Corridor Fixation and the Problems of Rigid Transit Design
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лют 2024
- Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/rmtransit-wh...
Sometimes it's better for subways to not stay on the same street (perhaps despite the route's name). Let's talk about corridor fixation and why that is a bad thing.
Support the Channel and Get Exclusive Content: / rmtransit
My Blog: reecemartin.ca
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Mastodon: mstdn.social/@RM_Transit
Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/rmtransit.bs...
Threads: www.threads.net/@rm_transit
Community Discord Server: / discord
Music from Epidemic Sound: share.epidemicsound.com/nptgfg
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
In Toronto I always get irritated that proposed Line 4 extensions always seem to want to keep going along Sheppard rather than diverting toward Scarborough Town Centre (as you once suggested). It's much more practical to go through a major centre rather than just fixating on keep along Sheppard.
For a second I thought you were against connecting to Sheppard West 😅
@@TheRandCrews Sheppard west is definitely essential, but by the same token, not sure running directly along Sheppard is the best approach, or at least not terminating at Sheppard West station since it would be much more useful at Downsview Park (GO connection) and Finch West (Line 6 connection).
Reece once made a neat suggestion to run directly across Sheppard to Sheppard West but then also run in alignment with Line 1 to Downsview Park and Finch West.
It should continue to sheppard-mccowan because: through-running line 2, future terminus of line 7 east eglinton
@@stoikiometry What is line 7?
@@davidreichert9392the crappy East Eglington LRT proposal
San Diego's Green Line has a diversion to serve SDSU. The transit agency originally wanted a freeway adjacent station but the university architect demanded a station at the main entrance. Ironically, building a tunnel for the diversion cost less than land acquisition costs for the freeway alignment.
I remembered when that extension opened. Truly a great call for that diversion.
@@TheLIRRFrenchie... The tunnel under SDSU is 4000 feet long. Three fourths of the tunnel is built by cut and cover and the remainder was built via NATM.
That’s a great example, and as you said it was actually *less expensive* than a more direct route.
1:31 THATS WHAT IM SAYING ALL THE TIME! im tired of waiting for the bus and/or walking 20 minutes just to take a 1 stop subway ride 😭
To be fair, the East Village can quickly and easily be accessed by bike, but I agree with you.
@@crowmob-yo6rythats never a good argument against ANY transit proposal
@@nicolasblume1046 As much as I love cycling (I use my bike for transport more often than public transit), I agree we still need more transit options.
It does seem odd to spend billions on a new subway through lower Manhattan and to just plonk it next to all the existing subways rather than serving the huge and obvious dead zone (that happens to be super dense!)
This also applies to CAHSR’s “train to nowhere”. Taking a longer route through the Central Valley helps connect all the major population centers of California with minimal time loss for the busy SF to LA route.
Also, opponents don't understand that Central Valley has more than 7 million Californians living there and they too deserve HSR like other Californians at coastal cities.
It's also much easier to build that route
It's always funny when America's "nowhere" is more populous and dense than my entire country.
@@alistairlee7604no they don’t, central valley sucks
@@alistairlee7604 👍Even though they are not as populated as other parts of the state, there are still millions of people in the Central Valley. Sorry Redding, maybe someday.
Thank you for labelling your B-roll! It's much better seeing where they are.
I’m happy you noticed!
New York really desperately needs an uptown cross-Manhattan connection. I used to live at the northern terminus of the 1, which runs down the west side of Manhattan. I have some friends who live on the upper east side. It was a huge pain to get there by subway because I’d have to go down to 42nd, take the shuttle, then take one of the east side lines back up. I now live in New Jersey, and it takes the same amount of time to get to the Upper East by train as it did when I lived in the city, and with the same number of transfers.
Yes, I agree that an uptown crosstown option is sorely lacking, such as a 125th St Shuttle train that would connect the red, blue orange and green lines as a free transfer
Aren't there plans to extend the 2nd ave subway to all the 125th street stations across uptown?
@@nicolasblume1046 pretty sure i heard hochul mention this
just take a bus lol
@@mosaloquendo Well, that too
This remind of the arguments of Indonesian high speed rail route. People questioning why the route doesn't goes straight from Jakarta to Surabaya instead taking detour to other cities like Bandung and Yogyakarta, which make the route more like a zig zag than a straight line. While the straight route might faster than zig-zag, it will have lower passenger potential as the route has lower migration of people compared to the cities on the more detoured route. High speed train main selling point are indeed the speed but if it's the only goal to achieve than airplane already do that for a long time. The benefit of high speed train is to serve more people than the airplane so it necessary to making route that connect many cities with high mobility.
I am not sure of the indonesian geography but is it unfeasible to have an alternate line that intersects with the main line going through the said cities?
@@whynotsa6866The section from Jakarta to Bandung already built and yes it has geography difficulty as it goes through the hilly area but it's still managable. For the continuation plan, the line will goes slight to the north to the Cirebon city and goes south again to the Yogyakarta and then Surabaya, hence it's shaped zig-zag. The section from Yogyakarta to Surabaya are mostly flat land so it's very possible to buil high speed railway there.
Plus a fast line can zig and zag pretty quickly!
Isn't Indonesia getting a new Capital city? You guys have a chance to build a great city transport network from scratch. Hope it'll be a good one.
@@jpaulc441 There is a plan to built Railway from IKN (the new state capital city) to Balikpapan, largest city near the new capital city. Not HSR since it's still pretty close but it possibly use 1435mm gauge railway with decent loading gauge.
Unfotnately no plan for metro system yet inside the capital city. Although, there is planned BRT system for starter project as the population on the city are still low. Note that the capital are projected as for government worker only so the projected population are not so big, hence BRT are considered enough for the starter.
Corridor fixation seems to apply with the CAHSR project, especially those people who have consistently pushed to build the line from LA directly to Bakersfield through I-5, all because "SNCF said so".
Somehow the new Brightline West project just showed how crucial Palmdale is to the CAHSR project. It isn't just because of politics.
I mean it’s possible to go the other way, because if your corridor meanders so much that it misses or isn’t extended to the most important network nodes then those meanders had a huge price.
sncf doesnt even build straight corridors that miss major population centers themselves
SNCF? In France? It's funny because Eurostar is the French high-speed railway that focuses mainly on connecting major cities in straight corridors. I love Eurostar, but other high-speed railways make intermediate stops for a reason.
honestly considering how much Cali is struggling to build HSR, maybe a little bit more listening to SNCF, actual railroad men would've been better in the long run, and the Central Valley could've been saved for a second line, just saying.
