Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Union Tpke]

Long term thinking would be better. I would run it down 125th Street.

 

Then Utica Avenue needs a subway running from south Brooklyn to the Bronx, via LaGuardia.

 

I think that there should be a Utica Avenue line. I agree with bobtehpanda on this.

Here is his plan.

 

However, I think that a line via Third/Park/Webster is a much higher priority than a line down 125th. I personally would have a line via the Bruckner Expressway to Throggs Neck instead of the 125th Street corridor. I would have that corridor be one of two northern branches of the TriboroRx.

[Caelestor]

However, I think that a line via Third/Park/Webster is a much higher priority than a line down 125th. I personally would have a line via the Bruckner Expressway to Throggs Neck instead of the 125th Street corridor. I would have that corridor be one of two northern branches of the TriboroRx.

 

My order of priority for SAS is:

• extension to 3 Ave - 149 St or Lex - 125 St
• New service to Houston St / Grand Ave
• New service from Queens to Houston St / Grand Ave via 63 St / QBL Bypass
• SAS extension to Lower Manhattan
• SAS extension up Park Ave to Fordham
• 125 St Crosstown
• SAS connection to Fulton St Line
• SAS extension to Co-op City via Pelham Pkwy

All of this should keep the capital program going for several decades.

 

I don't support a branch into Williamsburg via Tompkins Sq Park because capacity is precious on the 2-track SAS. Personally, I think the Utica Ave Line should be built as an IRT extension first, with the provision to convert to IND standards if a northern extension is ever built. It might be worth investigating if the Utica Ave line could hook up with the local tracks on the Fulton St line similar to the existing connection at Broadway-Lafayette.

[Union Tpke]

My order of priority for SAS is:

• extension to 3 Ave - 149 St or Lex - 125 St
• Agreed.
• New service to Houston St / Grand Ave
• Agreed.
• New service from Queens to Houston St / Grand Ave via 63 St / QBL Bypass
• Also agreed.
• SAS extension to Lower Manhattan
• Same here.
• SAS extension up Park Ave to Fordham
• I would do this later. Having it via Park Avenue would be redundant to Metro-North. This is something I have been struggling with. Having it via Third Avenue would open up more areas to train service.
• 125 St Crosstown
• I would rather have a Bruckner Expressway Line.
• SAS connection to Fulton St Line
• This belongs before the Bronx extension.
• SAS extension to Co-op City via Pelham Pkwy
• Agreed.

All of this should keep the capital program going for several decades.

 

I don't support a branch into Williamsburg via Tompkins Sq Park because capacity is precious on the 2-track SAS. Personally, I think the Utica Ave Line should be built as an IRT extension first, with the provision to convert to IND standards if a northern extension is ever built. It might be worth investigating if the Utica Ave line could hook up with the local tracks on the Fulton St line similar to the existing connection at Broadway-Lafayette.

Having all 30 TPH go via the Fulton Street Line doesn't make any sense. What else are you going to funnel that additional 15 TPH to? Funneling it through DeKalb Avenue won't work well. Having a line via Utica Avenue would relieve crowding on the L, would connect North and South Brooklyn in a way that isn't currently possible, and serve areas of central and southeastern Brooklyn without service. I agree that the first phase should be as an IRT line. Having a branch of the Fulton Street Line would not do much more than the IRT extension. My plan would provide a north-south line, and in combination with the Fulton Street connection, would drastically reduce crowding on the Brooklyn IRT.

