The only project really on the table at this point is the segment between 63rd Street and 96th Street. Just that one stretch will already cost far more than the MTA has available. If nobody is able to build support around a financing plan for that initial segment, none of the rest of this is ever going to happen.
You are not sticking to the point.Originally Posted by TonyO
If you were to make it 3 short blocks closer (hell even 5) you are not going to be putting it more than 5 min closer no matter where you put it if it is along the same line.
What I am saying is that people will always be crying for more, unless they are the ones coming from the upper east side that do not want to stop every 5 blocks REGARDLESS of how many people get on at one of the added stations.
You need to balance it.
Ninjahedge, that whole "if one area gets an added station many other areas will want one too" argument is rather played-out. That's not how these decisions should be made. It's an issue of where stations would best serve the public as a whole along the east side of Manhattan. If we're going to build this thing, we should do it right. And we're talking about the planned SAS, so while it is true other areas in the outer borroughs need better service too, this subway line can't really help them as it's in Manhattan. So that's a completely different discussion. If you want to dream up a huge extension into Brooklyn or Queens. We can talk about that somewhere else. Let's stick with discussing what we already have planned here.
There are a LOT of low income families living in "the projects" all the way over between Avenue D and FDR. That's quite a walk from any subway line. There are a lot of, erm, increasingly higher income families living between Avenues A, B, C and D. That's still quite a walk. We're not talking about Hoboken for god's sake. Density is much higher in Manhattan and the number of car drivers is much higher in Hoboken. There is a big difference. And the East Village is a popular destination and would be moreso if it were more accessible. Yes, the area is booming without subway service (so is much of the area the SAS will serve on the UES). Providing subway there will boost the ecomony. Heck, I'll certainly be priced out of the EV if a subway station is added. But that's not an a reason NOT to build.
And my assertion that an added station between 14th Street and Houston would have little effect on train efficiency, isn't untrue. I didn't say it wouldn't add time to a commute. I said it would have little effect. You say 2 minutes. I say that's little effect. The 6 line does it (Broadway-LaFayette, Astor, Union Sq.). I don't see anyone complaining about that. Your complaint is about the too frequent stops on the 1/9. Which is a valid complaint. But that wouldn't be the result of an added station in the area I and several others on this board have suggested.
But in the end, I know it won't happen. The money's not there. Proposing adding any expense to this project is ultimately laughable. I just wanted to point out the unfortunate exclusion.
Perhaps we should change the name of this thread to "Second Avenue Subway OFF Track" ?
Um, I never said anything about that. You are taking other peoples arguements and putting them in with mine. I am only saying that if you start saying "12 blocks between stations is too much" and ask for that one all important station that you would find most convenient at 14th street, then there will be more petitioning for other stations from other people.
I am not saying that it should not be looked into to try to get the spots that people use the most, but using the example of the 1 and 9, if you can get dropped off at 18th street, why does everyone have to stop at 23rd? So you and the small portion of riders getting off at that station walk 5 minutes less?
The PATH train had 2 stations like that I believe that they shut down for various reasons. I can't see why similar steps cant be taken with the 1+9 or avoided entirely by the SAS proposal.
I am not trying to down every suggestion, just offering some reality to the mix.
And this matters why? Why would this matter in making a subway stop 5 blocks from another?here are a LOT of low income families living in "the projects" all the way over between Avenue D and FDR. That's quite a walk from any subway line.
Why not? The "higher income" people are also living in Hoboken you know. The walk is just as long from uptown. There are ferries and bus services provided from various developments, but even those take a good 10-15 to get downtown.There are a lot of, erm, increasingly higher income families living between Avenues A, B, C and D. That's still quite a walk. We're not talking about Hoboken for god's sake.
Anyway, it is quite a walk, but cutting 5 short blocks from th ewalk only cuts 5 minutes from the walk. 1/4 a mile.
What are you going on about. This has nothing to do with why there should not be a stop every 5 blocks. If you have ever tried to park in Hoboken you would realize that most people walk because it takes less time than waiting for a spot to open up.Density is much higher in Manhattan and the number of car drivers is much higher in Hoboken.
I am not ruling out the entire SAS. I think you are reading me wrong. I am just against the over-stationizing of the line. I am for the 2nd avenue subway, I am just cautioing against putting too many stations too close together. The only difficult thing I see about putting them where they are needed the most (most convenient but not conjesting) is that those areas may not have any property that is available for development.There is a big difference. And the East Village is a popular destination and would be moreso if it were more accessible. Yes, the area is booming without subway service (so is much of the area the SAS will serve on the UES). Providing subway there will boost the ecomony. Heck, I'll certainly be priced out of the EV if a subway station is added. But that's not an a reason NOT to build.
I am not saying it is false, but it will add 2 minutes. 2 minutes to a 40 min commute is very small, but that is only one station. ANY addition of stations makes the train less efficient, no matter how you look at it...And my assertion that an added station between 14th Street and Houston would have little effect on train efficiency, isn't untrue.
Again, that is one station. Now add 5. Add one between each of the stations listed. Make it so that areas have 2 stations added so that there is no more than 6 blocks between them. Your 40 minute commute just got 25%-30% longer.I didn't say it wouldn't add time to a commute. I said it would have little effect. You say 2 minutes. I say that's little effect.
You are mixing your arguements. If they removed that station, or 5 stations in between on the 6 line, you think that the people that do not USE those stops would complain?The 6 line does it (Broadway-LaFayette, Astor, Union Sq.). I don't see anyone complaining about that.
The thing is, once people use it, they will complain when it is removed, so the analogy is a hard one to counter. But I will bet you money that if you asked people if they would like to cut 10 min off their commute w/o any real change to their routine that few, if any, would turn you down.
You said one station. I said the danger is ADDING too many stations. I also said a re-evaluation of the layout should be taken to determine where the best spots would be. Reducing the 17 block gap on the mid portion of the line to 10 or so blocks would help a lot, but squeezing an extra stop between two that are 10 blocks apart is not. Shifting one of the stops would be a better solution.Your complaint is about the too frequent stops on the 1/9. Which is a valid complaint. But that wouldn't be the result of an added station in the area I and several others on this board have suggested.
Why do you need a 28th street stop on the 1+9 if there is another one at 32nd?
Nah. Petition a re-evaluation. Placing them where more people can reach more conveniently or near end destinations is probably the best solution.But in the end, I know it won't happen. The money's not there. Proposing adding any expense to this project is ultimately laughable. I just wanted to point out the unfortunate exclusion.
I think the problem goes back to what i said in the beginning. There may be no real way they can, or can afford (as you just said) stops in certain areas. You can only move a certain ammount of old ladies out of their apartments before EVERYONE is on your case...
I get a charge every time an express train I’m on gets to haul ass; 45mph seems such breakneck speed when you’re in a narrow tunnel. But having ridden subways much of my life while living in New York, Paris, London and Boston, I’m mostly impressed by the speed itself, not the time that it saves me. The reason: I’d save a lot more time door to door if I had a shorter walk and a slower train.
When you’re walking to the subway stop, your forward progress towards your goal is 3mph, 4mph if you’re truckin'. When you’re waiting on the platform your forward progress is zero mph. When you’re on the train, it’s whatever the average speed of the train is, including stops (let’s say somewhere between ten and 35mph).
Here’s a not particularly extreme case that illustrates the relative unimportance of train speed vs. walking distance:
Suppose I live on Tompkins Square at Avenue B and 8th Street and I commute daily to my job at Rockefeller University, York Avenue at 66th Street.
Here are my present options:
Option A:
1. Walk 6 short blocks uptown (6 minutes) and 2 long blocks crosstown (5 minutes) to the L Train at First Avenue. Total: 11 minutes walking. Distance covered on way to destination: .55 miles @ 3mph. Running tally of trip so far: 11 minutes (.18 hours) walking; .55 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed = 3mph.
2. Wait 3 minutes for L Train. Total: 3 minutes waiting. Distance covered on way to destination: 0.0 miles @ 0mph. Running tally of trip so far: 14 minutes (.23 hours) walking and waiting; .55 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed = 2.4mph.
