Home 7 Line Extension New 7 line stop at 34th Street definitely officially opening on Sept. 13

New 7 line stop at 34th Street definitely officially opening on Sept. 13

by Benjamin Kabak
The 7 line extension will open in September, but the station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. remains lost to time.

The 7 line extension will open in September, but the station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. remains lost to time.

After promising to open the new one-stop extension of the 7 line to the Far West Side by September 13, the MTA made it officially official today: The 34th Street-Hudson Yards stop will open for service at 1 p.m. on Sunday, September 13. The first train in revenue service to arrive at the new station will be the 12:26 out of Flushing, coming in at 1:03 p.m., and the first to leave the station is scheduled to depart at 1:07 p.m.

The station was originally supposed to open by the end of 2013, but various problems with inclined elevators and fire safety systems, among others, continued to plague the project as it neared the finish line. We will forever mourn too the loss of a station at 41st St. and 10th, the victim of shortsighted political squabbling over $500 million. Now who wants to bet that the Second Ave. Subway will open by the end of next year?

You may also like


Nick Ober August 27, 2015 - 2:22 pm

I think this is the first rendering I’ve ever seen for the 10th Avenue station. Where did it come from?

Benjamin Kabak August 27, 2015 - 2:45 pm

I should have been more clear on this: The rendering from 10th Ave. is from an old MTA presentation published when the project first go off the ground. The current provisioning is not for an island platform so if this station ever gets built, it will be as an infill station with two side platforms instead.

Nick Ober August 27, 2015 - 3:07 pm

Thanks! Shame, if we ever build this infill station at some point, we’ll end up with an inferior platform layout all over $500 million. In the grand scheme of all things MTA, that $500 million was a bargain to lock in a superior design down the line.

Larry Littlefield August 28, 2015 - 7:26 am

$500 million is NOT a bargain for a local station.

Alex August 27, 2015 - 3:17 pm

I know they didn’t even bother to build the station shell, but were any provisions put in for the 41st St station at all? I’m curious how big of a hassle it will be if they actually do decide to put it in eventually, as they should.

Benjamin Kabak August 27, 2015 - 3:26 pm

The provisions were for side platforms. They flatted the slope of the tunnel at 41st and 10th so that a future station could be constructed there.

johndmuller August 28, 2015 - 7:56 pm

Did they do anything else besides flatten the slope (and did they even do that for this purpose or is it actually just a coincidence) to provide for the side platform station?

So they will have to quarry out platform space and cut in stairs/escalators/elevators from scratch too?

Sounds like a mezzanine is out (perhaps each street entrance is independent too) and it would a generous bonus if there were a few crossunders or overs.

What about provisions for possible routes continuing uptown on 11th and/or west on 41st to Jersey? It doesn’t sound like there will be a lot of room after the western end of the station area to have switches and flyovers.

Anonymous August 29, 2015 - 8:19 am

That would unnecessarily split the service 50-50 between Hudson Yards (1 stop) and NJ- a complete operational disaster. Turning west after 34/11 is a much better idea.

As for constructing an infill station, in the past London has extended platforms (and constructed a new station, and even enlarged the size of one line’s tunnels) by replacing the existing tunnel lining with a larger one (though most of that work took place in the 1920s and 1930s, the laws of physics haven’t changed since then.). It took a couple of months back in the day, probably a lot longer these days.

Depending on the depth of the line and the geology around 41/10 it should either be feasible to enlarge the tunnel lining to fit in a London-style station, otherwise cut&cover can be used to first dig down deep enough to allow a temporary bridge for 10th Avenue (to prevent a lengthy shutdown of that part of 10th Av), then dig down to the tubes, and stop once they’ve almost reached them (and then announce a closure date). Once the line below is closed, open up the tube, then construct a box aorund it (Cortlandt/WTC style) so the trains and the worksite are separated (should take about 1-2 months) so trains can run to Hudson Yards again (preferably during a period of relatively low traffic). Then construct a station around it using the hole built before (so a mezzanine, escalators and lifts can be built in), cover it back up so traffic above can be run again, then shut down the line to Hudson Yards once again to remove the box, and once its removed the station can be opened again.

wise infrastructure August 27, 2015 - 2:34 pm

If it ever gets built it will not look like that as retrofitting in a station will mean side platforms as opposed to the more desirable center platform pictured.