The biggest issue with CAHSR is that they're not starting with the low-hanging fruit to generate ridership, which would be an LA to San Diego route. Nor are they starting with the expensive but crucial route, which would be LA to San Francisco. They're starting with Merced to Bakersfield when even an LA to Bakersfield line would be more useful. Be it I-5 or existing freight ROW, that step should have been phase-2 at the earliest unless they were going to do the full line from LA to SF.
Thank you for this! I'm an Alphabet City native born and raised and I couldn't have said this better myself! Keep up the excellent work! I LOVE IT!!!!
Thank you! Alphabet City should have a subway!
I know this guy 😉
Even the original Second Avenue Elevated had a similar diversion! Though not quite as far east, it went down 1st street south of 23rd street after running east for an additional block
Great look at ridership tradeoffs - you might like "Last Subway" by Philip Plotch if you haven't read it already. Really digs deep into the political machinations behind the 2nd ave subway and factors influencing the alignment (among other things) e.g. pressure to get rid of the 2nd ave el / accommodate more cars / blatant redlining. Also didn't know that fact about the Ontario Line dipping down to Corktown :)
With regards to the Second Ave subway, there may well be a very good reason to remain on Second Ave. That part of lower Manhattan is full of tall bulidings with support structures that go deep enough to make it virtually impossible for a train to pass underneath. Diverting the SAS off the street and under buildings would almost certainly require buying and demolishing several high rises, which would massive increase construction costs.
You can basically always bore deeper to solve that issue, although station depth might become an issue at some point. But the section that would benefit from a diversion (East Village and Lower East Side) is comparatively low rise, you can definitely find a route there that doesn't go under huge skyscrapers.
On the northern end, the line should continue under the Harlem River into the Bronx, onto 3rd Avenue to be eventually elevated all the way to Co-op City. From there, westbound to the present 205th street terminal.
The Lower East side isn’t midtown so I don’t expect foundation depth to be a critical issue
@@Squizie3 you're not wrong. But I think there's a delicate balance between picking the optimal route and making the stations easily accessible. I don't know how much of an advantage a 2 block deviation would make if it means getting to the platforms requires a several minute long vertigo inducing escalator ride like at Hudson Yards.
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x Why not just extend the D? Its last stop is closer to Co-op City than lex/125th is, and extending it to CC would create a decent cross Bronx. And if we're expanding the SAS out of Manhattan, I think connecting to Fulton Ave. Local in Brooklyn probably makes the most sense.
Corridor fixation also focus the majority of transit on covering the entire corridor, because it's the obvious choice, as if it were the path of least resistance. With time, this makes easy to go from one place to another if it's on the same corridor, but to another corridor is quite difficult.
Also, in grid cities corridor fixation can create another issue: parallel lines, i.e. lines that don't have a connection between them, forcing people to change trains twice to go from one to the other.
And here in Buenos Aires, our local zoning laws (which focus density on avenues) create long and dense corridors, perfect for corridor fixation. Even fanmade extension projects for our subway are guilty of corridor fixation, mainly to reach our peripheric avenue/highway (which is also the city limit), as if it were the natural thing to do.
One of the reasons the West Hollywood routing will work is because the Pink Line K extension in southern California would connect the Red Line B subway in the North with both the Purple Line D subway and the Gold Line E light-rail system in the South.
The Pink Line K will be used mostly for transfers to and from other lines.
K doesn’t connect directly with L.A. Union Station.
Why do the lines have colors AND letters? Just pick one.
@@B3Band Because it still helps to differenciate individual services on a map. It is more unusual to use both names and colours, though.
L.A. Metro used to only use colors. After the completion of the Regional Connector a few months ago, parts of the Gold Line are now part of the Blue Line, and parts of the Expo Line are now part of the Gold Line. So, the letters are being used to help people keep everything straight in their heads.
I honestly think the "second ave line" or "broadway line" jargon that NYC subway stans use is itself a big problem and an unfortunate holdover from the old elevated lines. Normal people don't care what street the subway runs under, they care about where the stations are as you said.
Regarding the crenshaw i prefer the alignment that sort of "splits the difference between the direct route on la brea and the really circuitous west Hollywood alignment. The Fairfax only alignment onlu adds 3 mins and hits more destination and its a bit closer to the activity centers in West Hollywood.
The other part that about the route to West Hollywood is that it hits the job and activity centers that folks on the Red and Purple Line will transfer to. So though a bit circuitous it makes the most of the route to serve the right spots.
As an example of getting rid of corridor fixation, previously we had a bus line in South Limburg that went from Eigenbilzen south to Mopertingen, then turning west to Bilzen and Hasselt via the N2. It went the whole way on the N2 until the big ring of Hasselt, while it might have made more sense to instead serve Diepenbeek University. Now that they have extended the line to Lanaken, they also diverted it to go via Diepenbeek University, and let a lot less frequent and less used bus take the direct route
And a clear example where they (sensibly!) diverted from their own guidelines, which wanted to minimise the meandering bus lines of the previous plan. In other places, villages just off the main road were on the contrary cut off, to theoretically shave 2-5 minutes from the schedule, but in reality has the bus stuck in traffic on the main road, while the villagers now have to walk a km or more to a bus stop...
You should add context to where you are! I think keeping the other service is great, because it eliminates an argument about “missing” a corridor, if the ridership is low that route can be trimmed!
@@RMTransit Belgium, Flanders. The Flemish transport company underwent a major change this year, under the (mis)nomer Basisbereikbaarheid, or Basic Accessibility. Its predecessor, Basismobiliteit (you can work that out...) focused too hard on giving almost everyone a bus stop at a maximum distance from their home, which resulted in a very disparate service with lots of winding services. Basisbereikbaarheid's stated goals are to strengthen the main corridors, giving those a minimum frequency of 2/h, and integrating other forms of mobility and adding MaaS (the new buzzword), such as shared cabs and even bike share systems. The major flaw is that they had to work with basically the same funds as before, so other lines were cut, sometimes without any alternative, and after many years of cutbacks, and the new network was designed by consultants who often did not have the knowledge, leading local politicians who had never had this responsibility before...
Yes, I'm very critical of Basisbereikbaarheid.
Funny to read something so oddly specific like this in an otherwise very international audience, but knowing exactly what it is about. I somehow as a student managed to introduce a whole new bus line (363) into that plan which is now up and running, basically on the route here described as the 'lot less frequent' one. It finally provides bus coverage on sunday evenings specifically when students go to their dorms, as before there was almost none.
@@Squizie3 da's goed werk, dan. Maar ik merk toch dat het een erg gemengd beeld is dat BaBe geeft. Zeker, sommige reizigers gaan erop vooruit, maar daar hebben de reizigers die nu soms terugvallen op niks weinig aan, natuurlijk. Sowieso vind ik het corridordenken toch wel wat doorgeslagen, met voorbeelden als Rijmenam, delen van Itterbeek en Gaasbeek of nog Moerzeke (en zeker gehucht Bazel) die decennialang minstens elk uur een bus hadden, en nu terugvallen op vraagafhankelijk vervoer of zelfs niks...
Yeah, I'm a transit advocate in Flanders, and while I don't wont to torch the whole thing, there are some good ideas in it, but I'm not convinced by the implementation, and corridor thinking plays a huge role in this as well. The examples I gave are very specific and maybe not interesting for the international audience, but if not, it's probably not hard to use Google Translate or something.
In Warsaw the priority is to connect major transport nodes and destinations. If you look at the M2 line on a map, it looks like its middle section is taking a giant detour to the south, but in doing so it manages to connect:
- a huge residential area
- a suburban rail station
- the stadium
- the city's biggest university's main campus (you actually have to walk bout 400m to get there)
- an important east-west street that does NOT have a tram line
- another major residential area that used to be poorly connected because of the city's layout (there are things you can't ride through, e.g. an airport and a few cemeteries).
M1 does a bit of that, too. Going from the north, after it reaches Politechnika (i.e. the technical university - the second largest university in Warsaw), it kind of skips from one corridor to another, but that's because in that other corridor there's a station called Pole Mokotowskie. The name refers to the neighbouring large recreational area, which is fairly unique in its own right, but also in the same spot there's the SGH, i.e. Warsaw's third-largest university. I think you can see the pattern.
I think metro routes should be designed around serving high demand areas over a corridor itself. BRT and Trams do a better job of directly serving a corridor as they're directly street facing with tighter station spacing. What's irritating is that the MTA wants to serve corridors with metro and major locations and transfer points with LRT instead of the other way around.
Yes, once you are grade separated (especially in tunnel) there is far less reason to stick to one route!
Yes! You pronounced HOUSE-ton street correctly! Yay!!! 🙂
Unless you're in Texas.
Also, in LA you drive on a Rodeo; but in Texas a Rodeo is an event.
@@johnclement5903 And the words are accented differently and I don't mean with a Texas accent.
I just kinda wish Houstoun is spelled to its older name, so that we can differentiate Houston and Houstoun from each other.
France seems to have taken this on board, especially in Rennes and Toulouse - the metros both meander around to serve different neighbourhoods and locations, but because the metros are so much quicker than any alternative they are still competitive time-wise
Older London Underground lines did follow the streets above, at least as they were when they were dug out, and that is why they meander around a lot.
There is a very small section of the Northern City Line that doesn't [it used to be part of the Underground], but otherwise it wasn't until the central section of the Jubilee Line and the Victoria Line that they started to deviate from the above-ground street plan.
But wasn't that mostly to get Jago Hazzard's best friend* from having to pay easements to the property owners?
(Charles Tyson Yerkes of course)
@@WerewolfLord Mostly yes. Though it should be pointed out that the Central London Railway (Central Line), and City & South London Railway (Northern Line) weren't built by Yerkes, and also followed the street above.
Much better title then before. This one really grabbed my attention more "Corridor Fixation and the Problems of Rigid Transit Design"
The best metric for judging the value of a route diversion is the aggregate time saved by all users. So for example, if a diversion adds one minute travel for 100k riders but saves eleven minutes walking for 10k riders, then it's a net positive in overall time saved and thus worthy of consideration. Extra points if the diversion connects to a transfer hub, where the time savings become exponential over the entire network, and where missed or long connections can dramatically suppress potential ridership, as is the case for SAS.
Meanwhile the Lexington Avenue line hits 12 stations in Manhattan (Bowling Green through 33rd Street) before it actually reaches Lexington Avenue. It even starts out following Broadway, which has two different lines nominally follow it as you go farther uptown, not to mention another “uncredited” one farther uptown still. Referencing streets in generally describing rapid transit corridors can be helpful, but if that reference locks you into a limited view in the planning stage, it’s no longer working for you; you’re working for it.
They gotta decide if the train is serving people, or serving a street
Technically, it is Broadway, then Park Avenue South, then Park Avenue, then Lexington. Actually, the reason why the IRT western and eastern lines are called "7th Avenue" and "Lexington Avenue" respectively is because those are the streets the lines went when the "H" system was made, diverging from the original IRT subway.
Reese, I have to say, your argumentative logic is some of the best I've heard on UA-cam. More transit authorities need to watch these.
One of Londons best features is the Overground orbital railway, it means that you don’t have to go into the centre for many journeys, making it faster and less crowded. It was also the first service to recover its ridership numbers after COVID as it doesn’t depend on mainly commuter traffic.
Perhaps in the future NYC could run a branch route off of the 2nd Ave corridor that covers the underserved Lower East side neighborhoods.
I think that the M2 in Warsaw is a good example of a line that balances following existing corridors and going off of them to have good coverage
Now that I think about it M1 does it well too
As a tourist I like metro lines that run along an important street, because such a line allows me to walk as long as I want and then I can be sure that there will soon be another stop. For example the Blue Line in Bangkok has nine stops along a stretch of more than nine kilometres along the main north-south road. Another good example is the metro line along Wilshire Boulevard, which will sooner or later be extended all the way to the ocean. A 25 kilometre line below a single road through several cities.
Or just have two 2Ave corridors one going to Manhattan Bridge and Nassau st subway and one to lower east side. The original intent of 1939 plan
I really like the point about the 2nd av subway. What about the desire to move diagonally? One of the big problems with Toronto is that I often want to go in a diagonal direction, making the subway really awkward and time consuming. Also, since the roads already go along the 'corridors' it is easy to get people moving along them. Subways can better ignore these issues. This is less of a problem with Manhattan because so much of the distance traffic is north/south, but a bigger one with places like toronto.
I think Montreal absolutely has this problem with the Souligny corridor in Tétraultville. Sure it looks like a nice old rail track on paper but in practice it's bookended by industrial land and hard to connect to anything on either end. But city seems to want to whack its head against it to try run a tram there anyway
5:29 To a similar effect, the high speed rail stations in china are frequently located outside the main city, similar to airports, because its cheaper and faster to build it out there, even if it serves the city less effectively.
I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is a similar choice I think, sometimes its hard to get approval for a project that puts the downtown on detours compared to developing otherwise underutilized land.
one of the best examples of this done well is phase 3 of the jakarta mrt. although it has a lot of other problems, the government really went out of their way to avoid corridor fixation.
You can also not set up a line for extension and then still do it. Always fun to see new people panic in Blankenese (Hamburg) when the S-Bahn exits the terminus in the "wrong" direction to continue on the line.
How would diverting to the east like that affect the cost? In particular, right of way acquisition is "free" under 2nd avenue, but swinging to the east means tunneling under existing buildings and paying the owner of said buildings for the right of way.
To be clear, I think the argument for swinging east is a good one, but I'm curious how it changes the economics of the project. I can easily imagine both "insignificant relative to overall project cost" and "cost prohibitive" as potential answers in a city like New York.
I mean, I think the idea that it is "free" or even especially low cost under 2nd is wishful thinking!
Would love to see a video on Lisbon's circle line!
My hometown St Louis has been going back and forth for far too long with corridor fixation while trying to plan the North/South City Line to the Metrolink LRT... for 25 years in fact. But a lot of it had not only to do with focusing on a few street alignments, but also the changing demographics of the region as well as planned developments in and around those areas-- none of which were effectively working together until the last 5 years.
Reece, if possible, please point me to a video that discusses this aspect of transit planning and the foolishness that ensues when the various agencies that surround urban development in any given region aren't on the same page. In this case it stalled getting shovels in the ground for nearly 2 generations. In some others, things got built on the assumption all ducks were in a row with the other agencies, but 25 years later, nothing happened, and they've painted themselves into a corner. A good example of this include MARTA's Indian Creek station, the end point of East Rail line that's currently just a oark+ride lot exit off I-285 with no real connection to the area it's actually in. It should've followed either I-20 or Memorial Drive to the south or CSX rail tracks and Ponce De Leon Av to the north in order to serve the actual neighborhoods in the area and also have a way to go further eastward into the ever-expanding sprawl of Atlanta suburbs.
We definitely need the second avenue subway to better cover the LES - it’s really densely populated and will see a bunch of new development (and hopefully even more if they tear down the FDR like the West Side Highway). I used to go to the track there since it was the only one in the whole area, and the 20 minute walk to an from the subway was always brutal - I can’t imagine what it’s like to actually commute from there.
any comment on Philadelphia's long discussed Roosevelt blvd extension?
This extension is long overdue. It is a no brainer that it would better serve the northeast area of Philadelphia. With coordinated bus services feeding the subway it could carry large crowds just like the Market street portion of the Market- Frankford El does in west Philadelphia.
In the case of lightrail and buses it also causes congestion. One road local to me is a semi-major bus corridor into my town despite the road they go down being no bigger than a two lane side street, with parking mind you. I remmeber a few years ago there was a bus jam which took several minutes to clear and a few parked cars were damaged too.
The funny thing is the road parallel to it less than 300m away is an 'A road', the equivalent of a two lane highway, which has way more room for a bus corridor but only has 1 bus that travels along it which runs every 15 mins. The council doesn't want to put more buses on that road because of "pollution", even though the problem is way worse on the tighter corridor.
i think the elizabeth line is a great example of this. there are portions of the new tunnels which follow existing corridors, such as the old north london line tracks in silvertown or the metropolitan around farringdon. however at the end of the day, it’s been built to just generally get from paddington to liverpool street east west. it runs under parks, and docks, and off the street grid. even when following oxford street it travels slightly south, something you’d only ever notice looking at a geographical map.
I must preface this with the fact that I’m a subway conductor:
“The worst problem is taking the second Avenue subway off second avenue”…
No, I would say the worst part of this idea is removing the transfer at Grand Street to the B and D.
This plan would basically be isolating the lower half of the SAS from a direct transfer to trains covering a large section of southern Brooklyn…
For… almost nothing as there are no plans to build any other stations in that section.
Also, I know it’s hard to tell, but the platforms on the L at third avenue run all the way back to second avenue, so the planned transfer there is actually not that inconvenient as it would seem, as it would literally be just a couple of flights of stairs worth of distance up to the L platforms from the T platforms.
In theory, much like how First Avenue got an exit at Avenue A, Third Avenue could have an exit at Second Avenue, SAS or not.
Agreed, diversion would be good for downtown for the SAS. Also, they will be doing cut and cover for some portions of the Harlem extension.
Glad you mentioned the Los Angeles West Hollywood line. It doesn't make any sense considering the line used to run La Cienega (the street that curves NW to E) while the current proposed line mostly bypasses the original route, largely due to pressure from WeHo politicians to have station(s) in their city, that they'll help fund the project.
As someone who used to live in the East Village/Stuytown area, it really is a transit desert for such a central part of Manhattan. At the time I could walk to work easily but getting anywhere else in the city usually meant a 15-20 minute walk to Union Square to even get a train.
interesting video. love your content :))
Amsterdam had just this obsession with the route of the Noord/Zuidlijn. It follows the city's street pattern - despite being deep level. The line for some reason had to be 'fast', so it has fewer stops per kilometer than previous lines. Resulting in the construction of a tram line following the exact same route to serve areas the metro doesn't. But, due to budget cuts, part of this tram route has been suspended - just two (!) years after it opened. Which does make sense, because they compete with eachother for the same passengers. Meanwhile, the metro bypasses the Leidseplein area, a major tram node and cultural and shopping hotspot. Making the final result far less useful than it could have been.
I’m happy to live in WMATA territory, where we definitely don’t have this problem. The Blue Line goes from being an east-west line to being a north-south line for a couple miles, and then goes back to being an east-west line again. And the Silver Line quite happily goes out of its way to thoroughly serve Tyson’s Corner.
Bending the 2av subway into east village totally makes sense, with development opportunities east of Tompkins square.
Going uptown though, I would suggest that the M125/M60 are more than adequate to shuttle people crosstown and into Queens. The new subway needs to extend into the Bronx and connect more outer borough neighborhoods to jobs.
The problem with the diversions you propose is that any turn below private property (especially with high rise buildings) could be legally, financialy and technologicaly difficult. That's one big argument for straight lines.
