. it was closed to the public in the late 80s-early 90s, i don't remember, due to crime. they talk about reopening it someday soon. there is also another ped tunnel at the 7th ave L station to the 6th ave station and path trains there that is open. so at least this kind of connection is not unknown on the L train along 14st.

again, its all about money. if they have it they can do more. even if not, they can do it later. it's nothing to puzzle over now that is for sure.

indeed we did know it was happening, it was just very nice to hear confirmation and news via an mta employee as of yesterday. i'll likely see him again, he is a regular, so i will ask him more. i'm an illregular there though. :haha:

and yes astoria subway extensions would be great. for the near-term it seems like we may get it to lga at least. :tup:

Which isn't that big of a deal.

Whats really needed is something like a SAS branch at Canal St either using the Broadway line or tunnelling under it and making all Canal St connections and turning north on Hudson and either connecting with the Eighth Avenue line or turning on Ninth and joining an (L) (or interlined Utica subway) heading north (I wont elaborate cause this is a whole other thing). This east-west connection is sort of a variant of a plan from the IND Second System but that called for a Worth St tunnel, though a Broadway line provision for heading west under Canal is actually built.

In specific response to the 42nd St Shuttle -SAS connection the connection will be made through passageway which makes a million times more sense than extending the shuttle tracks less than 1,500 feet to Second Ave.

The (7) can't make a connection because the Steinway tunnel approach is not just deep but on an incline making a platform pretty much impossible. BUT AN (8) COULD. ASK ME ABOUT IT!

I meant to elaborate earlier but this connection would be even easier once SAS is finally built under Phase 3 & 4 if they were planning on a cross-platform transfer as originally envisioned. But instead of rebuilding the Grand St station to 4 tracks as originally planned using cut and cover, the MTA is pursuing the "Deep Chrystie Option" which will be a deeper tunnel and connections through stairs and escalators to prevent the temporary disruption to the community. This reluctance to not "disrupt the community" has got to change if we want to see more ambitious subway expansion in this city. Tunneling has serious limitations for a multitude of reasons and the mining of station caverns is what drives much of the exorbitant costs of subway construction especially with the geology of Manhattan. Sometimes tunneling will make sense, but for example the concept of a crosstown line under Canal clearly a simple cut and cover is exponentially more cost effective.

^ yeah a tunnel connection is fine. there are certainly a lot of them around grand central anyway. i wonder how far east any go? further out than the original 'terminal city' tunnels, no doubt.

i think there is a map of gc tunnels somewhere? i couldn't find one. :shrug:

i did find these:

https://gothamist.com/arts-entertain...oosevelt-hotel

https://gothamist.com/attachments/ar...nnelmapt15.jpg
1949 life magazine




^ don't get me started either, but wouldn't that be nice?

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_i...03-960x960.png
https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_i...tem-track-map/

also, below is pretty much what a westward 2nd ave subway extension on 125st would look like.

they propose stopping at st nicks though:

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_i...-125th-street/

and there is more fun stuff on that site ---

Yeah some of my ideas diffet a bit from Vanshnookenraggen's, though I nod yes to most of it.

Thats a really cool GCT illustration, I don't think ive seen that one before.

BTW, I'll elaborate on my "(8) Train" idea soon.

New York Built the World’s Most Expensive Subway

• Video Link

^ we'll probably top those costs with second ave phase II! :haha:

To be fair, the NYC subway trains are huge by global standards. Huge trains need huge stations with at least two exits. This is a big reason why the Second Ave. costs are so high - they're basically building Crossrail as compared to the much smaller subway stations on nearly ever other metro system in the world. The NYC stations are so long that the two entrances can almost act like two different subway stations.

i seriously doubt being wider and longer than typical affects costs to the extent that its a reason for the ridiculously high costs of building rail transit in nyc.

but there is certainly a cumulative effect of everything. :shrug:

The platforms are 600 feet long (most metro systems are 300-400 feet), meaning the whole station structure is at least 700 feet long. This means any station (even a "minor" local station where there is some design flexibility) will almost certainly a)interfere with many major utilities and b)require extensive underpinning of area foundations.

Things get really expensive at the interchange stations because the station must be built very close to an existing station and so the hand is forced. For example, the new SAS 125th station must be built between Park Ave. and Lexington Ave. It doesn't have the option of being to the west of Park or the east of Lexington, where better soil/utility/underpinning conditions might exist.

^ B Division cars ARE very large and long (by global metro standards, they're really more like commuter/RER cars in this regard), but in terms of width I cant see how it would make a huge difference in tunnelling costs since were talking about maybe a 2-3 foot diameter difference and obviously with a cut and cover construction method would make little difference. Where it does come into play is the impressive length of NY subway train consists which dramatically affect minimum curvatures, and the big enchilada, station platform lengths. BART trains can exceed 700' and DC Metro about 600' for 8 car trains. Both of those systems where built in the developed in the 60s-70s when the idea of these regional subway systems using larger cars was the trend. But off the top of my head I think the only other cities outside the US that come close would be Moscow and Tokyo and possibly some Chinese metro line I'm not as familiar with. Even the London Tube tops out around 400' and most lines trains are significantly shorter. The Moscow Metro from its creation has a minimum platform length of about 500'. By comparison the NY Subway maxes at about 600' for 'A' Division 11-car trainsets (51' cars) and for 'B' Division stations accommodating 10 60' cars or 8 75'cars.

complexity of a new rail line is not a driving factor for the high costs of building rail transit in nyc either, other than the ridiculous complexity laid into in the process itself. a big driver is unaccountability. east side access, anyone?

It really is though, stations are the largest cost under the tangible (ie. construction) file.