TITLE: Does there exist a finite-index subgroup of SL2Z with all cusps irregular?
QUESTION [10 upvotes]: Recall that if $\Gamma$ is a finite-index subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbf{Z})$, then a cusp of $\Gamma$ is an orbit of $\Gamma$ on the set $\mathbf{P}^1_{\mathbf{Q}}$. If $-1\notin \Gamma$, then for any cusp $c$, the stabilizer of $c$ in $\Gamma$ (well-defined up to conjugacy) is an infinite cyclic group generated by an element conjugate in $\operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbf{Z})$ to either $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & h \\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}$ or $\begin{pmatrix} -1 & h \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}$ for some $h \in \mathbf{N}$ (the width of the cusp $c$), and we say that $c$ is regular in the first case and irregular in the second.
My question, as in the title, is:

Does there exist a finite-index subgroup $\Gamma \le \operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbf{Z})$ for which every cusp is irregular?

(It would suffice to find a finite-index normal subgroup with at least one irregular cusp, since the cusps of a normal subgroup are either all regular or all irregular; but I don't know if that helps!)

REPLY [4 votes]: Just to record what I mentioned in the comments, you may argue as follows:
Let $X$ be the orbifold $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})\backslash \mathbb{H}^2$. The curve $X$ has two singular points, one a cone point $x$ of order $2$ (the image of the fixed point of an elliptic of order two), and a cone point $y$ of order $3$ (the image of the fixed point of an elliptic of order three).
There's a $6$--fold branched cover $T$ of $X$ which is smooth and diffeomorphic to a punctured torus.  (First take a $3$--fold cover $X_3$ of $X$ branched over $x$.  Then take the $2$--fold cover of $X_3$ branched over the three preimages of $y$ to obtain $T$.)
If $\Gamma$ is the subgroup of $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ corresponding to $T$ (of index twelve to avoid the center), then we may write $\Gamma = \langle a , b \rangle$ so that the parabolic conjugacy class is represented by the commutator $[a,b]$, and a simple computation reveals that $\mathrm{trace}([a,b]) = - 2$. (As mentioned in my comment, you don't need to compute $a$ and $b$ to compute their trace.)