Archive for October, 2010
Oct
21
Could two-way tolling return to the Verrazano?
Posted by: | Comments
The booths might be gone, but new technology would allow for high-speed tolling across the Narrows.
A federal decision in 1986 that effectively eliminated two-way tolling across the Verrazano Narrows Bridge may be reversed if Rep. Jerrold Nadler has his way. As the Downtown Express reports this week, Nadler is trying to get legislation passed that would restore two-way tolling across the Verrazano, and a recent technological innovation by the MTA might just make this plan a reality.
Early next year, the MTA will implement cashless tolling on the Henry Hudson Bridge across the Spuyten Duyvil. Using high-speed E-ZPass readers and license plate capture technology, the authority will eliminate all toll gates in a move officials hope will speed up traffic and reduce congestion at the river crossing between the Bronx and Manhattan. If successful — and considering the nationwide use of this technology, there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t be — the authority could move quickly to install it on its tolled bridges and tunnels.
Enter Nadler. He wants to use this high-speed, gateless tolling to restore sanity to the New York City traffic scheme. Under his plan, no longer would trucks be able to enter Manhattan for free via Staten Island and leave, for free, via the Holland Tunnel. No longer with unnecessary commercial traffic choke the highways of Brooklyn or the streets of Manhattan.
“The restoration of toll collection in both directions, using electronic tolling innovations that won’t require stops at a toll plaza, would greatly improve traffic and congestion in Brooklyn and Manhattan,” Nadler said. “The two-way toll would eliminate the flow of trucks entering New York City via Staten Island in order to escape the charges on the Hudson River Bridge and tunnel crossings. With the MTA now poised to test new toll-collection technologies, which are likely to be implemented across the region, all New Yorkers will reap the benefits and the MTA will generate new revenue that it sorely needs.”
As Streetsblog recently detailed, federal legislation eliminated two-way tolling in 1986, and Staten Island and its representatives have fought hard to keep it that way even though the rest of the city has to suffer. Nadler, who has called for two-way tolls since his early days in Congress in 1992, proposes to halve the one-way toll and enforce the smaller fee in both directions so frequent drivers on the Verrazano Bridge wouldn’t be paying more than they do today. Even as the tollbooths are torn down, this plan is a no-brainer for the sake of congestion, toll revenue and the rest of New York City.
Oct
21
Proposing a sensible transit platform
Posted by: | Comments
As Election Day nears, New Yorkers will soon go to the polls to select the next state executive, and whether voters realize or not, they’re doing so against a backdrop of the MTA’s shaky financial picture. Yet, the candidates don’t care. Carl Paladino, the GOP candidate likely to be trounced, has no grasp of MTA policy, and Andrew Cuomo’s statements haven’t been much better. The gubernatorial debate earlier this week was a debacle, and I’ve been wondering if anyone has a plan.
While the politicians haven’t come through, today, the Drum Major Institute and Transportation Alternatives have released their version of a pro-transit platform. The report carries with a lofty name — Solving the MTA’s Budget Crisis and Reinvesting in Mass Transit: A Five-Step Platform for the Next Governor of New York State — but it is decidedly even-keeled and common-sensical.
“The governor and state legislature are directly responsible for the MTA’s finances: they decide how much revenue flows to the authority, and only they have the power to put the MTA on sound financial footing,” the introduction reads. “While MTA executives can continue to cut costs at the margins, only a concerted plan led by the next governor can redirect investment to the state’s mass transit system and avert a fiscal disaster. A true Albany reformer willing to make tough choices would move the MTA away from costly borrowing and make smart investments that will drive renewed economic growth, boost the state’s economic competitiveness, and save taxpayers money in the long-term.”
Noting that “without the New York City region’s transit system, it would be physically impossible for the region to be the home of the largest concentration of jobs in the country and the source of $1.2 trillion of economic activity,” the report proposes five items the next governor should do to help the MTA:
- Return the $160 million taken from the MTA over the last year by the state legislature and prevent state lawmakers from using dedicated transit funds for other purposes.
- End the fiscally irresponsible reliance on debt by restoring the state’s contribution to the MTA capital program to 20 percent of the program’s cost.
- Protect millions of straphangers from threats to repeal the mobility tax which, if repealed, would result in yearly MTA budget deficits of over one billion dollars.
- Create sustainable sources of transit revenue, funded by everyone who benefits from transit, including riders, drivers and businesses.
- Lead New York’s congressional delegation to secure higher levels of federal funding that would help expand public transit service access to underserved areas.
The report, available on the web and as a PDF, backs up these assertions. For instance, in discussing the payroll tax, a revenue source both gubernatorial candidates have promised to “reexamine,” DMI and Transportation Alternatives lays out why it’s both a necessary and equitable tax. MTA expenditures, they say, for Metro-North and LIRR services are “roughly proportional to the amount of mobility tax revenue” paid by the constituent counties. It might not be popular, but without that tax, the MTA would be another $1.5 billion in the red.
While the first three points are exceedingly simple for the next governor to implement, the real key to this platform is point four. DMI has beaten this drum for years, and Transportation Alternatives has a well: The next governor must be a leading on sustainability in the New York region. The City Council, years ago, requested a home rule measure for congestion pricing that didn’t pass Albany amidst turmoil in the capital. To ensure that the MTA has a source of dedicated funds that also serves to encourage transit ridership, some form of congestion pricing or tolling is a must. It would, says the report, “bring greater fairness to the city and region’s transportation networks.”
Ultimately, New York City voters should press their next governor to find a way to support the MTA. Bashing the organization may be en vogue today, but those in charge are trying to do what they can to maintain a sagging system. What happens if the MTA fails would be calamitous. “Without new sources of revenue, riders face more severe service cuts and fare hikes in the future,” the proposal says. “As a result, drivers will face increased congestion as straphangers abandon the transit system and drive instead.”
Oct
21
Jay Walder vs. the gubernatorial candidates
Posted by: | Comments
Andrew Cuomo, likely to be our next governor, still thinks the MTA has two sets of books.
Jay Walder, rightly so, doesn’t want to get involved in the current race for governor of New York. During a breakfast yesterday at NYU’s Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, Walder stressed his firm desire to stay out of electoral politics. “I have successfully avoided being involved in the campaign,” he said, and with just under two weeks under Election Day, he doesn’t plan to jump into the fray anytime soon.
Yet, Walder’s speech — an impassioned defense of the MTA’s cost-cutting measures as well as an acknowledgement that the authority can and should be doing better — can be read as the perfect counterpart to the baseless bashing session in which the gubernatorial candidates engaged earlier this week. Whereas the state’s next executive — the leader who can set the policy tone and name an MTA head — might not know much about the current state of the MTA (or might just be pandering to a public who finds sport in critiquing the public authority), Walder seems to have a firm grasp on the challenges he and his organization face.
Take a listen to the seven minutes of criticism that the candidates for governor lobbed at the MTA on Monday night. If you can stomach the fifth mention of two sets of books — a claim disproved in court six years and debunked yet again last year — without wanting to throw something at these politicians, you’re a stronger person than I.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The ideas bandied about range from inane to ludicrous. One candidate proposed privatizing the MTA and using the proceeds from the sale of authority property to fund the state’s pension obligations. A few stressed the need for either direct control of the MTA by the state’s governor or New York City’s mayor. No one acknowledged that through board appointments and the political process that the state executive and legislature and city leader already exert significant control over the MTA, and no one fessed up to the fact that the MTA is a state agency that exists because of a grant of power from the legislature.
But that’s neither here nor there. Expecting informed politicians in New York is akin to relying on the G train during the weekends. Let’s instead look at the answer that matters: that given by Andrew Cuomo, the candidate with a 37-point lead among likely voters. His transcript:
“In some ways, the MTA is just a gross symbol of the problem that a lot of these state agencies and authorities have. Number one: it wastes a tremendous amount of money. And number two, nobody’s in charge. In terms of the amount of money they waste, two sets of books, certainly; $500 million in overtime, something like 8,000 people make more than $100,000, the pension system, the payroll system – it’s just another example of government (that’s) inefficient, wasteful – and government just doesn’t get it. Everybody else has to live within their means, not government.
The MTA also has the additional issue of nobody’s in charge. It’s an authority. It’s a joint board. It’s the mayor, it’s the governor, it’s everybody, it’s nobody. Put the governor in charge. If it doesn’t work, it should be up to the governor and everybody should know. The fraud in the MTA – we did a case on the Long Island Railroad, which is part of the MTA – over 90% were on disability (cut off by moderator). It can’t be.”
Nobody, Cuomo said twice, is in charge at the MTA. Someone should tell Jay Walder that because he certainly presents the aura of being in charge. At the breakfast yesterday, Walder spoke of his responsibilities with the right mix of authority and knowledge. The MTA, he said, is probably the most important authority in the state. It provides an “absolutely essential and critical public service,” one used by millions of New Yorkers every day. “That doesn’t,” he said, “exempt us from being as efficient as possible.”
During his speech, Walder laid out the MTA’s internal cost-cutting measures. Regular SAS readers know that the MTA has saved over $500 million this year by cutting 10 percent of its overtime spending, by eliminated 3500 jobs which include 20 percent of its administrative staffing at headquarters, by renegotiated with its contractors and suppliers and by consolidating its organizational structure, among others.
On the one hand, said Walder, the MTA should do this to run a leaner ship, and on the other, it had to do it to regain political support and public credibility. “We need to show people and politicians we were tightening our own belt,” he said. To gain trust, the MTA has to show that it is “using dollars wisely” and “show people we were being more productive and more efficient.”
The problem Walder faces is that no one listens. The public would prefer to blame the MTA for sluggish commutes, weekend changes and dirty stations. No one likes fares hikes or service cuts, but when the political support is gone, the MTA can only do so much to generate savings or create more revenue streams. Since politicians are insulated from responsibility by the structure of the MTA and the way most people don’t understand how public authorities in New York are established, these elected officials and those running for office can simply pile on as the people in charge of the MTA are engaged in a serious and largely successful effort to solve its economic problems.
On Monday, perhaps, as many have said, Cuomo was simply pandering. He was saying what he had to say to shore up his support, and once he’s in office, he’ll do what Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson have done: He’ll let the MTA run itself and let those who know what they’re doing take the reins. Yet, without candidates who speak the truth and take responsibility for the state of public transit in the city, without politicians willing to speak out for the Jay Walders of the city, we’ll be left with eroding support for transit and massive political missteps.
It’s hard to imagine an MTA worse than it had been, but if the next governor would to take control and oust yet another qualified head one year into his tenure at the helm, things could easily go from bad to worse. That’s a fate we cannot afford.
Oct
20
MTA demographics: A glimpse at who rides and how we pay
Posted by: | CommentsEarlier this week, Streetsblog and I received a PDF of information about the MTA’s demographics. The authority tracks the way people ride, what MetroCards they use and how often they swipe, but the materials aren’t readily available for the public. Check out Noah Kazis’ take here.
Throughout the lead-up to the fare hike, the MTA kept reinforcing the idea that a capped MetroCard would have little impact on the vast majority of riders. As the above graph shows, that would be the case. Only 7 percent of 30-day cards are used 91 times or more. Those passes are used, on average, 107 times, which doesn’t quite lend credence to the fact that fraud is widespread. Interestingly, approximately 25 percent of 30-day buyers don’t reach the breakeven point right now. Those folks are just wasting money.
Interestingly, we see similar trends with the seven-day cards as well. A higher percentage — 13 — are used 23 times or more, and those cards average around 27.5 swipes per seven days. Nearly 35 percent of those using the seven-day card do not reach the break-even point. It appears that a good number of NYC Transit riders should be using pay-per-ride cards but aren’t.
Next up comes a trove of demographics information the MTA collects through Customer Travel Surveys. (For an example, download this PDF.) Click the image below to enlarge.
We see here is a profile of the median transit rider. He or she makes $55,700 a year and is 43 years old. People who use the unlimited fare offerings do indeed make significantly more than those who do not. Generally, these numbers do not present a picture of people who own cars in New York City or make extensive use of autos. It certainly reinforces how Albany fails city residents when they take money from the MTA or force the authority to cut service, raise fares or both.
I have to believe, as Noah does at Streetsblog, that this is just the tip of the iceberg. We don’t yet know the profile of bus riders or bridge and tunnel users. The real issue though concerns what we make of it all. Should the MTA be making fare hike decisions based upon its demographic profiles? Should the authority do more to encourage unlimited card use? Should they better educate riders as to the break-even point of its MetroCard offerings? The possibilities are endless.
