<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Second Avenue Subway: Rethink 1</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:27:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/#comment-8222</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=152#comment-8222</guid>
		<description>Even in the 1960s, it was planned to run on BMT and IND tracks, since they provide greater capacity than IRT tracks. The link plan was to have SAS take over the elevated portion of the 6, which was constructed to BMT/IND specs.

Also, today black and brown people in the Bronx get to sit on the Lexington trains. A friend who lives in Coop City tells me that the downtown 6 only becomes standing room only at 125th. It&#039;s the white Upper East Siders who have to stand on trains with, gasp, 75% as many riders as they have the capacity for.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even in the 1960s, it was planned to run on BMT and IND tracks, since they provide greater capacity than IRT tracks. The link plan was to have SAS take over the elevated portion of the 6, which was constructed to BMT/IND specs.</p>
<p>Also, today black and brown people in the Bronx get to sit on the Lexington trains. A friend who lives in Coop City tells me that the downtown 6 only becomes standing room only at 125th. It&#8217;s the white Upper East Siders who have to stand on trains with, gasp, 75% as many riders as they have the capacity for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Woody</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/#comment-8221</link>
		<dc:creator>Woody</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:40:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=152#comment-8221</guid>
		<description>A Commuter -- Riders do now transfer at 149th/Grand Concourse and at 161st, of course. They help make the Lexington line so terribly crowded. 

The Second Avenue Subway will allow a lot of white people from the Upper East Side to take less crowded trains. But the black and brown people still using the Lexington line will still ride crowded trains.

Back when I voted in favor of a bond issue to build the SAS (in the late 60s iirc), the plan was to push it under the Harlem River into the Bronx. By connecting to the 2, 5, and 6 far upstream, it was going to divert a lot of riders before they even got to the South Bronx stations.

When the currently-under-construction version was approved a few years ago, the City Council decided to go for the truncated all-Manhattan line. 

With only two tracks, the SAS would be very limited in its capacity if it ever did reach the Bronx, and so maybe not worth it. And I doubt if they&#039;d link to the IRT lines the way the maps showed back in the &#039;60s. This SAS, Phase I, is being planned for trains to run on BMT and IND tracks in Midtown, and I&#039;m told that the IRT lines are incompatible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Commuter &#8212; Riders do now transfer at 149th/Grand Concourse and at 161st, of course. They help make the Lexington line so terribly crowded. </p>
<p>The Second Avenue Subway will allow a lot of white people from the Upper East Side to take less crowded trains. But the black and brown people still using the Lexington line will still ride crowded trains.</p>
<p>Back when I voted in favor of a bond issue to build the SAS (in the late 60s iirc), the plan was to push it under the Harlem River into the Bronx. By connecting to the 2, 5, and 6 far upstream, it was going to divert a lot of riders before they even got to the South Bronx stations.</p>
<p>When the currently-under-construction version was approved a few years ago, the City Council decided to go for the truncated all-Manhattan line. </p>
<p>With only two tracks, the SAS would be very limited in its capacity if it ever did reach the Bronx, and so maybe not worth it. And I doubt if they&#8217;d link to the IRT lines the way the maps showed back in the &#8217;60s. This SAS, Phase I, is being planned for trains to run on BMT and IND tracks in Midtown, and I&#8217;m told that the IRT lines are incompatible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Commuter</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/#comment-8209</link>
		<dc:creator>A Commuter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=152#comment-8209</guid>
		<description>I might be a bit late on the pick up here, but I fail to see the reason why 2 line riders from the Bronx couldn&#039;t transfer at 149th/Grand Concourse to get to the East Side, or why B/D riders couldn&#039;t transfer at 161st Street for the Lexington Ave. Line. Both of these options offer a less circuitous route than what would be offered by this extension.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I might be a bit late on the pick up here, but I fail to see the reason why 2 line riders from the Bronx couldn&#8217;t transfer at 149th/Grand Concourse to get to the East Side, or why B/D riders couldn&#8217;t transfer at 161st Street for the Lexington Ave. Line. Both of these options offer a less circuitous route than what would be offered by this extension.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GunHillTrain</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>GunHillTrain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=152#comment-20</guid>
		<description>The Metro-North line shown in the East Bronx is actually the Amtrak Northeast Corridor.  (It may have local commuter service in future.) Also, it is located north of the #6 subway line, not south of it.

The line doesn&#039;t connect with the Harlem line to 125th Street; it crosses the Hell Gate Bridge and leads into Penn Station.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Metro-North line shown in the East Bronx is actually the Amtrak Northeast Corridor.  (It may have local commuter service in future.) Also, it is located north of the #6 subway line, not south of it.</p>
<p>The line doesn&#8217;t connect with the Harlem line to 125th Street; it crosses the Hell Gate Bridge and leads into Penn Station.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark smith</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>mark smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:19:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=152#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Extending the proposed second avenue T line west across 125th street is a good idea, and clearly is in the (very) long-range MTA plans. Interestingly, track configurtions on the westside ABCD lines allow for a connection with this proposed 125th street extension that would make it much easier to use, and much less expensive, than building new stations at Broadway and St. Nicholas, as proposed in your diagram here.

The so-called &#039;Homeball Alley&quot; section of the ABCD lines north of 125th street actually was built for six tracks between 125th and 145th, although only four tracks are currently used. This means that the T (125th st extension) could turn north and run along with the ABCD lines with very little additional construction cost. (A flyover for the B and T to cross north of 135th street might be all the new construction that is necessary.)

This T train would skip 135th street, use the C platform at 145th street, and continue north along the C line to a terminus at 168th Street, where a connection with the &quot;1&quot; train would exist.

This routing would provide easy connections from the 1, A-B-C-D lines, and allow the T trains to easily lay up at the yards north of 168th. Since very little new trackage would be required, it would be fairly inexpensive.

The only major new contruction would involve the westward portion of the tunnel from the currently projected T terminus at 125-Park Ave to St. Nicholas Ave. Only one new station would be required, at Malcolm X Blvd, providing a connection with the 2-3 trains.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Extending the proposed second avenue T line west across 125th street is a good idea, and clearly is in the (very) long-range MTA plans. Interestingly, track configurtions on the westside ABCD lines allow for a connection with this proposed 125th street extension that would make it much easier to use, and much less expensive, than building new stations at Broadway and St. Nicholas, as proposed in your diagram here.</p>
<p>The so-called &#8216;Homeball Alley&#8221; section of the ABCD lines north of 125th street actually was built for six tracks between 125th and 145th, although only four tracks are currently used. This means that the T (125th st extension) could turn north and run along with the ABCD lines with very little additional construction cost. (A flyover for the B and T to cross north of 135th street might be all the new construction that is necessary.)</p>
<p>This T train would skip 135th street, use the C platform at 145th street, and continue north along the C line to a terminus at 168th Street, where a connection with the &#8220;1&#8243; train would exist.</p>
<p>This routing would provide easy connections from the 1, A-B-C-D lines, and allow the T trains to easily lay up at the yards north of 168th. Since very little new trackage would be required, it would be fairly inexpensive.</p>
<p>The only major new contruction would involve the westward portion of the tunnel from the currently projected T terminus at 125-Park Ave to St. Nicholas Ave. Only one new station would be required, at Malcolm X Blvd, providing a connection with the 2-3 trains.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Transit</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Transit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=152#comment-18</guid>
		<description>During the planning phase, the Central Harlem community was rather negative on a westward extension down 125th Street which would at least reach the No. 2/3 trains at Lenox Ave.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During the planning phase, the Central Harlem community was rather negative on a westward extension down 125th Street which would at least reach the No. 2/3 trains at Lenox Ave.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thetransportpolitic</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>thetransportpolitic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=152#comment-17</guid>
		<description>The Harlem Valley shouldn&#039;t make a difference - after all, the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, A, B, C, and D lines all manage to get under it, so a 125th Street line would simply have to go under those other lines, which is perfectly feasible, though of course quite expensive...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Harlem Valley shouldn&#8217;t make a difference &#8211; after all, the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, A, B, C, and D lines all manage to get under it, so a 125th Street line would simply have to go under those other lines, which is perfectly feasible, though of course quite expensive&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: herenthere</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>herenthere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=152#comment-16</guid>
		<description>Also, I think the 125th St. Fault may play a role in not building a subway tunnel running along it...
but otherwise interesting thoughts!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, I think the 125th St. Fault may play a role in not building a subway tunnel running along it&#8230;<br />
but otherwise interesting thoughts!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: herenthere</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>herenthere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:14:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=152#comment-15</guid>
		<description>Correction: Phase III at 53 St will provide transfers to the 6 (51 St),E, and V lines (53/Lexington), not F. Plus, the 53 St station is not the most crushed of all stations, in my opinion. Try the Main St 7 during AM rush hour.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correction: Phase III at 53 St will provide transfers to the 6 (51 St),E, and V lines (53/Lexington), not F. Plus, the 53 St station is not the most crushed of all stations, in my opinion. Try the Main St 7 during AM rush hour.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