Elvis Delgado August 27, 2015 - 7:45 pm

I don’t follow why a center platform is more desirable than side platforms – if there’s a mezzanine, as pictured, then there are just two separate stairways rather than the one, and voilà.

The only thing that comes to mind is that someone can change direction if they’ve overshot their station without having to climb stairs. But clearly there must be something else you have in mind that I am totally missing.

Joe Steindam August 27, 2015 - 10:45 pm

While island platforms may need more egress points than side platforms, since more passengers may have to use the vertical egress at one time, since that usually doesn’t happen, island platforms can empty out quicker than side platforms. Also, island platforms don’t require as many elevators as side platforms, which makes ADA compliance easier.

John-2 August 28, 2015 - 6:10 am

It does kind of depend on offering adequate width for the island platform as to whether or not it’s better than the side platform option.

You’d assume the MTA would have taken that into account for 10th Avenue, had the station been built as originally planned. But they could have built an island platform based on the limited commercial usage of the surrounding area and the narrowness of 41st Street, and then discovered in the future the width of the platform was insufficient for AM/PM rush hours if the character of the neighborhood changed (and there are plenty of examples within the system of 100-year-old island platforms that in 2015 go past being ‘insufficient’ and fall into the ‘dangerous’ category at rush hours).

Elvis Delgado August 28, 2015 - 6:09 pm

The reason I am puzzled is that the London Underground has had to rebuild (and has future plans to do more rebuilding) some stations with island platforms. They get too crowded, and have had to be reconstructed at great cost.

But maybe New York is different.

Alistair August 31, 2015 - 6:47 pm

The reason is that the platforms were REALLY narrow. They still have a couple of stations like this (Clapham Common and Clapham North) and they’re a real safety hazard in the rush hour, because the platforms literally fill with people. (Particularly as it’s not that uncommon that the trains are so packed that there’s absolutely no room for anyone else to get on.) I can’t think of any island platforms in New York anywhere near as narrow.

adirondacker12800 August 27, 2015 - 7:55 pm

Depends how much digging they have done already and how much needs to be done.

BruceNY August 27, 2015 - 8:18 pm

They only need look back at the plans for the lower level express platform at 59th & Lex. which opened in the 1950’s. This should not require a rocket scientist.

chris August 27, 2015 - 3:09 pm

when does the map get updated?! Why doesn’t our map show “lines under construction” like the DC metro, or any other transit map for that matter?

Bolwerk August 27, 2015 - 4:13 pm

Because it’s not very useful information unless a line people expact is out of service.

I would guess they will update it either when it opens or shortly thereafter. It actually does impact service. But that’s going on the basis of the last (major) change to the map with the M rerouting.

Jeff August 27, 2015 - 8:40 pm

Maps and line maps are updated in 7 trains already

Patrick August 28, 2015 - 10:57 pm

The Manhattan Bus Map (right now) is about the closest you’re gonna get


*It’s been awhile since I last commented on this site. I see things have changed a little (a preview before posting? instant like)*

Walt Gekko August 27, 2015 - 3:46 pm

What should have been done for the 10th Avenue station was to get the Port Authority on board and get them to pay for that station. Then, the station could have run from 9th-10th Avenues and 41st Street with an exit at the back end of the PABT on 9th Avenue.

Berk32 August 27, 2015 - 4:51 pm

(ignoring the incompetence of the PA for a moment)
But they would just say they have their connection at 8th Ave.

Tower18 August 28, 2015 - 11:05 am

Yeah, seriously, why would they care about a 10th Av station? They already have a direct entrance at 8th Av.

APH August 27, 2015 - 4:08 pm

Someone else commented months ago that if they ever decide to build the 10th & 41st station, it will necessarily interrupt the existing service to Hudson Yards. In the future, Hudson Yards is expected to become a big deal and it could be a fairly high traffic station – So aside from the huge monetary cost fully building out the new station will be, this short-sightedness will come back to inconvenience who knows how many people in the future. Sigh.

Berk32 August 27, 2015 - 4:53 pm

They probably would have to shut down 1 track at a time.

With crossovers at both stations, I think they’d manage ok.

It’ll still cost a lot more overall to do it later, but that’s no longer up for debate at this point.

bigbellymon4 August 27, 2015 - 4:21 pm

Why in this rendering the trains look like r46 and not r62?

Benjamin Kabak August 27, 2015 - 4:50 pm

It’s just a rendering from 2006. Don’t think too hard about it!