3. L train to Union Square (2 stops). Total: 4 minutes on train. Distance covered on way to destination: .50 miles @ 7.5mph (including stops). Running tally of trip so far: 18 minutes (0.3 hours) walking and waiting and riding; 1.05 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed = 3.5mph.
4. Transfer to 4 or 5. Total: 1 minute walk. Distance covered on way to destination: negligible. Running tally of trip so far: 19 minutes (0.32 hours) walking and waiting and riding; 1.05 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed = 3.3mph. You can see from the average speed so far that a viable alternative here is to walk directly from Tompkins Square to Union Square, especially if you take advantage of the distance-saving diagonal of Fourth Avenue and if you’re a fairly brisk walker. You could also have chosen to walk to Astor Place (Option B), in which case you’d have invested exactly the same amount of time to get to the express.
5. Wait 3 minutes for 4 or 5 Train (Express!). Total: 3 minute wait. Distance covered on way to destination: 0.0 miles @ 0mph. Running tally of trip so far: 22 minutes (0.37 hours) walking and waiting and riding; 1.05 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed = 2.9mph.
6. Hot dog, I’m on the Express!! All the way to 59th Street!!! Total: 6 minutes (2 stops) of delirious subway riding, including the little layover at Grand Central. Now we’re cookin’! Distance covered on way to destination: 2.3 miles @ 23 mph (train lurches to dizzying speed of 40 mph for 10 or 15 seconds in one stretch). Running tally of trip so far: 28 minutes (0.47 hours) walking and waiting and riding; 3.35 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed of trip so far = a dazzling 7.2mph!
7. Transfer to local, and wait. Total: 2 minutes wait. Distance covered on way to destination: 0.0 miles @ 0mph. Running tally of trip so far: 30 minutes (0.50 hours) walking and waiting and riding; 3.35 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed = 6.7mph.
8. Local to 68th St. Total: 2 minutes subway riding. Distance covered on way to destination: 0.45 miles @ 13.5mph. Running tally of trip so far: 32 minutes (0.53 hours) walking and waiting and riding; 3.8 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed = 7.13mph.
9. Walk 2 long blocks crosstown (6 minutes) and 2 short blocks south, back towards Tompkins square (2 minutes). Total: 8 minutes walking. Distance covered on way to destination: .40 miles @ 3mph. Total trip door to door: 40 minutes (.67 hours) walking and waiting and riding; 4.2 miles total trip length. Calculated average speed = 6.30mph.
Some facts:
1. The breakdown of this commute: 20 minutes (.95 miles) walking @ 3mph; 8 minutes (0 miles) waiting @ 0mph; 12 minutes (3.25 miles) subway riding @ 16.25 mph.
2. 50.0% of the trip time was spent walking (almost a mile in all), 20.0% was spent waiting for a train, 30.0% was spent actually riding a train. You can easily see which of these three you can take the most time out of.
3. If the express train peaked at 70mph rather than 40mph (mucho dollares suspension, white-knuckle standees), the six-minute express ride would plunge to 4-1/2 minutes (30.67 mph average speed, including GC layover!). The overall door-to-door trip would be reduced by the same amount: 90 seconds. You could get the same outcome by reducing the walk by a block and a half.
* * *
Now let’s do the same commute with the Second Avenue subway rerouted so there’s a stop right at Tompkins Square, as there ought to be, and with two additional stops between 14th Street and 72nd Street:
1. Walk to subway (1 minute). Total: 1 minute walking. Distance covered on way to destination: .05 miles @ 3mph
2. Wait 3 minutes for Second Avenue Subway. Total: 3 minutes waiting. Distance covered on way to destination: 0.0 miles @ 0mph. Running tally of trip so far: 4 minutes (.07 hours) walking and waiting; .05 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed = 0.75mph.
3. Second Avenue Subway, Tompkins Square to 66th Street (halfway between 59th and 72nd. 7 stops. Total: 12 minutes subway ride. Distance covered on way to destination: 3.0 miles @ 15 mph, including stops. Running tally of trip so far: 16 minutes (0.27 hours) walking and waiting and riding; 3.05 miles covered towards destination. Calculated average speed so far: 11.3mph!