Oct
20
Building a better M15 SBS
Posted by: | CommentsWhen Select Bus Service debuted along 1st and 2nd Aves. just last week, riders and the press were quick to deem it a disaster. People couldn’t figure out how to pay before boarding; the proof-of-payment slips for use on SBS buses but not the regular local M15s provided too confusing; and the route didn’t seem to have enough buses to meet demand. Well, the MTA and NYC’s Department of Transportation have listened to the complaints, and as the Daily News reports today, improvements are coming to the Select Bus Service route.
First, the MTA plans to add three additional buses to fill service gaps. This will bring the total number of SBS buses along the M15 to 40. More importantly, though, is the word that riders can use SBS proof-of-payment receipts to board local buses, a point of contention in the early goings. This way, if a local bus arrives before an Select Bus Service bus, those waiting can choose to board the local without paying another fare. “It’s common sense,” Gene Russianoff said. “Riders should be able to take whatever bus comes first if they want to get on the move.”
The MTA meanwhile noted that speeds have already improved along the route. Last week, the buses were averaging 98 minutes end-to-end while this week that time is down to 88 minutes. When the camera enforcement comes online next month and even more cars start moving out of bus lanes, the service should speed up then as well.
Oct
20
Along Second Ave., building a better ancillary structure
Posted by: | Comments
As the Second Ave. Subway planning has evolved over the last half a decade, the MTA has had to balance community input with NIMBYism as they’ve designed a subway that meets 21st Century security standards and 20th Century neighborhood designs. No where has this conflict been more obvious than in the handling of the various ancillary structures that come with a subway. From complaints to lawsuits, East Side residents have thrown the book at MTA planners. The authority is now trying to work with these groups to ensure designs that fit the neighborhood, but will it be enough?
This story I tell today starts with the image above. The neighbors had wanted the MTA to work with developers to find a way to include retail or mixed-use development in the structure, but when the authority determined that it would involve more real estate acquisition and higher costs, they scraped that plan. Still, the residents complained that the structure didn’t fit with the neighborhood. It’s monolithic and unwelcoming in a popular mixed-use neighborhood.
The MTA heard these cries and offered up three new renderings. The authority presented these at its October 12 meeting on the progress of the Second Ave. Subway, and I offer them up below.
So what do we see? First, the MTA has realized that buildings look better surrounded by trees. The original rendering atop this post laid bare the building for all to see. The new versions, presented with the goal of portraying the way the buildings could fit worse, now have trees, and doesn’t that look nice?
But snark over the design choices aside, the MTA is showing what these buildings would look like if different materials are used. The first one — my favorite choice — incorporates the same brick as its neighbor on 72nd St. The tan one in the middle tries, but fails, to replicate the building next to it. The bottom grey one is too utilitarian for the Upper East Side. It’s not a realistic alternative as much as a warning of what could be.
The real problem isn’t with these structures themselves. Rather, it’s the requirement that the MTA build eight of these along a short stretch of Second Ave. Unfortunately, because the Second Ave. Subway is around 70-90 feet deep and because security and ventilation standards require it, these buildings are a necessary evil. No matter how they’re presented, unless the authority and its partners are willing to spend a significant amount of money to redesign them for retail, they won’t be nice.
I’ve maintained that we’ll forget about these structures ten years after they open. They’ll just become a part of the Second Ave. landscape for better or worse. But I won’t have to see them on a daily basis or live with their towering presence. The MTA’s current substations and ancillary buildings were better incorporated into the city landscape, and we sometimes pass them without noticing. The Greenwich St. substation is a stately building while the Joralemon St. access point is just a gutted townhouse that blends with its Borough Heights neighbors.
At least the authority is going through the motions of trying to present alternatives. The neighbors probably won’t like them, but that’s the balance between community planing and NIMBYism. You can’t win all of the battles all of the time when it comes to graphing today’s urban requirements onto yesterday’s planning.
Oct
19
The Governors Debate: Baselessly bashing the MTA
Posted by: | CommentsThis guy might be our next governor, but he doesn't seem to know much about the MTA.
Due to a last-minute trip to California, I didn’t have the chance to watch the debate amongst the various candidates for governor last night, but when I landed, I watched some of the proceedings online and read the commentary. The proceedings turned into a veritable MTA bash-fest last night, and for seven minutes, the various candidates — including the front-running Andrew Cuomo — proved that they know absolutely nothing about the city’s and state’s most important public authority. They recycled claims of financial mismanagement, highlighted the disproved line about two sets of books and failed to acknowledge the changes that Jay Walder has wrought. A few of the candidates even called for the MTA to be brought under the control of the governor, a foolish plan on so many levels bloth politically and economically.
I’ll bring you more analysis from this debate over the next few days, including some video, but for now, I want to point you to Ben Fried’s recap on Streetsblog. He summarizes:
If Cuomo was trying to say that there’s no political accountability for the MTA, he failed. And his diagnosis — make the MTA a state agency — is off-base. Putting the governor in charge of the MTA won’t make the state legislature less obstinate about funding transit. Until someone with a big bully pulpit, like New York’s next governor, starts describing the threat to transit riders accurately, elected officials will still be able to duck blame for fare hikes and service cuts.
This anti-incumbent election season is as good a time as any for a statewide candidate to turn Albany into the punching bag for transit woes instead of the MTA. It shouldn’t be hard to get some of these points across:
- If Albany hadn’t swiped dedicated transit revenues from the MTA last year, the agency would have had at least $100 million more in its purse — enough to stave off cuts to buses and trains.
- Until Albany sorts out its budget problems, transit riders will be at risk of paying for the state’s fiscal mess.
- MTA revenues nosedived with the rest of the economy in 2008, and Albany dysfunction stymied the full funding package recommended by an independent panel.
- Because the Pataki administration forced the MTA to borrow excessively, transit riders are paying the price.
Someone in public office has got to start telling voters what’s actually dragging the transit system down. Otherwise legislators will just have thicker cover the next time transit gets shortchanged in Albany.
I have absolutely no faith that New York’s next governor will right the state’s transportation ship. Mass transit is too important to the economic health of New York City for our politicians to trample all over it, and until we take the fight to the polls and find some candidates who are qualified and knowledgeable enough to run the state, I might just vote for this guy come Election Day.
Oct
19
Deja vu all over again: ARC Tunnel on last legs
Posted by: | Comments
This graphic from Infrastructurist shows how the current NJ Transit tunnels are at capacity.
And there it goes again. The Star-Ledger is once again reporting that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will kill the ARC Tunnel when its two-week reprieve is up on Friday unless alternative funding sources can be identified in the meantime. Based upon comments Christie has issued on the record, the future of this long-planned and badly-needed tunnel may not be bright at all.
Christie said he was comfortable walking away from the project unless the federal government finds another source of money to cover cost overruns on the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) project, which is projected by Christie’s advisers to cost $2.3 billion to $5.3 billion more than the original $8.7 billion price tag. “I don’t want to hear about the jobs it will create. If I don’t have the money for the payroll,” it will not create the jobs, Christie said. “This is not a difficult decision for me.”
The governor killed the project on Oct. 7 after saying the real cost would be at least $11 billion and that he did not want to put state taxpayers on a “never-ending hook.” The next day, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood persuaded the governor to wait two weeks to explore funding options. “Every person who has criticized this decision, ask them a follow-up,” Christie said this morning. “How would you pay for it? I can’t write the check if there is no money in the account.”
Speaking to rail proponents in Westfield around the same time, [NJ Transit Executive Director Jim] Weinstein said, “At this point, I don’t see how we can afford it.”
Despite these signs, proponents are still pushing hard for the tunnel. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign has put forward a We Need ARC website designed to spur on voter support, and the RPA has run a newspaper ad for $25,000 decrying Christie’s decision. “New Jersey needs ARC,” Tom Wright, executive director of the RPA, said. “Unless transit capacity under the Hudson River can grow with demand, New Jersey has a hard cap on its economic potential. With the 70,000 additional daily riders who would have used ARC, New Jersey would be more connected to New York City and the expanding global economy, companies and workers would continue locating in the Garden State, home construction would pick up, and the value of homes near transit stations would rise by an estimated $18 billion.”
Earlier today, New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg hosted two rallies in support of the tunnel, but Christie, in response to recent studies, simply cited costs. “It’s $2-$5 billion over budget,” Chrstie said of Lautenberg’s support, “and if he really is concerned about it, he should go find the money to pay for it.”
After the jump, the RPA’s ad is embedding. Notably, it disputes Christie’s assertion that the project is truly over budget. “Federal and state officials agree that ARC can be built on budget,” it says, “and there won’t be any overruns if New Jersey manages its end of the project.” Click the image below to enlarge. Read More→
Oct
19
NY officials celebrate as Moynihan ‘Moves Forward’
Posted by: | Comments
A cutaway of Moynihan Station as seen from Penn Station.
