|
The following is an excerpt from a report published by
the New York City Transit Authority.
ROUTE 132-B - Second Avenue Subway, The Bronx
Study C, Supplement to Phase 1 Design Development Report
New York City Transit Authority
April, 1975
- Foreward
- Summary
- Introduction
- Description of Route - Concept I
- Description of Route - Concept II
- Cost Estimates
- Conclusions
This report is submitted in accordance with the
agreement, dated February 24, 1972, between the New York City Transit
Authority and Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates of New York,
Inc.
Studies (identified as Study A in the agreement) made for
a transit system based on the approved Route and General Plan for
Route 132-B, which extends from East 126th Street in Manhattan to East
180th Street in the Bronx, have shown that a subway line so located
along East 138th Street in the Bronx would unavoidably result in high
construction costs as well as some environmental problems during
construction. This report presents the results of studies made for an
alternate route location (identified as Study C in the agreement) that
eliminates that portion of the approved route along East 138th Street
and in lieu thereof, places the alignment within the Penn Central
Harlem River rail yards to the south of East 132nd Street. The rail
yard area is being considered for possible land- use redevelopment by
the City of New York. Studies, by others, indicate the desirability
of having a new subway transit facility and passenger station within
the redevelopment area. Redevelopment planning has not progressed to
the extent necessary for a coordinated planning effort. However, an
alternate route concept has been developed which, with minor
modifications, could probably be adapted to a redevelopment between
the Willis Avenue and Triboro Bridges.
The alternate route departs from the approved Route and
General Plan approximately 150 feet north of the north bulkhead of the
Harlem River and again returns to the approved route near East 141st
Street, a length of approximately 1.4 miles. Studies herein are
limited to this l.4 miles of route. Proposed alignments and
construction methods for the alternate route are consistent at the tie
points with the recommended concept for the approved Route and General
Plan, Study A.
A summary for alternate route Study C must necessarily
make a comparison with the results of studies based on the approved
Route and General Plan. The recommended concept for the Study A route
was, therefore, compared to the two concept studies for the alternate
route Study C in regard to construction costs, environmental impact
and transit service provided.
A comparison of the recommended concept of the approved
route with Concept I, which assumes continued operation of major Penn
Central facilities in the yard area is as follows:
- The cost for the alternate route is estimated to be $123 million
less than for the approved route; $240 vs $117 million. Both
estimates include the cost of construction, land acquisition and
physical damages to the Penn Central Railroad.
- Neither route requires the relocation of any families.
- The approved route concept will require the taking of five
commercial properties employing approximately 210 people. The
alternate route requires no permanent taking of commercial facilities;
warehouse platforms and tracks in the rail yards removed or relocated
during construction would be restored upon completion of subway
construction.
- The environmental impact during construction will be greater for
the approved route than for the alternate route.
- Both the approved Route and General Plan and alternate route Study
C offer an improved level of service for 50,000 passengers per day.
The alternate route would provide a slightly lesser level of improved
service because 3,000 passengers per day from the South Bronx would
not have transfer capability at the Brook Avenue Station and would
have to "backtrack" from the Pelham Bay Park Line between Brook Avenue
and Hunts Point Stations.
A comparison of the recommended concept of the approved
route with Concept II, which assumes redevelopment in the rail yard
areas, is as follows:
- The cost of the alternate route is estimated to be $127 million
less than for the approved route; $240 vs $113 million. The amount
shown for the approved route is total cost including land acquisition
whereas the cost shown for the alternate route is for construction
only and does not include the cost of land acquisition. No attempt
has been made in this report to estimate right of-way costs for the
redevelopment concept.
- Neither route requires the relocation of any families.
- Commercial property taking for the approved route is given in
Concept I above. For the alternate route) it is assumed the
redevelopment project itself would require the removal of existing
commercial properties in the rail yards.
- The environmental impact during construction will be greater for
the approved route than for the alternate route.
- The same comparison of service for Concept I is also applicable;
however, if the redevelopment occurs, the alternate route with station
would better serve the proposed redeveloped area than the approved
route.
If completion of the entire Second Avenue Line should be
delayed because of complexities arising from redevelopment of the rail
yard area, the cost savings for this alternate concept, as compared to
the approved route, would be lessened because of escalation of costs.
Adoption of the alternate route Study C would require a
new Route and General Plan.
The alternate route for that portion of Route 132-B
studied in this report traverses the Penn Central Harlem River rail
yards from west of Willis Avenue Bridge eastward to the approach to
the Hellgate Bridge. Within this area, which lies entirely south of
132nd Street, are also located numerous warehouse and loading platform
facilities owned primarily by the Penn Central Railroad.
Report studies for the alternate transit route are based
on two concepts:
Concept I assumes the Penn Central would continue to
operate their major facilities in the yard area. Consistant with this
concept, a basic structural shell for a future station is provided but
"finish" work is not part of the initial construction.
Concept II assumes the transit route would be constructed
in conjunction with an overall area redevelopment plan that would
include a passenger station beneath the present rail yard area.
Study A route, which follows the Approved Route and
General Plan, is in tunnel at the tie point with the alternate route
Study C just north of the Harlem River. The desirability of
maintaining the alternate route in tunnel eastward to the Triboro
Bridge was dictated for each of the two concepts described above. In
the case of Concept I, the subway route would not interfere with those
Penn Central operations at the Harlem River yards that the railroad
plans to continue in use. In the case of Concept II, a subway route
would allow the greatest flexibility in planning a redevelopment of
the rail yard area.
Included in this report are drawings illustrating
alternate route Study C vertical and horizontal alignments, track and
station arrangements and design and construction features. A
comparison of the transit service provided as compared to the approved
route is included as well as cost estimates for each concept.
Plate 4 indicates track arrangement and stations for the
alternate route.
The basic difference in service between the approved and
alternate routes is that the alternate does not provide transfer
capabilities between the Pelham Bay Park Line and the Second Avenue
Line in the south Bronx area, as would be provided at the Brook Avenue
Station under the approved route Study A plan. (Both routes provide a
terminal station for the Pelham Bay Park Line at Hunts Point and a new
station for continuation of service to present terminus at Pelham Bay
Park.)
The effect of the elimination of the Brook Avenue
transfer for the alternate route is that Second Avenue Line northbound
passengers cannot readily select any of the five Pelham Bay Park Line
stations between Brook Avenue and Longwood Avenue as a destination.
This northbound passenger has the choice of continuing to use the
Lexington Avenue - Pelham Bay Park Line or using the Second Avenue
Line to Hunts Point and "backtracking" on the Peiham Bay Park Line to
the desired station. Although this lack of direct service would
affect 3,000 passengers per day, improved service is provided for the
50,000 passengers per day using the Peiham Bay Park Line beyond Hunts
Point Station.
Alternate route Study C would not provide a common
station for Dyre Avenue and Pelham Bay Park service. This common
station service would be provided at Brook Avenue if the approved
Route and General Plan were constructed. However, if alternate route
Study C were constructed, Dyre Avenue Line passengers would have
access to both IRT Broadway - Seventh Avenue Lines and the Lexington
Avenue Line at the 180th Street Station.
Alternate route Study C would provide better service for
the anticipated redevelopment of the rail yards. The approved Route
and General Plan could also provide service to the redeveloped yard
area by means of a new bus system from the existing Brook Avenue
Station.
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT (Plates 2 and 5)
The two-track alternate route maintains the approved
route alignment from East 126th Street in Manhattan to a location
approximately 150 feet north of the bulkhead of the Harlem River.
From this location, it departs from the approved route by swinging
east-ward in an 800-ft radius curve passing between piers of the
Willis Avenue Bridge; proceeds eastward beneath the Penn Central
Harlem River Yard and passes between piers of the Triboro Bridge;
swings to the north in a 950-ft radius curve to meet the two unused
westerly tracks of the Penn Central near Willow Avenue and East 132nd
Street. The alignment proceeds from East 132nd Street northward on
Penn Central right-of-way utilizing the embankment and bridges of the
railroad until the tie is made with the alignment of the approved
route near East 141st Street.
