Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic explored rerouting the Second Ave. Subway last November.
When the MTA initially proposed the Second Ave. Subway, the agency had grand plans for a relatively speedy construction. Set to begin in 2007, construction on all four phases of the Second Ave. line would wrap up by 2020. As the saying goes, “The best laid subway lines…”
Now, here we sit in 2009, and no one can agree on the completion date for Phase I. The Feds say 2018; the MTA maintains 2017. No matter that date, though, no one is talking about Phases II, III and IV, and in its Twenty Year Capital Needs Assessment, the MTA offered up nothing too concrete. In fact, the rest of the SAS generated just one line in a 97-page PDF document: “Phases II – IV will generate similar benefits and must be advanced in future.”
So with plenty of years — or decades — until the Second Ave. Subway extends south of 63rd St. along the Second Ave., New Yorkers have plenty of time to lobby the MTA for changes to the proposed route. Earlier this week, Chris Z. proposed the following to me in an e-mail:
I’ve read quite a bit about the Second Avenue Subway and its planned route and stations. One thing I’ve never heard discussed is why it won’t provide better access to the Lower East Side. While residents of York Avenue will finally get the subway line they deserve, what about the residents of Avenues B, C, and D? Why is yet another transit line refusing to acknowledge the significant eastern bulge of lower Manhattan?
The Second Avenue Elevated provided a model: as it approached downtown, it turned east at 23rd Street and then followed First Avenue through what is now the East Village. Even this deviation of a single avenue-block, applied to the Second Avenue Subway, would give considerable benefit to those in Alphabet City. The sacrifice would be minimal: those that live between Broadway and Second Avenue would continue to be extremely well-served by the Broadway and Lexington Lines. (Indeed, the relative lack of north-south bus lines in this corridor is proof that they are already spoiled for choice.) It would also do no harm to the planned connections to the Canarsie Line or the Sixth Avenue Line (the Second Avenue station stretches to First Avenue, with an existing mezzanine).
I realize that this ship has long since sailed (nevermind that it will be decades before any track is laid south of 14th Street). I’m just curious if you knew if this (old) idea was ever discussed and ruled out because of logistical, political, or budgetary concerns.
Chris’ proposal is tame compared to others I’ve seen. Many New Yorkers would — as The Transport Politic proposed — swing the subway east and run it under Ave. B or C through the Lower East Side. Based on the research I’ve conducted, a confluence of circumstances make an eastward swing of the Second Ave. Subway nearly impossible.
The first issue is one of the reality above the ground. Second Ave. is a six-lane road and so is First Ave. Further east though, the avenues narrow as Aves. A, B and C are all four lanes. It would be a near impossibility to run a two-track subway line underneath well-developed four-lane avenues.
Furthermore, because the area surrounding Alphabet City and the East Village/Lower East Side are so densely developed, a loop east would have to make a series of very sharp turns on 14th St. — below the L train — and again on whichever avenue were to serve as the north/south route. The engineering would be a nightmare, and the train speeds around these curves would resemble the crawl of the R south of Canal St. Anything north of 14th St. would run into Peter Cooper Village and Stuy Town.
Meanwhile, the economics of an Alphabet City loop do not make sense. As commenter Mr. Transit noted at TTP, the one of the main goals for the SAS is to improve travel time to Lower Manhattan and relieve overcrowding. A spur would negate this goal. It would also be quite costly to tack on the extra track miles relative to the number of additional riders gained.
Finally, an environmental aspect comes into play. According to the Coastal Zone map the MTA provided in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (PDF), most of the SAS skirts Manhattan’s coastal zone. By swinging the route east, the subway tunnel would hit some environmentally sensitive areas and some areas of the island that once were water. As Michael Tenenbaum noted also at TTP, a subway that far east would involving cutting into “bedrock with significant dewatering as was done for the remediation of the Northern Manhattan stations in the mid 1970s.”
We like to dream about a Second Ave. Subway that swings through Alphabet City and better serves the Lower East Side. But due to logistics, costs and environmental factors, the Second Ave. Subway — if and when Phases II, III and IV arrive — will be but a straight line from north to south leaving Alphabet City well off the subway grid.
37 comments
The East Side Alternatives study considered an above-ground rapid-transit loop through the far East Village, which would improve connections to existing transit lines and the SAS when eventually built. This is probably the best way to improve transit in Alphabet City. I agree that the proposed subway spur isn’t a realistic option.
People don’t travel in circles. They travel in lines.
Whether it’s a loop or two one-way routes is irrelevant.
No, it actually is relevant. One-way loops have a history of flopping. One-way pairs of linear lines don’t.
This was proposed the last time that the 2nd Avenue line was being considered back in the 60s. Nothing new.
The first issue is one of the reality above the ground. Second Ave. is a six-lane road and so is First Ave. Further east though, the avenues narrow as Aves. A, B and C are all four lanes. It would be a near impossibility to run a two-track subway line underneath well-developed four-lane avenues.
