Few and far between are the days with news of the Second Ave. subway. Along Second Ave. on the Upper East Side, work continues apace on Phase I of the long-awaited subway, but south of 72nd St., the future isn’t as rosy for the New York subway’s very own Moby Dick.
Speaking a few days at the MTA board meeting, the agency’s CEO and Executive Director Lee Sander spoke guardedly about the project. The Downtown Express was on hand to bring the news:
Sander was asked several questions about the Second Ave. subway under construction on the Upper East Side, and every time he mentioned the full build plan to extend the line to Chinatown, the Seaport and the Financial District, he used some form of the word “hope.”
He said it would be more than 10 years before it is built and he offered no guarantees that it will ever happen. It’s the fourth and last phase of the project. “That’s phase 1, 2, and 3 away,” said Lois Tendler, vice president of community relations for N.Y.C. Transit, who joined Sander at the meeting.
Sander remains passionate about the new line but said if he has to make drastic cuts to the capital program, he would sooner cut mega-projects like Second Ave. and East Side Access, which will connect Long Island commuters to Grand Central Station, than cuts to the existing system. “If you had to make a choice between those two, there is no choice — it is the core program,” he said.
Those core projects seem to be the signal-modernization efforts and the computer-based train control program.
Of course, who hasn’t been expecting tempered expectations from the MTA over the Second Ave. subway? Anyone who knows their subway history wouldn’t actually expect a full Second Ave. subway any time before the Armageddon.
But in reality, Sander is simply speaking the truth. Right now, as the MTA deals with a massive deficit in its operating budget, it is facing a blackhole of funding for its capital budget. The agency needs around $30 billion for its next five-year plan set to begin in 2010, and that money is no sure thing. If the funds don’t arrive, there will be no Second Ave. subway outside of the three stations at 96th St., 86th St., and 72nd St. under construction.
New York needs the Second Ave. subway, but New York also needs a modernized system. If push comes to shove, the MTA will make that right choice, but hopefully, push won’t come to shove. If history is any indication, I’m not too optimistic.
21 comments
Meanwhile, cities like Madrid and Beijing continue to expand their systems rapidly while we’re doing (almost) nothing. Well, at least the NYC subway system isn’t shrinking any more. That’s a plus, I guess.
I heard there was no current funding secured for those 3 stations anyway – only for the tunnel. Methinks the whole thing may get scrapped – after all a subway to run from 96-72? what a waste of time an effort for that
If they finish those three stations the subway would connect to the Broadway line via a station at Lexington and 63rd. Check out the map at http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/index.html
I think the tunnels and even a large portion of the Lexington Ave station are already completed.
In the original East Side Alternatives study, about 10 years ago, the 3 stations now under construction were the only ones the MTA felt it really needed. There was a big hue and cry, and the study was revised to provide for a full-length SAS, but many cynics believed that only Phase I would be built in our lifetimes. That still appears to be the case.
There is currently an unused tunnel under Central Park that connects the 57th Street Station on the Q line to the existing 63rd Street/Lexington Avenue Station. That station has a false wall, behind which is the other half of the station, where Q trains will stop when Phase I of the SAS goes into service.
So all they need to build is the tunnel under Second Avenue between 96th and 63rd Streets. From there, it will connect to the already-existing tunnel that will carry Q trains to Broadway.
but will we have really solved the 4/5/6 congestion problem, plus making it easier to get more people downtown and to Wall Street area (for jobs)? I dont think so. I kind of wish with this depressing news they would scrap it altogether and just spend more efficient $$ on bus rapid transit getting people uptown al the way downtown, better ROI as I see it
Considering how the UES stretch of the Lexington Av Line is some of the most crowded stations in the system, there’s no question that Phase 1 of SAS will help. So no, this isn’t a case of wasteful spending at all, unlike past subway expansion projects (ala 63 St tunnel).
how so? what people will take the SAS instead of the 4/5/6 knowing it only gets them as far as 72 or 63 ans then requires another switch?
The UES has plenty of residents who commute to west-side jobs. Today, they have to take crosstown buses or transfer to the shuttle at Grand Central. Those are the people who’ll take the Q, and relieve crowding on the Lex. Those headed to east-side destinations will still take the Lex.
So no, this isn’t a case of wasteful spending at all, unlike past subway expansion projects (ala 63 St tunnel).
