Second Ave. Sagas

At Jay St., a station rehab but no coat of paint

Written by

Benjamin Kabak

in

,
When entering the newly-renovated Jay St. station, don't look up. Credit: The Brooklyn Paper

For as long as I’ve been writing Second Ave. Sagas, I’ve wondered about the MTA’s rationale or lack thereof for its painting program. In 2007, the MTA couldn’t get a $50-million station painting plan off the ground because authority heads could not figure out which stations to paint first. In 2008, Transit announced that, instead of painting 46 a year and covering the system with new paint within a decade, only 12 stations per year would receive a fresh coat of paint, and the entire project would take four decades to complete. Can it truly be that hard to paint some subway stations?

Apparently, the answer is yes, and this year’s story about painting woes comes to us from right under the MTA’s collective nose. The IND stop beneath 370 Jay St. in Brooklyn is amidst an extensive renovation that will see this station connected to the R stop at Lawrence St./MetroTech. The station rehab is set to cost $110 million and won’t rap until August 2011, but the MTA is conveniently omitted a paint job for the ceiling above a few of the station entrances. Gary Buiso from The Brooklyn Paper has more:

The transit agency said this week it will not repaint the peeling ceilings on either exit on the west side of Jay Street between Willoughby Street and Myrtle Avenue, leaving a moonscape of potentially toxic paint chips raining down…

Transit spokeswoman Deirdre Parker insisted that the areas in question are safe, noting that the ceiling was re-painted in the 1990s with a non-lead based paint. But even so, the agency regards the situation as dangerous: Above-ground station cleaners are instructed to sweep the courtyard area with wet cloths and a HEPA vacuum — which contain specialized filters to trap dangerous lead particles, which can cause serious health problems. “It’s just a precaution in case there are previous coats of lead-based paint underneath,” explained Parker. The agency has not provided straphangers with masks or HEPA filters.

The ceiling work is not included in the current rehab plan, which will be completed by August, 2011. Transit officials said that intra-agency discussions are underway to try to secure funding for the paint job — but could not provide a cost estimate or a time frame for the work, vexing area business leaders.

The property at Jay St. has, as I recently explored, been a huge thorn in the authority’s side. It is an eyesore amidst a revitalized part of Downtown Brooklyn and has sat empty since Transit acquired the building well over 10 years ago. The authority continues to promise that something will happen. But storefronts are empty and scaffoldings mar the neighborhood.

A paint job, of course, is the least of anyone’s concerns when it comes to reliable transit service and the MTA operations. But the paint jobs have vexed the authority for over four years. Nicer station environments encourage more transit riders and make everyone’s day more pleasant, and yet, if the authority cannot do something so simple as to recognize when a fresh coat of paint is necessary, no wonder public faith in the MTA is never very hight.

Comments

7 responses to “At Jay St., a station rehab but no coat of paint”

  1. Scott E

    “The agency has not provided straphangers with masks or HEPA filters.”

    The inclusion of this sentence tells me that this is not an unbiased piece of journalism. I’m sure that there are reasons, not cited in the article, why the entrances are not being painted. (Whether those reasons are valid or not remains another story.) I suspect that, when looking to cut unnecessary expenses, this was at the top of the list. The insurance and liability costs must be huge — not to mention that fire codes probably prohibit closing entrances.

    On a related note, I believe the Second Avenue Subway plan includes no paint whatsoever. Granite and ceramic cost a fortune at the onset, but maintenance costs are close to nil. Then again, that’s the same as the agency pays to maintain painted surfaces now.

    Reply
  2. E. Aron

    I believe that investing in station rehabilitation is just as important as any other MTA priority. I think that an analogy to the “broken windows” method of crime fighting in the mid-90s, which generally proved successful, is appropriate. Our subway system looks, feels, and smells disgusting. If it were a more pleasant experience, I believe that people would treat it better, which would have compounding effects for system improvement. One example that comes to mind would be less litter on the tracks, which as far as I understand is the #1 cause of track fires, etc.

    Reply
  3. rhywun

    “intra-agency discussions are underway to try to secure funding for the paint job”

    Translation to English: “The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, and even if it did, the bloat, red-tape, and work rules that have crippled the agency for decades means don’t get your hopes up.”

    Reply
  4. BrooklynBus

    I could never understand why the stations are not repainted more often. It is the cheapest type of maintenance you could perform. It is absolutely ridiculous to have a completely renovated station with paint peeling from the ceilings. I think there used to be a program where every station would be repainted every ten or 12 years, but I could be wrong about that. That would make sense. How could anyone expect a paint job to last 40 years? Is this the type of logic that deserves such high salaries for MTA executives? Walder defininitely needs to correct this no matter how scarce resources are.

    The only legitimate reason not to repaint a station is if there is a water condition that needs to be corrected where a paint job alone would just be a waste of money.

    You stated that Transit acquired the building ten years ago. If so, the fact that the building has remained virtually vacant for so many years is nothing short of scandolous when it could have been leased out if the MTA has no need for it at the present time. While the exterior needs work, most or all of the floors have been recently renovated and are in excellent condition. I thought that the City still owned the building and that had something to do with why the MTA wasn’t receiving any revenue from it.

    Reply
  5. AlexB

    I used to use that station a lot. It’s really a decent complex, typical IND, and the plazas where that picture of that peeling paint is taken could be nice public spaces. The paint, though, is really disgusting. I try to not look at it when I’m there.

    Reply
  6. Jon

    I volunteer to paint that roof. Just give me a ladder , roller, chipper, and some white paint, and it’ll be done in a day or two. IF the MTA really wants to be so stingy to not buy some paint at a Home Depot, then just ask people to do it. Then give em a free monthly unlimited card for their trouble. Far cheaper than $50m.

    Painting is a basic home improvement done by every homeowner. It takes no skill, and its only raw material is paint. It doesn’t even have to be quality paint. And it doesn’t even take that much time provided they actually do it. Its just amazing they need to decided which stations to paint, when they’d get them all done if they just started it.

    Reply
    1. Elbis046

      I strongly agree with Jon comment. If the MTA would say “We would like to Make our station cleaner, And we would like your help” The MTA has 468 Stations . If each station gets 20 Volunteers for a weekend (6 hoursX2=12hours total). and give them 2 monthly unlimited metro cards(104 X 2 =208).. So if my calculations are correct ( 20 volunteers pers station x 468 stations = 9360 volunteers) at $208 monthly metrocards x 9360 volunteers = TOTAL the MTA will have to pay is $1,946, 880. So if they can just do this for 4 weekends(1 month) they will Just pay close to Million..

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts