Archive for February, 2011
Feb
09
An escalator epidemic grips DC’s WMATA
Posted by: | Comments
A glimpse up WMATA's Woodley Park escalator. (Photo by flickr user magandafille)
When I lived in Washington, D.C, my primary Metro stop was over 200 feet deep. When I would enter or exit at Woodley Park, I usually relied on the escalators to exit the station because the climb was just too long, and at least one of the station’s three escalators would invariably be out of service. The DC escalators, in fact, have a reputation for unreliability, and a recent report from the WMATA does nothing to dispel that stigma. As the Washington Examiner reports, the Metro’s escalators are breaking down more frequently, and repairs are taking longer and longer to complete.
The details themselves are actually pretty sad. Metro’s escalators average just 153 revenue hours of service — or a little over a week — between breakdowns, and it now takes the WMATA crews an average of 14 hours to repair the machines. Age isn’t the only culprit as some of the oldest escalators are the most reliable and some of the newest the least, and the elements are to blame as well. A systemwide plan to install canopies covering all outside escalators fell short of its goals when the authority ran out of money.
The real problems seem to stem from overuse and poor maintenance procedures. The WMATA simply isn’t equipped to handle the wear and tear on their escalators, and as I shift my gaze north, I see similar problems in New York. At those stations that have escalators, oftentimes, they’re out of service. For instance, Transit currently reports 18 out-of-service escalators, including two that have been offline for repairs since November.
For deep-cavern stations similar to those in Washington, escalators make sense, but elsewhere, they’re just inconvenient. They don’t increase accessibility enough to make an elevator unnecessary, and they cost a lot to maintain. The new Second Ave. Subway stations will likely have escalators, but maybe, they shouldn’t. At the very least, the MTA and the WMATA should remember Mitch Hedberg: An escalator can never break; it can only become stairs.
Feb
09
The pesky political economics of the payroll tax
Posted by: | Comments
For the past few months, I’ve been enmeshed in the MTA’s finances stretching back to 1970, and I can see now why politicians have such a tenuous grasp on how the authority is funded. The MTA is made up of various constituent agencies that each operate essentially for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It has a massive payroll, an extensive operating budget and a separate capital budget. For state legislators who must balance competing demands, understanding this financial structure isn’t — and probably shouldn’t be — a top priority.
Yet, yesterday, while watching MTA CEO and Chair Jay Walder respond to questions from the State Senate Transportation Committee, I was reminded again just how poorly Senators understand how their own actions impact the MTA and downstate regional transportation. Throughout the committee hearing, the State Senators repeatedly spoke out against the payroll mobility tax. It’s somewhat odd that these representatives chose a hearing with Walder to attack the tax because Walder wasn’t even in the United States when the tax was approved as part of the funding package. Plus, the Senate — and not the MTA — was the driving force behind the tax, and if anything, they should debate amongst themselves the best way to fund transit. But I digress.
As the hearing wore on, the Senators ramped up the rhetoric. One from Long Island called it a “draconian” measure that has allegedly crippled the downstate economy. Another wondered why the MTA is so adamant about the millions generated by the tax now if, three years ago, it operated perfectly fine without one. “We didn’t have a payroll tax a few years ago. Why can’t we go back to that?” asked one Senator who later said that it “may be difficult” for the state to replace the $1.4 billion the tax generates.
Walder was unequivocal in his statement in response. “It would be impossible for the MTA to replace $1.4 billion,” he said. He calmly and forcefully explained that the service cuts instituting in June saved the MTA $100 million while the fare hikes raised another $350 million and internal belt-tightening led to $500 million in recurring savings. To go through that process again would hinder the authority’s ability to deliver the subway service its riders demand, and it can’t raise fares 33 percent to cover a potential billion-dollar operating gap.
So why do these myths that the MTA could do without the payroll tax persist? It is in fact a myth of Albany’s making. The reason why the MTA saw its operations budget deficit jump precipitously toward the end of the last decade is debt. As Albany scaled back its direct contributions to the MTA’s capital plan, the authority turned to bond financing instead, and the repayments started coming due. Thus, debt service payments jumped into the $1-$2 billion range, and the MTA had to scramble to pay for both the transportation services is must provide and the debt service it is contractually obligated to repay.
State Senators seem to have a myopic view of MTA financing. If it worked three years ago, why can’t it work today? The problem is that MTA’s economic obligations have increased because of Albany action from decades ago. When past leader try to make future generations pay for their capital work, the bill will eventually come due, and that’s what our current Senators don’t seem to understand.
To take away the payroll tax would starve the MTA of funds it needs to operate. Albany could find other funding mechanisms, but it now must lay in the bed it made. The MTA didn’t ask for this exact tax, but it needs the money. Anyone have a better solution?
Feb
09
Retail Thoughts: An Apple Store in Grand Central
Posted by: | Comments
Newsstands dominate the underground retail scene. (Photo by flickr user lornagrl)
The MTA’s retail offerings are making headlines this week as one of the era’s most iconic computer brands is eying retail space in the country’s most iconic train terminal. As The Observer reported earlier this week, Apple may be gearing up to open a store in Grand Central.
As is often the case with rumors about future Apple Stores, none of those with any knowledge of the deal could talk to reporter Laura Kusisto, but ifoAppleStore confirmed Apple’s interest in the landmarked terminal. The process to rent space from the MTA is a long one involving stringent RFPs and tight control over the space by the landlords. Still, as Apple looks to siphon customers away from its crowded 5th Ave. store while tapping into the crowds that pass through Grand Central, it’s enticing rumor at least.
For its part, the MTA said little to Kusisto about a next potential tenant, and we’ll just have to wait out the RFP process. “We select tenants through a public process that features a formal request for proposals,” said Aaron Donovan, a spokesman for the MTA. “We don’t comment on prospective tenants outside of the process.”
Even if no one wants to talk, this rumors got me thinking about the MTA’s retail division. A frequent charge leveled by politicians at the authority concerns the way it does or doesn’t make use of its extensive holdings. As I walk through the subway system, I’m often struck by how little space is actually used. While some stations see peak crowds too overwhelming to squeeze more onto a platform, most have open areas to spare, and yet, retail is sparse.
Those stations that do sport stores do not seem to feature much in the way of use or creativity. A few storefront ATM locations populate the 42nd St./Times Square terminal while a record store earned headlines when it reopened a few years back. By and large, though, newsstands are all that we see in the subway, and even those are only set up at the big hubs.
The headlines about subway retail aren’t particularly pretty. A long-standing dispute in Jackson Heights simmered over during the fall, and that type of coverage is more representative of the MTA’s retail reality. They want to attract more stores, but something about the subway doesn’t work. Perhaps it’s being identified with something New Yorkers consider dirty and inconvenient, rat-infested and unclean. Perhaps its the ebb and flow of crowds that aren’t looking to shop and don’t notice the store.
Still, as Stephen Smith pointed at Market Urbanism this week, retail in the subway is a great missed opportunity. While urging transit agencies to maximize their real estate holdings, he ponders the economics of it all. “Does anybody know how much money such schemes can generate?” he asks. “Obviously allowing vendors to set up shop in train stations isn’t going to obviate the need for a thorough reform of the way this country does mass transit to make it profitable and sustainable, but can it amount to anything more than a drop in the bucket?”
As San Francisco’s BART looks to develop its retail offerings, here in New York, Jay Walder would like to do the same. The guys in charge answer Smith’s question by proclaiming profitability. The MTA CEO and Chair discussed underground retail with me in November. “We will make more money if we can improve the retail environment in the subway system, get greater value out of the spaces that we have there, improve the ambiance and the customer satisfaction,” he said while praising new retail initiatives at Times Square. “We’ll make more money than all of the naming rights deals.”
Ultimately, though, the rest of the system doesn’t carry the passenger volume of Times Square or the cachet of Grand Central that has seemingly enticed Apple to ask some questions. It might be possible to milk some money out of constantly crowded stations, but subway travel is so fleeting. Neighborhood stations are crowded for an hour or two every morning and serve as ghost towns after that. Would a up-market retailer take that risk? I don’t think so.
Feb
08
Can the White House jumpstart the Gateway Tunnel?
Posted by: | Comments
The Gateway Tunnel could benefit from a White House push to spend billions on high speed rail.
One day after Amtrak and New Jersey’s Senate delegation introduced the Gateway Tunnel, Vice President Joe Biden announced a major six-year, $53-billion investment in high speed rail. Speaking in Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station earlier today, Biden discussed how high-speed rail will help attain President Obama’s goal of winning the future, and while House Republicans who control the purse strings are somewhat skeptical of the reach of the plan, the money could help get the Gateway Tunnel off the ground.
“As President Obama said in his State of the Union, there are key places where we cannot afford to sacrifice as a nation – one of which is infrastructure,” the vice president said. “As a long time Amtrak rider and advocate, I understand the need to invest in a modern rail system that will help connect communities, reduce congestion and create quality, skilled manufacturing jobs that cannot be outsourced. This plan will help us to do that, while also increasing access to convenient high speed rail for more Americans.”
The White House has yet to lay out the specific investments, but it will look to spend in three key areas outlined in its press release. Those include:
- Core Express: These corridors will form the backbone of the national high-speed rail system, with electrified trains traveling on dedicated tracks at speeds of 125-250 mph or higher.
- Regional: Crucial regional corridors with train speeds of 90-125 mph will see increases in trips and reductions in travel times, laying the foundation for future high-speed service.
- Emerging: Trains traveling at up to 90 mph will provide travelers in emerging rail corridors with access to the larger national high-speed and intercity passenger rail network.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, absent from yesterday’s Gateway presser, joined Biden at the podium today. “In America, we pride ourselves on dreaming big and building big,” he said. “This historic investment in America’s high-speed rail network keeps us on track toward economic opportunity and competitiveness in the 21st century. It’s an investment in tomorrow that will create manufacturing, construction, and operations jobs today.”
House Republicans though were quick to raise an eyebrow toward this ambitious plan. John L. Mica, the House Transportation Committee Chair from Florida, is a supporter of high-speed rail, but he prefers to see a targeted investment in the northeast corridor. Selfishly, I’m not opposed to that, but Mica’s rhetoric is a bit over the top. Despite the committee leadership’s best wishes, private investment will likely not lead to a viable high-speed rail network in the northeast or elsewhere.
“This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio,” he said said in a statement. “With the first $10.5 billion in Administration rail grants, we found that 1) the Federal Railroad Administration is neither a capable grant agency, nor should it be involved in the selection of projects, 2) what the Administration touted as high-speed rail ended up as embarrassing snail-speed trains to nowhere, and 3) Amtrak hijacked 76 of the 78 projects, most of them costly and some already rejected by state agencies.”
He continued: “Amtrak’s Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service. Rather than focusing on the Northeast Corridor, the most congested corridor in the nation and the only corridor owned by the federal government, the Administration continues to squander limited taxpayer dollars on marginal projects.”
But all of this is just a roundabout way for me to reach the question I asked in the headline: If Mica is willing to support high-speed rail in the northeast, if the White House wants to spend $53 billion over six years and if Amtrak has a viable plan to build a second cross-Hudson tunnel, these political forces should align to see the Gateway Tunnel realized. It might not have the same benefits for commuters as ARC did, but it will help ease rail congestion into and out of New York while opening the way for a high-speed Northeast Corridor. It’s a logical step that will require political cooperation.
Feb
08
For NJ commuters, Gateway is no ARC
Posted by: | Comments
A proposed track map shows how the Gateway Tunnel would lead into Penn Station South. (Click the image to enlarge.)
Editor’s Note: With the announcement that Amtrak would seek funding for a proposed Gateway Tunnel from New Jersey to New York City, one-time Second Ave. Sagas guest writer Jeremy Steinemann started a new blog called Gateway Gab. He’s going to track the progress of the Gateway Tunnel there, and he is allowing me to post some of his analysis here as well.
Yesterday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie viewed the Gateway announcement as a vindication of his decision to cancel ARC, but as Steinemann explains in the post below, Christie is off base. From the cost comparisons to the benefits to his state’s commuters, Christie and his criticisms shouldn’t enjoy a moment in the sun, and although Gateway would help alleviate the congestion into and out of New York City, it doesn’t have the same impact for commuters as ARC would have. What follows is Steinemann’s analysis.