The alignment would require the demolition of several
railroad loading platforms and the abandonment of several tracks
during cut and cover construction of the proposed subway structure.
These facilities could be rebuilt after subway construction. Major
facilities of the railroad in the yard area would be untouched by
subway construction.
Preliminary discussions with the Penn Central Railroad
indicate that subsurface easements in the rail yards with provisions
for maintenance of major facilities are acceptable. The taking of two
surface tracks between East 132nd and East 141st Streets is also
acceptable.
The two tracks are at approximately 14 ft. centers except
where provision is made for a future center platform station area
south of Brook Avenue, the tracks are located at approximately 33 ft.
centers.
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT (Plate 3)
Controls for vertical alignment were a) the elevation and
grade of the approved route at the tie point just north of the Harlem
River, b) the depth of construction to allow for a future station with
mezzanine, c) the desirability of maintaining the route in tunnel
between the Willis Avenue and Triboro Bridges, d) the elevation of the
existing Penn Central Bridge over East 132nd Street and e) the
limitations for grade desired at a station.
The profile conforms to the 2.7% tunnel grade of the
approved route at the Harlem River, flattens to 0.5% grade through the
proposed future station at an elevation of 41 feet below present
ground surface and then rises at a 3.0% grade to a portal 150 feet
east of the Triboro Bridge. A grade of 2.7% remains between the
portal and the existing railroad bridge over East 132nd Street.
Northward of East 132nd Street, the profile conforms to existing
tracks resulting in grades of 0.2% or less.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
At the location of the tie point with the Study A route
near the Harlem River, cut and cover tunnel construction was
recommended. Cut and cover construction is also recommended for the
alternate route for its full length to the portal, a distance of about
13500 feet. Eastward of the portal about 900 feet of open cut (wall)
section is required until the tracks would begin to climb on the Penn
Central embankment. Plate 6 indicates the tunnel cross sections and
the retaining wall sections east of the portal. Jack arch
construction is shown for the cut and cover tunnel.
Tunnel construction would require the temporary
relocation or support of tracks which must remain in service during
the construction period.
Borings in the rail yard along the alternate route were
obtained during the study. The subsurface data indicates a
significant layer of weathered rock very close to the ground surface.
The rock is not considered suitable for free-air rock tunneling.
Large portions of the yard were created by filling in low areas
including a stream that emptied into the Bronx Kill at the foot of
St. Anns Avenue.
As the route proceeds northward. from East 132nd Street
to East l4lst Street, ten bridges of the Penn Central over city
streets are utilized to carry the two tracks. Plate 6 indicates
typical details at the bridges and the relative position of the
Transit Authority tracks to the Penn Central Railroad tracks.
Estimates of construction cost include sums for the renovation of
these bridges.
Plate 7 shows the new station near Brook Avenue. The
drawing indicates the entire station which would be constructed for
Concept II.
Construction of the route thru the rail yards, away from
housing and businesses, will have a decidedly lesser environmental
impact on the comuunity during construction than a subway route
constructed along a street such as East 138th where apartments and
businesses line both sides. Unavoidable adverse socio-economic impact
of construction along East 138th Street would include some disruption
of vehicular and pedestrian traffic: loss of business of adjacent
stores due to hindered access: loss of basement space during
underpinning operations of residential buildings and creation of
noise, vibration, dirt and dust caused by the operatiors inherent in
subway construction. The yard route, by simply not proceeding along a
busy street, eliminates, or reduces, the undesirable effects of
construction.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
For that portion of the alternate alignment that remains
in tunnel, that is from the Harlem River eastward to near the Triboro
Bridge, it is assumed underground easements would be obtained by the
Transit Authority for a 100-ft width. Actual right-of-way acquisition
would be required from the tunnel portal northward to East lhlst
Street. An estimate of cost of such easements and right-of-way
takings has not been obtained from the Penn Central Railroad; however,
costs have been included as described in Chapter V.
Concept II assumes the transit route would be constructed
in conjunction with an overall area redevelopment plan that would
necessitate the location of a passenger station in the present rail
yard area. This would require coordination in the planning effort
between the transit planners and redevelopers. Redevelopment planning
has not progressed to the extent necessary for a coordinated planning
effort. However, it is believed the concept presented could, with
minor modifications, be adapted to an overall redevelopment south of
East 132nd Street and between the Willis Avenue and Triboro
Bridges.
ALIGNMENTS, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The plans for this study indicate the same horizontal and
vertical alignments and design features as Concept I. The route is
retained in subway to a location east of the Triboro Bridge and the
alignments accommodate a station which is part of the initial
construction, south of Brook Avenue. The horizontal alignment may be
shifted slightly in the north-south directions and the station in the
east-west directions to orient the transit facility with redevelopment
features such as street networks and location of new buildings.
The station shown on Plate 7 is a center-platform type
with full mezzanine. It is recognized that the number of passengers
to be served and the number and location of entrances would enter into
final selection of station features. This information is not
available.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Whereas Concept I assumed railroad facilities must be
maintained during construction, Concept II assumes the redevelopment
project has dictated the removal of the railroad facilities prior to
transit construction, The complexities of the redevelopment project
prohibit any evaluation of land acquisition cost applicable to this
concept.
Cost estimates are shown in Figures 1 and 2 for Concepts
I and II. For comparison purposes with Study A, the approved Route
and General Plan, each estimate indicates a total cost of the entire
route from East 126th Street to East 180th Street. Each estimate is
divided into three physical reaches of the route consisting of the
alternate route length of 1.4 miles plus the approved route segments
to the north and south.
For Concept I, which assumes the continued operation of
major Penn Central facilities in the yard area, the total shown
includes construction costs, cost of underground easements estimated
at one dollar per square foot for a 100 ft. width, cost of
right-of-way north of the portal estimated at four dollars per square
foot and a cost of physical damages to the Penn Central. The cost of
easements, right-of-way and physical damages have been estimated from
the best available information. No estimate of these cost items has
been obtained from the Penn Central Railroad.
For Concept II, which assumes redevelopment in the rail
yard area, the cost shown includes only construction costs. Because
of the complexities involved in the entire taking of the rail yards
for a redevelopment project, no attempt has been made to estimate the
cost of land acquisition for the subway servicing the
redevelopment.
All costs are based on cost anticipated as of May l974
consistent with the estimating for Study A, the approved Route and
General Plan.
For comparison purposes, the cost of the construction and
right-of-way for the recommended concept of the approved route is
estimated at $239,911,000.
FIGURE 1 - STUDY C - ESTIMATE OF COSTS - CONCEPT I
SOUTH SEGMENT OF APPROVED ROUTE
Construction Cost $28,718,000
Right-of-Way & Easements 15,000
Subtotal $28,733,000
ALTERNATE ROUTE (l.4 Miles)
Construction Cost $44,126,000
Right-of-Way & Easements 1,870,000
Physical Damages to Penn Central RR l,496,000
Subtotal $47,492,000
NORTH SEGMENT OF APPROVED ROUTE
Construction Cost $35,797,000
Right-of-Way & Easements 2,710,000
Physical Damages to Penn Central RR 2,231,000
Subtotal $40,738,000
TOTAL COST CONCEPT I $116,963,000
Estimated cost of station finish and machinery not
included above is approximately $13,000,000.
Both concepts studied indicate the alternate route would
result in significant savings in costs and in lesser environmental
impact than would the recommended concept of the approved route.
Weighed against the above advantages, the alternate route
would not provide a transfer between Second Avenue Line and Pelham Bay
Park Line at Brook Avenue.
If completion of the entire Second Avenue Line should be
delayed because of complexities arising from redevelopment of the rail
yard area, the cost savings for this alternate concept, as compared to
the approved route, would be lessened because of escalation of
costs.
Adoption of the alternate route Study C would require a
new Route and General Plan.
|
