Gothamist: Second Avenue Subway T's Up

LILLIAN

Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:41:01 -0500

thank you so very much for this second avenue line its a blessing from God can i get an Amen. Amen to all of us. and the ones in charge of magaging and building the tracks and walk paths for the people may God guide their hands to make everything possible and safe Amen.

Gus

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:14:04 -0500

Why won't there be more connections with crossed-lines? The following lines will get crossed but people will have to wake two blocks underground between stations: 53rd St with E/V, 42nd St with 7. The following will get crossed, with no station: J/M/Z Bowery, 2/3 Wall Street, J/M/Z Broad Street. Also, this line passes by huge hospital university complexes (Rockefeller University, Memorial Sloan Kettering), with no station at 63rd Street/ Second Avenue area.

Be

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:48:05 -0500

Okay. It seems that many of you do not realize how big of a schlep it is to get from York avenue and, say, 72nd st. to the nearest subway on Lexington and 68th st. If you are a very fast walker it takes about 15 minutes. It's almost 3/4 of a mile. So, if I want to go down to Union Sqr/14th on the 6 train, I have to drudge all that way to a subway. THEN, I have to literally fight my way on to the subway. The 6 is jam packed at EVERY hour, not just rush hour. The UES subway does not merely serve rich people (thye take cabs, anyways!) the UES is larger than the UWS, it has more population, and the 4/5/6 lines are the primary feeder line from and to the Bronx. You have a vast majority of an entire burrough, besides the UES trying to use one subway line. IT's crazy. Now, when they ad the Q and the T this will greatly help the many economically disadvantaged people who live in the Bronx get to Mid-town and other jobs in lower manhattan faster, and with more comfort. It will also increase economic activity on York Ave., and help increase access to the Hosptils there. I am also in favor of a Cross-Bronx subway, that will increase inter-burrough transportation, to undo the cutting up of the Bronx by the highway system, and also because this would greatly facilitate economic development there, because currently, most of the Bronx's economic/human capital flows into Manhattan. It would also be beneficial to add a subwau connecting the Bronx and Queens. This is easily done, since both are already connected by rail over Hell Gate Bridge on Randall's Island. There really is no reason the Bronx should remain connected solely to Manhattan.

Adam

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:28:42 -0500

Why no stop at 79th St.?

Jason

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:06:21 -0500

Not Amused: [1] twice the tracks, twice the expense. [2] there will be a spur before the curve to 125th street to allow for a future Bronx extension. The main reason for the connection at 125th is to allow the MTA to shut down parts of the Lex for serious overhauls in the future, while telling passengers that they can transfer to the T to get where they're going.

Not Amused

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:57:53 -0500

[1] Why aren't they building express tracks, [2] Why is it that there will be two lines going to the same terminus, and at that why is the service terminating @ [125]st. and not running into the Bronx . Another example of the MTA's bad planning .

Mary

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:00:11 -0500

As a UES resident, the T doesn't make much sense to me. As is, my commute relies totally on the 4/5/6 and allows me to not make any transfers. Why would people bother taking the T and adding additional transfers and waiting times to their travels? It just doesn't make sense to me. It's much faster and easier to walk the extra few blocks to the Lexington line. Also, I have to admit that I'm not too thrilled about the havoc this project is going to turn the area into.

jack oneil

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:07:32 -0500

They really should be using this money to add service to Red Hook or finally a line to Staten Island.

Sternel

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:23:09 -0500

Our Big Dig: I hate to break it to you, but past those outerboroughs is a vast, frightening place called Long Island. (Oooooh!) They have a little, unimportant bit of public transportation called the LIRR. Maybe you've heard of it? Take a guess what subways on the east side look like when (if) the East Side Access tunnel is completed without the T.