 

What people forget is that even if SAS is completed (Phases 1–4), people from Brooklyn will still take the as they won't want to transfer. Connecting the  SAS to the Fulton Street Line is a no-brainer to me. The line parallels and serves the same areas as the IRT Eastern Parkway Line. People who use that line might be closer to the Fulton Street Line or might be directly in between the two, but because the IRT has more frequent service and serves the East Side, they would choose that line. By providing frequent Fulton Street Line local service that also serves the East Side, the number of passengers on the would decrease. Having a full Utica Avenue Line would also help. Riders on the New Lots Line and the Eastern Parkway Line could transfer at Utica Avenue to the new line and then have a faster commute to Midtown Manhattan, bypassing Lower Manhattan. This would really encourage people not to use the Lexington Avenue Line. If crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line is really going to be reduced, this is the plan that would achieve that goal.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Union Tpke

[Around the Horn]

My order of priority for SAS is:

• extension to 3 Ave - 149 St or Lex - 125 St
• New service to Houston St / Grand Ave
• New service from Queens to Houston St / Grand Ave via 63 St / QBL Bypass
• SAS extension to Lower Manhattan
• SAS extension up Park Ave to Fordham
• 125 St Crosstown
• SAS connection to Fulton St Line
• SAS extension to Co-op City via Pelham Pkwy

All of this should keep the capital program going for several decades.

 

I don't support a branch into Williamsburg via Tompkins Sq Park because capacity is precious on the 2-track SAS. Personally, I think the Utica Ave Line should be built as an IRT extension first, with the provision to convert to IND standards if a northern extension is ever built. It might be worth investigating if the Utica Ave line could hook up with the local tracks on the Fulton St line similar to the existing connection at Broadway-Lafayette.

I'd rather send the to Williamsburg and the to Euclid Av, than send all 30TPH via Fulton which is completely unnecessary.

[Caelestor]

I'd rather send the to Williamsburg and the to Euclid Av, than send all 30TPH via Fulton which is completely unnecessary.

 

The problem with sending the to Williamsburg is that headways are doubled at all stations south of Houston St. I would rather overserve the Financial District and the transfer stations to Brooklyn instead of underserving them. My preference for the Utica Ave line is to build a junction with the Fulton St local tracks. The complexity would probably be similar to the 63 St connection with the QBL, but it probably would be simpler than constructing a longer tunnel that has to cross under a ton of existing tunnels and buildings in Williamsburg, not to mention another East River crossing. 15 tph to Utica, 15 tph to Euclid. Note that I may change my stance in the future if different travel patterns emerge, since this phase of the SAS is probably 50 years into the future. 

[Around the Horn]

The problem with sending the to Williamsburg is that headways are doubled at all stations south of Houston St. I would rather overserve the Financial District and the transfer stations to Brooklyn instead of underserving them. My preference for the Utica Ave line is to build a junction with the Fulton St local tracks. The complexity would probably be similar to the 63 St connection with the QBL, but it probably would be simpler than constructing a longer tunnel that has to cross under a ton of existing tunnels and buildings in Williamsburg, not to mention another East River crossing. 15 tph to Utica, 15 tph to Euclid. Note that I may change my stance in the future if different travel patterns emerge, since this phase of the SAS is probably 50 years into the future. 

 

I don't think a flying junction at Fulton and Utica would go over very well with the neighbors, and I think Willamsburg can benefit from the extra capacity, more than the Financial District...

[checkmatechamp13]

1.  The real question is what do YOU consider to be the South Bronx and what you consider to be Parkchester?  No point in answering that until you clarify that.  There is Parkchester the entire complex, but Parkchester extends past that.

 

2. That's the exception and not the rule.  For the most part, what I stated is pretty accurate.  The areas without subway service are generally middle class and the ones that have it are generally pretty poor.  Pelham Bay is one of the few decent areas of the Bronx where the subway runs and technically the subway ENDS where Pelham Bay begins, but I'll give you that one.

 

Kingsbridge is mainly working class and Bedford Park is a mix of poor and working class, and both of them are questionable neighborhoods.  Kingsbridge has seen improvements over the years but safety is still an issue and there still aren't people moving there in droves enough to call it solidly middle class even with the media trying to hype up the area because it has the train along with the brokers calling it "Lower Riverdale". lol  Bedford Park is certainly questionable in certain areas so my point stands overall. 

 

Your point about Harlem is overall true, though there are people moving to certain parts of it with money, but those aren't people that would be using the crosstown subway like that.  Those people would drive anyway.  