The old Penn Station — that long-lost symbol of the city’s historic preservation movement — turns 100 this year. As City Room’s Michael Grynbaum meticulously detailed, the first passengers to ride the Pennsylvania Railroad passed through the doors of the famed building back in 1910, and while the city tore down the iconic building, today’s iteration is one of the busiest transit hubs in the nation. Yesterday, city and state officials used the Penn Station centennial to celebrate the groundbreaking for another project. Phase I of Moynihan Station, newly renamed Moynihan Moving Forward, is now, well, moving forward.
At 2 p.m. on Tuesday, Governor David A. Paterson, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — a veritable who’s who in New York politics — gathered to commemorate the start of the $267 million project. Just a few hours earlier, LaHood and Paterson had signed a grant agreement providing for $83 million in federal funding through the Department of Transportation’s TIGER program. Still, even as the back-patting spread in earnest, this project is far from complete and questions about both its usefulness and overall integration into the plans for the 34th St. area abound.
“This is an historic day for New York: not only the 100th Anniversary of Penn Station but also the birth of another,” Paterson said. “Today we break ground on one of New York’s most important transportation projects. While the size and scope of the project may have changed over the years, its goals have remained constant. This critical infrastructure project will create thousands of jobs for our construction workers and foster economic growth.”
While the state’s governor declined to mention the transportation benefits inherent in the project, Sen. Schumer, who led the effort to secure the TIGER grant, put them front and center during his remarks. “Moynihan Station is poised to be one of the greatest transportation and infrastructure legacies of our generation. Transportation infrastructure is the life-blood of New York and investing in it is a tried and true job creator,” he said. “The construction of Moynihan Station will create jobs, upgrade aging infrastructure, and leave behind an economic engine for the entire region. This project will bring together large numbers of people who can live and work in close proximity, which is New York’s secret formula for success. Our public transportation systems must continue to expand in sync with our population and job growth and confidence in the future.”
The fairy-tale version of the inside of Moynihan Station.
The Phase I construction — which I’ve covered in depth over the past few months — is modest in scope. While the entire project would realize a new train terminal inside the old Farley Post Office building, Phase I consists of better access points and cosmetic upgrades for the preexisting rathole that is Penn Station. As the press release lists, the first phase includes: “the expansion and enhancement of the 33rd Street Connector between Penn Station and the West End Concourse, which lies under the grand staircase of the Farley building” as well as “the extension and widening of the West End Concourse to serve nine of Pennsylvania Station’s 11 platforms, new vertical access points and passenger circulation space and entrances into the West End Concourse through the 31st and 33rd Street corners of the Farley building.” These most celebrated of all entrances will be opened by 2016.
Planning for the second phase, says the governor’s office, is “well under way.” In other words, don’t hold your breath. Still to prove that point, the Moynihan Station Development Corporation released the renderings with which I’ve decorated this post. If or when the $1.5-billion Phase II sees the light of day, it will at least look nice.
Yet, the project still suffers from a lack of planning. Basically, Moynihan Station is the very definition of putting lipstick on a pig. It takes a recognize urban problem — the ugliness of the current Penn Station — and spruces up the Amtrak depot. It doesn’t offer up more track capacity into or out of the city, and it doesn’t really integrate the New York City end of the ARC Tunnel. In fact, there’s no small irony to the fact that this groundbreaking came just a few days before the two-week ARC Tunnel review is up. At Penn Station, it’s almost as though the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing, and one of those hands is planning to spend a significant amount just to make everything look nicer.
The Phase I upgrades will cost $267 million.
Oct
18
Photo of the Day: 96th St. from above
Posted by: | Comments
In April, the MTA held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new stationhouse at 96th St. and Broadway, but at the time, the project wasn’t finished. Transit had to open the new entrances to be able to overhaul the old ones, and much of the exterior work was yet to be completed.
Recently, Drew Dies a photographer who keeps his portfolio at Structures:NYC had the opportunity to snap the new stationhouse from above. Dies’ photo expertly captures the station amidst the movement of Broadway and the light that emanates from it. I love the way it highlights the new and the old along the city’s most famous street. For more, check out Dies’ gallery.