Alex August 27, 2015 - 5:21 pm

And why are they both headed in the same direction!? #subwaynerds

AMH August 28, 2015 - 9:44 am

That’s great, I hadn’t noticed that!

Bx13Guy August 27, 2015 - 7:52 pm

It be nice if the 7 had division B cars since most of the line can handle them. Having the whole line under 41st St in Manhattan, A new Steinway tube. Shaving and extending the platforms in Queens, I wonder if a 60 ft car can handle those turns between hunts point and queensborough plaza

Tim August 28, 2015 - 8:40 am

Uh, I don’t think the 7 goes to Hunt’s Point…

Al August 28, 2015 - 9:30 am

I think he means Hunters point.

Bx13Guy August 29, 2015 - 2:29 am

I meant to say Hunters Point

Joseph M. Calisi August 29, 2015 - 11:33 am

IRT cars are 51′ long and narrower width at 8′ 9″ allows for the curvature to be made.

Billy G August 27, 2015 - 4:57 pm

Maybe if NY metro and NYS split, lots of these projects would be less messed up by infighting.


adirondacker12800 August 27, 2015 - 5:49 pm

The yokels upstate would never put up with it. They wouldn’t be able to whine about how much money downstate sends them because downstate would stop sending it.

JMB August 28, 2015 - 6:45 pm Reply
SEAN August 27, 2015 - 5:12 pm

And who says the number 13 is unlucky?

22rr August 27, 2015 - 6:23 pm

It’s pretty sad that the opening of one single station is considered a momentous occasion. We should be opening numerous stations every year. When are we going to get the L to turn northward and go up 10th avenue? Or extend the 7 to Secaucus?

adirondacker12800 August 27, 2015 - 7:06 pm

What’s in Secaucus that needs a subway?

Brooklynite August 27, 2015 - 8:11 pm

Aside from Hoboken it’s the largest transport hub in the part of NJ that’s near NYC. The 7 would also be a valuable alternative to the North River tunnels.

In an effort to keep this thread on topic, yes, it’s quite embarrassing that the opening of the world’s most expensive subway extension is being heralded as such a huge event. Jay Walder was fired from MTR Hong Kong because of delays and cost overruns on a project there. Can you imagine such accountability here? Never.

Joseph M. Calisi August 27, 2015 - 8:27 pm


The ONLY ones to benefit by a #7 extension to NJ are the real estate interests, of which Bloomberg was a proponent. It would be way too costly for the MTA to operate the line as the NY subway would have to follow FRA rules for maintenance/inspections instead of FTA (less stringent). Each subway car would be treated as a locomotive, not a subway car.

Aside from the fact it would have been a boondoggle to build, not enough ridership to justify the cost. In addition to this, it would duplicate NJ Transit existing service.

However, if it is built, the Port Authority is the one that should build it as they are the operators of the PATH system and already have the bi-state ‘permissions’.

Brooklynite August 27, 2015 - 9:01 pm

I’ve heard this one a lot and I’m almost 100% sure it’s false. Connections to mainline rail, not crossing state lines, is not what determines FRA compliance or lack thereof. Hence, sending the 7 to NJ would not incur penalties from FRA requirements.

The point of the 7 to Secaucus is that as it stands today, NJT riders are all dumped at Penn Station (or PABT, which is no better) and then have to make their way to their offices using other modes of transportation. Aside from historical inertia there is no reason for people to be transferring in the most congested part of town. Think about it – people are taking up valuable space on trains and buses headed for West Midtown, even though they themselves are not going there.

Paris solved this problem by building the RER. London is solving this problem by expanding Thameslink and building Crossrail. New York needs to do the same. A Penn-GCT link and a Hoboken-Atlantic tunnel would do wonders. Until that happens, though, the 7 to Secaucus will alleviate the crush on both Penn Station and PABT. Both could use the help.

Joseph M. Calisi August 27, 2015 - 9:03 pm

Look up the FRA guidelines. What I wrote is not bs but the truth. Take it from a rail industry professional.

Brooklynite August 27, 2015 - 9:21 pm

Let’s ask FRA themselves.

“The definition excludes only rapid transit systems that operate in urban areas and are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation (general system). 49 U.S.C. § 20102(2)(B). The term “general railroad system of transportation” is defined at Appendix A to 49 C.F.R. Part 209 as: “the network of standard gage track over which goods may be transported throughout the nation and passengers may travel between cities and within metropolitan and suburban areas.””