Scott Mercer

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:40:30 -0500

What happened to the simple white tile/concrete floor design of old? You just answered your own question, Pete. "Of old." Rightly or wrongly, industrial designers of today certainly aren't going to work on designs that were in vogue decades ago. If you look at the current state of the art in subway station design (look at Los Angeles, the most recent subway system built in a major North American city), you'll see a much more lavish approach than the Depression era tile works of the IND system. Something more akin to the original 1904 IRT lines designed by Heins and LaFarge. This includes plenty of public art installations in the stations. How long did it take to build the original subway lines through Upper Manhattan and into the Bronx? Wasn't it like 3 years? America has become so pathetic. Yeah, it did take that long, and dozens of immigrant laborers (who got paid dirt) died building it. You have to take your time these days if you want to avoid accidents, Tom. Unless you long for the golden days of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

brooklyn james

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:32:09 -0500

oh, yeah, now I remember where I saw a better version -- it also had the graphics. am strikes (or is that steals?) again. DIG IT! 2ND AVE. LINE IS ON TRACK By JEREMY OLSHAN Transit Reporter March 5, 2007 -- The second groundbreaking of the Second Avenue subway is only weeks away, MTA officials say. "It's been in the planning for the last 60 years, but it's going to happen in the next few weeks," said Mysore Nagaraja, head of MTA Capital Construction. The first groundbreaking on the project, in the works since 1929, occurred at the corner of East 103rd Street nearly 35 years ago. The MTA completed several sections of the tunnels, but by 1975, the city's fiscal crisis derailed the project. All the while, the need for the project has never been in question - the East Side's Lexington Avenue line has long been crammed beyond capacity. The new subway, which extends the Q line and creates a T line, will be completed in four phases. Phase One will run from 96th Street down to 63rd Street, where it will connect to the Q line. This segment, which includes stops at 86th and 72nd streets, will cost $3.8 billion and is scheduled to be completed in 2013. It will be used by an estimated 191,000 riders daily. The MTA is about to accept the low bid for the tunneling of the first phase, and expects to sign a full funding grant agreement with the federal government shortly. Phase Two will run from 125th Street through the vacant 1970s tunnels before connecting to 96th Street. Phase Three will run down to Houston Street, and the last leg will go all the way to Hanover Square in lower Manhattan. Before the tunneling can start, the gas, water, sewer, electric and communications lines that run under the street will have to be either supported or moved out of the way, Nagaraja said. This should take roughly eight months. The tunneling should take just over a year, Nagaraja said. All the while, the MTA will be monitoring the vibrations so as not to disturb those above ground. The MTA has already spent $266 million on the design and planning of the new subway. Longtime residents and officials on the Upper East Side say the MTA has answered many of the concerns about the construction project. "This is a case of be careful what you wish for. We've wanted this subway for so long, but now we have to deal with some of the consequences of getting it," said David Liston, chairman of Community Board 8. jeremy.olshan@nypost.com

ChelseainTom

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:26:25 -0500

Did you ever stop to think why it might take a longer time to build the new subway line in the current built-up city than the city a hundred years ago? Hint: it has nothing to do with American becoming pathetic.

anon

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:25:07 -0500

As for why it won't run through Alphabet city--I seem to recall hearing something about the quality of the ground / depth of bedrock making it difficult to tunnel down there. And cut and cover isn't much of an option these days.

Bell Frida

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:05:48 -0500

Our Big Douchebag - I live in an outer borough, and I am delighted to see some east-side access. If you want more outer-borough construction, and we could certainly use some, get off your ass and advocate for it. The T line is way overdue.

TomInChelsea

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:31:19 -0500

A lot of room between stations--55th to 72nd, 72nd to 86th...I guess it'll help, but a lot of Upper East Siders are still going to be walking quite a distance to catch a train. How long did it take to build the original subway lines through Upper Manhattan and into the Bronx? Wasn't it like 3 years? America has become so pathetic.

Yingo

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:44:18 -0500

It's silly to compare UWS and UES for purposes of an express line. The UES is physically larger and more populous than UWS, with larger buildings going up all the time. Also, why not build for the future? An express line will attract new development. If New York had said when they were building the subway that various express tracks weren't currently needed, they would have been right and we'd all be suffering now. It was the foresight to create excess capacity that makes the subway still the best form of transportation in the city 100 years later.

brooklynjames

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:17:05 -0500

This is an old story -- every detail has been in all the papers months ago. Why are you making a big deal out of it now?

Tom

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:01:41 -0500

What a massive waste of money. We don't need it. Period. Average daily ridership of the Lex line: 1.3 million. Population of the City of Boston: 596k. Don't ever get into city planning, dude. There's a reason there used to be three lines over there.

anonymous

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:41:19 -0500

Definitely wishful thinking, but I'd like to at least see the option left open for the T (or the Q or whatever) extended west along 125th to the ABCD at 125 and St. Nicholas. Sure it would be 2050 before anything like that would be completed, if at all, but would be nice all the same.

Dan Dickinson

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:14:48 -0500

What, no jokes about Q-T's on second avenue? For shame. Love, Captain Dan

anonymous

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:48:58 -0500

Our Big Dig: The 2nd Ave subway isn't just for UES residents. The hospitals strung along York Ave. in the 60s & 70s are huge employers, and health care is one of the biggest job-growth engines in NYC. Patients, doctors, and nurses come from all over the tri-state area to these facilities, and they also all shop in local businesses, eat lunch in local delis, etc. And these hospitals are currently expanding fast.

Ben K.

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:33:15 -0500

Maybe the Q will be useful but won't it have to compete for track space with the N, R, and W. I don't think you ride the subway as much as you say you do. You are aware that the Q train is a current subway line, right? And that it is an express train down through Manhattan and into Brooklyn?

pete

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:08:06 -0500

Ugly ass stations, look like they came out of Walmart's decorating isle. The same trying to be fancy but plastic looking floor tile, textured stainless steel that is going to be perminently covered in dirty and all that glass asking to be covered with dirty and scrachitti. Go look at LIRR Flatbush Ave Terminal, it looks like the decorations came out of a 99 cent store. What happened to the simple white tile/concrete floor design of old?

our big dig

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:04:00 -0500

4/5: Sure, I have been on the 4/5 during rush hour. I have been on most trains during rush hour and they are all packed. And honestly, I don't see what purpose the T serves if it goes down 2nd Ave. It isn't going to help anyone going to midtown unless you plan to switch to a cross town train (if they make connecting stations) or a cross town bus. Maybe the Q will be useful but won't it have to compete for track space with the N, R, and W. Anyway, the point is, with limited funds the city should be building better mass transit in the underserved outer boroughs to open up more neighborhoods to development of affordable housing and the give people in the outer boroughs more incentive to be carless. I assume you live on the UES. The crowds probably were there before you were so you have yourself to blame for choosing that neighborhood to live in. considering the vast income inequalities withing NYC building new subways in the wealthiest zip codes hardly makes sense.

Schadenfreudian Mensch

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:49:26 -0500

And yet it still won't be routed through alphabet city. It's like no-man's land in that part of town. Guess the hipsters and yuppies will have to do with cabs.

4/5

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:34:05 -0500

@ Our Big Dig: Ride the 4/5 much? None of those riders are driving to work, yet they jam themselves into the 4/5 just to get up the east side. The T line can't be finished soon enough.

anonymous

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:33:08 -0500

The UWS from 59th to 125th does fine with one express/local line (the 1/2/3) and one local-only line (the B/C). On the UES, the Q will provide a local-only line below 125th that splits into one local line (T) and one express line (Q) at about 59th. And of course there's already the express/local 4/5/6. So the Second Avenue Subway will give the UES pretty much an exact mirror of what's already perfectly adequate on the UWS. And below the Q/T split, modern signal systems and rolling stock will let them run T trains with much shorter headways.

Our Big Dig

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:27:46 -0500

What a massive waste of money. We don't need it. Period. The city should have tried congestion pricing AND build more subways in the outer boroughs - specifically in those neighborhoods with no train service that have been proven to contribute car traffic into Manhattan. Add more buses to the less crowded avenues in Manhattan. Problem solved.

bob

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:25:57 -0500

Most things are designed well before they're actually built. The buildings of tomorrow are the architecture of yesterday.

tien

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:56:49 -0500

if the mta adds incentives/penalties for on time completion, i think this project could actually finish on time.

neil

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:50:28 -0500

ten+ years from now, I doubt the industrial design will be the same as today - so it's weird that they'ld actually release the photos as a visualization. though it will be fun to compare when it finally happens.

sam

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:46:56 -0500

Why aren't they putting in express tracks? Seems like it will be the F train all over again...