Yesterday afternoon, I covered the MTA’s announcement of a $1.3-billion federal grant for the Second Ave. subway with a look at how we’re simply repeating the past here. The Second Ave. subway’s tortured history is filled with federal grants that have never turned into a physical subway line.
But this time, as one commenter pointed out, things are different. We’re not in the midst of a Great Depression or a recession. Economic factors are seemingly on our side. So the line must be coming our way, right?
Well, I’m no longer as sure of this certainy as I was a few days ago. Notably, Americans have been hearing an increasing rumble about a recession heading our way. With material costs soaring, construction project budgets are on the rise, and the Second Ave. subway is no exception. Furthermore, the MTA is well aware of this problem.
In fact, it seems to me that the MTA is gearing up for another round of Second Ave. disappointment. Let’s revisit Saturday’s Public Engagement Workshop. During two presentations, MTA officials mentioned the Second Ave. subway in less than encouraging tones. First up was MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander. During his talk on the state of the MTA finances, he boastfully mentioned Phase 1 of the project, currently underway along Second Ave.
But when it came to the other parts of the line — the parts that would actually make it a full subway line instead of just an extension of the Q — Sander said that the MTA is “contemplating other phases of Second Avenue.” Meanwhile, a few hours later, Linda Kleinbaum, the MTA deputy executive director for administration, in her talk on capital improvements, continued to stress only Phase 1 of the project, barely mentioning the other parts.
I didn’t take that as a good sign. I was particularly concerned with Sander’s use of the loaded word “contemplating.” I guess a bunch of MTA officials are sitting around a room thinking about how they don’t have the money for the rest of the line and will have to continue to hope that the federal government is willing to kick in another $6 billion or so over the next 14 years. That’s nothing too pleasant to contemplate.
Meanwhile, more than once over the last few days, MTA officials have mentioned rising costs of construction materials as a concern of theirs. It came up twice in different presentations on Saturday, and in the article in yesterday’s Times discussing the federal grant, William Neuman wrote about those costs as well.
According to Neuman, the MTA has already added to the project’s real estate budget and had increase its construction outlay by $54 million. This is in addition to a tunnel-digging contract that ended up being $17 million more than what the MTA had originally estimated. Already, the MTA is well over $80 million past initial budget estimates. No wonder it’s taken 80 years and counting for this subway line to materialize.
So here we are in 2007 and MTA officials are talking about opening the line in 2014, one year past the initial 2013 date. We’ve got seven long years of budgetary wrangling and economic uncertainty. We’ve got seven long years for this project to once again fall apart, and it sounds like MTA officials are hedging their bets.
I’m one of the vocal supporters of this project, but I fear for its future. While three stops on the Q are better than nothing at all, those stops shouldn’t be considered a victory in themselves. If the line doesn’t run from 125th St. to Hanover Square, we haven’t made much progress. Right now, circumstances don’t appear to be on the MTA’s side. History in New York does indeed have a funny way of repeating itself.
8 comments
I think you may be reading too much into it. They are tunneling the East Side Access right now. The approval of this money is a step forward. The Phases were always talked about in the future tense with the footnote that they are not funded yet.
Until there is an announcement otherwise, it is moving forward.
While adding only a few stops to the Q train may seem like only a small step, I think it will be a huge help for UES residents like myself. Currently, it is a pain in the a** to get anywhere on the west side from the UES (unless you take the bus). That includes travelling to the UWS, Midtown West, Hells Kitchen, Herald Sq, Chelsea, Meatpacking, etc. All those west side areas are tough to get to because by subway, riders must transfer twice… 4/5/6 Train to some stop, then travel west, then north or south. The exceptions are using the 7 Train/Shuttle to get to Times Sq. or the L Train to get to 14th St. and 8th Ave., which require only 1 transfer.
With the addition of the Q Train stops on the UES, instead of taking the 6 Train, riders will be able to ride the Q directly to 57th St. and 7th Ave. or Times Sq., then transfer to the appropriate train that will take them anywhere on the west side (for the 57th and 7th stop, it’s a quick walk to Columbus Circle). Or the Q Train can take UES riders directly to Herald Sq. The difference may seem negligible, but it’s the difference between transferring once and transferring twice (or to get to Herald Sq., transferring once or not at all). This will make the west side much more accessible to subway riders.
Of course, I’d just take the bus across the park but I know most people fear the bus…
Most importantly, though, will be the HUGE help that the Q Train will provide the 4/5/6 line, which is constantly overcrowded during the morning commute.
I’m not even thinking about the benefits of the T line yet, because it is just SO far away in my mind…
The portions I fear for are the future legs of the T . . . the Q extension is a done deal, in my mind. But we ARE headed into a recession, and my best guess is it will be the worst one we’ve had in at least 25 years.
That said, I’m a believer in public works as a way to alleviate the pains of a recession/depression. The WPA made some amazing. lasting contributions to our city . . . the difference this time is that the Reagan and Bush years have nearly bankrupted the Federal government.
This year the City had a surplus over $4 billion; I think Bloomberg was wrong to take half of it and give it back to property owners; the right thing to do when you’re on the cusp of a downturn is to strengthen the balance sheet. True, Bloomberg (belatedly) dedicated more funds to transit and paying down debt . . . but it should have been more.
I think if phase 1 goes through — which does seem pretty certain right now — phase 2 is very likely to go through for any number of reasons, not least the savings from being able to use existing construction.
The lower Manhattan end is anybody’s guess; by the time they’re considering it, it will be so far in the future.
I hope you all don’t mind if I vent something that’s been on my mind for awhile but I haven’t expressed anywhere else. You’ll let fly, I know, if you think I’m completely haywire. But listening to a debate on WNYC this morning between opponent of the proposed MTA fare increase and advocate of free subways and buses city councilman John Liu, and coming-from-the-other-direction E.J. McMahon, from the Manhattan Institute, I just got really irritated.
It costs $4 or less to get to and from work via subway in NYC. Twenty-four hours a day, every single day of the year, and it’s the same price if the commute is from Brooklyn Heights to Wall Street or Marble Hill to Coney Island (god forbid!). In New York, one doesn’t need a car just because one works late nights or at awkward weekend hours when the subway/bus service is terrible or nonexistent. Well, occasionally someone does, because there are certainly neighborhoods where there are serious gaps. But still, the subway is one inexpensive, close to universal way to get around. Now a proposal for a very moderate fare increase has been greeted as if the MTA were proposing to shoot rambunctious schoolchildren.
Here’s where I ‘m coming from: I disagree totally with Liu that the ride should be free (i.e., 100% subsidized by gov’t). (I also disagree with every single solitary other thing he said on the program, and I just wish he represented my council district so I could vote against him.) I think his notion is absolutely without merit, and as my reasons are frequently expressed ideas from economics, I won’t repeat them here. At the same time, I want to see more subway lines in NYC. I want the SAS to succeed. I would like a new, fast line from Second Avenue along Houston Street into Williamsburg, then out Metropolitan Ave and Union Turnpike to the Nassau border, to take some of the pressure off the other Queens lines and create a genuinely quick ride into Manhattan. I’d like to see the Flushing line maybe extended under Northern Blvd, also to the Nassau line. Ditto the 6 line to Coop City. There are lots of ideas for new lines to underserved outer borough neighborhoods, and if those were built then we might see a lot of new apartment buildings where now there are mostly attached houses, and maybe even business development where now there’s just residential.
What’s wrong with paying an extra $.50 (or whatever, maybe that’s a little too much in one hike) a ride now if it would help create a solid financial base for an ambitious expansion of NYCs subway? Even at $5 the round trip, that’s still cheap to get to and from work! And this will benefit the city. I mean really improve the city as a place to live and do business. And as for the people who cry poverty, that they just can’t afford it… I work in retail. The pay is very low. And yet some of my co-workers drive to work in Manhattan. The people who cry poverty over a 20¢ increase in the fare? They’re not poor. They’re cheap. There’s a difference.
I personally think that the Q line part is a done deal. Its as done of a deal as the price congestion plan. As for the other parts going all the way to City hall was… well a pipe dream from the start.
No way in heck that would ever be built unless NYC financial health depended on it.
The extension of the 7 line in Manhattan will happen because of the rail yards. East side Q will happen due to the incredible over crowding on the 4/5/6 and the money losses due to traffic, ease of travel and other such transportation type effects on urban planning.
The LIRR to Grand Central… 50/50
Remodeling of Penn Station… 50/50
Fulton Street hub: Yes
Staten Island Ferry: Yes
Atlantic Ave (where the new Nets stadium is being built): Yes
That is pretty much it. Taking the “T” line all the way from 125 street to City Hall? I just doubt that will happen. I don’t even really see the purpose of spending billions to have a train go that far when there is plenty of train service below 14 street and as for the area between 14 and 42… well, maybe…
As far as this ressesion thing goes… believe it or not, getting labor and materials is cheaper during that time then others, its just a matter of finding the money.
So what happens next will be very interesting.
It seems to me the construction of SAS’s entire route would have a huge impact on the character of the LES. Obviously a construction boom is already changing it drastically even now. New apartment buildings, new businesses, more economic activity. Good things, in my opinion. I’ve always wondered about those few luxury apartment buildings in the neighborhood, which seem out of character. Like the one on the east side of Second Avenue between 10th & 11th? It looks like it was built in the 20s. I wonder if the builder was anticipating the Second Avenue subway then, but got the timing disastrously wrong.
The subways and buses carried 2.2 billion people (i.e., separate fares) during 2006. Some of that must be express buses, but if 2 billion took the regular bus/subway, and the fare were increased by 20¢ (which I don’t think would greatly diminish ridership), that would yield $400 million each year for capital improvements. Who says the city can’t afford to finance its own development?
I first would like to say Spitzer is no longer in office… so his name should be removed… And my question is.. .do you have any idea as to when the “T” line is going to be completed…