Well, let’s assume a tunnel boring machine here. I think we can all agree that cut-and-cover wouldn’t work here. Just ride the L east of Lorimer Street to hear and feel the ridiculousness of that method.
Modern subways (and even the ancient ones in London) don’t have to have above ground specifications besides somewhere to start digging/insert a TBM and room for station entrances.
I’ve wondered exactly the same thing every time I hear about the subsequent phases of the SAS. Since they’re boring the tunnels anyway, a (very) deep bore that curves from the 14th street stop to the western edge of Tompkins Square park could avoid messing with all of the other underground elements, as well as avoiding the sharp curves to make right turns onto 14th and then Ave B or C. It could stop at Tompkins Sq, continue south and meet the F/J/M/Z at Delancey-Essex, and then take up the proposed route from Chatham Sq on south. Not sure if this would still run into the coastal zone, but it goes no further east than Ave A.
To get even more whimsical, we could even have a direct track connection to the F line under Essex St and have a branch of the SAS follow the Rutgers St tunnel into Brooklyn and run local on the Culver line, allowing the F to run express (obviously there are cheaper alternatives to achieve the F express, but this would be so cool!).
and by right turns i mean right angle turns. no use turning west onto 14th street.
Very deep subways tend to cost more. In Tokyo, a subway line built 25 meters underground cost so much – $400 million per route-km, a full one quarter of the current budget for SAS Phase 1 – that Tokyo Metro swore off building new lines for the foreseeable future.
I don’t even believe that Phase I will ever be completed let alone phases II through IV….
I have a problem with the term “ever” for how do we have any idea what the city will look like in 2200. “In the next 50 years” might be a prediction that takes the current situation into account.
Could you explain why 6 lanes of traffic is enough space and 4 lanes is not? What is the critical distance needed? Couldn’t the tracks be stacked vertically? Would it be possible if the MTA tunneled deep below alphabet city? It seems like there would be a way to make this work and the benefits of connecting to one of the densest underserved areas are obvious. There are many subways under narrower streets than the lettered avenues. Four lane Fulton St in Brooklyn has a 4 track subway under it.
Instead of turning under 14th st, the SAS could turn east under Stuyvesant Square and then dive deeper under Stuy town and turn south onto Avenue A, B or C. Using Stuyvesant Sq and Stuy town would allow for larger radii and faster service. Avenue A would provide plenty of access to the east, a connection to the 1st Ave stop on the L, a connection to the J at Delancey, and a direct connection to the Culver line. A stop at Tompkins Sq Park would be accessible to the entire East Village, and the edge of the park could be used to provide space for a decent sized subway entrance and station.
What’s now the V train could utilize the SAS south of 63rd and run on the Culver express in Brooklyn. Riders on the Queens Blvd and Flushing lines would have convenient access to the east side, taking some pressure off the 51st and Grand Central transfers. Brooklyn riders on the Fulton, Culver and 4th Ave local could transfer at Jay/Lawrence Sts. to the “V”, which would use the Rutgers St tunnel to take a big short cut to the east side.
At one and a half miles and two extra stations, this would be comparable to the 7 extension. It would not preclude building the SAS as planned or hinder the goal of providing more access to downtown Manhattan. It could be considered “stage 5” along with a “stage 6” connection the LIRR and/or a “stage 7” extension into the Bronx.
But as it is currently planned, the SAS would only be one or two blocks away from the 6 train…reaching out to the more dense population in Alphabet City and the LES would probably increase ridership and efficiency.
The ridership evaluations seem to show that the increase in ridership is not worth either the cost of swinging the line east or the longer ride that a trip east and then back west would inevitably entail. Because Midtown and the UES are far more densely populated than the LES and Alphabet City, it’s more important to get people up and down Second Ave. faster.
The transit authority could make life a little easier for Lower East Siders by building an entrance near Avenue A to the First Avenue stop on the 14th Street Line.
The station stretches from First toward A but the only way in or out is at First Avenue, at the far west end of the platform.
It’s important to note that a few chunks in this area have already been built/worked on. The utility relocation has already happened on 2nd Ave from 2nd – 9th st, and there’s already additional track and tunnel around the grand st stop on the B/D so that it’s a cross platform transfer to this line (sort of like how Jay st. in BK works). While the MTA is not famous for reusing infrastructure, I think they’re planning on applying anything already built for this line pretty heavily. It’s the one reason we can bank on Phase 2 happening (since the tunnel is actually built – phase 1 contracts connect to the 99th st tunnel) and just stations need to be built at 106th st and 125th st).
Just read this article about Dubai’s new line:
http://flavorwire.com/38407/pi.....ic-transit
Makes me weep.
Would be nice to have $7.5 billion to throw at it. It would be done next year if we had that much money!
Meh, just build a light-rail feeder system.
Since a 2nd Ave LRT has more likelihood south-of-63rd-Street, I say repurpose those unused IND station shells as underground LRT/Trolley platforms.
There’s very little there. Those are not full-length stations–they’re a little longer than the width of the mezzanines. The shells were built to allow the construction of the other lines without disrupting service on existing lines.
Diverting the line is a both bad idea and a logistical problem. But more access can be achieved in two ways:
1) put another stop in, at St Marks Place and 2nd Avenue.
2) Add a stop on the L at Avenue B or C.
Local community groups asked the MTA to add a stop to the L a few years ago. The MTA explained that the L slopes down too steeply east of 1st, making a station stop impossible.
Wow guys, first off, that’s a really good article. second, the water levels!! you can’t dig deeper, you’ll hit water. It’d be really neat to see them dig under stuyvesant square, and stuytown, to then proceed down avenue a or c assuming the water level isn’t a problem, which it probably is (that’s all landfill) you have to think about lawsuits, the stuytown landlords will be all over the mta when something goes wrong with the plumbing and what not. not to mention in alphabet city all the buildings are already in such fragile conditions, that a strong gust of wind may tip the buildings over. it’s really fund to dream guys, but there’s a big picture here, if you had all the responsibility of the mta, you’d probably have to be more cautious.
and the L train is a block long, it is already going deeper into the east river tunnel by avenue b. the back of the train is at avenue A on the first ave stop, as previously mentioned.
Building 4 90-degree turns to swing it to Alphabet City undermines the point of the SAS to ease congestion on the 6-line. If it runs that much slower, less people will switch off the 6-line.
OK, Ben convinced me, no subway. How about an el?
Alphabet City monorail connector, hahah.
That’s more of a Shelbyville kind of project.
I agree that the Transport Politic’s suggestion is a bit far-fetched. It’s always fun to propose extensions and changes to transit infrastructure without having to worry about cost, construction, or reality as constraints…
What I’ve been wondering lately is, rather than attempt access to the far East Village via the already imperiled Second Avenue Subway, why not propose extending the V tail tracks at the 2nd Ave station up Avenue B to a new terminal station at Tompkins Square? This doesn’t address “near impossibility to run a two-track subway line underneath well-developed four-lane avenues” and I am not sure about the coastal environmental concerns (though I would like to hear more), but it does avoid issues with overcrowding and travel time to Lower Manhattan that would result from changes to the plan for the Second Ave Subway. It’s less ambitious than the current 7 subway extension, though the most ambitious among us will probably propose going under Avenue A and pushing all the way up to the L with a connection via the eastern end of the 1st Ave station that Kid Twist mentions above.
Also, given that Phase IV of the SAS is already likely to go the way of the IND Second System, has anyone looked into alternatives to all that new tunnel in Lower Manhattan? The very cheapest solution could call for terminating at Grand Street but with a transfer to the Bowery station to allow for access to the Financial District via the Nassau Street line. A more ambitious idea would be to continue underneath the Manhattan Bridge on-ramp as planned but with a connection to the tail tracks running along Canal Street instead. While (as Denkman says) the MTA is not famous for reusing infrastructure, this would allow the SAS to run down the Nassau Street line to the Financial District through a renovated Chambers Street station without requiring new tunnels or stations be excavated in Lower Manhattan. This might necessitate terminating Z service at Canal Street, but would have the added bonuses of connecting the SAS to the Fulton Street Transit Center, allowing for turn-arounds via the existing Broad Street tail tracks, and enabling service to Brooklyn (including Atlantic Avenue) via the Montague Street Tunnel.
How about just extending the V more blocks, and having the terminal at Houston and Ave B or C? Houston St is plenty wide enough (since one side of the street was demolished to make it wide enough to put the IND underneath it in the first place).
Houston Street was widened all the way to the river because the middle tracks on the 6th Avenue line were were planned to run along that street, under the river and into Brooklyn.
The V may be needed for M-V duty, relieving the L.
I have actually chatted a couple of years ago with a council person who happened to be near L station on 14th about why there isn’t an entrance on to L on Ave A . As someone has mentioned the L stops on First Ave but the train ends (or begins) at Ave A .
the council person told me there is actually a drawn up plan for a station on Ave A and the cost is reasonable (there would be no toll booth person) but noone has pulled the trigger.. I thought when Tishman bought Sty town – they would push for it .. but never happened
Lexington Ave is only 4 lanes, and fits four tracks split between two levels, and even then between 103rd and 110th it is four tracks on one level. For a two-track line, a four-lane wide avenue is plenty, if we don’t go overboard with huge fancy stations and instead build practical ones.
[…] of Transit’s station maintenance efforts. We explored sending the Second Ave. Subway on a spur through Alphabet City, and the MTA eliminated its station agent […]
[…] that tea-cup shaped Alphabet City loop, while the darling of subway dreamers, just isn’t meant to be. Categories : Second Avenue Subway, Subway […]