

Tunneling Below Second Avenue (for New Subway) - mhb
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/magazine/tunneling-below-second-avenue.html

======
rayiner
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.

~~~
anamax
> 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
"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?

~~~
rayiner
This is absolutely right. Chicago exploded from a settlement of a few thousand
people in 1840 to one of the five largest cities in the world, with over a
million people, in 1890. This growth was contemporaneous with the expansion of
the railroads out west and Chicago's status as the major U.S. rail hub.

And it's also absolutely right that it's ridiculous for people out west to
complain about the intractability of big infrastructure projects. Arizona,
Nevada, New Mexico, etc, wouldn't even exist without massive U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers projects in the 19th century that made the harsh desert
habitable.

------
Anechoic
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...](http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120725/long-island-city/mta-
completes-digging-13-miles-of-new-tunnels-for-megaprojects)

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.

------
theorique
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/>

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

~~~
_delirium
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>

~~~
yummyfajitas
The gateway tunnel has been postponed indefinitely. But no worries, apparently
the only reason the Gateway Tunnel was necessary was because the MTA
previously refused to run things efficiently.

[http://transportationnation.org/2012/06/14/ny-mta-chief-
says...](http://transportationnation.org/2012/06/14/ny-mta-chief-says-
railroads-need-to-work-together-to-overcome-maxed-out-hudson-river-crossings/)

Also interesting: "The Regional Plan Association, which held the conference at
which Lhota spoke, and other advocacy groups have expressed support for
through-running— _at least until Gateway Tunnel gets built._ "

I.e., they want to be more efficient, but only as a stopgap measure until the
tunnel is built.

(Also check out Market Urbanism's blog post on the topic:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ycccmpt...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ycccmptVdFgJ:marketurbanism.com/2012/06/18/new-
york-transit-officials-grudgingly-consider-using-existing-track-more-
efficiency/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) )

~~~
iwejfweoifjweif
As some comments say on that page, there are numerous technical details as to
why it isn't nearly as simple as proposed. AFAIK you can't easily run LIRR
trains to NJ because only a few engines support catenary operation, everything
else requires a third rail to be built.

So while this might get us a few percent increase in the number of trains for
now, at the cost of a few hundred million to build out third rails in NJ (or
catenaries in LIRR areas where NJ transit trains might be routed), it doesn't
change the fundamental infrastructure issue given the growth of mass transit
in the NYC metro area.

------
phon
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.

------
ablefire
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.

~~~
iwejfweoifjweif
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.

~~~
ablefire
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.

~~~
gav
It's about 40mins from Penn to JFK via the LIRR/Airtrain (to go maybe 20
miles). There's about 6 trains/hour. I really don't see how you'd get this
journey down to 15 minutes without having to build a new tunnel all the way,
it's never going to happen.

The real annoyance is how hard it is to get to LGA and that you're reliant on
buses. It's a shame that they ran out of money building the N/R and it stops
at Ditmars instead of continuing on to the airport.

I fly out of NYC biweekly, I generally fly out of JFK so I can take the
E/Airtrain there (about 50 mins) and then fly back to LGA and take a towncar
home, due to landing later and avoiding traffic. I'd never take a cab to JFK,
it can be nearly 2 hours from midtown in traffic.

------
robspychala
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>

~~~
melling
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.

------
vinayan3
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-...](http://science.discovery.com/videos/build-it-bigger-season5-nyc-
subway/)

------
rocky1138
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
Depth: 15-30 m

Length: 13.7 km

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

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

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

~~~
wickedchicken
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.

~~~
encoderer
I hear ya, but it would require laying a second track along the entirety of
the BART system.

This is a woulda/shouda thing going back 60 years to the original construction
of the system. Even if we gave BART billions in funding, there are certainly
better uses for that money (Build a rail line into OAK, extend service on all
the currently-approved-but-unfunded routes, extend to San Mateo, and deal with
some expensive, lingering issues with the transbay tunnel.)

~~~
thrownaway2424
Did you mean a third track? BART is already double-tracked or more along its
entire length. The reason they close the system at night is because they can
barely keep up with car and track maintenance.

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

[http://nymag.com/news/articles/08/06/GeographyofDisaster/map...](http://nymag.com/news/articles/08/06/GeographyofDisaster/map.html)

------
chimeracoder
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!

------
joering2
For those who loves explosives and don't have time to watch it all: fast
forward to 3:35 :)

