Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been surfing the net, following construction of the new Dubai metro. They broke ground in 2006, and two lines are scheduled to open for service in 2009 and 2010.
This causes me to think about the Second Avenue subway. If ground is broken today, the word is that it won't be completed until 2030. And this, in turn, causes me to think about New York's original subway, the IRT. Ground was broken for it in 1900, and it opened to the public in 1904. They used picks and shovels (with only an occasional application of dynamite) to build the IRT.
Now we're in the 21st century. Dubai can propose, design, construct and open a metro system in thirteen years, start to finish. Once upon a time, New York did the same. But now it will take more than 20 years to open a new line. And not even a complete new line; the Second Avenue line was originally proposed to run up to Pelham Bay Park in The Bronx--taking over the #6 route--but has now been scaled back to a northern terminal at 125 Street.
If you open a history book, you'll find that the subway in New York might have opened a good ten years earlier than it did. The problem at the time was politicians. Finally, the people of this city took matters into their own hands, and starting voting anyone out of office who seemed to be part of the problem rather than the solution. I think we need a little application of history repeating itself!
If the 6 was meant to run on 2nd Avenue, that means either the 4 or 5 would've been local on Lex (more likely the 5, I'm sure) - which would be SO much better.
Either way, they've been trying to build the 2nd Avenue Subway for the last 60-some years if I'm not mistaken, but something always causes a roadblock: politics, NIMBYism, money, etc. I think the timeframe is so long due to all the underground utilities and properties that have to be reshuffled also.
I still have serious doubts this is going to get completed.
No, no, the #6 wasn't meant to run on Second Avenue. The new Second Avenue line was proposed to take over the Pelham route in The Bronx. This would probably mean that the 6 train would be operating only between 125 Street and Brooklyn Bridge. Service on the Lexington Avenue line would remain unchanged with that single exception. (You can't have a BMT and IRT route going through the same stations, because IRT cars are narrower, and there would be a dangerous gap between the train and the platform).
And if I'm not mistaken, the lines operating on Second Avenue would be a brand-new T line, and an extension of the Q above 57 Street.
While I have thoughts about new subway lines on my mind, I should mention what's known as "Phase II," a set of proposals dating from 1929 that would have doubled the size of the IND division (that was the city's own, municipally owned system--at a time when the IRT and BMT were privately held). Provisions for new lines were made, but when the Depression hit at the end of 1929, everything got shelved...
There was a plan for a new crosstown line; if you've ever taken the G train to the Bedford/Nostrand Avenue station and wondered about that mysterious center track...it was put there for a line that would've crossed Brooklyn, ascended to an el, and connected at Broadway with the modern M line out to Metropolitan Avenue.
One station from Phase II was actually built, at South 4 Street in Williamsburg. It was a complex, 6-track affair (very similar to Hoyt/Schermerhorn St. on the A and C lines) from which several new lines would have branched out across Brooklyn--one of which was the Utica Avenue line, which is still brought up from time to time.
You can't have a BMT and IRT route going through the same stations, because IRT cars are narrower, and there would be a dangerous gap between the train and the platform.
I prefer to think of them as the letter trains (BMT) and the number trains (IRT).
As far as the Q extension to 96th Street/2nd Avenue - I'm pretty sure that's going to get finished. It's the rest that I have my doubts about.
I have been surfing the net, following construction of the new Dubai metro. They broke ground in 2006, and two lines are scheduled to open for service in 2009 and 2010.
This causes me to think about the Second Avenue subway. If ground is broken today, the word is that it won't be completed until 2030. And this, in turn, causes me to think about New York's original subway, the IRT. Ground was broken for it in 1900, and it opened to the public in 1904. They used picks and shovels (with only an occasional application of dynamite) to build the IRT.
Now we're in the 21st century. Dubai can propose, design, construct and open a metro system in thirteen years, start to finish. Once upon a time, New York did the same. But now it will take more than 20 years to open a new line. And not even a complete new line; the Second Avenue line was originally proposed to run up to Pelham Bay Park in The Bronx--taking over the #6 route--but has now been scaled back to a northern terminal at 125 Street.
If you open a history book, you'll find that the subway in New York might have opened a good ten years earlier than it did. The problem at the time was politicians. Finally, the people of this city took matters into their own hands, and starting voting anyone out of office who seemed to be part of the problem rather than the solution. I think we need a little application of history repeating itself!
Today, it's all the red-tape, political-correctedness, and political BS causing all the delays. It's really a shame. Look at the World Trade Center rebuilding. It's pathetic.
A lot of it has to do with Environmental regulations. All large scale developments have to complete an environmental impact statement which can take forever. Then there is all of the added beauracracy on top of that (NIMBY'ism, bickering over the design, problems with supplies, problems with the unions, etc).
Look at the WTC center. Its been 7 years since it was knocked down and there is still no building up.
How long did it take to build the Empire State building? 1 year!
What would be most effective for the city in general would be to run the 2nd ave subway up 3rd ave in the bronx, where the elevated train once existed. As soon as they took that out and built the projects, land values went so low building owners could only profit by arson. but bring that subway up 3rd ave, and you'd have a wave of construction in one of the few underdeveloped parts of the city still remaining, putting more housing units on the market to supply the demand, and perhaps easing pressure on the overall housing market.
Now we're in the 21st century. Dubai can propose, design, construct and open a metro system in thirteen years, start to finish. Once upon a time, New York did the same.
Realize, though, that Dubai is a constitutional monarchy and flush with money, neither of which is the situation with New York. It's a lot easier to get things done when you basically own your country .....
A lot of it has to do with Environmental regulations. All large scale developments have to complete an environmental impact statement which can take forever. Then there is all of the added beauracracy on top of that (NIMBY'ism, bickering over the design, problems with supplies, problems with the unions, etc).
Look at the WTC center. Its been 7 years since it was knocked down and there is still no building up.
How long did it take to build the Empire State building? 1 year!
Absolutely right, Mead. I believe that, despite our advances in technology, it is now impossible to complete the giant engineering and construction projects that this country was able to achieve earlier in the 20th century. There are many examples, from the original construction of the subway system itself to things like the Hoover Dam and even the Interstate highway system.
Of course environmental regulations and worker safety issues are the big reason, so there is a good side to this. But NIMBY-ism and bureaucratic bungling certainly contribute.
There were 96 "industrial fatalities" during the construction of the Hoover Dam in the 30s. However, the exact number of the dead is unknown, because the construction company classified any person who died at the hospital as dying of "illness" allegedly unrelated to construction.
Can you imagine this happening today? In fact, today, the project would have never made it past the environmental impact phase.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
