New Yorkers know the pain of the Manhattan Bridge. With the subway tracks on the outside of the bridge, the bridge sways as trains pass over the East River. After decades of neglect, the bridge was severely destabilized by the early 1980s, and the city has invest nearly $830 million to repair and stabilize the now-100-year-old structure.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s — in fact, until 2004 — subway diversions were rampant. Sometimes, trains ran over only the Broadway side of the bridge, and Sixth Ave.-bound customers were out of luck. Sometimes, trains ran only over the 6th Ave. side., and Broadway-bound straphangers had to factor in an extra ten minutes for the trip through the Montague St. tunnel and Lower Manhattan. Well, Brooklyn, get ready to relive that subway nightmare on the weekends again soon.

The city is set to award contracts for the final phase of the bridge restoration, and as The Times, reports today, the plan to replace every support cable will mean four years of weekend subway diversion. Patrick McGeehan writes:

A $150 million project to replace all of the vertical suspension cables on the 100-year-old Manhattan Bridge will cause sporadic weekend disruptions in subway service and require closings of the bikeway and some traffic lanes for parts of the next four years, city transportation officials said this week…

Skanska has said that it will complete the work, which includes replacing the necklaces of lights that illuminate the bridge’s outer cables, in three and a half years. Mr. Gill said the city could penalize the company if it did not complete the work on schedule.

During that period, subway service across the bridge on the B, D, N and Q lines will be suspended on as many as eight weekends, Mr. Gill said. The schedule for those suspensions has not yet been determined, said Seth Solomonow, the department’s spokesman.

The bikeway on the north side of the bridge will also be closed for as long as eight months during the project, which is expected to begin by early next year and end in mid-2013, Mr. Gill said.

So subway riders will be out of luck, and bikers and pedestrians will have to share space. I wonder if the city gave any thought to shuttering a lane of traffic and allow bikes to enjoy some dedicated space. The bridge is, after all, quite popular with cyclists who want to avoid the tourist-infested Brooklyn Bridge walk way to the south.

Ben Fried at Streetsblog today also makes a thought-provoking point about this work. “Whenever the prospect of funding our transit system with bridge tolls or congestion pricing arises, you can count on a hue and cry from aggrieved motorists about subsidizing other people’s commutes. But if the bridges stay free, who’s really paying for somebody else’s ride?” he ask, and then answers: “As long as there’s no price on these bridges, we all pay for those free rides.” Indeed we do, and now we’ll pay with delayed and diverted subway routes as well.

The F train, the F train. What do about that the F train? That always seems to be the question, doesn’t it?

In Brooklyn, the train snakes a path from Coney Island up McDonald Ave. through the southern parts of Park Slope and north up Smith St. toward Manhattan. For much of that ride, unused express tracks taunt riders stuck on one of the city’s most crowded rush hour trains. In Queens, meanwhile, it runs nominally express but has been slowed by track work.

Today, though, we’re concerned with that stretch of Brooklyn that runs from Kensington and Windsor Terrace to Park Slope and through the Carroll Gardens/Boerum Hill/Cobble Hill. As Gersh Kuntzman reported yesterday in The Brooklyn Paper, State Senator Daniel Squadron has, at the urging of his fiancee and other constituents, urged the MTA to review performance along the F line. Writes Kuntzman:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has begun a full performance review of Brownstone Brooklyn’s underground lifeline after repeated complaints that the train’s name was actually the grade that most riders would give it. The “performance and infrastructure” review, which goes beyond the agency’s normal oversight of the Coney Island to Queens line, came after state Sen. Daniel Squadron cornered the MTA’s Albany-based lobbyist and demanded action.

“I have been getting increasing complaints about the F line from my constituents and, no less important, my fiancee,” Squadron told The Brooklyn Paper. “So I asked the MTA to do a full review, and they agreed.

“There was definitely a sense in March and April, judging from the e-mails to our office, that something was wrong — the delays were longer, the trains more overcrowded,” Squadron added. “When I brought it up to the MTA, they did a quick search that suggested, at first glance, that something was wrong.

While The Brooklyn Paper hasn’t yet heard back from the MTA about the cost of the review or the last time the line was reviewed, I have a suggestion and an observation that will address this problem. Taking a page from the F Express Plan — on hold due to work on the Culver Viaduct — the MTA could simply extend the V train out to Church Ave. or beyond.

Right now, the Culver Line isn’t close to being at capacity. It could easily support the V train running out to Church at rush hour, and as one person commenting on Gersh’s article notes, the MTA could probably even run the V along the A/C through Lower Manhattan to pick up Wall St. commuters bypassed by the F. In one felt swoop, the MTA would make travel easier while alleviating congestion on the Culver line through Brooklyn.

The second solution — an observation — is a call for those people impacted by this service to just wait. On July 5, the MTA will extend G train service south to Church Ave. While not ideal, those who cannot get on the F train due to congestion can ride the G to Hoyt-Schermerhorn and transfer to the A or C. It’s not nearly as convenient as extending the V, but it may serve the same function.

There you go. One problem; two solutions. Who needs a full study anyway?

Over the last two and a half years, I haven’t said much on the Atlantic Yards deal. No Land Grab and Atlantic Yards Report have that beat more than covered. A development this week though warrants some discussion.

First, a recap. In 2004, when the MTA was considering selling the development rights to the land above the LIRR’s Atlantic Yards, the authority received a $214 million appraisal. At first, the MTA seemed ready to negotiate with Forest City Ratner for $50 million, but the agency faced some blowback under this below-market deal. With Extell offering up $150 million and some strings, Forest City Ranter up its price to $100 million, and the MTA accepted.

The public cried foul over this sweetheart deal. How could a cash-straped agency accept over 50 percent less than the market value of the land? Over the years, nothing has happened there, and Bruce Ratner has yet to make a payment on the land. He and his company have been mired in eminent domain lawsuits and, with the recent economic downtown, may or may not have the funds on hand to start construction.

Flash foward to now. As the final lawsuits wind their ways through the legal system, the Nets and Ratner claim they will soon start construction on the planned arena for the Atlantic Yards area. But first, Ratner is going to get even more favorable terms from the MTA in an effort to boost his floundering projects. Mike McLaughlin of The Brooklyn Paper reports:

Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner is poised to receive new generous terms from the MTA that could jumpstart his stalled mega-project even as a new report revealed that the city and state would actually lose money on the $4-billion arena, housing and office complex.

Helena Williams, president of Long Island Rail Road and the interim executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, told a state Senate committee on Friday that she’s in “intense negotiations” with Forest City Ratner to alter the deal to sell the Vanderbilt rail yards to the developer.

Ratner agreed to pay $100 million to acquire air rights to build over the trench between Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Street. But pleading hardship due to the global credit crunch, Ratner is looking to pay perhaps as little as $20 million up front and to spread the remainder out of over years.

And the MTA appears to be on board.

A report in The Post indicated that the MTA could get $50 million instead of the promised $100 million.

So let me get this straight. A few months after the MTA needed an Albany bailout to avoid Doomsday cuts, they’re going to accept $50 million less than they had originally agreed to and $164 million less than market rate for the Atlantic Yards land, and this is somehow acceptable? No wonder the public does not trust the MTA.

A construction fence marks the start of the lengthy Culver Viaduct rehab. (Photo for Second Ave. Sagas by Twitter user JeffreyNYC.)

The Culver Viaduct work and the extension of the G train deeper into Brooklyn are two stories near and dear to my heart. I first reported on the potential for increased G service in one of the very first posts on Second Ave. Sagas, and when it looked as though the Culver Viaduct rehab would start in 2007, I examined how the G train extension could just be a temporary service upgrade.

In November 2007, after months of agitating for F express service partly on the basis of the extended G service, I delved into the viaduct plans. At that point, the project had been delayed considerably and was scheduled to start in the fall of 2008.

As budget woes have plagued the MTA and the project has since been pared down, its fate seemed up in the air. Up in the air until this week, that is. As one of my readers noted late last week, a construction fence has gone up on the Viaduct, and starting in July, the G train will finally be extended along the Culver line to a new terminus at Church Ave.

Both The Post and Urbanite reported on this change earlier this week. According to the amNew York blog, the MTA Board has to approve this $2.5 million service extension in advance of the viaduct rehab project.

For now, this move is still billed as a temporary one. The G will gain stops at 4th Ave.-9th St., 7th Ave., 15th St.-Prospect Park, Fort Hamilton Parkway and Church Ave. as well as a transfer to the M and R at 4th Ave.-9th St. The extension will allow for a one-seat ride from Williamsburg and Greenpoint to Park Slope and Windsor Terrace, and if successful, the MTA will consider making it a permanent service extension. Sign me up for that one.