You had me until you proposed the cup handle. The line is already gonna be slow enough due to being two tracks, why add more time? The MTA already studied that back in the 70s. Adding billions to a project to add a few minutes on a line designed to benefit more people than the entire WMATA daily ridership so Alphabet City can get direct access would be a crime. Especially when The Bronx needs the resources far more. It would make more sense to buff the bus services in the area. There is plenty of capacity on that front. Both in service and street design.
While I get your point, it neglects the primary purpose of Second Avenue. To relieve pressure off the East Side IRT. That purpose is why I have an issue with it ending at Lex and 125th instead of the more sensible 3rd and 149th in the Bronx. Providing a much better transfer that benefits more people and since it wouldn't need to be as deep, would save money. Those savings would go to an immersed tunnel under the Harlem River. The location would not only guarantee The Bronx two future lines, but properly relieves not only the 4/5/6, but the 2 and D services as well. And that would become even more true of the line got extended further to Fordham (with a branch to the Southeast Bronx to maximize relief for the 6) I'm starting to ramble, but my point is, that cuphandle isn't needed in the grander scheme.
What we SHOULD be focusing on is bullying the MTA into sending it straight to The Bronx. There are far more benefits there than servicing 125th. Another area where, with some redesigns of 123rd-126th Streets and buffing bus services, the needed transport capacity could be achieved that way.
There are enough things wrong with Second Avenue. Please don't propose more lol
The thing is, those studies in the 70's are 50 years old at this point and out of touch with all the development that has happened in Alphabet City. The area used to be one of the poorest and disenfranchised sections of manhattan (which I'd argue is one of the reasons transit never came back as promised when the 2nd and 3rd Av elevateds were torn down in the '50s). In 2024, it's basically one of the most gentrified in the whole City. Putting two stations on that side of town would also help cut costs possibly because now there won't need to be any complex threading of tunnels under existing subways and connections around W 4 St and Houston St meaning the total system gets built that much faster to boot.
What the MTA should do is build cut and cover stations first and then dig or bore the tunnels out starting from the first and last stations. Phase 3 should start from the abandoned tunnel shells of Houston Street and then go north, but the tunnels shouldn't b spaced out like Phase One cuz keeping em together avoids destruction of buildings and infrastructure.
You do realize that there are more than enough lines in the Bronx, right? That part of 3rd Avenue in the Bronx is already taken by the Metro-North (yeah I know it is Park Avenue, but it is one avenue apart). The best way to tackle that is regional rail, to improve frequencies on the local tracks. The reason why a 125th Street extension is much better is because it allows connections to vital lines on the West Side (Lenox Ave, Central Park West, and Bronx Broadway). Now, if you want an actual Bronx extension for the SAS, send the T to Throgs Neck, at least it serves a new corridor.
@@shadowmamba95 You are absolutely wrong. Have you BEEN to The Bronx? Metro-North is NOT a replacement for rapid transit service in one of the poorest congressional districts in the United States. Then, you have the crosstown buses that are overloaded because people are trying to get from the central Bronx to either Concourse, Jerome, or White Plains Road. A Third Avenue line would replace the long gone Elevated line and fill a large gap on North-South service.
Not only would it relieve every crosstown bus below Fordham (unless extended via Burke or Allerton to Co-Op City, in which case, it would benefit every bus up to Gun Hill), but the 2, 4, 5, and D services because people won't have to use them. Instead, they could use the new line. Resources that would have been spent shuttling absurd numbers of people to the subway can now be better distributed to increase bus services elsewhere in the borough.
Then, there's a possible Southeast Bronx Line. Splitting off at 163rd, it would run via Lafayette Avenue to at least Castle Hill Avenue to maximize relief for the 6. This would, again, reduce crowds on buses like the Bx5 and give residents who are, at current, a good mile from the Pelham Line a new rapid transit option.
And you want us to choose between the two for 125th Street? An area that can, with the reconfiguring of every street from 124th-126th Streets, be served by buses. Most passengers are not actually passing through, but are instead, ending their trips there to shop and other recreation. It's one thing I always noticed riding any of the M1xx bus routes.
The offramps of the Triboro Bridge also make that easier than you'd think.
It really is crazy to me that people really think serving 125th would be more beneficial than taking the whole thing to The Bronx. I truly do think the only people who believe that, are those who don't spend significant amounts of time up there.
The Bronx NEEDS this. The 125th Street Terminal was born out of political fears. Not because it was the most sensible option. Times have changed since 1992 (when this SAS iteration was thought up) and it bothers me not a soul has proposed it.
If you want to know more, read Last Subway by Philip Plotch. 125th and Lex is a terrible idea. ESPECIALLY for the cost.
We also haven't considered how this would factor into our desperate need for more housing. The Bronx has plenty of space, especially in its portions south of the Pelham Line. Two new lines would facilitate more development which, if built fast enough (we need 500,000 units right NOW, so imagine how one generation from now will look), could stabilize prices.
Though, considering what happened to QueensLink, I have no faith in our governments to properly serve the Outer boroughs.
@@starrwulfe Buildings don't merely sit on the ground.
Here I thought you were going to advocate for an extension of the Second Avenue Subway to the Bronx. Which is honestly needed, especially to alleviate some ridership off of the IRT lines in the Bx. But I do like your idea of a slight deviation of the SAS in Lower Manhattan, it would definitely bring the subway alot closer for alot of people in those areas.
You can imagine rapid transit like a highway for pedestrians, stations being the ramps to the highway. That way it becomes much clearer that stations don't necessarily need to be exactly where stuff is, they're also a way to serve broader areas.
Would you say there is some Corridor Fixation with the Hazel McCallion line? To me there are some spots along the route where deviating from Hurontario would better serve some people that are actually more likely to make use of transit if it was there, for example south of Burnhamthorpe.
There is frankly a ton of corridor fixation with most Toronto area light rail projects
oh 100%. it's why the line through brampton was cancelled. brampton didn't want it through main street and metrolinx didn't want to divert it
If speed was truly a concern on the SAS, they would have quad tracked it.
Still can be done south of 63st
Agreed but it would be conterintuive. When the current plan is finished, we would have two trains running north of 63rd, possibly all the way to 125, meaning capacity is going to be cut in half. If we build quad section south of 63rd, that would put three different trains on one trunkline (and knowing NYC that means we're looking at additional headways of 15-20 minutes during off peak lmfao). Additionally, they would have to build a junction for the V (the express) to merge with the T before the junction where the Q merges with the T, sounds like a mess waiting to happen, unfortunately.@@williamerazo3921
2:58
Perhaps this advocate for "better tradeoffs" could be explain in impossible triangle. No any city in the world could avoid "choose two out of three" situation.
So if there is impossible triangle in transit engineering, what would be that look like?
Cost vs Service vs Time?
I live in Manhattan, north of the west end of the 7 line, west of the blue line, and south of the part of the red line that goes to the upper west side. About in the middle of it. I very rarely use the subway because there just isn't any line that serves near enough to where I live. Even though the 2nd avenue line wouldn't affect me, as I'm all the way over by 10th, I personally think it makes more sense to bring the line over toward the underserved neighborhoods in lower Manhattan, since it would get people who live or work there to ride the subway more. I know if a subway line was built closer to me, I'd ride the subway more. I also really like the idea of it going cross town at the norther part. The times I do take the subway, it's on the E train, not north/south, but because it can get me to 49th and 8th, from over on the East side at around 52nd and 3rd, despite the "reason" it goes over to the east side from 8th avenue actually to be bringing riders from lower Manhattan, along 8th avenue, and then over east into Queens. I just use it as a "crosstown" train that is more reliable than the bus (which is a whole other can of worms, because it runs so infrequently and unreliably that it's not even worth waiting for, especially with no seating and in the freezing cold).
Hey Reece, thanks for the informative video!
I was wondering what your thoughts were on the Nottingham public transport network, particularly its trams. Nottingham is one of the best places in the UK to travel around with no car despite only being the 9th most populated urban area. It would be interesting to learn about how they achieved this. Thank you!
if you trick underground anyway you should take advatage and be perpendicular the street layout. surface transport like trams and buses can follow the streets.
I'll have to watch out for this. Within my lifetime we will likely build the "41st Avenue Skytrain" in Vancouver, but the best route would likely be a 49th Avenue extension of the future North Shore Line that eventually diverts up to 41st Avenue.
Metro Barcelona takes the indirect route to the extreme.
Copenhagen Cityringen too
What would you think of a "connect the dits" approach? You think of everywhere you want transit to be and connect the dots.
there are proposals to extend SAS onto 3 av in the bronx following the route the former 8 train took in order to relieve service on tha Bx41. unfortunately we all know that tha speed tha MTA is goin at we prolly wont see that in our lifetimes. great vid as always tho🔥🔥
Btw, that's a MUCH BETTER idea than that horrible westward curve on 125th street!
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x
Uh, I would not say so, given the price. I know why it is popular now, which is to right a wrong, but building a whole new 3rd Avenue subway would cost around $10B dollars based on Phase 1 SAS costs, and this is not considering Phase 2, which is more expensive for the same mileage. Even if the line is elevated, it would still cost around $3B dollars, and good luck trying to find the perfect area to build a portal from the subway to above ground, which could add up to the costs. Also, the 125th Street extension is not horrible, especially when you are talking about 125th Street, a messy bus corridor, and extending it westward would provide vital connections to the other north-south lines in the system, especially those on the West Side of Manhattan.
This is why we should implement regional rail into Metro-North instead, which can be done way quicker, less costly (less than $1B), and provide nearly the same purpose as a whole 3rd Avenue subway. The most we need to dig would be new infill stations at 149th Street (connect to the White Plains Road and Jerome Avenue Lines), 168th Street, Claremont Parkway, and 183rd Street. A local line from GCT to Wakefield would be the route, and this would also help reduce fare prices to below $3 since you are not going inter-region.
Also, there are other priorities the Bronx has to deal with too, one of which is deinterlining a heavily interlined IRT network in the Bronx. This would involve rebuilding 135th Street/Lenox Avenue to create a shuttle from 135th to Lenox Terminal, sending the 3 to Dyre Avenue, sending the 5 to Jerome Avenue, rebuilding Westchester Square and so on. After which, extensions like the 1 to 261st Street and the 6 to Co Op City is also needed too.
Only then, if demand calls for another line, we can turn the 125th Street Harlem line into a shuttle and let the SAS serve the Bronx, but it should not be all the way to Gun Hill Road since regional rail will get that corridor covered. Instead, after 161st Street - 3rd Avenue, it will turn east to serve Throgs Neck, one of the last transit desert in the Bronx, and that should be about it.
Listen, I get, 3rd Avenue in the Bronx is quite popular for railfans, I myself thought of doing that for my own proposals. But when other factors come to play (125th Street being the perfect Harlem connector, costs from regional rail vs new line, etc.), it is probably best to relook at your proposals.
this channel aligns with my OCD very well. Thanks Reece!
I mean, corridor fixation has been a thing for 160 years. The London Underground followed the streets for the most part for it’s first few decades, because ripping up the street and building the tunnel, then covering it back up, was preferable to building under buildings, potentially facing lawsuits and paying those owners. Also may not be the most stable thing, having a tunnel only 30 or so feet below buildings. But yes, this can be an issue, but with gridded cities, unless you think that transit agency wants to spend even more on tunneling to hop from one street to another, then it is unlikely that something like Second Ave will get turned slightly to the east
Corridor fixation is probably the main principle to build the metro lines in Bangkok. Most if not all of the above-ground sections just go along the major roads which already have bus services. Basically, in some parts, they only serve as the bus alternatives for some trips such as Saphan Mai to Victory Monument, Phra Khanong to Samrong, Lat Phrao to Bang Kapi, or Rangsit to Lak Si which already have bus or omnibus services.
While it was easier to deal with payouts when building lines because building along the road would not have to move some people out of the way, the newly built metro lines would just serve the area that have already been served by buses. The small towns at the termini such as Khu Khot or Khlong Bang Phai may have some connections to inner Bangkok, but the areas like Sai Mai or Nong Chok may have to rely on feeders to get such connections.
When you look at the MTA's subway map it looks like the area below 14th St the 2nd Ave subway ("T") runs down the middle of a currently unserved area. Of course, the MTA map is not to scale. If you look at a real map of Manhattan, as you have, you see how far 2nd Ave is from Avenues A to D and the East River. My concern is about the T line is that there are large gaps. Between 55th St and 72nd ST is .85 miles / 1.37 km and between 14th St and Houston is .7 miles / 1.1 km.
Barcelona L9/10 South comes to mind in terms of excessive detouring. But then again I'm not sure they had other options for a line serving more than just the airport.
I sometimes wonder whether it makes sense to have a tram route be diverted to catch more local riders when a metro line is built parallel to the tram route.
A good example where a corridor fixation is avoided is the end of the U1 in Frankfurt. In contrast to the other A line branches, its exclusive portion is nearly fully grade separated and what helps is the expressway Rosa-Luxemburg-Straße which provides a direct connection between Nordweststadt/Heddernheim and Ginnheim. However, a tunnel is built directly below the nearby shopping centre and only then the tracks go in the middle of the expressway. More expensive but ultimately better for visitors.
The LA K Line Phase 2 segment looks weird but taking it up to West Hollywood via San Vicente and Fairfax would be a definite boon and allow it to service major areas like Cedars-Sinai hospital, Pacific Design Center, the Beverly Center & The Grove - in addition to giving West Hollywood, Hollywood, and Beverly Grove a one-seat ride to LAX.
The city of West Hollywood has been lobbying hard for metro service along the San Vicente / Fairfax alignment and has even offered to kick some money in for the project. Should West Hollywood probably have it’s own separate line? Probably, but reality is that that isn’t in the cards and so the K line extension is the best chance to bring rail service to WeHo.
The idea of the 2nd Avenue Subway has always been to act as a relief valve for the Lexington Avenue line. So having it a slide so far east after 14th Street wouldn’t help the 456 in crowded downtown. (Ask a bunch of people where “downtown” begins and you’ll get a bunch of answers.)
I do think they need to build the T (or Q) all the way to Broadway and 125th street to connect a bunch of lines uptown together. Provisions for extensions to the Bronx and Brooklyn (it seems Red Hook would be the area that would get the T.)
But the congestion is really worst on the upper east side, not in lower manhattan!
There are two issues about that diversion into Alphabet City... one is NYC's geology and all the buried infrastructure. The second and most important would be the necessity of obtaining (and paying for...) easements under buildings for the deviation, which would hike costs significantly. Better to stick to 2nd Ave. and provide a free circulator bus to serve these areas.
This is why NYC's bus network redesigns have been so problematic. The MTA seems to be fixated on "straightening" bus routes, which has resulted in the creation of new transit deserts in already disadvantaged areas. Combined with the elimination of thousands of bus stops (which disproportionately affects seniors, people with disabilities, and others who are unable to walk farther to catch their buses), this ultimately makes the bus networks less accessible and less equitable.
Would love a new Second Avenue Subway video!! Also, the reason the SAS can't serve the Lower East Side like that is because the curve is too sharp and streets are two narrow (two lanes while 2nd Avenue is 4 lanes).
How does the width of surface streets affect the route of a subway unless you're using cut & cover to build it? You can easily have access points from the street (footpath) but the actual line doesn't have to be there. Eg London + Paris + Most Cities
@@peterhoz wide streets make it easier to build since nearby property is less likely to be affected
Instead of turning west in the northern part of Manhattan, why wouldn't the line perhaps turn east, and connect to LaGuardia airport?
23rd St is pretty wide last I checked (& also where the 2nd Av El turned from 1st Av to 2nd).
@@bearcubdaycareOr just continue on into the Bronx?! Have it go to Co-op City, turn west, and connect with the D train at 205th street....
LES may even see a lot less foot and car traffic for its local shops and restaurants after the congestion toll gets implemented. A 2nd Ave would be a great offset!
As always, you can be led astray by focussing in on any one variable and ignoring the surrounding context!
Everything needs to be somewhat fluid with transport planning
Love your channel, but duuuuude, you need more B-roll!!!
I agree with this rerouting, it is a great idea. However, any extension of the Second Ave Subway in it's current state would have to contend with adding another interlining with the Q which currently serves it.
Which shares tracks with the N, ergo spare capacity on 2nd Av.
Bringing it further east would mean a faster trip for the people in or going to those underserved areas.
8:42 "A train or tram route doesn't necessarily need to be perennially extended."
Glasgow has entered the chat.
In another 100 years when they actually get to phase 4, hopefully the MTA watch this.
You should do a video of the Budapest transit system as it is known to be one of the world.
Eventually people will use the letter designation instead of "2nd Avenue Line". Most people say 4-5-6 instead of Lexington Line or A-C-E for 8th Avenue Line since all those lines diverge from the corridors
Is an explainer on the tram system of Paris coming soon?
Slow vs fast , yes the average speed between important centers is more important than some kind of great top speed .
6:50 The thing that really irks me about the Ontario Line is that there is zero service to Park Lawn-Lakeshore, which is now the densest neighbourhood in Toronto and one of the highest density neighbourhoods on Earth without a nearby rapid transit connection. They're ALREADY building on the rail corridor, so why not extend it to an extremely high-value area instead of terminating it at Ontario Place? Seems like ego and vanity often overrules service and practicality when it comes to rapid transit.
I mean I think that’s silly, the extension to Park Lawn would not be trivial and there’s already four tracks worth of GO trains which can serve Park Lawn! I’m not sure how ego or vanity has anything to do with this.
Plus on balance sending the Ontario Line this way means serving a bunch of density at Humber Bay Shores but probably less than a long route through the west of the city could.
@RMTransit The vanity part comes from connecting an entire transit line from Ontario Place to the Science Center. While true these are popular tourist destinations, they are a small fraction of the potential ridership of connecting more underserved areas, especially along the western Lakefront.
A GO station would make sense for current track usage but unfortunately Park Lawn GO has been stuck in the concept phase for 2 decades and has no plans to proceed (gov wants developers to build it, developers don't want to spend $80 million on a new station until they've gotten all the residential units they're planning).
The Ontario Line will be using the GO RoW for much of its route, and it will be integrated in the TTC fare structure instead of using two different fares for trips within 10km of the downtown (an unreasonable ask for many transit users imo). Integrating Park Lawn-Lakeshore with the city's transit network will be vital to clamping down on car use and emissions, especially with growth projected to double by 2040. I may be biased as a resident nearby, but having attended many a community awareness meeting, these sentiments are shared by residents both old and new. Hopefully something changes as the traffic in the area is already far beyond capacity.
Love your videos btw, as a planning student these teach me more than some of my classes 😅
They’re probably going to connect a higher order of transit on Jane with an extension of the Ontario line with proposals having it go underground anyways south of Wilson to Bloor with the Jane LRT. Probably even connect to Roncesvalles junction, best bet is a probable station at Swansea.
Brightline West is suffering from corridor fixation, too.