Actually, that wasn’t a wasteful project in itself. But it required other things to be built in concert that weren’t built for an awfully long time.
Andy: You’re wrong. The Second Ave. Subway stops at 72nd, 86th and 96th Sts. are a continuation of the Q train north of 57th St. It doesn’t require another switch to get anywhere south of 72nd. As Marc just noted, people heading to the area served by the 4/5/6 will take that, and people heading to the areas served by the Q will take the subway from Second Ave. It won’t be as ideal as a full island-long Second Ave. subway, but it should help relieve congestion on the Lex lines considerably.
I don’t think you’re getting it, Andy. To expand on what Marc said, once Phase I is complete, the Q will run from Brighton Beach to 96th Street. That will serve any Upper East Side residents who work near Broadway in Midtown, the Village or Soho. Upper East Side residents who work Downtown will be able to switch at Times Square, Union Square or Canal Street.
For example, someone who lives at 87th and York and works at Chase Manhattan Plaza now has to take the M86 to a packed 4 or 5 train. After Phase I, they will be able to walk two blocks, take a relatively uncrowded Q train to a relatively uncrowded J train, and get off two short blocks from the office.
Actually they can transfer today to the N, R, E or F from the 4/5/6, so there is west side access. I think SAS will alleviate some overcrowding, but I really think not enough to justify the cost of a 30 block line. That’s what irks me – a minor measure, not transformative at all. Sure it will help, a little, but $4B for it is not the best use of dwindling MTA money.
It’s not “dwindling MTA money” though either. The MTA capital budget doesn’t draw from the same source of funds as the MTA operations budget. In fact, the Second Ave. subway expansion is being funded nearly entirely by federal money, and numerous studies have shown that even the three UES stops will indeed alleviate overcrowding. Don’t underestimate the superiority of a one-seat ride and another subway line, albeit a short one.
But the debt service from the capital budget comes out of the operating budget . . . so the two are intertwined and related. Also, Sanders above says only 30% is paid for by the Fed, so I dont see the 100% federal money number.
And I am not saying the SAS has no – or little value. I am just saying given the (a) financial status of NYC and the MTA, (b) this new reality of a 30 block line, I dont think its worth it vis a vis other MTA priorities. I think it tips the balance into making this a bad choice (not a useless one, just a bad one)
Andy, I hear what you’re saying, but have you read the studies? The evidence, even for Phase I, is overwhelming. Not just the MTA, but many neutral parties, have concluded that.
You’re also taking a rather short-sighted view. Big capital projects, by their nature, take many years to complete. Interrupting a project already under construction doesn’t help anybody. When economic conditions improve, as they inevitably will, we wouldn’t be able to build the later phases, because Phase I wouldn’t have been completed.
Well, I guess three stations after 80+ years of planning is better than nothing. I rarely go up there but hopefully it will reduce the congestion further south of that area.
The Second Avenue Subway also has tremendous psychological value. There’s a whole lot of smaller subway projects (PDF) that are waiting in line behind it. For those who argue that we should cancel the Second Avenue Subway, which subway plan do you think we should we fund?
I think we should fund light rail and bus rapid transit instead
First, nobody’s proposed these Second System projects except the RPA. Second, with few exceptions, like 125th Street, they’re stupid – for example, the one-stop spurs will just make services unnecessarily complex without adding much transit value.
Alon, there’s only one one-stop spur in the proposal; none of the others seem like they would add complexity to the system, except maybe the Queens Boulevard Super-Express.
My main point was that the inability to complete the Second Avenue Subway contributes to an atmosphere of failure and resignation. The result is that other subway expansions are either not proposed or easily dismissed.
Usually 80% of large projects like this are paid for by the Feds. Also I think even if the full length is not built they’ll probably fund at least the 106th and 116th St stations. The tunnels are already built mostly for that portion of the line it only requires the station and tracks/system. Probably at least 1/2 the cost of the $4B Phase II is for the portion from 116th to 125th St including the turnoff for the Bronx and the 125th St Station since there is no track work there and they need another TBM for that portion.
It will be interesting to see what Obama funds but I think you’ll seea good portion of the whole project built by 2020.
No, usually transit gets funded 50/50; only highway projects get 80/20 funding. But public transit advocates are pushing Obama to change this and provide 80/20 funding for transit as well.