4. Walk 2 long blocks crosstown (6 minutes). Total: 6 minutes walking. Distance covered on way to destination: .36 miles @ 3mph. Total trip door to door: 22 minutes (.37 hours) walking and waiting and riding; 3.41 miles total trip length. Calculated average speed = 9.30mph.
The facts on this one:
1. The breakdown of this commute: 7 minutes (.41 miles) walking @ 3mph; 3 minutes (0 miles) waiting @ 0mph; 12 minutes (3.00 miles) subway riding @ 15.0 mph.
2. 31.8% of the trip time was spent walking (.37 miles), 13.6% was spent waiting for a train, 54.5% was spent actually riding a train.
* * *
Which commute would you prefer for the daily grind?
Personally I’d rather be on a slow train than walking. I don’t get very far at 3 miles per hour; even the snail’s pace of a Paris Metro train is faster than I can walk. And at the end of the day my feet don’t hurt as much.
.
Last edited by ablarc; August 3rd, 2005 at 03:59 PM.
Again, I don't think you're argument that adding one station will lead to the adding of 5 more is correct at all. That's not the way things work. Maybe it does in a second grade classroom, but not in city planning.
The East Village goes farther East that any other part of Manhattan, making it farther to walk. On top of that, there is also a 14 block distance planned between the two closest stations in that area on the SAS. That's more than the average distance between stations on the subway in Manhattan. That puts a lot of the EV too far from subway service, IMO.
Why does adding one station 7 (not 5) blocks away make a difference? Because without one, there is a large area of in the middle area between 14th and Houston in Alphabet City that is farther from a train than any of the areas on the UES. And because there are more Avenues in the East Village than on the UES, the distance is quite a bit further. Walking is a lot slower than a train. Most of your commute time is going to be spent walking to a station. Bringing that rather significant (in size, because it extends further east) middle section of the far east side of the East Village closer to a station would cut their commute time significantly.
Your approach of looking only at the distance between two stations if rather short-sited if you ask me. There are more things to consider.
Ah insults will make me agree with you even more. Especially when I am agreeing with a lot of what you are saying but a few sticky points that will come up again and again.
Again, do you want me to do some trig for you showing you that adding one that is only a few blocks NORTH or SOUTH of a given point will not help your EAST WEST walk much, if at all?The East Village goes farther East that any other part of Manhattan, making it farther to walk. On top of that, there is also a 14 block distance planned between the two closest stations in that area on the SAS.
I, for one, zig-zag across blocks when I am walking diagonally cross town. The time it takes me to walk the short blocks is not much in comparison to the 4X length for each long block...
??? Average distance between what? Stations? I know you are getting at something, but I think you dropped a word or two...That's more than the average distance between stations on the subway in Manhattan. That puts a lot of the EV too far from subway service, IMO.
You mean like it is for 3/4 of Queens? Bringing the station 4 blocks closer will make, asy, 5% of the peoples's commute 5 min shorter, and make 20% of it 2 min longer. A net loss of 15%/min (nonsensical units, I know, but still).Why does adding one station 7 (not 5) blocks away make a difference? Because without one, there is a large area of in the middle area between 14th and Houston in Alphabet City that is farther from a train than any of the areas on the UES. And because there are more Avenues in the East Village than on the UES, the distance is quite a bit further. Walking is a lot slower than a train. Most of your commute time is going to be spent walking to a station.
Again, what says that everyone will agree with the station between 14th and houston and not up in the larger spans? Just because their walk is shorter across town does not mean that they will want to walk an extra 5 minutes either.
No it would not. Not unless the 2nd avenue subway went out to avenue A.Bringing that rather significant (in size, because it extends further east) middle section of the far east side of the East Village closer to a station would cut their commute time significantly.
Yes, and I am considering them.Your approach of looking only at the distance between two stations if rather short-sited if you ask me. There are more things to consider.
I am considering constant velocity of a train versus deceleration, loading and acceleration for time lag.
I am looking at the number of people that woould be serviced for the stop as compared to the number that would be inconvenienced.
I am looking at the fact that people are very "well if THEY have one, I want one too" and that people will be arguing for their own stop to be closer. There is no easily "equitable" solution that can be presented to the people that they will swallow other than the sheer number of blocks between stops.
Question though, what is important on 14th street that it needs to have a stop there anyhow? Would it be better to bring it down to 8th (if it is called 8th) and put in another above between the next two?
What would benefit the most people, AND be the easiest to sell AND inconvenience the least people.
And most importantly. What would COST less?
^ Not having a subway of any kind would cost least of all.
On the contrary, it would wind up costing us the most, long-term.
^ My point exactly.
PW&PF.
Ninjahedge, first, no insult was intended previously. I see how it might be interpretted that way. I was just trying to illustrate my opinion vividly. Apologies. Do you visit the East Village often? Honestly.
Applying simple equations to the ridership of the subway line is helpful, but the reality is far more complex than can be related through the numbers. My opinion is that the added convenience of having a subway station on 2nd Avenue between 14th and Houston will outweigh the small inconvenience in commute times along that line. You feel that the addition of one subway station will lead to cries for more added stations and that those stations will be granted. And then the SAS will eventually become inefficient. I disagree. While I'm sure others will want a station closer to their homes or office too, there is a line to draw. It seems you draw the before any addition. I would draw it after one - a station placed in an area particularly inconvenient to the subway and an area that is a popular destination.
I think we will agree that ideally the MTA should reconsider all the station locations. I agree that a 14th Street station in questionable on the SAS. I think ideally there should be a station on 2nd (better yet, 1st) Avenue around St. Marks with stations about 10 blocks north and 10 blocks south on 2nd Avenue. Would you find that more acceptable? The problem with that is the stations on 14th and Houston are transfer points to other subway lines, thus making them necessary. Cross-town buses are also on those streets.
There's really not a perfect solution.
But politicians and lawmakers are not concerned about long term.
Long term does not get you re-elected. People want to see instant results, which is one of the reasons the switch to Hybrids (an entirely different subject) has taken so long.
People do not care that it might help them, and everyone else down the line 10 years from now, they are only cocerned about $$ now..... :P
I have to disagree. This mayor and his planning team do seem to be very focused on the long-term. It is getting the MTA to think long term that is really harming the city. The just want bonds and more bonds to do everything and we get hit with huge interest payments and deficits in out-lying years.
NY Newsday
November 10, 2005
A Second Avenue line in 2012?
BY JOSHUA ROBIN
STAFF WRITER
Subway riders long squeezed on the Nos. 4, 5 and 6 might be wondering when the Second Avenue line will finally be built, now that voters have approved a bond act seen as critical to keeping the project afloat.
The answer is that they will have to keep waiting just a little while longer.
MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow said Wednesday that the agency would in coming days dispatch a delegate to meet with federal transportation officials, who hold the key to building the subway's first section at a cost of $3.8 billion.
When or whether the feds will turn that key remains unanswered for now, although transportation advocates said Wednesday they were confident a new subway -- and a new Long Island Rail Road connection to Grand Central Terminal -- could open around 2012.
The measure passing represents "the point of no return," said transportation advocate Lee Sander, executive director for the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management at New York University.
By their approval, voters allowed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the state Department of Transportation to float nearly $3 billion in bonds.
Of that, a total of $1 billion is marked for three MTA projects: the Second Avenue Subway, the LIRR "East Side Access" connection to Grand Central Terminal, and a link from lower Manhattan to Kennedy Airport.
But projects of those size aren't paid for with only one stream of money. The agency the MTA delegates will visit, the Federal Transit Administration, is expected to kick in up to 40 percent of the cost.
First, the FTA needed assurance that New York was committed to paying for its part. With 55 percent of voters statewide approving the bond act, observers say the state did just that.
Even if the FTA approves funding, an additional $3 billion is needed to pay for the subway and the LIRR connection, an amount that Sander said shouldn't be hard to cover. The state would likely have to float more debt, raise fares or collect funds from other agencies, like the Port Authority, for the projects.
"I think this is a great victory for the state," Kalikow told reporters Wednesday.
"This is the public saying to the MTA, 'We trust you with a billion and a half dollars, we think you are going to use that money wisely, spend it correctly,' and these are the things that make my job worthwhile."
Staff writer Joie Tyrrell contributed to this story.
Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks