Home Archives
Monthly Archives

November 2010

AsidesBuses

MTA appoints Darryl Irick as interim bus head

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 10, 2010

Following Joseph Smith’s late-October announcement that he would be retiring as the head of the MTA’s bus division, the authority revealed today that 24-year Transit veteran Darryl Irick will take over as the acting head of the MTA’s three bus divisions at the end of the year. Irick started his MTA career in 1986 as a bus operator out of the Kingsbridge Deport and has worked in management, operations planning and depot and road operations over the past few years. He’ll be overseeing a 18,500 employees at 40 facilities and a combined bus fleet of nearly 6000 vehicles that service 2.8 million daily customers over a 900-square-mile territory.

“Throughout his career, Darryl has distinguished himself with his ability to enter any operating environment and significantly improve performance,” MTA Chairman and CEO Jay Walder said today in a statement. “I’m confident that he will rise to the challenge of continuing to improve our bus service even as we deal with historic budget constraints.”

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New Jersey Transit

In Year 2, Meadowlands train ridership up 50%

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 10, 2010

The New Jersey Transit station at the Meadowlands has proven to be popular. (Rendering from 2007)

Now that football fans have had a year to get used to the idea of taking the train to the Meadowlands and New Jersey Transit has had a year to improve service, ridership is on the rise. As The Record reported this week, NJ Transit says ridership has increased by 50 percent for the NFL season. Reports John Brennan:

The Jets — with a boost from two “Monday Night Football” games — have 70 percent more fans riding the rails than in 2009, NJ Transit spokeswoman Courtney Carroll said. On Jets game days, there have been about 21,000 trips made this year — the equivalent of 10,500 fans making a round trip — compared with 6,000 such fans last year.

Giants fans are making about 26 percent more trips — about 16,000, or the equivalent of 8,000 round trips. That means that more than 10 percent of fans overall at New Meadowlands Stadium football games are taking the train.

“The schedule is about the same as last year, but we are doing things differently on the operations side to improve the flow,” Carroll said. “We’ve had a year to learn and grow with the service, to see what works.”

Anything to ease the flow of cars into and out of the Meadowlands is a welcome change, but I’m curious to hear more about how NJ Transit has improved their planning.

Last year, for a Bruce Springsteen concert, I took the train to the Meadowlands, and although the trip to the show was smooth, the trip home was anything but. People bumrushed the train station, and after the initial trains left, we had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for the next to leave. Unlike the subway after, say, a game at Yankee Stadium, Transit doesn’t have a steady flow of trains from the Meadowlands to Secaucus Junction.

Right now, the trains are running only around 20 times a year for football games and concerts. Originally, the new Meadowlands stop was supposed to service the Xanadu shopping and entertainment complex, but the mall, slated for a 2011 completion date, may not open until 2014 or beyond.

Anyway, it’s hard to believe that even 10 percent of fans heading to the New Meadowlands Stadium take the train as that complex had become so identified with automobile traffic. That the ridership is growing is proof that, if you build it, they will ride.

8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fare Hikes

A short sunset period for stockpiled MetroCards

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 10, 2010

Don’t expect to build up that collection of unused MetroCards in anticipation of the looming fare hike, New York City Transit warned today. When the fares go up on December 30, straphangers will have only a few weeks to activate unused MetroCards, but those who count their days properly could still find enough time to buy an extra $89 30-day cards before the price spikes to $104.

The full grace period will run for nearly six weeks as riders who purchase unlimited ride cards will be able to get the full value out of their cards as long as they are activated — that is swiped — no later than January 10. Pay-per-ride cards will not be impacted, and so in the time-honored tradition of hoarding tokens, riders can still stock up on these cards before the bulk discount shrinks.

As far as sunset dates go, those are staggered. In other words, if you purchase one of the unlimited ride cards before the Dec. 30th hike and use it for the first time after January 10th, you will not get full credit for all of your travel. Instead, riders will have to mail the cards back for pro-rated refunds based upon the day you first use them. Unused cards will be refunded in full. The sunset dates — meaning the last day on which previously purchased cards will be valid for travel — are presented in the table below.

Days on Card Sunset Date
1 January 10
7 January 16
14 January 23
30 February 8

As a side note, two of the unlimited offerings — the 1-day Fun Pass and the 14-day card — will be eliminated entirely on December 30, and in the Daily News article about the sunset period, Gene Russianoff takes a shot at the Fun Pass. At $8.25, the price, like the rent, is “too damn high,” he says.

I respectfully disagree. Without the pay-per-ride bulk discount, the fun pass pays for itself on the fourth ride of the day. But since the discount currently kicks in at $8, we have to calculate that deal with a discount. With the 15 percent discount, the cost of a subway swipe is, in essence, $1.96, and so on the fifth swipe, the one-day Fun Pass pays for itself. For high-volume subway riders and tourists trying to get around town, it is — and always has been — a good deal.

The failure of the one-day card is more a problem of marketing than anything else. Because the MTA doesn’t publicize the break-even points for their unlimited ride cards, straphangers never knew on the fly when it made sense to buy a one-day card. My parents loved the one-day card from the get-go in 1999 when it used to cost $4, but today, most frequent subway riders have a long-term unlimited ride card. Thus, the Fun Pass will go the Great Unknown after December 31.

6 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

On the illegality of moving between subway cars

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 10, 2010

There’s something inherently New York about walking in between subway cars. At one point or another, nearly every straphanger takes that plunge and moves between cars while the train is in motion. For some, the rush of the tunnel is excuse enough to stop outside of the cocoon of the enclosed subway car while for others, it’s a means to an end. The homeless guy is stinking up the joint. The air condition doesn’t work. Get me out of here.

What most people do not realize is that since 2005, it has been illegal to walk between subway cars. That year, the MTA Board approved a series of changes to the New York City Transit Rules of Conduct, and among those amendments was one targeting subway walkers. The penalty: A $75 fine.

Today, that rule is codified in Section 1050.9(4):

No person may ride on the roof, platform between subway cars or on any other area outside any subway car or bus or other conveyance operated by the Authority. No person may use the end doors of a subway car to pass from one subway car to another except in an emergency or when directed to do so by an Authority conductor or a New York City police officer.

When the Code of Conduct rules were changes, the language on the signs on subway doors grew more strident. It is prohibited to move or ride between cars, and now and then, the cops will hand out summonses to those who violate these rules. Every few weeks, I receive an email from a disgruntled straphanger who wants to know if he or she can contest their fine, and the Google search results for “walk between subway cars” shows a similarly pervasive number of hits on this topic. Yesterday, Metro New York ran the sob story of one woman who now owes $75 for violating the rule and $50 in late fees for failing to pay the fine.

In Carly Baldwin’s story, Lida Sharp got a ticket in late July when the 2 car she entered wasn’t air conditioned. She boarded at 34th St. and waited until the next stop to switch cars. Instead of doing so on the platform, she and another passenger got caught outside. “He didn’t care that I felt sick or that it was an emergency,” she said. “He didn’t care that the train wasn’t moving or that I didn’t even know it was illegal.”

My response to those who violate this rule is usually not one of sympathy. As I’ve learned throughout law school, ignorance of the law doesn’t excuse those who break it, and the MTA hangs a sign on the door that explicitly warns people not to cross between cars. I know most straphangers find reading MTA signs repulsive, but if they choose to ignore the warning, someone’s going to have to pay the consequences of breaking the rule.

The real question to ask though is one of common sense. Does the MTA’s ban on inter-car travel make sense? Five years ago, MTA Board member Barry Feinstein defended the rule. “It’s dangerous. It’s not smart, and you shouldn’t do it,” he said. The number of people who get a ticket though far outweigh the one or two a year who suffer injury while switching cars.

Riders, of course, have never liked the rule, and we still see various vagabonds, musicians and kids selling candy crossing at whim. “I don’t think it’s a good idea,” a Queens rider said in 2005 “People need to walk through the doors all the time. If there are no seats, people want to go to another car to get a seat.”

Yet, the rules are the rules. It might rest on a flimsy justification, and we might not agree with the rationale behind it. That doesn’t mean, though, that the rule does not apply to us all. Perhaps we’re all guilty.

66 comments
3 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Metro-North

Ceiling of the Day: Grand Central lights up

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 9, 2010

In the not-so-distant past, Grand Central Terminal’s majestic ceiling was grimy and dark, a far cry from the rich green hues that backdrop the constellations. From 1994-1998, the MTA engaged in a $200 million effort to clean the ceiling, leaving only a small dark patch in one corner to remind passers-by of the way it used to look. The ceiling, with its winter constellations –reversed to show it from the sky’s perspective — that light up and sparkle, is bright once again.

Yesterday, the authority again made the ceiling even brighter as they unveiled new light-emitting diodes that will both add a twinkle to the ceiling and reduce the MTA’s energy costs. Fifty-nine of the brightest lights were illuminated yesterday afternoon. “Using new technology to celebrate the traditional grandeur of Grand Central’s celestial ceiling is a testament to our commitment to improving the life of the city even as we continue to cut costs,” Jay Walder, chair and CEO of the authority, said in a statement. “We hope people won’t run into one another as they crane their necks and peer skyward in admiration.”

Orion sports the Grand Central Terminal's ceiling's new LED lights. (Photo via Metro-North)

As part of the announcement about the new light system, Metro-North released the tale of the old ceiling, and for New York City history buffs, it is a fascinating one indeed. When the terminal opened in 1913, the stars were illuminated by 10-watt incandescent bulbs, then considered to be state-of-the-art. “The pride and fascination with which the new-fangled electricity was viewed was evidenced by the bare light bulbs found throughout the Terminal,” says Metro-North.

As the stars burned out, replacing them became difficult. The ceiling is deep — 50 feet from the top of the cornice to the zenith of the arc — and is accessible only through the attic above. Workers had to crawl on all fours to replace the bulbs.

Meanwhile, says the agency, “as the predecessor railroad headed for bankruptcy, there was less and less enthusiasm for this particular maintenance chore and the bulbs burned out, one by one, until the entire winter zodiac sky was dark.”

In 1997, as part of the rejuvenation of the Grand Central ceiling, the MTA installed a massive fiber-optic system that eliminated the need for electricians to change the bulbs. Seven fiber-optic sources sent light traveling through clear plastic tubes to light up the constellations. But, says the authority, “over the years, the tubes got brittle and brown, and did not project light with the same intensity. The stars faded. In the search for a new, environmentally friendly solution, LEDs seemed the obvious choice.”

The new LED system will, says Metro-North, use just four watts of electricity, a 60 percent reduction from the fiber-optics system. The lights will be on from 5 a.m. to 2 a.m. every day and the bulbs are expected to last 50,000 hours — or 2380 days each. Total savings should be around $8000 a year.

The lights too are positioned to lend the ceiling an aura of authenticity in a city to choked with light pollution to view real constellations. “When gazing up, 125 feet above the Tennessee pink marble floor, one cannot see all the lighted stars at once,” says the MTA. As people walk across the Concourse floor and their vantage point changes, different stars appear, giving a twinkling impression.”

For more photos, check out WNYC’s gallery.

5 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Crazy ideas: Directly electing the MTA Board

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 9, 2010

Throughout October’s campaign season as the MTA repeatedly came under fire, those running for office continued to call for more direct control over the MTA Board. Some of the candidates wanted to bring the MTA under the auspices of the New York State Department of Transportation or under the direct control of the governor. Others even advocated for the direct election of MTA Board representatives. New York politicians, it seems, do not know their history.

Once upon a time, the city’s transit oversight fell to the Board of Transportation, a six-man body appointed solely by the mayor. Transit policy was highly political, and it led to both disastrous fare policies and overbuilt subway lines. It is impossible to raise the fare when politicians are held directly accountable for those hikes, and even though we dislike fare hikes, it is often necessary to raise fares at the very least to keep pace with inflation.

Cap’n Transit has another take on the issue. He explores the idea within the framework of democracy, access and accountability. I’ll quote at length but do visit the good Captain’s site:

Many years ago, I was in an officer of a small student political group in a distant city, and I got a call from a bicycle activist I knew. He wasn’t a member of our organization, or even our political party, but he was running for election to an obscure municipal board that just happened to have influence over bicycle policy. I helped this guy reach out to the student body in a way that clearly violated campus rules, and he won by a small margin, quite possibly entirely due to that outreach. Now that city has over four hundred miles of bicycle facilities.

Sounds great, right? The results are impressive, but the whole thing was completely undemocratic. A tiny, dedicated group was able to sway an election to represent a fifth of the city. Only a small number of people were informed enough to know who they were voting for when they went into the booth. If you want democracy, you want the issues and agendas to be disclosed and debated well in advance. The only reason I feel comfortable with this is the knowledge that the pro-car people were pulling the same kinds of tricks. It was a dirty fight, so we fought dirty.

I’m pretty sure that this kind of dirty politics…is the kind of thing that regularly happens on school boards around the country. If you’ve been paying attention for the past year and a half, you’ll be well aware of the number of people who haven’t. Very few people know who their State Legislators are, and of those people, a tiny proportion know that these legislators have been redirecting money “dedicated” to the transit system for other purposes. Would you trust these people to vote for a representative to the MTA board?

…The most democratic way to run New York’s transit system is to have it be an executive agency just like the Department of Transportation…In fact, it might not have been as easy for Cuomo to duck the question of transit funding for as long as he did, if it had been clearly spelled out that the Governor controls the subway system.

Even beyond the theoretical, the MTA was born out of the need to remove transit decision-making from the political sphere. Politicians shouldn’t be making technocrat decisions that demand and require a certain expertise that they don’t possess, and I’d much rather have Jay Walder heading the MTA than suffering through a politically-dominated authority board. Fares cannot rise appropriately and service cannot be adjusted to meet demands without the right people making the decisions.

The real problem — and it’s not a sexy one — is oversight. Despite a new authority oversight board that doesn’t yet have much teeth, New York doesn’t have an adequate mechanism for authority oversight. The mayor has a few votes on the MTA Board and so too does the governor. But absent legislative action and the power of appointment*, there is no executive control over the MTA Board.

*It would help if the state executive would appoint qualified people to the Board as well. In the past, real estate interests dominated the MTA Board when a proper mix of people would involve transit planners, financial experts, union representatives and rider advocates. Eliot Spitzer’s and David Paterson’s appointments have been strong steps in the right direction.

So fix the MTA, if it’s truly broken, by consolidating power but do so in a way that doesn’t jeopardize fiscal contributions. The mayor wants his say and can threaten to remove funding if the governor seizes the MTA. The governor might want oversight but can’t risk losing the money. Even outside of the realm of politics, the MTA is still a political problem.

5 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ARC Tunnel

The son of the return of the ARC Tunnel

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 9, 2010

Could high-speed rail plans keep some iteration of the ARC Tunnel alive?

The ARC Tunnel just won’t die. Even though New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie killed it dead, even though the feds are now asking for $271 million and a full accounting of expenses, the idea of another cross-Hudson rail crossing is one that won’t stay dead. For the region, of course, that is a positive development even if it might be another two decades before ARC Jr. can start servicing the city.

We join this story now in progress. Shortly after Christie officially pulled the plug on the ARC Tunnel, various advocacy groups and politicians continued to push for a sensible transit policy, and the effort seemed to coalesce around comments Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican in line to chair the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the wake of James Oberstar’s defeat. While most Republicans do not look favorably upon the northeast, Mica is a supporter of high-speed rail and urged the Obama Administration to reexamine its plans for HSR.

In effect, as a comment in Progressive Railroading noted, Mica has advocated for a consolidation of the plans around the profitable and popular Northeast Corridor route. “I am a strong advocate of high-speed rail, but it has to be where it makes sense,” he said. “The administration squandered the money, giving it to dozens and dozens of projects that were marginal at best to spend on slow-speed trains to nowhere.”

In a sense, if America is serious about starting a high-speed rail network while simultaneously improving travel along the Northeast Corridor, focusing federal efforts in the northeast makes sense. Other states have, as Yonah Freemark recently explored in depth, been lukewarm or downright unreceptive toward Obama’s HSR plans, and if the northeast can be the staging crowd, albeit an expensive one, who are we reject the dollars?

Yesterday, Amtrak through a wrinkle into the scheming as they let word drop that they are interested in reviving ARC as a possible high-speed rail tunnel. “We’re looking into common project opportunities with NJ Transit,” Amtrak Spokesman Cliff Cole said. “We’re not sure if there are even any opportunities that would work but we’ve been asked to sit down and talk with them and we’ve begun that process.”

Other Amtrak officials spoke of their efforts as a salvage mission. “A partnershipwould be the immediate strategy to get two tracks as soon as possible,” Al Engel, Amtrak Vice President of High Speed Rail said. “We’re beginning to explore what value there is in the ARC work that can be salvaged.”

New Jersey Transit characterized these talks as very preliminary, and Gov. Christie reiterated his stance on the ARC Tunnel. “To repeat yet again, the ARC Tunnel project is over,” his statement said. “While no new conversations have taken place between Amtrak and NJ Transit, the Governor previously tasked both DOT Commissioner James Simpson and NJ Transit Executive Director James Weinstein to work with the pertinent partners to explore fiscally viable alternatives for a trans-Hudson tunnel. As such, we will continue to explore solutions to the trans-Hudson transportation challenge.”

Still, there’s a chance that something resembling the ARC Tunnel could pop up again sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, sooner is all relative. Although it’s going to take New Jersey up to a year to shutdown work on the ARC Tunnel, Amtrak doesn’t believe the second generation of the ARC project would see revenue service until 2030 later. The government would have to conduct environmental studies and design work before securing funding, and transit activists are going to work to ensure that the next ARC Tunnel does not suffer from the dead-end, deep-cavern design flaw that plagued the version Christie killed.

These developments though do present something of a proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. The National Association of Railroad Passengers has continued to call for a new trans-Hudson rail tunnel. Even if we have to wait 20 years, the ball can still be rolling on this vital infrastructure policy. A sensible pattern of federal investment and a willingness to cooperate from New Jersey could keep ARC hopes alive in some form or another.

25 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Economics

Vacca, advocates: Keep state hands off of transit money

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 8, 2010

James Vacca, chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, is quickly becoming transit advocates’ most vocal supporter in New York government. Today, Vacca along with Gene Russianoff, Paul Steely White and Kate Slevin issued a call for New York state, mired in a budget crisis, to keep its hands off of money ostensibly earmarked for transit.

The letter comes on the heels of the news that the state is facing a $315 million tax revenue shortfall, and the situation is eerily similar to the one that developed last fall. In 2009, when faced with a similar crunch, the state opted to take $143 million in funds earmarked for transit away from the MTA. Earlier this year, the state did the same when federal medical assistance payments came up short. To combat yet another financial move, Vacca and his co-signers are urging Gov. David Paterson, Sheldon Silver and John L. Sampson to respect the transit lockbox.

Says the letter, which I’ve embedded after the jump:

Out concern is stoked by the events of last December. Confronted with a midyear budget deficit, the State diverted $143 million from our mass transit “lockbox” to the general fund, in effect raiding a pot of dedicated taxes that were specifically enacted to support the MTA and New York straphangers. This budget “sweep” shook the MTA’s already-unstable fiscal house. As a result, the authority implemented the most severe service cuts in its history, eliminating dozens of bus and subway lines and reducing service on over 100 others. Those cuts stranded tens of thousands of New Yorkers and saddled thousands more with longer waits, additional transfers, and more crowded commutes.

Despite the drastic service cuts anda 7.5% fare and toll hike scheduled for January — the third in as many years — the MTA’s budget outlook remains bleak. the MTA projects an operating deficit of $87 million next year and substantially higher deficits in the out-years. Its five-year capital plan is short nearly $10 billion with no funding provided by the State past the second year. Straphangers face the real possibility of additional service cuts or fares hikes if the MTA cannot identify steady funding sources. At a time when the State should be focused on shoring up the future of mass transit funding — and restoring the $143 million that was diverted last year — conducting another “sweep” would send a terrible message.

The MTA’s subways, buses, and trains are the engine that drives New York’s economy. New York City cannot survive without a vibrant mass transit system, and our mass transit system cannot survive without a stable source of funding. Denying the MTA any additional funds from its dedicated tax stream at this time would be a short-term fix with severe long-term consequences. We urge you to take a different route.

I’ll have more on the idea of a transit lockbox in the coming months, but the real problem here is that the lockbox doesn’t exist. The state and city taxes that are ostensibly earmarked for the MTA are deposited into the state’s general fund, and the legislature is then supposed to redistribute the receipts to the MTA. This set-up makes it way too easy for the state to divert transit dollars to other areas of the budget, and in times of crisis, the MTA’s coffers make an appealing target.

California’s transit funds are now constitutionally protected. It’s time for New York to take the same plunge before the MTA’s dollars are diminished even further.

After the jump, read the letter in its entirety.

Continue Reading
1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Queens

In Jackson Heights, empty real estate draws ire

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 8, 2010

As the economy improves, the retail spaces at 74th St./Roosevelt Ave. in Jackson Heights should fill up.

Updated (4:10 p.m.): The MTA’s vast real estate holdings make for easy political fodder. Politicians do not want the authority to raise fares or cut costs until every single cent has been squeezed out of the MTA’s air rights, commercial retail space and office buildings. On the one hand, when it comes to deals such as the highly problematic Vanderbilt Yards sales, politicians are right to cast a wary eye on the authority’s deal-makings, but sometimes, the MTA’s vacant commercial real estate holdings face criticisms out of touch with the economic times. This is not one of these cases.

On Friday, NY1’s John Mancini produced a piece on Jackson Heights’ recently renovated 74th St./Roosevelt Ave. hub. The station underwent a five-year, $132-million rehab earlier this decade, and it was supposed to be home to a series of retail establishments as other subterranean hubs are. The MTA, though, has had trouble filling three of the 14 spaces, and politicians are unhappy.

“This is a shining example of MTA incompetence,” Queens Councilman Daniel Dromm said while standing in front of two vacant, street-level spaces. “They promised me that this store right here behind me would be open by September as a pizza parlor. As you can see, they’ve had a lot of success.”

At first blush, it seems as though Dromm is needlessly picking on an authority doomed by bad timing. After all, commercial retail vacancies are up across the city, and the MTA can’t do much to fill spaces. But after a few discussions with sources close to both Dromm and the retail space, this does indeed sound as though the MTA dropped the ball.

First, take not of a Times article on the situation. Fernanda Santos explains some of the details:

The transportation authority first requested proposals for the space on Roosevelt Avenue in 2006 and got back a single response, from a Korean businessman who wanted to open a bakery, agency officials said. The businessman signed a 10-year lease in 2007, paid a $40,000 deposit and then an additional $75,000 in 2008, when he told the agency that he needed more time because of problems with the architect he had hired for the project.

The second space — a triangular store of about 200 square feet — cannot accommodate a ventilation system because of its odd configuration, making it impossible to house a pizza parlor that someone had intended to open there, the officials said.

No lease has ever been signed for the smaller space, and the lease for the larger one was not voided until September 2008, almost two years after it was signed. Though the Korean businessman forfeited his deposits, he never paid any rent on the space.

“That’s the ultimate absurdity of this whole deal,” Mr. Dromm said. Mr. Dromm is particularly troubled by the impression that the shuttered stores might leave on visitors. The subway station is a gateway to the neighborhood and “it’s not a good thing if the first thing you see is boarded-up commercial space,” he said.

The backstory grows deeper though. When the MTA rebuilt the Roosevelt Ave. hub, they turned the biggest space — the still-empty storefront — into a two-level store but did not install the ADA-required elevator. Instead, the terms of the lease they are trying to negotiate with businesses requires that the leaseholder install the necessary elevator at a cost. Because elevators are expensive, locals anticipate that this will add at least $500,000 to the cost of opening a business. The space too currently is just a shell with no floor subdividing the levels.

Dromm has suggested a variety of solutions for the MTA. He has asked them to subdivide the space and use the lower level for storage while renting out the top. He’s asked them to turn it over to the city so that he can use Council funds to attract a non-profit. He’s even requested temporary bike parking spaces to fill the vacancy.

In essence, this empty storefront has created what neighborhood activities are terming “blight” in front of the focal point of Jackson Heights. The subway stop is among the most active in Queens, and people see bordered-up windows as they go to work in the morning and come home at night. It needs to be a magnet for people and small business, but right now, it’s a sore spot on the very visible face of an up-and-community community.

Meanwhile, although The Times says that the MTA has untangled itself from the bakery lease, sources close to Dromm tell me that won’t speed up the process. As of July, the two sides were still haggling over the lease, and once the MTA is free of that commitment, it must again prepare an RFP and hold it open for six months. The authority seems to believe this will prevent them from picking a tentant for at least nine months, and it could be another two or three years before the space is filled. The station rehab wrapped years ago.

The authority’s real estate department is working on new approaches. “Expectations are that it’s not high-quality retail. And by high quality, I don’t mean expensive, I just mean interesting, good design,” MTA Director of Real Estate Jeff Rosen said to NY1. “The kind of place you’d want to stop and pick up something for convenience, but also for fun.”

That it remains empty highlights the tensions between community needs and MTA planners. This time, it seems, the authority had unrealistic assumptions and did not work closely enough with Jackson Heights leaders to make it work. The resolution too is still a few years away.

11 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
7 Line Extension

Musings on the need for planning ahead

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 8, 2010

Seemingly forward-looking at the time it was built, the station shell at South 4th Street now represents wasted money and opportunity. (Photo via Subway & Rail)

When the route we now know and love as the G train was completed in 1937, it was supposed to be just one part of an expansive plan to change the face of subway travel into, out of and between Brooklyn and Queens. Twenty-four years in the making, the Crosstown line, part of the Municipal Subway system, connected population centers in the city’s two most populous boroughs, and it was just a small part of the IND Second System.

As city planners constructed subway routes through Brooklyn and Queens, they provisioned other stations into their plans. Even though the funding wasn’t in place to build, say, the entire Utica Ave. subway, the Board of Transportation made sure that new stations that would eventually serve as transfer points were built as such. Thus, the IND Fulton St. stop at Utica Ave. (A/C) has a station shell that angles with Utica Ave., and the Broadway station along the G train has a six-track shell parallel to Williamsburg’s South 4 and Meserole Streets.

The IND Second System, as I explored in depth last week, never materialized, and for the better part of 73 years, the South 4th St. station has sat unused and largely forgotten. Known only to railfans and New York City historians, the station and the subway expansion plans fell to the wayside, and all that remained was a station shell, empty, abandoned and barely acknowledged by the MTA. It took, of all things, a highly illegal and dangerous street art stunt to return the South 4th St. station to the city’s consciousness.

Today, New York is engaged in its largest subway expansion effort since the IND system became a reality. Modest by the standards of the 1930s, Phase 1 of the Second Ave. Subway and the 7 Line Extension promise to improve access to underserved areas of Manhattan, but the provisioning isn’t nearly as robust as it once was. The Second Ave. Subway was once envisioned, unnecessarily so in the 1920s, as a six-track subway, but recent iterations have seen that total go from four to three to two. In this instance, while the Second Ave. Subway will be constructed to allow connections to the Bronx and Brooklyn, the MTA isn’t provisioning for anything along the route.

The 7 line meanwhile through a similar problem. Although tail tracks would potentially allow a southern extension or a potential connection eastward, the sticking point for this capital project has been the station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. Originally, the extension was to consist of two stops, but rising costs have slowly cut back those plans. At one point, the city proposed building a shell station — much like the South 4th St. ghost — at 41st and 10th so either it or the MTA could fund proper construction when the economy improved. The MTA rejected this plan when the city refused to foot the bill for it, and now, the last hope for this stop rests on the shoulders of a few federal official trying to find the money for it.

It is a gross oversight to skip even the provisioning for this station, and while the $800 million price tag is a legitimate concern, the city and MTA must figure out a way to include the ability to build it later. There is, though, one solution: The ARC Tunnel money is out there for the taking.

We know New York City officials are jockeying to secure their share of the $3.3 billion New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie gave up when he canceled the tunnel, and the 7 line would be the perfect destination for it. This is a capital project that needs an infusion of dollars, and the omitted station wouldn’t soak up all of the federal funds. It wouldn’t improve interstate mobility, but it would right a wrong in New York City.

In a recent short piece on the proper role of borrowing in infrastructure spending, Cap’n Transit briefly highlighted how poor spending can lead to 73-year-old station shells that go unused, but despite the labeling, the South 4th Street station doesn’t quite fit that bill. It was part of a larger plan that couldn’t get implemented because the money wasn’t there. Had the city tried to realize the IND plans after building the Broadway stop without that shell, it would have cost more and been more difficult to construct from an engineering standpoint.

Today, we’re on the verge of making a different mistake. We aren’t borrowing or finding the money to build something — a station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. — that will indeed increase revenue. The ARC money is out there, and it’s not too late to rectify this problem. But as the construction continues along the West Side, time’s a-wastin’. It will be worse to have no station at all than it is to have a 73-year-old shell just sitting there.

29 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts