Giuliani Livid Over Bringing 9/11 Trials to NYC
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
Oreo The Dog Is Dead, Blame Game Is Not
House Cat Terrorizes Family In Dramatic Hostage Situation
Pregnant Woman And Two Men Shot In Clinton Hill Drive-By
For those who plan on commuting to or from the Upper East Side many years from now, you have something to look forward to - oh, and those of you living along Second Avenue, you might be annoyed - the MTA is getting ready to award a tunneling contract for the Second Avenue Subway's first phase this year, with digging actually starting in 2008, which means there's still time to relocate! Phase 1 of the long-long-gestating project would start at East 96th Street and go down to East 72nd Street, and make a connection to the East 63rd Street tracks. The only thing standing in the way may be Native American villages and burial grounds. The Post reports that the MTA will have archeologists "on hand to halt the massive tunnel-boring machine at the first sign of artifacts dating back hundreds of years." The MTA probably learned their lesson after coming across the big wall in Battery Park while trying to expand the South Ferry station.
The Second Avenue Subway has been in the works for ages, but recently (well, 2-3 years recently) gained more MTA support to move forward. The T line will run from 125th Street and Lexington to Hanover Square downtown; the Q will run along the T from 125th to East 63rd Street. And yes, the T would mean a Second Avenue L stop - the L will be just like a bus, stopping at each block! Phase 1, the 96th to 72nd Streets phase would be complete by 2013; phase 2 will be the 125th to 105th Street leg, phase 3 is 72nd Street to Houston, and then phase four is Houston to Hanover Square.
And did you know that some people call this line a "stubway"?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Would this also mean a Second Avenue stop for the 7?
The one ridiculous thing about this plan is that it does nothing to alleviate the east village's transit problem. The proposed stops already exist for the F and L lines. They should have a stop at Tompkins Sq Park or even Avenue A. and not follow 2nd Avenue strictly.
I can't believe this plan was actually approved by voters. It takes years just to update a single subway station. I suspect we have a nightmare in the making.
It takes years just to update a single subway station.
If you're referring to Times Square, I would say those are extenuating circumstances. Most subway rehabilitation projects are completed within about six months. The major projects take a while, but that's why the completion date for this is 2013 and not 2008.
realist has a good point: WTF no St Marks stop?
There's plenty of time for the plans for the (T) to change. All that is being built by 2013 is the Q extension to 96th street.
Here is a complete list of station stops. You can walk to St. Marks from 14th pretty easily, I would hope.
They are not actually digging up Second Avenue in most places. As far as I understand from the plans they have shown at the community board, only the area around the 96th Street Station will be actually dug in the middle of the street. The Tunnel itself is going to be very deep in most places and will tunnel through the bedrock.
And many of the connections to other subways are not going to result in new stations, but long underground tunnels. For instance the L connection is really just a tunnel to Third Ave station, not a new station at Second Ave. Take a look at the map.
This plan sounds good on the surface, but a couple points on this:
- Shouldn't archeologists have some idea of where burrial grounds exist already? This whole city has been dug up so many times, this should not be new info.
- Based on typical NY beauracracy and union work schedules, they are crazy if they truly think phase 1 will be completed in 5 years... They have basically continuously done construction on the Major Deegan since the early 1970s! True story. Also, the 14th street exit off of the FDR has been closed for years.
- Does anyone else feel like this is NYC's answer to Boston's BIG DIG project?
- I am no civil engineer, so maybe this is not possible, but I feel like they would be better served to make this run up 1st ave. That will help make the whole East Village more accessible. And while I am not in favor of cit-wide gentrification, it will really help stimulate urban renewal in ABC city.
Oh well. I hope to be long gone from the city once the line finally launches.
This whole project should have been completed 20 or 30 years ago. Better late than never, but this is just outrageous.
- Shouldn't archeologists have some idea of where burrial grounds exist already?
For decades, the city never kept records of this stuff, and your basic premise is wrong. The City hasn't been dug up; rather, builders have filled in and built on top of pre-existing structures. Rome, to a few thousand year extreme, was built the same way.
it will really help stimulate urban renewal in ABC city.
Have you been to alphabet city lately? It certainly doesn't need much more in the way of urban renewal. This ain't the early-to-mid 1990s. The city planners opted to go with Second Ave becuase large sections of the tunnels already exist. Plus, Second Ave provides more transfer opportunities with the trains in Lower Manhattan when and if the plans get that far.
adam- Apparently a 1st Ave line was evaluated about a generation ago, but for much of the length of Manhattan the water table is too high.
Also, regarding the L transfer, the 3rd Ave station already streches most of the way to 2nd Ave, there's simply no exit there. This will add one.
I agree that there should be more service to Alphabet City, but to move the line from 2nd Ave uptown down to 1st Ave or further downtown would requre the MTA to aquire entire blocks for the line to curve under as it moves east. The money and political will for that simply doesn't exist.
Sorry, that last comment was directed at Noah, not adam.
Yeah, 2nd avenue is kind of useless. Ave A at least...
Ben, good call on your records point. I didn't know about them not keeping records... But the city has been dug up over and over again... Be it for power lines, cable lines, water meins, sewer tunnels, surveying, or even the pneumatic air tubes that were used to deliver mail between Brooklyn and points in Manhattan, this whole city has been ripped apart over and over again.
Also, I once lived in ABC city. You are right on about Ave A & B being already in a state of renewal, but as you go further out, it is far from "renewed." Avenue D is pretty bad at parts.
There was a plan in the late 60's to build the Avenue C loop, but we'll never see it on our lifetimes.
But would Ave. D really benefit that much from a 1st Ave. subway line vs. a 2nd Ave. subway line? The reality of this situation is that it's viewed more as a way to stave off overcrowding of the Lexington Ave. lines than it is as a way to serve Alphabet City. The MTA looks at Alphabet City and sees buses that serve the Houston St/2nd Ave F/V stop and the L stop at 1st Ave. and 14th. As shortsighted as it is, there are just many more people uptown who will benefit from the subway access AND the 2nd Ave line will be better than nothing for many people who live in ABC city.
Also, just out of curiosity, how much of Alphabet City is built on landfill and how much is built on top of rock? That's an engineering issue to consider as well. Could the city physically build a subway that far east?
After watching on a daily basis the disruptions caused by the re-tiling of some stairways at the 86th St. 4/5/6/ station over two years, the idea that this will ever get done seems pretty far-fetched. In an ever-evolving city, pretty much the only constant is that the 2nd Ave. subway never gets built. I would be happy to see it done, but shocked as hell if it ever occurs. Holes will be drilled, tunnels may be bored, but if I ever step on a 2nd Ave. line b/f I'm dead, I may die right then of shock. I think I'd be better off holding out for that whole "flying car" concept.
Noah, honey -
a] MTA projects, within the past few years, have actually had a record of coming in ahead of schedule, due to the MTA's new policy of bonuses for every day ahead of schedule (and fines for every day past it).
b] The 14th street exit off the FDR is closed for security issues, not construction.
For better or for worse, this will definitely be NYC's Big Dig.
They plan on expanding it into the Bronx and Brooklyn, but no plans for it to be four-tracks for extra speed/capacity. Very short-sighted.
By building it cut-and-cover style (unfortunately, very disruptive but fast), instead of deep tunnelling (minimumly disruptive but painfully long), they could complete it much sooner, clean up & straighten out the infrastructure beneath 2nd Ave, and accomodate 4 or more tracks. (A 1929 plan called for six to eight(!) tracks for express and super-express service).
Since a government bureaucracy is supervising this project, expect it to finish after a long, long time.
We don’t need a stinking 2nd avenue subway...
What we NEED are more bicycle lanes! I’m going to make a point of this at the next Critical Mass.
We don’t need a stinking 2nd avenue subway...
What we NEED are more bicycle lanes! I’m going to make a point of this at the next Critical Mass.
As much as I like to bicycle through the city, your economies of scale don't match up. Putting in more bike lanes is easier and doesn't preclude building the 2nd Ave subway. And the number of people who would benefit from added bike lanes is miniscule compared to the number who would benefit from a new subway line.
dilbert: more bicycle lanes are more important than expanding the subway, which hasn't been done since the 60's? please bicycle off a bridge.
Pardon me if I'm completely ignorant on this issue, but doesn't it seem like the city would be better served if the line were built the other way around?
The uptown portion of the line seems somewhat redundant, being right next to the 4/5/6 lines.
Personally, I'd think it would make more sense to build the T from 42nd to Hanover Sq, and use the leftover cash to extend the 7, and begin considering "neatening up" downtown subway service so that the cross-town routes weren't quite so chaotic.
Also, I don't really think this will become NYC's big dig. I think they city's got a fairly reasonable track record in recent years of getting these things accomplished according to schedule as far as government projects go. From what I understand, there aren't any significant engineering hurdles involved with tunneling under 2nd ave, especially if they're going through bedrock (which also means that artifacts won't be an issue). The East Side Access project or the new NJT tunnel, on the other hand, could be a different story.
Agreeance that we don't need this. The 4/5/6 green line is plenty sufficient. It is the best run line in the city, because it is used by rich people. Who needs another line parallel but 2 blocks east?
There won't be an L stop at 2nd Avenue.
You'll be able to transfer from the L at 3rd Avenue to the T at 14th Street. There will be an exit at 2nd Avenue for the L and T trains.
Andrew, its the congestion. Its being built to ease the pain of the 4,5,6 lines. Even though their trains are the most frequent running ones of the whole system during rush hour, because there's no other train line on the east side its like gladiator combat to get on a train.
The 4/5/6 green line is plenty sufficient. It is the best run line in the city, because it is used by rich people. Who needs another line parallel but 2 blocks east?
Larry, sorry to bust your bubble, but I take the 7 from Jackson Heights then the 4/5/6 uptown to get to work.
1)I ain't rich and just cuz I work where rich people live doesn't mean that the subway shouldn't be updated
2)The rich comment about the 4/5/6 shows your ignorance in two ways. One, the mayor notwithstanding, rich people take limos and town cars, or even cabs. Working people take the subway. Two, you try taking the 4/5/6 dueing a weekday rush. It's way way overcrowded. Not counting uptown sections of the 2/3, it's THE ONLY line on the eastside north of 63rd.
"Neaten up" downtown service? That's 100 percent impractical. Look at the track maps and the different track widths for the different train lines.
The 4/5/6 line is not "plenty sufficient." Because of the 8-5 working demographic of the UES neighborhood and the lack of lines further eastward, AND the growth of high rises and large residential complexes north of and in and around 77th St., that line is completely overburdened. Plus, that line is responsible for funneling almost all of the Bronx commuters into Manhattan. Placing the majority of the burden of interborough traffic and the entire UES on one line seems foolhardy. I now take the F Line and will bitch about it, but it is a pleasure compared to cramming into a rush hour train on the 4/5/6. A single delayed train on the 4/5/6 throws the entire UES into chaos, especially considering that there are no other lines in reasonable walking distance. Taking the bus isn't even an option, as 59th St. Bridge traffic makes walking seem like sprinting. The 4/5/6 line is a choke point that needs to be eased. I doubt it will ever happen, but it should be a priority.
Maybe we should spend the money making the 4/5/6 more efficient. I take it every morning, but I don't need to be at work until 11am. Sometimes when I take it earlier it's crowded, but really only right around 9am.
Larry: This isn't an arguement you're going to win. I think you're the only person in all of New York City who thinks the 4/5/6 line on the UES is sufficient. It's packed for hours each morning and hours each night even with a constant stream of express and local trains serving the line during rush hour. Like the West Side, the East Side should be served by two avenue lines. And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't live or have much occasion to head up the Lex. line. I hate doing it when I have to.
The phrase "more efficient" is about as practical as a deus ex machina granting commuters wings to fly to work. If one is commuting at 10-11am, I can see why it seems like a line is completely adequate, but the fact is that there are peak commuter load hours that need to be accomadated. Take a long look at a NYC subway line map. Some farther-out nieghborhoods are pretty isolated, but most Manhattan, near-in Brooklyn, and Queens neighborhoods have multiple and nearby lines. Now look at 125th St. in Manhattan, where three divergent lines covering a staggering geographic area over the Bronx converge into a single one, albeit on two separate tracks. Now follow that thin green ribbon 60+ blocks southward. Are there any transfers, connections, or anyplace remotely near to catch another train? Nope, not really.
Even if every single person commuting from the Bronx or the UES were a "rich" person, good luck getting a cab or even permission to use your metrocard to get on a bus in the case of a breakdown of the 4/5/6 line. Managing peak loads can lead to overall inefficiency, but it's a situation that needs to be addressed, not to mention the security and comfort issues of pegging 3/4 of a borough and 1/4 of manhattan to the existence of a single line.
I'd be happy to one day step on a completed 2nd Ave subway line, but I won't hold my breath.
At this point I think we'd benefit much sooner and more cheaply from modernized, improved bus service, BRT, possibly surface light rail in a few places - and, yes, bike lanes. Real, full-width, buffered bike lanes. And then congestion pricing as well for the most congested areas in all five boroughs, wherever they may be.
Reduce congestion, turn it into mass transit forms like bikes, buses & trains - and make better spaces for pedestrians & social activity, too. It should all happen at once as a coordinated city-wide strategy. Any politician with vision wanna grab some power and make it happen?
I see the 2nd Ave Subway as an interesting distraction to all the rest. And as it's taking a lot of federal money rather than our own, it's not really subtracting from our capabilities to do the rest of this stuff. Glad to see it progressing, but it's just part of continuing to improve the subway system and New York City transportation is much, much bigger than just our subways.
One more question about bike lines: Who will police these bike lanes from insane cab drivers? Who will ride buses on congested roads that go 4.0 MPH like the M96? Building the Second Ave. subway should be all about finding a way to get cars off the road. Then we can devote our resources to bike lanes and surface transit options. And by the way, surface light rail is a terrible idea for New York.
Just for some eye candy: (shameless shill)
underground pics... the first 18 are sections of the 2nd ave subway that have already been built.
How come Manhattan gets another subway line when you have neighborhoods like Red Hook, Brooklyn that don't have any subway access at all?
Actually the track width is the same for all subway lines, including PATH. It is also the standard for all railroads, too. The tunnels, on the other hand dictate the width of the equipment.
As for any complaints about they should be building in Brooklyn:
Yes, they should be, but this project is replacing infrastructure that was torn down decades ago and just never got built.
Yes, there is a need for more subway lines Brooklyn, but one battle at a time.
because, if they wanted to build a subway in red hook there'd be community advocacy groups protesting it because of the people it would bring to the neighborhood.
when did brooklynites become such fucking babies?
I'm glad to hear that the 2nd Ave stop will really just be a tunnel to the L 3rd Ave station...not that the L Train ever runs anyway.
As far as the Second Avenue Subway, Yes the eastside needs it . I just think this will not relieve the congestion already there. Just because the MTA invests millions of taxpayer dollars in a project to improve a specific area doesn't mean it will be benefical to that area. I'm not saying this project shouldn't be, Just think about what's being invested here. The extension to the "Q" line is a good move, That benefits the upper eastside by giving commuters an added option uptown. As far as the connection south of [63]rd., It's flawed because your forcing commuters to have to make a connection to another train (The "T" line). Why not just build a subway that runs the entire length of the east side ? The smart thing to do would be to expand the street lanes (And have police enforce them ) for buses, Better yet if the city wants so much to dig up second avenue how about creating an underground expressway for car traffic with exits every two, or three blocks or so . Because by the time this subway gets to the stage of actually running it's not going to live up to it's usefulness ! I can see it now people are already complaining about the project not serving certain areas . Why would you want a subway along First Avenue? That's just a waste of planning and money. I think the best solution to this problem would be extend the "Q" line, and build a Second Avenue Expressway sort of like the underpasses that you have in the Bronx . Yes this would invite even more car traffic to Second Avenue but it would better serve the area . I say that because the subway south of [63]rd. Street is going to be like the old "L" line in Brooklyn along Myrtle Avenue . Used seldomly
Well Mr. Israel that's because it cost money to build new subways to link to the area's that truly need them like Red Hook . In other words; This is Manhattan were talking about here ! There's money in Manhattan duke! Thinking from a sensible stance, What line would you extend anyway? , How would it be extended? The last time I checked the "G" line was elevated past Carroll Street . I say the "G" line because the "F" goes to Coney Island so that's a no go . Do you have any idea how much it would cost the State to fund that type of extension for what Two, or Three additional stations . That's just not going to happen, What you should be bitching about is the level of bus service to Red Hook . Last I checked you all had the B[61], and the [77]
Excellent photos, db. Thanks for the underground tour.
It would make the most sense to complete the 63rd St - 72nd St leg of the Second avenue Q extension first instead of going from 96st St down. The tunnel under Central Park is already mostly built so if you could complete the leg up to 72nd St. and then, progressively up to 86h, etc... you could start operating part of the system before the entire thing is completed. THis would make sense from an engineering standpoint since you could begin testing sooner. Additionally, economically it would make great sense since the system would start paying for itself much sooner as you would not have to keep a part of it that could be functional and benefiting riders, merely sitting idle. You could begin to ammortize the debt. So, riders would begin to benefit before 2013 as it moves progressively north. Seems sensible to me.