The Federal Railroad Administration has identified two "core express" high-speed rail corridors in the southwestern U.S.: Los Angeles-to-Phoenix, via San Bernardino; and, San Diego-to-Las Vegas, via San Bernardino.
Brightline, however, seems to be utterly fixated on the Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas city pair under the mistaken assumption that southern California's population is entirely concentrated in downtown L.A.
Ridership demand is certainly robust in San Diego County, Orange County, and Riverside County and in the eastern parts of San Bernardino County, and, yet, Brightline is completely neglecting these people and expecting them all to go out of their way to take Metrolink's San Bernardino Line from L.A. Union Station.
Four and a half million people live in the Inland Empire, alone! That population is larger than any of more than half the states in the U.S.A.
The optional station location for California High-Speed Rail in San Bernardino is a multimodal terminal whose first phase opened a few years ago. C.H.S.R. would connect S.B. with L.A. in 30 minutes, San Diego in 50, and Ontario International Airport in ten.
The multimodal terminal currently hosts two Metrolink lines to and from L.A. and Oceanside, respectively, as well as the sbX system to and from San Bernardino State and Loma Linda Universities, plus the new Arrow transitway to and from the University of Redlands.
Additionally, the station lies 1.5 miles west of San Bernardino International Airport where air-rail integration ought to be very easy.
Moreover, the development potential around the station site is enormous. The street grid is intricate and extensive, and underutilized land is copious, especially since the City-owned site of a 48-acre dead mall was recently razed.
Brightline has every reason to choose the C.H.S.R. station site in S.B. for the Brightline terminus, except for the fact that the distance of the Metrolink trip is a little farther (less than ten miles) for Las Vegas-bound passengers from Los Angeles. (Brightline's routing would be a little shorter.)
People in Orange County, Riverside County, and San Diego County and in the eastern parts of San Bernardino County ought not to be overlooked.
I thought that even for underground trains, construction costs along a (grid) street would be easier than ignoring the surface geometry. they aren't bound by it like surface trams, but I thought they would be encouraged to follow it. I mean isn't there a lot of digging involved?
Ive honestly never though of a Second Ave Subway not being on Second Avenue (south of 125th st)
talk about the south wales metro 🙏🙏🙏
Can you talk about jakarta transit system
Paris has a few examples: Line 14 extention to St Ouen missed Line 2 station Rome to avoid slowing down the line (and also because it would have been the most expansive and difficult station to build...) but it would have brang a very interesting alternative to the overcrowded Line 13 to join with Line 2 and releave Place de Clichy station at rush hours. It would have barely slowed Line 14 as a whole and would have made the claim to lower Line 13's traffic a lot truer compared to reality. The authorities planned a reserve to make that station one day by having the tunnel go straight for 150 m near the said station emplacement but it's unlikely to ever be made...
Line 10 has a projected extention to Ivry (for God knows when). During the studies, three corridors were proposed each with their pros and cons (mostly costs and connections to other lines).
The easiest, faster route would have been to stay along the river and go straight. (but necessitated to rebuild the Gare d'Austerlitz Line 10 station along the river when the current one is actually on the other side of the train station). The second proposal continued the current tunnel under the nearby hospital on its natural way and connect with every lines it crosses (6 and 14) before getting near the river after exiting the city boundaries. The third option was to go more Westbound and serve a neighbourhood without metro transportation but it was deemed less interesting because the said neighbourhood isn't that far from existing metro stations and it would make the route miss the most interesting connection, to Line 14 and make the tunnel significantly longer and also rebuild the current terminus station elsewhere.
So Option 2 seems to be preferred despite some technical aspects, it offers the best compromise between serving the area and providing the most interesting connections.
Third example, it is proposed to extend Line 7 from La Courneuve to Drancy instead of making it go to Le Bourget under the same corridor alignment (which I refer to its "natural corridor"). First, Line 17 of the Grand Paris Express will link Be Bourget RER station to the airport and museum, no need to have a double service there (despite it being a nice direct connection to Paris instead of forcing a transfer at Le Bourget RER station or St Denis Pleyel...) and extending Line 5 from Bobigny to Drancy, despite it being the natural course given Bobigny's Line 5 terminus alignement will be difficult because since then, the A86 second Ring highway that everybody seems to have forgotten existed is actually underground there and at the same height as the metro tunnel forcing a potentially sharp bend and an underpass and thus a slower trip and above all, more expansive work. Line 7 can reach Drancy City Hall in three stations easily eventhough it forces Line 7 to deviate from its natural straight course. (Ideally, also extending Line 5 to the same place could provide an interesting choice to the Drancy inhabitants who currently have NO metro nearby despite being one of the most populated suburbs of Paris... having two lines instead of one could make up for it, ironically, despite the cost).
In Barcelona there is the opposite problem:
..."corridor loosening"?
Both the L9 Sud around El Prat and the planned Western extension of the L3 around St Just suffer from it
(in practice, because the interests of local politicians there trump those of society at large, in short)
It should turn on Avenue C in the first stage. And straight to the Bronx. Than 2nd Avenue the second phase. A train could come from Queens Blvd that could serve this corridor.
Would planners not use gravity models? Seems odd to ignore the fact that the LES is a bulge in the ridership mass that should pull the corridor east like Jupiter
Can you do a Birmingham video?
Ultimately, this is another sign of the MTA being arrogant and smug thinking they know best when they clearly can't see the answer in front of their own face. What I would like to ask you though Reese is would a different form connection that could serve the East Village and Alphabet City in a lower Manhattan loop line connect people up to the radial lines easier than just simply building/diverting an existing radial line?
In Copenhagen I feel like theres a bit of the opposite problem, Too little corridor fixation. Lemme explain. Here the metro lines are more often there to fufill some sort of political desire and so they dont really follow existing transit corridors at all. They do however still often take a bit of a transit corridor, often enough to cause an overlap big enough to not let the existing corridor bus route go there. But that ultimately means the existing transit corridors are in shambles after the metro lines are built with unpopular reroutings of buses and forced transfers, often going from just 0 or 1 to 2 or 3 for the same journey.
Like here with the metro you dont really end up with very useful corridors unlike those you had on the buses before, with cumbersome extra steps involved now that end up not serving more, but serving less at a compromise that isn't worth the tradeoffs. This is especially the most notable on the M3 Citycircle which has a long overlap with the former allignment of the 1A bus, bug which doesnt run there anymore because of this.