A Brooklyn streetcar roams the streets of San Francisco. (Photo by flickr user phrenologist)

Once upon a time, Brooklyn was the borough of streetscars. Powered by catenary wires, this ubiquitous green cars would take Brooklynites from one end of the borough to another. With the advent of the automobile and the rise of buses, streetcars become obsolete. The tracks were ripped up and the wires torn down.

Now, though, New York officials are making sounds about a streetcar revival in Brooklyn. A few weeks ago while speaking in Toronto, NYC Department of Transportation head Janette Sadik-Khan praised the streetcar revival currently sweeping the nation. Streetcars, says, Sadik-Khan could streamline intra-borough transit while encouraging people to take advantage of their neighborhoods. “In Portland they just started a new streetcar and were able to leverage $3-billion in investment,” she notes. “We need to rebalance the transportation network and make it as efficient and effective as possible.”

Last week, Yonah Freemark of The Transport Politic unveiled a very comprehensive study of potential streetcar routes in Brooklyn. Freemark analyzed current transportation patterns in the borough and proposed the following as a potential streetcar route. (Click the map to enlarge.)

It is a very appealing vision, and it’s easy to see how Freemark’s network fits in with my proposed Select Bus Service qualifications. These streetcar lines connect various subway routes at points deep in the borough, and they bring transit to underserved areas. This scheme offers up the option to connect into Queens, and the line terminating at Starrett City could easily extended out to JFK Airport.

There are of course very real objections to streetscars and very persuasive arguments in their favor. This came last summer when we discussed America’s streetcar renaissance. I’ll rehash them from this comment thread.

First, streetcars are clean technology. They rely on electrical power and do not emit exhaust. Buses on the other hand are only at their environmental best when full. Otherwise, they are historically inefficient automobiles. Streetcars encourage development along their routes; they run faster; and they eliminate some congestion by discouraging short-distance driving.

On the other hand, unless a city builds a dedicated right-of-way, these streetcars are beholden to surface traffic patterns. They can’t maneuver around accidents or traffic the way a bus can, and the catenary wires are rather unsightly in an urban environment. With the right-of-way, they aren’t appreciably more cost-efficient than bus rapid transit systems.

As Freemark notes, a streetcar system would require a serious transit investment. It would require infrastructure and rolling stock as well as a drastic overhaul of the Brooklyn streetscape. While we might want to toy with the idea, for now, it just might be a pipe dream

Brooklyn pols are looking for more than just this quick fix to some prominent Brooklyn subway problems. (Photo by flickr user Gatto Arancione)

Once upon a time, Jay St./Borough Hall and the 4th Ave./9th St. stops were two of the nicer destinations in the subway system. The former served as the headquarters for New York City Transit while the later once featured windows overlooking 4th Ave. with Brooklyn beyond.

Today, these stations are among the worst in the system. The Jay St. stop is forever in a state of disrepair, and as numerous photos show, the station appears to be a permanent work zone. Further down the F line, a long-overdue rehab for the 4th Ave./9th St. stop got the axe when the MTA’s finances went south.

Now, Brooklyn politicians and residents are demanding solutions to these blighted stations. On the Jay St., side, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz wants the MTA to address both the state of the station and its former headquarters, no empty, at Jay St. Reports a trio of Daily News staff writers:

Despite promises to spruce it up, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has let 370 Jay St. and its subway hub become a “blight on the face of downtown Brooklyn,” said…Markowitz. “This section of Jay St. is an embarrassment – and our commuters, residents and local businesses deserve better…”

Most of the 14-story building, which the MTA leases from the city, is vacant. The facade is wrapped in scaffolding and black mesh, giving it the look of a haunted house.The subway station is even worse, with columns that are missing tiles, lots of chipping paint and large sections of the platform sealed off with plywood.

MTA officials insist they are going to invest $106 million to rehabilitate the station and that funds to fix the building above it are in the next capital improvement plan.

Famous last words from the MTA.

Meanwhile, the Park Slope Civic Council has called upon the MTA to prioritize the mess at 4th Ave./9th St. The council wanted the MTA to open a long-shuttered second entrance to the busy station, improve the dim lighting underneath the Gowanus Viaduct and court retail for the deserted stretch of 4th Ave. under the station. The MTA will not be adopting any of these proposals at the current time.

While this is always a matter of money that the MTA doesn’t have right now and probably won’t have in the future, it’s a shame that these Brooklyn stations continue to get the shaft. Brooklyn, after all, features some of the more beatific rides in the city. If only its stations matched the scenery.