Doesn’t sound like crossing an imaginary line would automatically invoke FRA rules. Even if the lawyers decide that it would, MTA could apply for (and almost certainly receive) a waiver to exempt them from the rules.

Anonymous August 29, 2015 - 7:11 am

Then why is WMATA (crossing the borders of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia) not regulated by the FRA?

adirondacker12800 August 27, 2015 - 9:47 pm

Why would someone get off a fast train to Manhattan to get on a slow train to Manhattan? It’s going to be slower. People who pour out of the Port Authority or Penn Station and into the subway would be trading a two seat ride for a three seat ride. The ones going to Grand Central would have a longer trip. Unless you want to get to 11th Ave and 23rd, 34th or 41st it’s nearly useless.

wise infrastructure August 27, 2015 - 10:05 pm

1- Passengers on Hoboken bound trains have to switch at Secaucus to get into Manhattan and then to a subway. This could actually save them a transfer.

2-the only subway from Penn to the east side is the “E” which is on 53rd Street – the #7 with stops at 5th Ave and Lex gives many a faster trip to work

3-the “E” transfers only to the #6 not the 4/5 and this involves a 2 block walk underground as opposed to the direct connection at Grand Central to all the trains

4 – The #7 to Secaucus would allow many trains and buses to terminate in NJ. This could allow increased frequencies otherwise not possible due to capacity constrains at Penn at PABT

5 – The #7 to Secaucus would allow Secaucus to serve as an emergency backup to Penn Station.

adirondacker12800 August 27, 2015 - 11:07 pm

Changing to the subway in Secaucus will take just as long as changing to the train to Penn Station if not longer. One day they won’t be changing in Secaucus. They’ll just get on a train that goes to Penn Station. Like the people on the trains they transfer to. It’s one of the reasons we are building new tunnels to Penn Station.

The E train stops at 53rd and 5th and 53rd and Lex. The N, Q and R go to 59th and Lex and the F goes to 63rd and Lex. Someday the Q will go to 72nd and 2nd, 86th and 2nd and 96th and 2nd.

Buses are really really expensive to run and beat up the roads. It doesn’t make sense to have people go to their suburban train station and get on a bus when they can get on a train. Trains don’t get stuck in automobile traffic.

No matter how hard you clap sending the subway, any subway, to Secaucus doesn’t make much sense.

Brooklynite August 28, 2015 - 11:44 am

If I work in East Midtown, I will want to transfer to the 7 at Secaucus because there’s a good chance it will get me closer to my job than transferring at Penn for the E. Furthermore, because 7 trains will run much more frequently and will originate at Secaucus, I will have a more comfortable ride and will be quite sure I will fit onto the train.

If I work in West Midtown, it is possible that staying on (or transferring to, in the case of the Mainline) the train to Penn will be more convenient. However, there is a very high chance that Times Square will be closer to where I work.

If I work in Hudson Yards, I will surely transfer to the 7 at Secaucus because it will take me directly there.

If I work south of Midtown, I may transfer to the 7 at Secaucus because of the greater choice in transfers once I’m in the city. The 7 to the N/Q/R is particularly convenient.

If I currently take a bus into PABT, I will transfer to the 7 at Secaucus to avoid the headaches with the Lincoln Tunnel, and because I will likely be transferring anyway once I get to Manhattan.

Long story short, it does not make sense to funnel everybody to two points in the most congested part of Manhattan and distribute them from there. We’re seeing the problem with this approach now that the rail tunnels and PABT are both falling apart and there are no real alternatives available.

Justin Samuels August 28, 2015 - 2:49 pm

Why would NYC Transit (a division of the MTA) extend the 7 train to NJ?

That totally makes no sense.

Extended the 7 into NJ when only NYC and NYS are responsible for raise the fares to operate the system would actually be a big hit to NYC taxpayers.

Besides, how could an entity owned by NYS acquire land in NJ for the stations, train yards and other train related facilities? Would these people be getting NY or NJ pensions? Would they be MTA or NJ transit employees?

When Bloomberg proposed the 7 train to NJ the MTA itself struck down that idea as not viable and they still maintain that. Better to focus on finishing the full length Second Avenue Subway, and maybe taking de Blasio’s suggestions of turning the Atlantic Avenue LIRR into a subway into consideration first.

It’s not NYC’s or NYS job to make it super comfortable for people from Jersey to commute to jobs in Manhattan.

Brooklynite August 28, 2015 - 3:30 pm

So in essence, your argument is that because somebody at some point in colonial America drew a line on a map in this particular spot, the Hudson should continue to be a barrier to commuting in the region. That makes zero sense. If Hoboken and Jersey City were part of NYS they would have about as many subways as Downtown Brooklyn, but because of an arbitrary boundary there’s just PATH.

Now to talk about the logistics you question:
-The workers would be MTA employees, with everything befitting that. It would almost be like the line stays within city boundaries.
-NJ would simply pay MTA an annual fee for running the service. If they can manage the revenue sharing for the New Haven, Port Jervis, and Pascack Valley lines, they can work this out.
-Regarding ownership, it could be owned by NJ DOT, just as the New Haven line is owned by ConnDOT east of the state line.

The MTA deeming anything viable or not viable is so entrenched in politics it’s not a serious judgement. And the cross-Hudson tunnel would improve access for NJ residents to Manhattan, where they are likely to work (and thus contribute to the economy!)

Bolwerk August 28, 2015 - 4:58 pm

Cheap rapid transit is in the interest of both states. And there is no reason for either state to pay for anything that’s not within its borders. New Jersey could pay for whatever portion of the capital and operating cost is within its borders.

At least, that’s how any other first world country would handle this. (Except maybe cross-border rail lines actually enjoy at least operating profits in some cases.)

Brooklynite is right. Regionalism is dumb.

adirondacker12800 August 28, 2015 - 5:54 pm

New York would figure something out like New Jersey figured out how to have train storage in Queens. And Suffern. And Morrisville Pennsylvania. Or how Connecticut gets the MTA to run trains in Connecticut. Or Rhode Island gets the MBTA to run trains in Rhode Island or how SEPTA runs trains in Delaware and New Jersey.

The first hurdle is figuring out why anyone except someone going to 11th Ave. would use it.

adirondacker12800 August 28, 2015 - 5:56 pm

Hudson County is two narrow peninsulas separated by a wide swamp. It wouldn’t have as many subways as Brooklyn or even Queens.

Walt Gekko August 28, 2015 - 8:44 pm

I would do a Secaucus extension, except with the (L) instead of the (7) as (L) connects via 14th Street to virtually every other line in the system (with a couple of exceptions) and with the exception of the 7th Avenue Line within easy walking distance. 14th may not be as commercial as 42nd Street, but it would make for connecting to upper midtown much easier.

Doing such likely would be a major incentive for lengthening ALL platforms within the Eastern Division to allow for at least 10 cars and 600 feet trains and even perhaps with the platforms extended to 670 feet to allow for 10 67-foot (the length of the BMT Standards that ran through the 1960’s) car trains in the future. Such would also give riders in what are continually growing sections of Brooklyn a one-seat ride to New Jersey with the ability to avoid Penn Station and connect to many NJ Transit lines at Secaucus and give those on Long Island the option of changing to the (L) at Altlantic Avenue/East New York and avoid Penn Station as well.

22rr August 27, 2015 - 10:10 pm

Well, you’re right that it would be most useful for people going to places directly on the 7 train. But that’s a lot of places (GCT, Bryant Park, Queens, etc). But that’s a lot of people who would otherwise be going into Penn and having to transfer anyway and for whom there’s currently no good way to get over to the GCT area. Also don’t forget all the people who are on Hoboken-bound NJT trains who change at Secaucus for Penn-bound trains and could take the 7 instead if it suits their final destination. Also, if we can ever achieve the pie-in-the-sky vision of moving PABT to Secaucus (which would do wonders to alleviate Midtown congestion), the 7 train connection will be more necessary than ever.

adirondacker12800 August 27, 2015 - 11:13 pm

ya wanna go out to Queens there are subways at Penn Station that go there. And the LIRR. It’s not faster to Times Square. It’s not faster to Bryant Park. It’s probably not faster to Grand Central.

Ryan August 29, 2015 - 11:49 am

Lots of people would rather take the slower train where they can sit down than take the faster train where they have to hang off the velcro strips on the outside because the people who all got on in the deep deep suburbs didn’t leave any room for the people getting on in Jersey City or Hoboken.