As part of yesterday’s announcement of the proposed Amtrak Gateway Tunnel, Senator Frank Lautenberg’s (NJ-D) office has released a comparison of the three trans-hudson tunnel projects: Gateway, the now-defunct ARC tunnel, and the 7 train to Secaucus. This nifty chart is available at Lautenberg’s website, but take a look:
If anything, the chart is a testament to just how beneficial the ARC Tunnel promised to be, noting, for example, that ARC promised to connect commuters to the subway lines at Herald Square. The biggest difference between the two projects, however, are the compromises that Gateway requires of NJ Transit. For passengers on trains from Bergen, Passaic, Rockland and Orange Counties on the Main-Bergen and Pascack Valley lines, Gateway will not provide the long-promised, one-seat ride to Manhattan (at least not at first).
Furthermore, NJ Transit will have to coordinate operating control of the new tunnels. The current tunnels — technically known as the North River Tunnels — are controlled solely by Amtrak, whose trains take precedence over NJ Transit — wreaking havoc on the commuting schedule when an inter-city train is delayed. In contrast, ARC promised a set of tunnels operated solely by NJ Transit. The details of the Gateway operating arrangement are not clear, but improvements over the current arrangement are essential. Finally, as I noted yesterday, Gateway increases NJ Transit’s peak train capacity by only 13 additional trains, as opposed to ARC’s 24 additional trains.
The Gateway project, however, also includes a grab-bag of brand new items. Whereas ARC mentioned it as a possible future project, new access for Metro North at Penn Station is a full component of Gateway. In fact, a presentation on Lautenberg’s site promises capacity for six hourly trains on Metro North’s New Haven and Hudson Lines. The Harlem Line would not have access to the station.
In addition, Gateway’s new Penn Station South adds four new platforms serving seven tracks underground between 30th and 31st streets from 7th Ave. to just west of 8th Ave. Finally, Amtrak’s proposal also suggests extending the 7 train not westward but eastward from its future terminus at 34th St. and 10th Ave to Penn Station. It seems the cost of this extension is not factored into Gateway’s estimated price.
A critical benefit of Gateway, that is not being widely touted, is the system redundancy that the connectivity to Penn Station provides. The ARC tunnels were to be completely separate from the existing Penn tubes. If, for some reason, a train dies in one tunnel, as happens frequently now, the Gateway tunnels will provide a back-up. Due to the complicated nature of the train platforms underneath Moynihan station, however, it seems impossible for NJ Transit and Amtrak to utilize three of the four tunnels for peak-directional flow as the LIRR currently permits in its four tunnels under the East River.
The price comparisons between Gateway and ARC, reported at $13.5 billion and $10 billion respectively, are also misleading. The Gateway Tunnel also includes the Portal Bridge Replacement project, which ARC critics demanded should have been considered part of ARC’s total cost. Like ARC and the Portal Bridge projects, Gateway will double the right-of-way from Newark Penn Station to New York Penn Station from two to four tracks. Any changes to the connection between the Northeast Corridor and NJT’s Morris & Essex and Montclair Lines (located just west of the Portal Bridge) remain unclear at this time.
To view the full PDF presentation on Gateway, click here.
Feb
08
Fare Hike Dispatches: Sunset dates, LIRR refunds
Posted by: | Comments
Last week, for the first time since the end of December, I had to buy a new 30-day MetroCard, and although I’ve long known that this card would set me back a triple-digit figure, I wasn’t prepared for the sticker shock. That $104 fee is a steep one. For those still using their stockpiled $89 cards, today is a big day for at 11:59 p.m. tonight, the sun will set on any remaining 30-day cards, and those cards will expire.
To remind customers of this sunset date, the MTA sent out a press release yesterday with information on refunds. The authority says that customers still holding 30-day cards can get a pro-rated refund by mailing cards along with a questionnaire back to New York City Transit. The forms are available at subway station booths — if you can find one with a station agent — and on buses throughout the city. They’re also available as a PDF right here. For those who want to take care of their return in person, head to the MetroCard Customer Service Center at 3 Stone Street in Manhattan. I wonder how many people will find their remaining fare cards inactive tomorrow morning.
In other fare hike-related news, Long Island State Senators are upset with the MTA over its new refund policy. When the fares went up, the MTA changed its refund policy. It now charges a $10 processing fee and offers refunds only within 30 days of purchase. Oftentimes, the fee is more than the price of the ticket.
So State Senator Jack Martins from Mineola has called upon the MTA to end this practice. In his press release, he slammed the MTA for the Senate-approved payroll package as well. Calling it an “injustice,” he said, “This processing fee is yet one more gimmick by the MTA to pass on costs to the customers who have already had to bear the burden of increased tickets prices and service cuts. If that wasn’t enough, local businesses, municipalities and school districts have also been hit with a payroll tax to support the MTA. The MTA has showed that it has no problem taking money but refuses to refund it when the service is not used.”
During a hearing today in front of the Senate Transportation Committee, Walder defended the refund fee. He said that it isn’t free for the MTA to process refunds, but that’s almost besides the point. Martins is yet another Senator who is content to take money from the MTA with one hand while bashing them with the other. He doesn’t explain why the MTA shouldn’t institute a processing fee or why they should even bother to accept returns in the first place. It might be a steep fee, but the state’s inability to find creative funding solutions for transit comes with political repercussions.
Feb
08
Lappin: M15 Select Bus Service garners a B-
Posted by: | Comments
Over the last few years, the MTA and New York City Department of Transportation have worked to make our city streets more bus-friendly. Left twisting in the winds of surface traffic, the current fleet is known more for the shleppiness of rides and for cross-Manhattan trips, being slower than walking. Select Bus Service — the city’s cross between bus rapid transit and glorified express service — has been designed to combat that stigma, and just five months after its first Manhattan implementation along 1st and 2nd Aves., Select Bus Service garnering both praise and criticism from the city’s politicians.
From the get-go, forces lined up against Select Bus Service in Manhattan. Due to the demands of drivers as well as construction work around the Second Ave. Subway area, DOT opted against the gold standard of bus rapid transit: There are no physically separated lanes. Instead, the city can enforce bus lanes through camera-based ticketing systems, and for parts of the route, buses do not even enjoy those bus-only lanes. Meanwhile, pre-board fare payment has come to the city as well, but as machines are often out of paper and enforcement has been cumbersome, paying before boarding hasn’t delivered the promised panacea of speedy buses. Things are faster, but they’re not yet fast.
Yesterday, City Council member Jessica Lappin, who represent’s Manhattan’s 5th District, unveiled a Select Bus Service report card, and she gave the new, speedier a B- after just four months of service. Lappin has been one of the more vocal proponents of faster bus service, but she also must balance that support with a community loath to surrender any parking spaces or curbside vehicle access. It shows in her assessment.
Lappin, who said there was “no excuse” for the service to receive anything less than an A, thankfully hasn’t given up hope after four months. “I am proud to have worked with activists and other elected officials to bring this service to the East Side and I still believe it can be a great thing for our community. but we aren’t there yet,” she said on Monday. “In some ways, the new service is working well, but other areas still need improvement.”
So what’s working well? Lappin, who solicited reactions from her constituents that ran the full gamut of “miserable” to “disgraceful” to “appalling,” highlighted speed as the main benefit. The buses have improved travel times by nearly 20 percent, and for that, everyone along 1st and 2nd Aves. is thrilled.
But Lappin dwelled on the negative as politicians are wont to do. The buses, she claims, are not accessible enough and earned a meager C- here. By her count, 56 percent of seats are not accessible for the elderly or handicapped because they are up a set of steps on the bus, and stations that are half a mile apart are not easily reached by those who cannot walk. To me, this is a strange thing to nitpick. Nearly all new buses have sections that aren’t accessible, and the SBS vehicles have low floors for easier boarding. As the MTA said, these buses are no less accessible than any others, and those who find the station spacing too great can still take local M15s.
The Council member also highlighted problems with fare collection. As I’ve detailed before, passengers left without proof-of-payment receipts have been ticketed aggressively and, shockingly, do not find the fine a welcome one. Some have complained that the MetroCard readers run out of paper, and although the MTA claims those machines are empty only 2-5 percent of the time, Lappin found that 10 percent of machines in her district were out of service. Thus, she gave this component a C. Meanwhile, enforcement efforts, which earned a B, cause buses to idle while cops check tickets, and thus, it slows down the service.
I’m honestly having a tough time wrapping my head around the East Side assessment of the Select Bus Service simply because Lappin readily admits that its significantly faster than the M15 local service. The point of SBS isn’t to stop every two blocks; it’s to offer speedier trips for those in a position to take advantage of it. Right now, politicians should be focusing on securing dedicated lanes, signal priority for buses and better bus lane enforcement. That is how a city can build a better bus service.
Feb
07
ARC the Third: Amtrak’s Gateway to New York
Posted by: | CommentsAmtrak's Gateway Tunnel addresses many of the criticisms leveled at the ARC Tunnel.
Since Gov. Chris Christie first announced plans to put a hold on and then cancel the ARC Tunnel, New Jersey’s Democratic Senate delegation has been at odds with the state’s Republican executive. Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez have criticized Christie for sacrificing $3 billion in federal funding as well as the opportunity to expand rail access to New York City. Today, the two Senators have announced a plan to achieve greater cross-Hudson rail capacity while working with Amtrak and bypassing Christie’s control entirely.
Enter the Gateway Tunnel. This tunnel that Amtrak believes will take ten years to construct could be another answer to rail crisis the ARC Tunnel had been designed to address. It is similar to ARC’s Alt G plan and modeled on numerous Amtrak studies. Based on numerous reports, it may cost anywhere from $10-$13.5 billion, and once or if completed, it will allow 21 more trains per hour — 13 New Jersey Transit trips and eight Amtrak trains — into New York. The dearly departed ARC Tunnel would have allowed 25 more New Jersey Transit trains into the dead-end deep cavern underneath 34th St.
While the Gateway Tunnel expansion would allow fewer trains into the city, the new proposal addresses the biggest concerns ARC supporters — and opponents — had with the previous project. As Jim O’Grady for Transportation Nation and WNYC has reports, “Whereas ARC was supposed to terminate at platforms under Macy’s, a block east of Penn Station, Gateway would end a block to the south, nearer to street level. The block—West 30th and West 31st Streets between 7th and 8th Avenues—now mostly holds small businesses like restaurants, bars and a repair shop for musical instruments.” Metro-North too would be able to service the new Penn Station South. (For more from today’s unveiling of the Gateway Tunnel, check out this pdf.)
A satellite view of the New York side of the proposed Gateway Tunnel. (Via The Star-Ledger)
O’Grady had more on the early plans and the hopes that the Gateway Tunnel could usher in high-speed rail in the area as well. He writes:
A staff member for an elected official familiar with the project said Amtrak, which is taking the lead on the tunnel, would have to assemble properties on the Manhattan block to make it feasible. He said on the New Jersey side, Gateway would use a hole that construction crews had already started digging for the ARC Tunnel at Tonnelle Avenue near Secaucus…
An important part of the work would be to raise the Portal Bridge, a notorious bottleneck between Kearny and Secaucus over the Hackensack River. Trains must now slow to cross the 100 year-old bridge, or stop altogether while it is moved to let boats to pass by. A modernized bridge, along with a new tunnel’s added capacity, would speed up Amtrak’s service along the Northeast Corridor and help set the stage for future high-speed rail, should it ever arrive.
Meanwhile, Mike Frassinelli of The Star Ledger, who broke the story late last night, reports on how the Gateway Tunnel may conflict with New York City’s plan to send 7 train to New Jersey. The Senators and Amtrak are putting forward this proposal as an alternative to Bloomberg’s subway-based idea, and the federal officials hope to send the 7 not across the Hudson but to Penn Station. He writes:
Some transportation officials think the Gateway plan makes more sense than expanding the No. 7 subway line from New York City to Secaucus Junction, an idea floated over the last three months by the staff of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Under Amtrak’s best-case scenario, the No. 7 line would also be extended to Penn Station, between 31st and 33rd streets, two blocks west of the Empire State Building.
During the afternoon press conference announcing this tunnel, current Amtrak board member and former Port Authority head Anthony Coscia denied a conflict with the 7 extension. “Regardless of whether the 7 extension happens, in order for there to be high-speed rail in the Northeast corridor, Amtrak would still need to build this project,” he said.
According to Frassinelli, Lautenberg, the more vocal critic of Christie’s politicized move to block the ARC Tunnel, has been working with Amtrak since the fall. “New Jersey is facing a transportation crisis,” he said. “Our commuters are fed up with train delays that make them late to work and endless traffic that traps them on our highways when they want to be home with their families. When the ARC tunnel was canceled, it was clear to me that we couldn’t just throw up our hands and wait years to find another solution.”
By turning away from state-based solutions and relying instead upon a federal rail provider who would ideally use a mix of infrastructure dollars and private investment for this project, Lautenberg can effectively cut Christie out from the bulk of the decision-making. Although New Jersey and New York will likely be asked to add some money to the pot via New Jersey Transit and the Port Authority, if Amtrak takes the lead, it — and not New Jersey’s reticent governor — will be in charge of securing the finances and arranging construction.
Right now, as O’Grady notes, the parties have yet to figure out financing and haven’t set construction plans. Amtrak is requesting $50 million this week for an engineering study and hopes to rely on work previously completed for ARC. Even as questions remain, though, rail proponents who have recognized the cross-Hudson congestion are thrilled that Gateway is on the table even if it is ten years away.
“This is not ARC,” Martin Robins, director of Rutgers’ Voorhes Transportation Center, said to The Star-Ledger. “In some respects, it is a lesser project. But it is still a very significant project. There will be benefits that will reverberate throughout New Jersey. This can be a wonderful alternative.”
Feb
07
ADI completes her western run under Second Ave.
Posted by: | Comments
A glimpse inside the western tunnel under Second Ave. This shot, taken at around 80th St., shows the muck train engine. (Photo courtesy of The Launch Box)
Updated (2:28 p.m.): Just yesterday I reported that the tunnel-boring machine was approaching the end of its western run, and today, the MTA announced that ADI, the TBM digging out the long-awaited Second Ave. Subway, reached that terminus over the weekend. Ben Heckscher at The Launch Box reports that the run was completed at 4:30 a.m. on Saturday morning. The construction crews will now disassemble the TBM, pull it back out along the tunnel and reassemble it in the launch box for another run down Second Ave. The authority hopes to start digging the eastern tunnel by April with an estimated completion date by the end of 2011.
“Construction of this much-needed subway continues to move forward and this week marks another major accomplishment to transform New York as we know it,” MTA Capital Construction President Michael Horodniceanu said in a statement. “These are tangible results that will not only expand our capacity but will also bring new economic activity and growth to Manhattan’s Upper East Side and points beyond.”
During the western run, the TBM dug 7162 feet down Second Ave. but did not reach the existing tunnel at 63rd St. due to a curve too sharp for the TBM’s turning radius. The two tubes will be connected by blasting and digging work set to be done by the company tasked with building the 72nd St. station. The eastern run of the TBM will end at 63rd St. though because the curve from 63rd St. and Third Ave. to the straight shot up Second Ave. is shallow enough for the TBM to make it.
Of course, once the TBM runs are finished later this year, the hard work will only just begin. There is, after all, a reason why the Second Ave. Subway isn’t slated to open until nearly five years after the tunnel-boring machiens are through. Work crews will have to begin the arduous process of building out station caverns and modernized subway stations, constructing ancillary buildings and finishing the tunnels themselves. The completion of the first TBM is a major milestone for a project that has come to symbolize governmental inaction and ineptness over the past eight decades, but it is a small step on the way toward a new subway line.
Meanwhile, The Launch Box has some stunning photos inside the the western tunnel. Take a look at Part 1 and Part 2. The shots show the detail of the tunneling work, sandhogs working near the TBM cutter head and the muck produced by Adi as she heads south. These are truly stunning shots.
Sandhogs work behind the TBM to clear out loose debris. The machine is not in motion. (Photo courtesy of The Launch Box)
Feb
07
Grading Jay Walder
Posted by: | Comments
Jay Walder has been the head of the MTA with the power of both the CEO and Chairman for 16 months, and it sounds as though he’ll serve out his tenure. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has seemingly indicated that he’ll keep Walder on board, and it’s the right decision. So how has Walder performed in his job?
A few weeks ago, Theresa Juva, amNew York’s transit beat writer, asked me to serve on a panel of transit-minded folk who would judge Walder’s tenure so far. Juva asked us to grade Walder in seven categories, and overall, we gave him a B. I, however, was one of two panelists to give him an A-. A. Scott Falk, a CB8 member, joined me in that grade, and Gene Russianoff gave him a B+. Bill Henderson of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA gave Walder a B while Lindsey Lusher Shute of Transportation Alternatives also gave him a B. Peggy Morales from CB 11 gave him a C for reasons that are seemingly out of his control.
Juva asked us to assess Walder on seven measures: cutting administrative costs, reducing service cuts, speeding up bus service, providing bus and train arrival updates, adding new fare technology, improving subway stations and communicating with riders on service changes. The grades I assigned to Walder diverge greatly across categories.
In the first category, I assigned Walder a B+. He’s managed to find over $500 million in annual administrative savings, but it seems as though the MTA could still be trimmed administratively. The authority has layers of management atop layers of managements, and it could still streamline back-office functionality.
In the second category, I gave Walder only a B-. Since coming into office, he has not made friends with labor, but he’ll have to in order to reduce the MTA’s costs of providing subway and bus service. Later this year, collective bargaining negotiations will take center stage, and Walder will have to work with a group of employees who do not like him. While transit advocates and those who want to see the MTA modernize are appreciative of Walder’s work, unionized workers hold him in contempt. To them, he is just another fat cat who collects a paycheck and does not understand the plight of his employees. How he leads negotiations later this year will determine his legacy.
Speeding up bus service has been one of Walder’s crowning achievements, and there, I gave him an A-. He has overseen the expansion of Select Bus Service into Manhattan, and the MTA, during his tenure, will help bring this service to 34th St. and to Brooklyn as well. Select Bus Service is not, however, solely his work as NYC DOT has spearheaded the effort and Walder has inherited a lot of the work. Still, buses are slowly improving across the city.
Where Walder has excelled — and where we expected him to excel — has been in the field of technology, and again, he earned an A- in this category. While the MTA has long tried to get real-time bus and subway tracking measures in place, under Walder, the MTA has stopped spinning its wheels. It recently unveiled an in-house bus tracking system that will soon spread from Brooklyn to Staten Island, and it will equip 200 subway stations with countdown clocks by the end of 2011. Walder hasn’t developed these plans, but he’s pushed them through toward completion.
In a similar vein, I gave Walder a B in new fare technology category. He has committed to a program that will lead to the death of the MetroCard, but although other transit systems have used contactless fare payment cards for half a decade or longer, the MTA won’t be ready to institute a replacement plan for three or four years. He has moved from a pilot program to a replacement program, but the time-to-live is longer than we would hope it to be.
I honored the MTA Chairman with his lowest grade when asked to assess how he improved subway stations. By and large, the MTA’s infrastructure has suffered as the authority has had to cut costs. To keep train service at least steady, the authority has cut back on cleaning costs, and we have dirtier trains and stations as well as more and more rodents to show for it. Walder has a plan to target high-volume stations, but areas from which most riders start their trips are dirtier. I gave him a C+ here but could have scored him lower.
Finally, Walder got a B+ when it came to communicating with riders — or at least attempting to — on MTA service changes. He has led a London-inspired redesign of the MTA’s weekly service advisory posters, and the website attempts to present service changes in an easier-to-understand format. He can’t, however, make more people read the signs, and until straphangers take those signs seriously and read the, the authority can only do so much in that regard.
So why then did I give the Chairman an A- when his average grade is closer to a B? Mostly, it’s a matter of circumstance. Then-Gov. David Paterson brought Walder back to New York with the promise of a fully-funded authority that needed to be ushered into the 21st Century. Instead, the former Transport for London official met his new job with word of a $300 million budget gap followed shortly by the theft of $143 million in dedicated funding by the legislators that approved his appointment. He went from enjoying a $0 balance to presiding over a $500 million deficit before his first three months on the job were out.
Since then, Walder has tried to minimize the service cuts while pushing forward on the capital investments. He has seen rider-oriented technology arrive in a system allergic to innovation, and he has cut costs in ways his predecessors had never been able to. Still, he hasn’t worked well with labor, and the next eight months could be just as important as the final 44 he has left in his tenure. The capital budget has a $10 billion gap, and the MTA’s arduous labor contracts are up for renegotiation.
This year won’t determine his ultimate legacy, but it will allow us to see in which direction the MTA is heading. Administratively, the authority on the right track, and I still believe Walder is the right person for the job. Still, as the MTA loses political and economic support, I wonder where our services will be in another 16 months.
Now that I’ve presented my views, how do you feel Walder has done? Vote in my poll below, and feel free to chime in with a comment.
What grade do you think Jay Walder deserves after 16 months on the job?
