I grew up at 91st St. and Broadway in Manhattan, and I remember learning from an early age of the subway stop that, one day, years before I or my parents lived there, had been open at our corner. The station was a local stop on the IRT from 1904 until February of 1959 when modernization and platform expansion rendered it useless. Today, it is a graffiti-covered relic from another era.

These days, whenever the elimination of a service is mentioned or the partial shuttering of a subway station finds its way into the news, community groups react with a vehemence reserved only for the biggest of issues. Protests are planned; letters are written; politicians put pressure on the MTA to find a way to keep that station open. Even a station as lightly used as, say, Broad St. with its 7200 daily riders and its 589 weekend riders might garner some community support.

Once upon a time though, the Transit Authority engaged in a bit of system improvements that led to the shuttering of a good number of stations. A few were deemed redundant because they were simply too close to the next stop, and with longer trains and platforms that stretched an extra block or so, these stations were casualties various modernization programs. Surprisingly, the media reception to these closings were slight.

In 1959, when the TA closed 91st St., The Times mentioned it in the context of a 1000-word article about the $100 million West Side IRT upgrades that led to a clearing of the 96th St. bottleneck and a lengthening of that station to include a southern entrance between 93rd and 94th Sts.

Buried after the jump on page 18 of the paper was a solitary paragraph about 91st St. “One other change,” Stanley Levey wrote, “will be made on Feb. 6. The local station at Ninety-first Street will be closed. In its place an entrance to the new mezzanine of the Ninety-sixth Street station will be opened between Ninety-third and Ninety-fourth Streets.” It was rightly deemed pointless to double the length of the 91st St. stop with an express station just two blocks away.

A few of the other shuttered IRT stations received barely more coverage than that. When the city announced in 1948 that the 18th St. stop along the East Side IRT would be closed, The Times devoted three paragraphs and 123 words to the news. The reason given then wasn’t because Union Square’s northern entrances were three blocks away but because the 23rd St. station now had access points at 22nd St. “Trains will now run non-stop between Fourteenth and Twenty-third streets,” the unsigned article said.

The long-forgotten Worth St. stop, just a few hundred feet of the original Brooklyn Bridge station, received a scant send-off as well. It closed in 1962 as part of a $6 million overhaul of what we now call Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall on the East Side IRT. The TA had to lengthen and straighten the platforms to better accommodate 10-car trains, and when they did so, the Worth St. stop became pointless. Charles Grutzner of The Times was seemingly the only person to mark the occasion. “The rebuilt station, to be known as Brooklyn Bridge-Worth Street, will go into full service at 11 P.M. At the same time, the old Worth Street local station near by will shut down,” he wrote. “No ceremony will mark either event.”

And that is the way history had it. No ceremony marked the events as various stations faded into subway lore.

Categories : Subway History
Comments (1)

The news out of MTA HQ tonight is a rather wonky bit of restructuring, but I think it’s an important item nonetheless. In a letter to the MTA Board, CEO and Chairman Jay Walder announced a streamlined committee roster. In an effort to make the MTA’s various subagencies “more effective and more efficient,” the Board committees will be consolidated.

The biggest changes are how these committees are now grouped by service area. Instead of having two separate committees overseeing Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road, one committee will take care of commuter rail lines. Walder wants to encourage these agencies to work together in a “more consistent and cost effective manner.” Similarly, all non-New York City Transit MTA bus operations will now be under the control of one committee as well.

Meanwhile, two committees — the Capital Construction and Real Estate groups — are being eliminated outright. The Board oversight for these projects will be subsumed by the respective committees. So, for example, New York City Transit’s committee will oversee the Second Ave. Subway and the 7 line extension while the LIRR/Metro-North committee will have oversight of the East Side Access project. The Finance Committee will take over the duties for the Real Estate group.

In a sense, this is how the MTA itself would be structured if the organization were to be built from the ground up. One group would oversee commuter rail and another the buses. Major projects would be under the purview of the agency tasked with operating the eventual new line. It would just make sense.

In other Board news, the six non-voting members who lost their seats when Albany failed to reauthorize their seats on the MTA Board are back in business. Because of eventual action in Albany and inaction by the governor, the law has been restored, and the non-voting Board members — including Andrew Albert of the New York City Transit Riders Council and Norman Brown from the Metro-North Railroad Coalition — have been reinstated.

Categories : MTA
Comments (10)
  • MTA reassessing bus cuts, but larger deficit looms. · Although I referred to the MTA’s public hearings last week as political theater, I recognize that, as happened in 1990, these hearings can impact the MTA’s decision to cut services. Today, the Daily News reports, unsurprisingly, that the MTA is reconsidering some bus route eliminations. The report is light on details, but the Post says Walder will try to encourage $5 million in internal belt-tightening over eliminated some bus routes. For local neighborhoods who are on the verge of seeing their buses disappear, this is a good news indeed.

    On the other hand, the MTA has a larger problem. When the cuts were first proposed the authority’s deficit was around $350 million, but today, it is approximately $751 million. Walder says the agency will eliminate administrative positions and stop some technology-based projects, but those cuts will save just $50 million annually. At some point, the authority is going to have to find big bucks, and if that means massive service cuts or a steep fare hike, New Yorkers who rely on the subways and buses for their daily needs are going to be feeling the pain. · (5)

Currently, New York City’s 422 subway stations are staffed by 3000 station agents. These folks are supposed to serve as the eyes and ears of the MTA. They sit in their booths to help passengers in need, assist those who can’t negotiate the turnstiles and, ideally, guard against crime. In a few months, their numbers will drop by 450, and although every station will still be staffed, people will be inconvenienced.

For the MTA, the elimination of station agents should allow them more flexibility. Many of the station agents provide help that can be centralized. For example, if a person in a wheelchair or with a stroller needs to use the emergency exit, that person could readily call an MTA employee at a centralized location who could, with the use of closed-circuit camera technology, verify the need for help and press a button to activate the emergency door. This employee could oversee multiple stations at once, and the agency wouldn’t need to staff the stations with as many people. The same can be down for people who need directions as well.

In fact, the MTA has already been promoting their Customer Assistance Intercoms as solutions for those straphangers who encounter an agent-less station. Bright red signs direct customers to the intercoms, and on the other end should be another station agent who can offer assistance. The problem, reports amNew York’s Heather Haddon is that these intercoms are hard to find and don’t always work.

The subway intercoms that straphangers must increasingly rely on for help have left many riders stumped about how to use them — if they can find them at all. “I’ve never noticed it,” said Queens rider Maryanne Bannon, 58. “Most New Yorkers are not trained for this.”

…In a small survey of straphangers by amNewYork, no one was familiar with the rather cryptic-looking boxes. “They have to come up with a better design. It’s not consumer friendly,” said Karl Kronebusch, 54, a Park Slope rider.

Even MTA CEO Jay Walder recently admitted that he had a hard time finding the intercom in a station he frequents, saying he was “disappointed” by the obscure system. “We’ve almost hidden them away,” Walder said last week.

The boxes also periodically break, with an entire bank of them out recently, union officials said. Furthermore, many stations where the station agents are being removed don’t have the safety devices installed yet, said MTA board member Andrew Albert. “Before we remove booth agents, we should have a method of contacting the police,” Albert said.

Albert’s quote speaks for itself. The MTA has chosen to replace people with a centralized system, but they’ve done so in an obtuse way. Transit needs to install easy-to-see intercom boxes in convenient places, and the agency must ensure that someone is always on the other end. Many college campuses have a blue light phone system, and the MTA should use that visible approach as inspiration.

As more station agents are eliminated, riders may encounter more problems with their commutes. As station agents seemingly field only a handful of requests a shift, it may seem that not many will be inconvenienced, but a few people per day will quickly add up.

Categories : Subway Security
Comments (2)

Albany lawmakers used money that should have gone to the MTA to fund other state obligations. (Source: Streetsblog)

When Albany approved a series of emergency budget reappropriations in late November, they did so under the public guise of a deficit. The money wasn’t there, they said, and so they had to take away over $100 million from the MTA.

At the time, an MTA press release sort of highlighted how the state hadn’t been broke but had basically stolen the money for the MTA and reappropriated it. “This is the first time that an existing appropriation to the MTA from dedicated MTA taxes has been reduced after collection by the state,” the release said.

Today, Ben Fried and John Kaehny at Streetsblog explain how this accounting sleight of hand amounts to state-sponsored robbery. Albany took money that should have gone to the MTA and simply moved it to another account. Talk about your two sets of books.

I’ll quote at length what the two had to say, but do visit Streetsblog if you don’t already:

The overwhelming majority of the $143 million reduction in transit funding did not originate from the state budget. Instead, Albany took dedicated transit tax revenues from the MTA and redirected them to the state’s general fund. In effect, Albany stole $118 million from transit to subsidize the rest of the state budget. That’s enough money to restore all the subway and bus cuts currently on the table in the MTA’s austerity plan.

How did they pull off the heist? To explain, we need to give a short intro to the MTA operating budget.

In addition to fares and tolls, MTA service is mainly funded by an array of dedicated taxes, which total about $4.5 billion every year. A smaller portion comes from “state and local subsidies,” of which Albany is supposed to contribute about $190 million. Already, we’re only talking about a small fraction of the MTA’s nearly $12 billion operating budget.

But here’s the thing — Albany’s “contribution” consists almost entirely of tax revenue that’s already dedicated to transit. This year, Albany put just $7 million from the general fund into MTA operations, according to the state Division of the Budget. The rest of its obligation to the MTA — $183 million — came from dedicated transit taxes.

So when the state made off with $143 million from the MTA budget in the December deficit reduction package, lawmakers were not reducing the state’s contribution to transit so much as raiding the MTA piggy bank and robbing transit riders of funds collected specifically to serve them. When all was said and done, Albany had taken $118 million from dedicated MTA taxes…

The dedicated revenue source in question — the Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance Fund (MMTOA) — was established in 1981 and consists entirely of taxes collected in the 12-county MTA region… So $118 million in downstate taxes, meant to fund transit exclusively, disappeared into the Albany money pit. Nothing in New York state law prevents the same thing from happening again.

Unfortunately, we can’t do very much right now, but Fried and Kaehny urge riders and advocates to be protective of our future funding initiatives. We could ask elected officials to prevent against agency theft. We could ask them to own up to their cuts. After all, the same representatives who approved this giant cut are the ones slamming the MTA for being broke. Politicians just shouldn’t be allowed to have their cake and eat it too.

Comments (0)
  • More stimulus funds for SAS (and ESA) · A coterie of New York’s elected representatives announced a new round of stimulus funding for a pair of the MTA’s big ticket capital items. According to a release from Sen. Chuck Schumer’s office, the city is receiving another $275 million in Economic Recovery Act funding for transit projects. The Second Ave. Subway will receive $78.9 million — or enough for approximately a third of a mile of subway line — while the East Side Access project gets a $195.4 million grant. “This funding is a win-win for all New York straphangers,” Schumer said. “Both East Side Access and the Second Avenue Subway will meet commuter needs that have existed for far too long here in New York. These funds will help Long Island and New York City improve transportation options and spur economic growth in the process.” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Representatives Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney all echoed Schumer’s statement. · (13)

For New Yorkers, nothing is seemingly as important as time. We rush from place to place in the anonymous masses of people that fill our city to the brim. We run up stairs and down stairs. We dash to reach train doors before they close, and we tap our feet impatiently if we are left waiting too long for an elevator, a doctor’s appointment, a restaurant reservation. If only things were on time. If only we had more time.

In the vast underground world beneath the city streets, time takes on a different meaning. We might wait impatiently for a train, but our time is not our own. We are the whims of the time of the Q train, the 2 train. We wait for the searching glow of headlights to pierce the darkness of the tunnel, and only then do we know that it’s time for our train to arrive.

One of the reasons we don’t know how time operates in the subway is because the MTA’s approach to countdown clocks has been painfully slow and misguided over the years. Another reason is because the clocks are wrong. As I noticed two and a half years ago, clocks at W. 4th St. were an hour and 14 minutes slow. Today, they’re still an hour and 14 minutes slow. Late has a different meaning when the clocks are set to run in a different time zone.

This week, two stories reminded me about how time is ethereal as we travel the subways. The first came to me in the form of a press release from New York City Transit. The good folks in charge of the clocks in the subway wanted to tell us that the manual clocks — approximately 250 of them — are in the process of being sprung ahead a good four or five days ahead of the rest of the country. These clocks are found in nooks and crannies throughout the system and date to another age when cigarette ads used to share space. Today, the MTA says the advertising revenue from these clocks draw in $500,000 annually.

Beginning yesterday, Transit contractors had to start the manual switch in order to finish by 2 a.m. on Saturday night when the city springs ahead. For now, some clocks will say it’s actually an hour later than it really is, and Transit in a statement said that they “apologize in advance for any confusion this process may cause.” Unless the clock just says “late,” “early” or “on time,” the purported time doesn’t matter. Those clocks are accurate for only so long.

And another piece focuses on more modern clocks. Michael Grynbaum of The Times profiled the new countdown clocks Transit is installing in various subway and bus routes across the city. As regular readers of Second Ave. Sagas know, those countdown clocks range from the high-tech along the IRT lines to the budget version on trial in Washington Heights to countdown clocks for buses along 34th St. No longer will riders peer into dark tunnels awaiting the train to arrive on its own time. Now, we have the time blessed by signals.

While Transit hopes to remove the mystery and angst from our commutes, New Yorkers are stubborn in their ways. “This is New York City, nothing runs on time,” Leonora Berisaj said to Grynbaum. “It’s not about the clock. It’s about the bus.” We operate on transit’s time, no matter how many minutes away the next train supposedly will be.

Photo of the old ad clocks via New York City Transit.

Comments (4)

As angry New Yorkers have rained scorn upon the heads of the MTA Board, new CEO and Chairman Jay Walder has been acutely affected by the people. “It’s tearing my heart out right now,” he said last week. “Last night at 1 o’clock in the morning I’m turning over in bed trying to figure out how to make the choices” about service cuts. Since Walder himself cannot order more taxes or higher state subsidies, he is left with but two choices: cut services or raise fares.

Despite this dilemma, Walder is willing to listen. The Daily News reported today that Walder has agreed to a hearing with students who are concerned about the impending elimination of the free Student MetroCard program. The MTA head will meet with students next Wednesday as they make the case for the student transit program, and he makes the case for an MTA very short on funds.

So what then can Walder do without money for the program and little political support from City Hall or Albany? When he meets with students, he must explain to them how the city and state should be funding the program and how those two governing bodies have abdicated their responsibilities to the MTA and, more importantly, to New York’s students. He should show him the chart above from Streetsblog and the one below while urging them to turn their rage toward our elected officials. After all, if the politicians won’t listen to students, who will they listen to?

Comments (7)

While Transit may one day add more service on Staten Island, for now, the authority is looking to charge more for the one commuter rail line currently servicing the borough. Earlier this year, the MTA started charging fares at Tompkinsville, and now, we learn that the entire line will be a fare-generating one in the near future.

As Maura Yates from the Staten Island Advance reports, the MTA will soon do away with free rides on the Staten Island Railway and will begin, within a few years, to require paid fares at every station. She writes:

The MTA plans to restore fare collection along the entire 14-mile rail line from St. George to Tottenville within the next few years, as part of a master plan to raise more revenue, cut down on crime and close what has been a free-ride perk that is unique in the city’s public transit system.

Turnstiles recently installed at the Tompkinsville station are the first part of the plan, which eventually will incorporate “Smart Card” technology to collect fares along the rest of the line. Riders now swipe their cards only at Tompkinsville and St. George, while the train is free for trips beginning and ending at any other stations along the line. Make the 37-minute trip between Stapleton and Tottenville, for instance, and pay not a cent.

When the new system goes online, which, owing to the MTA’s budget crisis, is still at least a few years away, passengers will no longer use MetroCards but rather pay with a “Smart Card,” likely a “tap and go” system, where a card is held up to a reader without the need to slow down to swipe. The system would include a way for inspectors to check for proof that the fare was paid, and scofflaws likely would face a steep fine if caught. If you didn’t pay and there were a spot check, “you’d have a problem,” said MTA board member Allen Cappelli.

While City Council members and MTA Board members are happy to discuss the impact fare collection and fare inspection will have on the safety and security of the State Island Railway, I’m more interested to hear about the costs. Yates reports that the new $6.9 million station at Tompkinsville will generate approximately $702,000 in fares this year. It will take, more or less, ten years to pay off that investment, more so if we consider depreciation and maintenance costs.

New York City Transit didn’t provide a revenue projection for the service or any potential information on the installation costs simply because it’s too remote a plan right now. While ridership dipped in 2009, recently, approximately 15,000 per day have been using the SIR, but because many of those enter and exit at the Ferry Terminal, their fares are captured. Although further investment in fare technologies on Staten Island could earn the MTA more revenue down the line and avert maintenance costs by discouraging vandalism, the overall net gains from this added revenue probably will not be realized much quicker than the investment at Tompkinsville will be.

Categories : Staten Island
Comments (41)
Page 1 of 19912345»...Last »