Lots of people would also rather get on the slower trains that are a one-block walk from their house than have to figure out how to get to the whole lot of nothing built on a swamp in Secaucus, and the aforementioned commuters from Wayward Pines are going to start getting annoyed if their express train has to stop every half mile between there and Penn Station.

adirondacker12800 August 29, 2015 - 12:44 pm

Secaucus isn’t in Jersey City. Stopping in Jersey City makes the slow trip even slower. If you are running 40,000 people an hour to Secaucus and a quarter of them change trains they aren’t going to be able to get a seat when the train stops in Jersey City. It makes much more sense to leave the people from the suburbs on the train and let them get off at Penn Station, Grand Central or someplace down on Wall Street. And have the train from New Jersey to Wall Street continue on to Brooklyn and Jamaica so all the Long Islanders that work down on Wall Street don’t have to go to Penn Station.

Ryan August 29, 2015 - 2:35 pm

I couldn’t possibly care less if the train ends in Secaucus, Newark Penn, Newark Airport or some nondescript street corner on the edge of Jersey City. All I care about is getting the trains across the river.

Joseph M. Calisi August 29, 2015 - 7:03 pm

All subway cross-river traffic should be handled by PATH – period.

The do it now and should do all of it in the future – whatever the routing.

adirondacker12800 August 29, 2015 - 9:15 pm

Hudson County is two long peninsulas separated by a swamp. You don’t connect to a whole lot of them with one stop on a line that crosses the peninsula.

adirondacker12800 August 29, 2015 - 1:43 pm

..and if they are changing to the train to Wall Street in Matawan or Summit or just getting on a train to Wall Street in their suburb they aren’t changing to PATH in Newark or Hoboken.

Ryan August 29, 2015 - 2:32 pm

In spite of your insistence that they don’t exist, plenty of people are living in Jersey City and Hoboken right now, people who can’t get on the train that came from Suffern because it’s full of people from Bergen County already. They could get plenty of seats on the train that started in Secaucus and is running through Jersey City and Hoboken, because everyone who got on the suburban train in Blight Springs is going to stay on their train.

adirondacker12800 August 29, 2015 - 9:13 pm

If the people from the suburbs are staying on the train why does the subway have to go to Secaucus?

Ryan August 29, 2015 - 9:52 pm

Because there’s a lot of Jersey City that PATH doesn’t go to and there’s a lot of Hoboken that PATH doesn’t go to and entire municipalities like Union City or Guttenberg from which you can spit across the river and stand a good chance of hitting Manhattan, places where an awful lot of people live but yet have no rail service.

Instead of trying to force all these people onto the full trains from the suburbs we can just extend the subway network so that people who live in Union City can fill up empty trains instead of having to hang off the velcro on the outside of the trains that are already jammed full of pissed off residents from faraway lands up the Main Line who don’t like that their train has stopped at every tenth street corner between Secaucus Junction and whichever terminal is listed on the display over the door.

Joseph M. Calisi August 29, 2015 - 9:59 pm

The new Hudson tunnels should be 2 levels, one for NE Corridor, the other for PATH.

adirondacker12800 August 30, 2015 - 1:04 am

Just like Secaucus isn’t in Jersey City it isn’t in Guttenberg or West New York or anyplace else you want to pick in Hudson County. Sending a train up the spine of Bergen Hill has it’s charms. It’s not the way to get to Secaucus. If you are stuffing it full of suburbanites it’s not going to have room for Guttenbergers. If you want space for Guttenbergers you can’t stuff it full of suburbanites.

Lawrence Velázquez August 27, 2015 - 10:16 pm

Never mind that such an extension would not help alleviate NEC congestion because NJT could not terminate additional trains at Secaucus.


Ryan August 27, 2015 - 7:49 pm

Why would you want to turn the L up 10 Av instead of sending it to New Jersey?

22rr August 27, 2015 - 8:37 pm

@Ryan – send the L up 10th avenue because the far west side is booming with residential development along 10th and 11th avenues (and a lot of restaurants and nightlife) but the nearest subway is at 8th avenue. We’ve got the buildings and the people already over there, but the roads are still delivery-truck highways and it’s a very long walk to the subway. Let’s build the infrastructure (subways and human-friendly streetscape design) out for there to supply the people and buildings that are already there — let’s bring 10th avenue into the civilized realm of the city.

Caelestor August 27, 2015 - 8:58 pm

A 10th Ave terminal with proper crossover tracks would also help increase capacity.

Joseph M. Calisi August 27, 2015 - 9:01 pm

To do this would be very costly as the current tunnels are built with the IRT in mind, not the BMT. Platforms would have to be changed, signalling changed, etc. There’s more to this than you realize.

Tim August 28, 2015 - 8:44 am

Turning the L north would still be on BMT designed trackage, it wouldn’t link up with the 7.

Bolwerk August 28, 2015 - 7:37 pm

AIUI, all tunnels built after the dual contracts have been made to BMT dimensions (maybe not necessarily IND, though I would imagine that is the norm today).

Of course, that probably doesn’t help much since the 7 and L can’t really share platforms on the same track.

Ryan August 29, 2015 - 11:38 am

Okay, but you still haven’t answered why you should turn the L up 10th Avenue when it’s already pointed towards New Jersey. (Nobody lives in Jersey City?) You’ve explained why 10 Av needs a subway – and for the record, I do agree with you – but that doesn’t mean it has to be the L. In fact, far from meaning it has to be the L, sending the L up 10 Av is just about the worst thing you could do. A dedicated 10 Av shuttle between 72 and 14 would be a better option, requires the same amount of tunneling as running the L up to 72 would, doesn’t preclude the L to Jersey or further expansion of the 10 Av trunk link in the future, and could be run at faster frequencies with less rolling stock.

adirondacker12800 August 29, 2015 - 1:39 pm

Why do the E, F, N, Q and R go to Queens when they are already pointed at the Upper West Side and the Bronx?

14th and 10th is never going to be the same kind of destination places without river to the west of them will be. It can connect to the 1, 2 and 3 at 72nd, the B and the C, the 4, 5 and 6 and the Q and the T at 86th. It’s pointed at Flushing and can run under Northern Blvd.

If changing to the shuttle at Times Square is such a horror that the 7 should be sent all the way out to Secaucus so is changing to the shuttle at 14th and 10th or 72nd and Broadway.

dannyb August 27, 2015 - 10:23 pm

Since this extension will add a few minutes to the Main Street Manhattan terminal run, anyone know if NYCT is adding additional trains? Thanks

22rr August 27, 2015 - 10:32 pm

they better add more trains — otherwise the headways will become embarassing

Joseph M. Calisi August 27, 2015 - 10:58 pm


S August 28, 2015 - 12:46 am

did they leave the option of opening up the 10th ave station anytime in the future?

Joseph M. Calisi August 28, 2015 - 7:51 am


Personnel August 28, 2015 - 6:02 am

It’s funny that most people think the PA or MTA should cough up the money but shouldn’t it be the real estate giants that should put some $$ into the station. I mean, you have Extell, Related Co., and Moyihan building/built apartment towers. Silverstein is supposedly building a 1,400 unit tower nearby. (A free rezoning from commercial to residential by the way) It’s clear none of them want to chip in and want even more subsidies RE: Related Co. And Hudson Yards — over $650 million in subsidies so far.

They also have provide shuttle bus service to their tenants. So it’s really not necessary to them anyway…and that’s some Dr. doctoroff or whatever his name said. So yeah, having a deep station with entrances on 40th street isn’t cool either. Just stick with the bus or walking.

Joseph M. Calisi August 28, 2015 - 7:49 am

NYC came up with the 1st $2.1 billion (without 10th Ave stop) and the MTA was responsible for overruns.

Chet August 28, 2015 - 9:36 am

Rather true. Looking back, the deal the city should have made is, we’ll build the tunnel and a station at 41st and 10th, the developers pay for the station at 34th and Hudson Yards.

Webster August 28, 2015 - 9:51 am

Didn’t they…? I thought that was what essentially happened?


LLQBTT August 28, 2015 - 9:58 am

Is this a definitely maybe? Or a probably most likely for sure?

Anyway, we have to celebrate the grand addition of 1, count ’em, 1, subway station to the subway system.

Larry Littlefield August 28, 2015 - 10:37 am

Notice how nothing got built at Hudson Yards until the line was almost complete? Developers have learned their lesson here from the Second Avenue Subway. They built all those towers with the promise the subway would be built, but all the residents ended up paying huge taxes while squeezing in on the Lex.

Looks like metro Boston’s politicians/contractors are about to pull the same scam. Promise infrastructure, get development, change taxes, don’t provide the infrastructure.


Ron Aryel August 30, 2015 - 2:28 am

I am giving NYC a round of applause. I understand an additional entrance going right into the Javits Center is still under construction – so there is another goodie coming in several months…correct me if I’m wrong. Anyway, this is good, and I am happy for New York and its straphangers.


Leave a Comment