Tunneling Below Second Avenue (for New Subway)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/magazine/tunneling-below-second-avenue.html

by mhb • 14 years ago

138 68 14 years ago

vinayan3• 14 years ago

Build it Bigger on the science / discovery channel had an episode about how they build the subways in NY. It was a cool episode. http://science.discovery.com/videos/build-it-bigger-season5-...

theorique• 14 years ago

The East Side needs another subway badly - this will be a great benefit to a great city. Thanks for this link!

New York Magazine has an article that fills in some more of the historical and political context: http://nymag.com/print/?/nymetro/news/features/n_10109/

Slightly related: As a transport geek, I'm a fan of subways everywhere. I recommend London's excellent Transport Museum in Covent Garden for a great historical perspective on how tunnels and public transportation gets built.

http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/

melling5• 14 years ago

NJ<->NYC needs another "subway" tunnel pretty badly too. Ferrying people in and out with buses has reached its limit.

_delirium6• 14 years ago

There's a project currently in planning stages that is supposed to upgrade the 11-mile section of century-old infrastructure between Newark and NYC, improving both Amtrak and NJ Transit service. It'd add a new Hudson River tunnel, a faster modern routing through the Meadowlands, and expand Penn Station into the old James Farley Post Office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Project

ChrisLTD• 14 years ago

Thanks to Gov. Chris Christie it's not gonna happen anytime soon: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/nyregion/08tunnel.html

philjohn• 14 years ago

I'll second the London Transport Museum suggestion - I was there with my children yesterday and had a great time. A ticket also lasts for one year, so you can revisit as many times as you wish, which makes it a great value day out.

phon• 14 years ago

I live and work in Manhattan. The blasting on the second avenue subway project is so regular that I recently caught myself unconsciously timing my work day by the shaking of the building.

rocky1138• 14 years ago

Two things I wanted to know but couldn't find in the article (I thought they would be important): 1. How many metres down are they digging? 2. How many metres long will the tunnel be when it's complete?

m_for_monkey• 14 years ago

Depth: 15-30 m

Length: 13.7 km

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway

robspychala• 14 years ago

East Side Access is another amazing project in NYC. going to bring LIRR to Grand Central in 2019 ish.

i've been somewhat documenting its progress at http://eastsideaccess.tumblr.com

melling5• 14 years ago

This was suppose to be done in 2014. For people who say that developers should be able to predict software development timelines like construction projects, just look at how long it takes to get construction projects done in the NYC area.

Anechoic2• 14 years ago

The TBM's finished digging tunnels for all three NY projects in July, now beings the cleanout and cut & cover work so they can start laying tracks and prepping the stations: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120725/long-island-city/mt...

I worked briefly on the environmental side of this project at my last job in 2002 and something I don't hear that often is that there are completed cut-and-cover tunnel segments for the 2nd Avenue subway right now - the project initial began in the 1970's and some work was completed before the project ran out of money and it was shut down. I've been in the completed tunnel sections under 2nd Ave in the around 95th Street and under the Bowery. I think there is another section further north in Harlem but I haven't been in that one

Tunnel section under 95th street: http://twitpic.com/afuoxv

Tunnel section under the Bowery: http://twitpic.com/afupg0

The initial plan was to tie the new tunnels with the existing section, but last I heard (and this was admittedly 8 or 8 years ago) they abandoned the plan to tie into the Bowery section (they want to go under it) since the route has changed somewhat to tie in with other lines.

The scale of the project still amazes me, I'm glad to see that it's proceeding.

ablefire2• 14 years ago

More mass transit is great and this will be a big upgrade for the east side. I would love to see some kind of modern link from NYC to JFK. The subway + airtrain thing is not up to par for a global capital. The Heathrow Express in London is a good example of what a decent link looks like. Before Heathrow Express it was possible to take the tube to Heathrow but it was an hour-long journey with stops every couple of minutes, not unlike the current NYC-JFK option. The Heathrow Express is leave every 15 minutes and takes 15 minutes. Getting to Heathrow used to be a real headache. Now it's simple and predictable and has cut the best part of an hour out of a door-to-door journey. NYC needs something similar or better.

iwejfweoifjweif2• 14 years ago

I agree but going from JFK to Penn Station via the LIRR/Airtrain isn't too bad. From the Jamaica station I think its 1-2 stops?

Ideally there would just be a train every hour from Penn Station and Grand Central directly to JFK and LaGuardia but I don't see that happening in the next 20-50 years.

ablefire2• 14 years ago

The Penn Station option is not bad but it's not good. For me the difference is that in NYC I always take a cab or car vs in London I always take the Express. There are bunch of factors including price (cab from Heathrow is a lot more expensive than the Express; tube is cheaper). The train from Penn would need to be a non-stop every 15 mins from the same 2 platforms so you can just head to Penn, know exactly where to go and know that you'll be at the airport within 30 mins (assuming 15 min travel time) no matter what.

My understanding is that a new link to the airport was in play when they chose the 2nd Av. line. The 2nd Av. will obviously benefit many more people and is a good choise. I hope it won't take decades to sort out the airport connection. The cab ride to and from JFK is one of the most disheartening parts of living in NYC.

tedunangst• 14 years ago

Airtrain is less than a decade old. You're in for a long wait. :(

wickedchicken3• 14 years ago

And one day, there will be 24 hour BART looping around the entire bay. Nope. :(

theatrus2• 14 years ago

The bay is sufficiently less population dense, making lots of projects "bang for the buck" seem off.

wickedchicken3• 14 years ago

Hella less traffic on 101 though.

rayiner4• 14 years ago

Population density is certainly part of it. Manhattan has about 4x the population density of San Francisco. But 24 hour subway service can be practical with lower population density. E.g. Chicago has a lower population density than San Francisco, but has 24 hour service on the red line (along the lake shore) and a very robust commuter rail service. The key difference is commuting patterns. In the Bay area, people commute haphazardly between suburbs. In NYC and Chicago, everyone from the suburbs commutes downtown in the morning and back out to the suburbs in the evening. It's much easier to have an effective transportation system when everyone is going in the same direction.

encoderer4• 14 years ago

BART running 24 hours is not an option. It would be epically expensive for what -- 6-7 additional hours of sparsely-used trains?

wickedchicken3• 14 years ago

I'm not going to argue on how expensive it is, but consider this: a 24 hour subway means many fewer people would have to drive. If you don't have to drive, you don't have the choice between not drinking that night or leaving before midnight. If drunk driving is reduced by eliminating cars, then 'last call' can be extended to, say, 4am. Less traffic, less drunk driving accidents, more booze, more late-night coffee shops.

_delirium6• 14 years ago

If the trains were automated, the cost of running some short trains in the middle of the night would be (at least more) reasonable. The Copenhagen Metro runs 24/7, for example. I believe BART trains are actually capable of fully automatic operation, but haven't gotten regulatory permission to run without an operator.

dredmorbius4• 14 years ago

The primary argument against 24 hour operation is that it allows for track maintenance, and is required because BART lacks redundancy throughout its system. The system is shut down for 4 hours, from midnight through 4am, nightly (counting end-point departures, service actually runs slightly later from some intermediate stations).

That said, it's double-tracked in many (though possibly not all) sections, which might allow for running periodic service along one set of tracks, assuming switching and train control systems would allow for this. With a full circumnavigation of the Bay, it might also be possible to phase system downtime such that service might run on either eastern (Contra Costa) or western (Penninsula) lines, with service between SF and SJ. By phasing which specific track segments are down for maintenance at any one time, effective coverage of much of the system might be possible (at the cost of greater scheduling and maintenance complexity).

Triple-tracking the system could also provide for this, though at much greater infrastructure and land costs.

As it is, the 4 hour shutdown doesn't affect too many patrons, and service during operating hours is very reliable (much more so than other regional transit sywtems, or driving).

http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight.aspx

jaredsohn• 14 years ago

I think late-night CalTrain (or late-night BART on the peninsula) would be more useful than 24-hour BART.

First, the city has buses running at night and there are 8xx buses that run along BART lines after BART is closed. While one's experience on BART is much better than on a bus, current options don't require that much more time.

Second, the last north-bound CalTrain leaves Palo Alto a little before 11 pm making it really difficult for people living in the city/East Bay without a car to do evening activities there. If one wants to get back, the best options are spending two hours on a SamTrans bus into the city or taking an expensive cab.

lflux• 14 years ago

It should be feasible to run it 24hrs during weekends only. Stockholm's subway does this and is closed normally at night weekdays. The headways are long enough (30+ minutes out on the branches) that repairs can be carried out if need be by switching to the other track (not sure if they actually do this regularly).

johnohara• 14 years ago

Aren't there major geologic fault lines near this project?

http://nymag.com/news/articles/08/06/GeographyofDisaster/map...

rayiner4• 14 years ago

The story highlights something I think anti-rail proponents always miss: the lifetime of this infrastructure is far beyond what ordinary businesses deal with. Parts of the NYC subway are a century old, and parts of the London subway are pushing 150 years old. Decisions like spending extra money to build express tracks on the Manhattan subway system are paying enormous dividends at a time when the people who made the decision have been long dead.

Not only do these time scales lengthen the amortization period of these projects, but they dramatically influence peoples' choices. You can't just base your decision to build a subway line on present commuting patterns. People will adjust their lifestyle to take advantage of the new infrastructure, especially over the century-long timescales involved.

anamax3• 14 years ago

> The story highlights something I think anti-rail proponents always miss: the lifetime of this infrastructure is far beyond what ordinary businesses deal with. Parts of the NYC subway are a century old, and parts of the London subway are pushing 150 years old.

The part that rail proponents miss is that very little of the world is NYC/London/Japan.

Rail, like freeways, can be a "tipping point" if other things are close. However, that isn't always true.

Also, you basically have to decide between freight rail and passenger rail, and freight rail makes a lot more sense for much of the US. (Yes, I know that you folks insist that one can have both, but how about some examples....)

High-speed rail is going to break CA financially.

redwood• 14 years ago

"High-speed rail is going to break CA financially." When I hear this, I wonder what the west would be like if people had said the same of all the infrastructure we rely on in the west today. The rail, the roads, the bridges, the dams. Everything.

You say "very little of the world is NYC/London/Japan."

Well you know what? The western US would have nearly no one living in it if it weren't for big infrastructure projects. It's naturally a very inhospitable place, too little water half the year, too spread out, etc. But we've turned it into a place millions can thrive in. High speed rail may not be as critical as water, but it's ridiculous to think we can't build a modern railroad today.

If we can't build a modern railroad today then we're already broken. And if we're already broken, what do we have to lose?

krschultz• 14 years ago

That's all true, but at this point we're not even spending money in NYC anymore. The north east corridor could be turned into full blown high speed rail - the demand is absolutely there as shown by how many people ride the current (broken) system. I think we have heavily tipped in favor of 'anti-rail'.

jcnnghm• 14 years ago

I completely agree with this. Last time I was in New York, I was kind of dismayed that there is not tons of new construction going on. I would not be shocked if the subways are still in use in 500 years. They are a tremendous investment, but they pay back over very long periods, and people absolutely adjust their way of life around this kind of infrastructure. Bonds can be issued to pay for the construction, and then repaid with the revenue from fares over many years. I think it would be difficult to argue that they don't add value, but it is not necessarily easy to estimate exactly what it is.

buyx• 14 years ago

I agree, in South Africa we have a new rail system called the Gautrain linking Pretoria and Johannesburg. Initially I, and many others viewed it as an elitist boondogle aimed at the middle class who wouldn't abandon the cars, particularly because of the poorly controlled urban sprawl in the province (there's already an old rail system that is unreliable and neglected). However, surprisingly, Gautrain has reached capacity at peak times, and longer trains and different schedules are being introduced to deal with the demand. The ridership is also far more diverse than I expected. People are already demanding access from their workplaces, and in the next 10-15 years, I can forsee densities around the stations increasing.

joering2• 14 years ago

For those who loves explosives and don't have time to watch it all: fast forward to 3:35 :)

chimeracoder• 14 years ago

Not to be a wet blanket, but let's not forget how far behind schedule this line is - it was originally supposed to be opened just a few years after World War II(!): http://secondavenuesagas.com/second-ave-subway-history/

The most ironic part is that the bulk of the line is already complete (or mostly there) - they just don't have enough to stretch below 42nd street, IIRC, which is the tipping point for when they can open it as a useable line.

Also, last I heard, it was to be a single-track line (like the L). So after all those years, we'll still be stuck in the case of any breakdowns or delays - picture the L at rush hour, except worse, because of the passenger volume. And no chance of any express train.

That is, if it ever even opens. A good rule of thumb for the MTA's estimates seems to be 'Time.now() + 5.years'.

All that said, I love NYC's transit system - it couldn't be the city is without it. I just wish we had more than one single line on the east side!

Tunneling Below Second Avenue (for New Subway)

Related Stories