Introducing the Second Avenue Subway
December 31, 2016 11:20 PM Subscribe
Introducing the Second Avenue Subway. Almost 100 years in the making, New York City's Q train will now leave 57th St. and 7th Avenue and go uptown on the East Side, stopping at Lexington and 63rd and then 2nd Avenue at 72nd, 86th and 96th, as part of Phase One. The new subway stations feature art installations as well, including artist Vik Muniz’s “Perfect Strangers”, which depicts two men, Thor Stockman and Patrick Kellogg, a married couple who are shown holding hands.
Tunneling for that will begin in 2019 or 2020. The MTA hasn't yet offered clear price estimates for Phases 3 and 4, which go down to Houston Street, and then to Hanover Square in the Financial District.
Those of our descendants who haven't left on the colony ships or uploaded their minds will be thrilled!
posted by Sangermaine at 12:48 AM on January 1, 2017 [15 favorites]
Those of our descendants who haven't left on the colony ships or uploaded their minds will be thrilled!
posted by Sangermaine at 12:48 AM on January 1, 2017 [15 favorites]
The Second Avenue subway opens right after the Cubs win the World Series.
NOW what legendarily long streaks of bad luck and incompetence are we supposed to refer to as a barometer for the state of the universe?!?
posted by Rush-That-Speaks at 1:33 AM on January 1, 2017 [12 favorites]
NOW what legendarily long streaks of bad luck and incompetence are we supposed to refer to as a barometer for the state of the universe?!?
posted by Rush-That-Speaks at 1:33 AM on January 1, 2017 [12 favorites]
John Connor sends a message: "The future is not set. There are no legendarily long streaks of bad luck and incompetence but those which we make for ourselves."
posted by condour75 at 5:06 AM on January 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by condour75 at 5:06 AM on January 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
I suppose those relatively middle class (even young and bohemian) neighborhoods in that corner of Manhattan are soon going to be priced out of existence, but it is nice to see progress.
posted by Bee'sWing at 6:07 AM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Bee'sWing at 6:07 AM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
In about 1974, I took a hard-hat tour of the Second Avenue Subway tunnel under Central Park. It was just as awesome as you would imagine, and looked like it was only a few months from completion. The rail bed was spanking new concrete. The only thing missing were the tracks. Then, 40 years passed. The project disappeared from public awareness. All through the 80s and 90s, I'd tell people that there was a nearly complete, unused subway tunnel under Central Park and they wouldn't believe me. I began to question my own memory. Now that it's open, I feel vindicated.
posted by Modest House at 7:46 AM on January 1, 2017 [19 favorites]
posted by Modest House at 7:46 AM on January 1, 2017 [19 favorites]
The funniest joke Mad Men ever did was when a realtor reassured Peggy that a condo was going to skyrocket in value just as soon as the Second Avenue Subway was complete.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:54 AM on January 1, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:54 AM on January 1, 2017 [14 favorites]
$4.5 billion for the first 2 miles, $6 billion for the next 2 miles. Business Insider explores why the project cost so much and asks whether it could have been made cheaper by simplifying some of the features (such as mezzanines across the full length of every station).
Myself, I've seen Second Avenue messed up for years with the construction, and wondered: if the street was going to be so completely disrupted for this long anyway, why didn't they just use cut-and-cover and save a few hundred million and years of work?
posted by purple_frogs at 7:58 AM on January 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
Myself, I've seen Second Avenue messed up for years with the construction, and wondered: if the street was going to be so completely disrupted for this long anyway, why didn't they just use cut-and-cover and save a few hundred million and years of work?
posted by purple_frogs at 7:58 AM on January 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
The amount of utility relocation that would have been required for cut-and-cover would have been even more disruptive than what we got. Any money saved would have been lost fighting off the NIMBYs in court.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:25 AM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:25 AM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
(Grumble grumble why not streetcars grumble)
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:39 AM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:39 AM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
showbiz_liz, I think you meant Grumble grumble why not streetcars as well grumble
posted by ambrosen at 9:49 AM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by ambrosen at 9:49 AM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
Video I took of Gov Cuomo talking onboard the inaugural public ride of the SAS.
posted by rmannion at 10:07 AM on January 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by rmannion at 10:07 AM on January 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
Why not streetcars?
TL;DR "travellers seem to prefer streetcars, so you'd think streetcars are good, but we could in theory build buses that are as good as streetcars, so streetcars are bad." I guess you have the consultants you deserve.
posted by effbot at 10:21 AM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
TL;DR "travellers seem to prefer streetcars, so you'd think streetcars are good, but we could in theory build buses that are as good as streetcars, so streetcars are bad." I guess you have the consultants you deserve.
posted by effbot at 10:21 AM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
3 useless stops that still don't make it a bit easier for me to get to work... but it sure looks nice.
posted by blaneyphoto at 10:54 AM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by blaneyphoto at 10:54 AM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Bad escalator design yet again. Tiling is parallel to the handrails rather than being parallel to gravity. Instant vertigo.
posted by aloiv2 at 12:36 PM on January 1, 2017
posted by aloiv2 at 12:36 PM on January 1, 2017
jfc the anti-bus snobbery is real. (in the comments on that "Why not streetcars" link.)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:19 PM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:19 PM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
Matt Yglesias has a good piece on Vox today: NYC's brand new subway is the most expensive in the world — that's a problem
posted by General Malaise at 2:06 PM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by General Malaise at 2:06 PM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Buses suck tho. And it isn't just snobbery. Trains hold more. Trains are less barfy. Trains are less subject to random change (and in terms of transit, I'd argue that's good because you get areas built to serve them). A lot of this could be addressed with BRT except the barfiness, it's true, but at that point, why not just put the damn rails in?
posted by dame at 3:12 PM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by dame at 3:12 PM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
It isn't just snobbery but calling it the "loser cruiser" is all snobbery.
Buses suck in the same ways cars suck, but they have a lot of the same advantages too. Road maintenance doesn't cause service delays the way rail maintenance does. One bus breaking down doesn't affect any other bus. Even a catastrophic accident at a terminal, like the one in Hoboken - that shut down more than half the terminal because tracks were damaged, but a similar accident with buses wouldn't shut anything down. The impermanence means that they don't have to eminent domain anybody, routes can shift with changing needs, and if there's a change you don't like, you can organize to get it back.
But all of that matters a lot less than how comfortable a passenger is on the ride. And that comfort has a lot of factors, and one of those factors is how many smelly people are on the bus. And that's reasonable but also effectively classist.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:24 PM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
Buses suck in the same ways cars suck, but they have a lot of the same advantages too. Road maintenance doesn't cause service delays the way rail maintenance does. One bus breaking down doesn't affect any other bus. Even a catastrophic accident at a terminal, like the one in Hoboken - that shut down more than half the terminal because tracks were damaged, but a similar accident with buses wouldn't shut anything down. The impermanence means that they don't have to eminent domain anybody, routes can shift with changing needs, and if there's a change you don't like, you can organize to get it back.
But all of that matters a lot less than how comfortable a passenger is on the ride. And that comfort has a lot of factors, and one of those factors is how many smelly people are on the bus. And that's reasonable but also effectively classist.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:24 PM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
I've only heard of the Second Avenue Subway from Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. I thought it was just a random reference as are many in that show. Had no idea it was real! Lillian's dream has come true!
posted by numaner at 7:20 PM on January 1, 2017
posted by numaner at 7:20 PM on January 1, 2017
The art installations by Jean Shin, Vin Muniz, Sarah Sze and Chuck Close are amazing, have to be seen to be believed, and are well worth the price of admission. Being able to go up and touch the intricate mosaic craftsmanship of, say, Chuck Close's self portrait (not to mention the idea of someone leaning up against it eating a candy bar while they wait for a train) is all rather incredible.
posted by How the runs scored at 7:40 PM on January 1, 2017
posted by How the runs scored at 7:40 PM on January 1, 2017
"travellers seem to prefer streetcars, so you'd think streetcars are good, but we could in theory build buses that are as good as streetcars, so streetcars are bad."
Er, no, "certain camps of public transit enthusiast prefer streetcars without considering whether they are actually comparing apples to apples, so let's compare what's achievable with both rather than just indulging in a mezzo-tint fantasy."
In this case, even more appropriate, as the attempt here seems to be to compare streetcars not with buses, which one can at least compare as using the same "resource" of surface access, but with the subway, which does the one thing public transit needs to do more than anything else in NYC--get traffic off the road.
The further east side already has Select Bus Service, by the way (1st/2d Ave), running from the FiDi to waaaay up in Harlem.
posted by praemunire at 8:13 PM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
Er, no, "certain camps of public transit enthusiast prefer streetcars without considering whether they are actually comparing apples to apples, so let's compare what's achievable with both rather than just indulging in a mezzo-tint fantasy."
In this case, even more appropriate, as the attempt here seems to be to compare streetcars not with buses, which one can at least compare as using the same "resource" of surface access, but with the subway, which does the one thing public transit needs to do more than anything else in NYC--get traffic off the road.
The further east side already has Select Bus Service, by the way (1st/2d Ave), running from the FiDi to waaaay up in Harlem.
posted by praemunire at 8:13 PM on January 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
the subway ... does the one thing public transit needs to do more than anything else in NYC--get traffic off the road
Amen. Any type of public transit that has to compete with vehicular traffic is inherently inferior to a dedicated subway. Also the subway is almost entirely impervious to weather events.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:33 PM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Amen. Any type of public transit that has to compete with vehicular traffic is inherently inferior to a dedicated subway. Also the subway is almost entirely impervious to weather events.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:33 PM on January 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
It would be nice there is a phase 5 that extends the subway northward to the bronx maybe via third ave/webster ave/boston rd/morris ave/southern blvd to give bronx riders more transit options and ease the crowding on the buses/subways.
posted by basketballandinternet at 8:40 PM on January 1, 2017
posted by basketballandinternet at 8:40 PM on January 1, 2017
I think the point of comparing buses and streetcars is that since they use the roads, they are cheaper than subways. Like subways would be ideal, but look at how long this took and how expensive it is. If people want more transit in their lifetimes, we are going to have to take roads back from cars (which, frankly, I think private cars should be banned in the city, period, but I am aware that is not a widely shared view).
posted by dame at 5:18 AM on January 2, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by dame at 5:18 AM on January 2, 2017 [3 favorites]
The Muniz art includes a South Asian woman in a sari!
posted by brainwane at 9:25 AM on January 2, 2017
posted by brainwane at 9:25 AM on January 2, 2017
Actually with rising sea levels it would probably make more sense to start building elevated rail. New York's subways are still recovering from Hurricane Sandy, which was three years ago? I can't imagine that isn't playing a big part in their decisions.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 12:46 PM on January 2, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 12:46 PM on January 2, 2017 [2 favorites]
I was pretty excited to learn of the 2nd Avenue subway when I moved to York Ave in the 60's in 2002. Seven years passed. In 2009, I left the state. When I saw the first mention of the q the other day, I thought it was some kind of fake news or maybe a construction update. Then on my Facebook, a friend complained that on his inaugural ride, it took him 20 minutes to get from 72nd to 96th, and so he had decided to walk back the return journey, and so then I finally grasped that the Q was real.
posted by Tandem Affinity at 7:37 PM on January 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Tandem Affinity at 7:37 PM on January 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
the one thing public transit needs to do more than anything else in NYC--get traffic off the road.
I actually think it's worth examining this very commonly-encountered sentiment, that the purpose of transit is to reduce/improve automobile traffic (assuming that's what was meant here.)
I'd actually argue that the primary (not exclusive, just primary) point of public transit in a place like New York City is not to get private vehicles off the road, but to provide a meaningful, reliable and reasonably rapid method to get around that does not involve the private car.
I know that seems like the same thing, but it's really not:
1. The first goal (get traffic off the road) frames transit's success by how much private vehicle traffic it is able to reduce, and only secondarily in how intrinsically good the transit is
2. The second goal (provide a high-quality way to get around) frames transit's success the other way around, assessing how good it is in how much mobility that transit provides, and only by how much auto traffic it diverts
The problem with assessing transit's success by how much it reduces private vehicle traffic is that in many cases, no matter how good the transit, it's just not going to do that. Induced demand means that in heavily-populated dense places like NYC with lots of pent-up travel demand, any temporary reduction in automobile traffic due to mode shift to transit will almost certainly be replaced by additional automobile trips, made by drivers who now notice that the automobile route has temporarily freed up. Politicians will then criticize the transit route for "not improving traffic," which might be true, but this ignores all the transit riders who are now able to make that trip!
Furthermore, rating transit by how much automobile traffic can result in valuations of transit projects that IMHO are not ideal. For example, a new commuter rail project to far-flung exurbs is probably almost entirely going to draw from former car drivers, whereas a rail project through dense inner-city neighborhoods is much more likely to draw from former riders of (very slow) buses. But I think in most cases the inner-city rail project is going to provide in the aggregate more improved travel for more people (and higher ridership than the commuter rail line), even though it doesn't necessarily reduce automobile traffic as much as the far-flung exurban commuter rail.
Finally, I don't like rating transit by how much it improves automobile traffic because it subtly implies that automobile traffic is still the "real" kind of travel and the kind that we should focus all our resources on to improve. I realize this is far from the political reality in most American cities, and it's still easier to sell transit as a traffic-reducing device than anything else, but it continues to perpetuate the notion of car-centric urban transportation.
posted by andrewesque at 10:04 AM on January 3, 2017 [3 favorites]
I actually think it's worth examining this very commonly-encountered sentiment, that the purpose of transit is to reduce/improve automobile traffic (assuming that's what was meant here.)
I'd actually argue that the primary (not exclusive, just primary) point of public transit in a place like New York City is not to get private vehicles off the road, but to provide a meaningful, reliable and reasonably rapid method to get around that does not involve the private car.
I know that seems like the same thing, but it's really not:
1. The first goal (get traffic off the road) frames transit's success by how much private vehicle traffic it is able to reduce, and only secondarily in how intrinsically good the transit is
2. The second goal (provide a high-quality way to get around) frames transit's success the other way around, assessing how good it is in how much mobility that transit provides, and only by how much auto traffic it diverts
The problem with assessing transit's success by how much it reduces private vehicle traffic is that in many cases, no matter how good the transit, it's just not going to do that. Induced demand means that in heavily-populated dense places like NYC with lots of pent-up travel demand, any temporary reduction in automobile traffic due to mode shift to transit will almost certainly be replaced by additional automobile trips, made by drivers who now notice that the automobile route has temporarily freed up. Politicians will then criticize the transit route for "not improving traffic," which might be true, but this ignores all the transit riders who are now able to make that trip!
Furthermore, rating transit by how much automobile traffic can result in valuations of transit projects that IMHO are not ideal. For example, a new commuter rail project to far-flung exurbs is probably almost entirely going to draw from former car drivers, whereas a rail project through dense inner-city neighborhoods is much more likely to draw from former riders of (very slow) buses. But I think in most cases the inner-city rail project is going to provide in the aggregate more improved travel for more people (and higher ridership than the commuter rail line), even though it doesn't necessarily reduce automobile traffic as much as the far-flung exurban commuter rail.
Finally, I don't like rating transit by how much it improves automobile traffic because it subtly implies that automobile traffic is still the "real" kind of travel and the kind that we should focus all our resources on to improve. I realize this is far from the political reality in most American cities, and it's still easier to sell transit as a traffic-reducing device than anything else, but it continues to perpetuate the notion of car-centric urban transportation.
posted by andrewesque at 10:04 AM on January 3, 2017 [3 favorites]
« Older "MOM NOTED A RUBBER HAND PROTRUDING FROM RECTUM” | "The symptoms of life" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Phase 2, which would extend the line up to 125th Street near the Harlem River, is expected to cost $6 billion. Tunneling for that will begin in 2019 or 2020. The MTA hasn't yet offered clear price estimates for Phases 3 and 4, which go down to Houston Street, and then to Hanover Square in the Financial District.
Lots more to come (eventually).
posted by Chrysostom at 11:49 PM on December 31, 2016