 

Since you're talking about the BxM6, I'll include Park Versailles as part of Parkchester (so that would basically be everything from Castle Hill Avenue to the Bronx River between Tremont Avenue & Westchester Avenue).

 

The South Bronx would be anything west of the Bronx River, south of the Cross-Bronx Expressway.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that the BxM4 & BxM6 only help you if your origins/destinations are within walking distance of those lines (which also means they're within walking distance of the local bus lines that they share stops with).

 

And in Manhattan, even high-income people tend to use mass transit. Around 75% of households on the UES & UWS do not own a car.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Since you're talking about the BxM6, I'll include Park Versailles as part of Parkchester (so that would basically be everything from Castle Hill Avenue to the Bronx River between Tremont Avenue & Westchester Avenue).

 

The South Bronx would be anything west of the Bronx River, south of the Cross-Bronx Expressway.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that the BxM4 & BxM6 only help you if your origins/destinations are within walking distance of those lines (which also means they're within walking distance of the local bus lines that they share stops with).

 

And in Manhattan, even high-income people tend to use mass transit. Around 75% of households on the UES & UWS do not own a car.

Either way I'm the one commuting and I will commute the way that I want to.

 

As for the Manhattan comment, we weren't talking about in general. We were talking about a specific part of Manhattan and what people do there, not in general. You continously bring in things that are unrelated. Yes, plenty of high-income people in Manhattan use public transit. Nothing earth shattering about that.

[CenSin]

I don’t think “poor” qualifies as a reason to build a subway. But “underserved” is, and the Bronx has 2 large underserved areas whereas 125 Street is pretty well-served.

[Wallyhorse]

This is what Union Turnpike wrote in an earlier post:
 

 

 

What people forget is that even if SAS is completed (Phases 1–4), people from Brooklyn will still take the         as they won't want to transfer. Connecting the  SAS to the Fulton Street Line is a no-brainer to me. The line parallels and serves the same areas as the IRT Eastern Parkway Line. People who use that line might be closer to the Fulton Street Line or might be directly in between the two, but because the IRT has more frequent service and serves the East Side, they would choose that line. By providing frequent Fulton Street Line local service that also serves the East Side, the number of passengers on the     would decrease. Having a full Utica Avenue Line would also help. Riders on the New Lots Line and the Eastern Parkway Line could transfer at Utica Avenue to the new line and then have a faster commute to Midtown Manhattan, bypassing Lower Manhattan. This would really encourage people not to use the Lexington Avenue Line. If crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line is really going to be reduced, this is the plan that would achieve that goal.

This I agree with 100%.  I have many times myself said the SAS to Brooklyn should be via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would come in where the Transit Museum currently is (Court Street) and then continue on the as-present unused track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn as the Fulton Local (with the and BOTH running express at all times with the to the Rockaways and the to Lefferts).  The in this scenario would run to Euclid Avenue at all times and extended late nights to Lefferts.

[checkmatechamp13]

Either way I'm the one commuting and I will commute the way that I want to.

 

As for the Manhattan comment, we weren't talking about in general. We were talking about a specific part of Manhattan and what people do there, not in general. You continously bring in things that are unrelated. Yes, plenty of high-income people in Manhattan use public transit. Nothing earth shattering about that.

 

Alright, you can commute the way you want to, but saving a transfer is not a factor in commuting by express bus vs. local bus/subway between Parkchester and the South Bronx. Comfort is.

 

And most of those new yuppies in general are moving to those areas because of the good public transit, and aren't buying a car/bringing a car with them. That includes yuppies in Harlem. Look at the percentage of autoless households along the 125th Street corridor. 78.7%, 68.4%, 76.3%, etc. And those are the census tracts without housing projects. 

 

I don’t think “poor” qualifies as a reason to build a subway. But “underserved” is, and the Bronx has 2 large underserved areas whereas 125 Street is pretty well-served.

 

Agreed.

Edited January 19, 2017 by checkmatechamp13

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I'm not against the building of an SAS extension across 125th St, though I'd much rather see the SAS be extended to the Bronx first. But not if the Lex/125 station is going to make Phase 2 of the project cost more than Phase 1 did, despite using two existing sections of subway tunnels dug in the 70s. Either they find a way to bring down the costs involved with tunneling west from 2nd to Lex and building Lex/125 or defer the station to a future phase. It's just outrageous that Phase 2 would cost more than Phase 1, even when inflation is factored in.

[Brooklyn]

I don't like the extension across 125 for the SAS--I do agree with some here that it should go to the Bronx with transfers to the Lex line at 138th st and 149th st . Even if it terminated at 149th st, I'd be ok with it. Do that, and you’ll put a dent in some of the capacity issues of the Lex Line.

The times I have traveled on either the 2 or 5, I've always wondered about that two track segment south of 149th st....any disruptions, you basically have screwed the entire middle and eastern portion of the borough (except along the 6).

I really think that WP needs some kind of relief and additional transfer points...this should be coupled with the D being extended at LEAST one more stop to meet up with the 2 train either at Gun Hill or Burke.

And yes, there is a need for a crosstown Bronx subway service—the D could fill this need at least somewhat. Ideal world, the D (as was planned) goes to Co-op city—and it can do this in 4 extra stops.

 

Just my two cents.

[checkmatechamp13]

I don't like the extension across 125 for the SAS--I do agree with some here that it should go to the Bronx with transfers to the Lex line at 138th st and 149th st . Even if it terminated at 149th st, I'd be ok with it. Do that, and you’ll put a dent in some of the capacity issues of the Lex Line.

The times I have traveled on either the 2 or 5, I've always wondered about that two track segment south of 149th st....any disruptions, you basically have screwed the entire middle and eastern portion of the borough (except along the 6).

I really think that WP needs some kind of relief and additional transfer points...this should be coupled with the D being extended at LEAST one more stop to meet up with the 2 train either at Gun Hill or Burke.

And yes, there is a need for a crosstown Bronx subway service—the D could fill this need at least somewhat. Ideal world, the D (as was planned) goes to Co-op city—and it can do this in 4 extra stops.

 

Just my two cents.

 

And if the SAS went up Third Avenue and turned west at Fordham Road to say, Inwood, you could get across the Bronx in a semi-direct manner by taking the to Fordham and transferring.

[Trainmaster5]

I don’t think “poor” qualifies as a reason to build a subway. But “underserved” is, and the Bronx has 2 large underserved areas whereas 125 Street is pretty well-served.

Thanks for pointing this out. It seems like T to Dyre, Brooklyn, and a few other posters can distinguish between what I deem a necessity in subway expansion compared to what I think is wishful thinking. I'm looking at this SAS project as a replacement for the two demolished elevated lines FROM the Bronx to Manhattan. IMO anything else would be a wasteful diversion of limited resources and funding. This city, state, and the share a history of half-baked plans that never came to fruition. This seems like an opportunity to reverse that history. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[Porter]

Here is my instinctive problem with the single terminus at 125th Street...

 

>commuting from the Bronx to the UN during rush hour

>all cars super crowded

>my reaches 125th

>do I stay on the crowded train and reach my destination directly?

>or do I risk pushing myself out of the train only to wait for another that might be empty?

>I'm kinda running late... I just want to get there. I'll deal with the discomfort.

>the is faster anyway...

 

I believe the greatest priority should be a Third Avenue-149th Street terminus, offering easier transfers before reaching Manhattan.

 

I understand that Phase 2 has already been planned and approved, but even if the 125th Street terminus is constructed as planned, the included bellmouths on Second Avenue already point straight up to the Bronx. Phase 4 should be suspended indefinitely and Phase 3 should include the Bronx extension. Yeah, this is coming from someone who calls FiDi home, but I can see the bigger picture of transit needs beyond my own. We have plenty of transit options down here and we can live without one or two more. Terminating the line at Houston Street to meet the Second Avenue is fine, and if it meant more money for a Bronx extension, I'd say cut it at 14th Street so that it can at least meet the , making the Houston Street Station a part of Phase 4. This would still allow a future service to operate, with or without Phase 4.

 

 

But these are mutually exclusive:

• One branch to the Bronx and one branch across 125 Street
• Two branches in the Bronx

 

 

I'll take the former. Sorry, I don't buy that the Bronx needs two more branches; one will do just fine. Even with a terminus at Third Avenue–149th Street, the Bronx will benefit greatly.

 

We should be providing services where they are needed, not based on what borough is poor, etc. 

I don’t think “poor” qualifies as a reason to build a subway. But “underserved” is, and the Bronx has 2 large underserved areas whereas 125 Street is pretty well-served.

 

Yeah, the doesn't really care about serving poor areas for their own sake, anyway. It's about demand and political pressure, as we've seen time and again throughout their history of operation.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Skipper

[Caelestor]

The most important metric for building new tunnels is ridership, with relief on existing services as a secondary metric. In current plans, there are realistically only two new stations that can generate new ridership: 106 St and 116 St, which will have ridership similar to 96 St. The other stops on both the Bronx and 125 St extensions are just transfer stations to redistribute passengers.

 

As currently conceived, Harlem - 125 St has a few purposes in Phase 2: get MNR riders to take the to Midtown West or 72 St, and allow for an alternative East Side route when the or gets shut down between 59 and 125 Sts. Realistically speaking, the will not generate much relief, since Lex Ave passengers have a more convenient transfer at 59 St already. The 125 St transfer will only be heavily utilized when Phase 3 comes online to serve the giant CBD between 23 and 55 Sts. However, Phase 3 is almost certainly 20 years into the future unless existing construction practices are drastically overhauled.

 

As proposed, 3 Ave - 138 St will generate few new riders, but it's a very useful transfer stop since there will definitely be some riders who can make the transfer to a faster into Midtown. 3 Ave - 149 St functions similarly to 3 Ave - 138 St, and is already a top 50 ridership station. Compared to 125 St and 138 St, 149 St is the most likely to divert existing riders since it's the start of the Third/Webster Ave bus corridors. A SAS 149 St stop will likely reduce crowding on both the 7 Ave and Lexington Ave lines, since the serves Midtown West, and I've upped it to high priority. SAS to 125 St will also be useful, but it is of limited utility until either the Midtown East or 125 St Crosstown extensions is built, which is very far off.

 

Since Phase 3 currently has no projected opening date, I now think SAS should be built to 3 Ave - 149 St. The disadvantage compared to 125 St is that it will take longer and cost more to build the underwater tunnel into the Bronx, but I think that if the MTA wants to solve the growing 7 Ave problem as well, Phase 2 needs to go into Bronx.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Even if the goal is to provide a connection from Metro-North to Midtown West or the East 72nd St area via the at 125th, how many people will realistically take advantage of it if the connecting station is several stories deep below the surface. It would probably just be easier for them to stick with their current commuting patterns.

[CenSin]

Even if the goal is to provide a connection from Metro-North to Midtown West or the East 72nd St area via the at 125th, how many people will realistically take advantage of it if the connecting station is several stories deep below the surface. It would probably just be easier for them to stick with their current commuting patterns.

Let’s not forget that making a transfer constitutes a fixed cost in terms of time. Whereas a train may cost you anywhere from 0 seconds to 10 minutes (for a service running on a 10-minute headway), going through a transfer passageway always costs you a fixed amount of time—the fastest your legs will carry you. With a deeper station, the time cost is multiples higher than for older stations closer to the surface.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Agreed and that's why I find that Lex/125's usefulness as a subway transfer/railroad connection to be a bit overhyped. I really don't think a lot of and Metro-North riders are going to switch to the at 125 if the platform is inconveniently located several stories deep. A transfer has to be convenient, quick and easy.

[GojiMet86]

Had the Second Avenue Subway been four tracks for its entirety, I would have been more open for a 125th branch. But as much as I find 125th Street crowded at times, Lexington is more crowded with people from the Bronx. 125th Street is already served by the Bx15, M100, M101, and the M60, and on top of that there are 10 subway routes that serve that region, plus the future 11th and 12th.

[Porter]

Let's stop kidding ourselves; the dropped the ball on Phase 2. If the goal of the SAS is truly to alleviate overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue line, then surely most New Yorkers would agree that transfers at 138th and 149th streets along Third Avenue would accomplish far more than one at 125th street. It's all about politics regarding the "precious" Metro-North connection.

 

Look, I know I've come up with my fair share of idealistic sandbox plans for the subway system, but more than any other, this seems like a total "duh" issue that's frustrating to no end.

 

When Harlem complained enough, the eventually acquiesced and added a 116th Street Station to Phase 2. We need our voices to be heard loud, clear, and incessantly.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Skipper

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Yes, the "precious" Metro-North connection that might not even get much use. Not very many Metro-North riders connect with the there as it is, so how would the , located at a much deeper platform, fare any better.

 

They really have to rethink the 125/Lex station. I mean, if they want to build a 125th St crosstown subway as a future phase, that would be great. The 125/Lex station should be part of that phase. Including it as part of Phase 2 is making it prohibitively expensive and may doom the project entirely. We don't want that to happen.

[LTA1992]

Yes, the "precious" Metro-North connection that might not even get much use. Not very many Metro-North riders connect with the there as it is, so how would the , located at a much deeper platform, fare any better.

 

They really have to rethink the 125/Lex station. I mean, if they want to build a 125th St crosstown subway as a future phase, that would be great. The 125/Lex station should be part of that phase. Including it as part of Phase 2 is making it prohibitively expensive and may doom the project entirely. We don't want that to happen.

I would find 6 Billion to be more digestible if it went straight to The Hub. Because as I can see it, or anyone with enough knowledge to make an educated guess, half that cost is gonna go to 125th and Lex alone.

 

Let's stop kidding ourselves; the dropped the ball on Phase 2. If the goal of the SAS is truly to alleviate overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue line, then surely most New Yorkers would agree that transfers at 138th and 149th streets along Third Avenue would accomplish far more than one at 125th street. It's all about politics regarding the "precious" Metro-North connection.

 

Look, I know I've come up with my fair share of idealistic sandbox plans for the subway system, but more than any other, this seems like a total "duh" issue that's frustrating to no end.

 

When Harlem complained enough, the eventually acquiesced and added a 116th Street Station to Phase 2. We need our voices to be heard loud, clear, and incessantly.

Agreed.

 

Had the Second Avenue Subway been four tracks for its entirety, I would have been more open for a 125th branch. But as much as I find 125th Street crowded at times, Lexington is more crowded with people from the Bronx. 125th Street is already served by the Bx15, M100, M101, and the M60, and on top of that there are 10 subway routes that serve that region, plus the future 11th and 12th.

Doubly agreed. Not to mention that a lot of the congestion on 125th Street comes from two factors. The fact that the 125th Street corridor provides direct access to the Willis Avenue (traffic also coming from the Third Avenue Bridge) and Triboro Bridges as well as the FDR and Harlem River Drives. The second fact is that a lot of the buses that use the corridor will either terminate on either end of it or will use it to head further uptown/downtown. These aren't going to be fixed if you build a new subway under it because those problems are, in fact, independent from it.

Edited January 20, 2017 by LTA1992

[Caelestor]

To be fair, if Lex Ave - 125 St is going to cost $3 billion to build, so are 3 Ave -138 St and 3 Ave - 149 Sts combined, and the underwater tunnel will cost a few billion too. Taking SAS into the Bronx just provides more immediate impact, since a station at the Hub not only relieves the Lexington Ave express tracks, but also the 7 Ave express services as well. The is already overcrowded, and currently there's no relief on the horizon, since the UWS objectively doesn't need another subway. SAS would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Plus, there's no projected timeline for Phase 3, which is absolutely critical to make any of the SAS 125 St stations truly work. If SAS Phase 3 gets delayed indefinitely, then a Phase 2 into the Bronx is objectively more valuable than turning left onto 125 St.