Over the last few years, I’ve covered the economic impact of the Second Ave. Subway construction. While the project promises long-term benefits of increased mobility for the Upper East Side, the constant construction and obstructed roads and sidewalks have left Second Ave. businesses reeling.
An official study released this week by Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum’s office confirms what we already know: The Second Ave. Subway construction is bad for business and the government isn’t helping. As part of the report, Gotbaum asked the city, state and MTA — three cash-starved entities — to help out these business owners and formulate a better plan for future phases of SAS construction.
The Public Advocate had asked 104 non-chain business owners in the so-called Second Ave. Construction Corridor to respond to a survey. Of those, 59 owners responded, and the 57-percent response rate is on the high end. The results find that two-thirds of business owners believe that subway construction has negatively impacted business “as much or more than” the economic downturn. The majority say they are in danger of closing.
Individually, the numbers are worse. Many owners have cut wages or store hours, and nearly half have laid of employees. According to Gotbaum’s office, none of the businesses have received support from the state, and most say that the MTA’s campaign — barely visible on the agency’s website — to promote Second Ave. businesses has failed.
“Officials should have been able to anticipate what was obvious to these business owners all along: construction on this scale is more than disruptive, it is devastating,” Gotbaum said. “A number of businesses have closed already as a result of construction, and most say they will not survive. They need grants and ongoing support to stay afloat. The city has had 80 years to plan for this, and it will take more than a decade to complete. It’s inexcusable to allow neighborhood establishments to go under because of a government project; and it’s insulting that the city, state, and MTA have failed to communicate with business owners so they know what to expect. We need to help these businesses before it is too late.”
Gotbaum’s office issued a number of suggestions:
- The City Should Establish a Second Avenue Subway Construction Mitigation Fund to Provide Emergency Grants to Failing Businesses Located in the Construction Zone
- The City Should Negotiate with Banks to Provide No- or Low-Cost Loans to Second Avenue Businesses
- The City Should Help Second Avenue Business Owners Renegotiate Their Leases
- The City and State Should Provide Property Tax Abatements to Landlords of Second Avenue Subway Construction Corridor Businesses for the Duration of the Project
- The City and State Should Suspend Sales Tax on All Goods and Services Sold by Second Avenue Subway Construction Corridor Businesses for the Duration of the Project.
- The MTA Should Improve Communication with Businesses in the Second Avenue Subway Construction Corridor
- The MTA Should Improve Advertising for Second Avenue Businesses
Over the course of construction, I haven’t been too sympathetic to the please of these business owners. The city needs this Second Ave. Subway, and it will, in the end, impact far more people than a few Upper East Side businesses will. Gotbaum’s proposal, meanwhile, isn’t anything we haven’t heard before. If it can implemented painlessly, then by all means, the city, state and MTA should do so. But if the cost of construction is the closing of a few businesses now, that’s a price we have to be willing to pay.
16 comments
Losing locally owned commercial businesses can have detrimental affects that take a very long time to replace even with new transit. (And are often are then replaced by businesses that are less than desireable.)
Of course, that part of NY benefits from high density and real estate values and residents that live nearby aren’t bottom of the barrel. (So for instance in SF, the building of BART was able to recover in the financial district — which admittedly moved quicker at the advice and pressuring from wealthier landowners) than it didn’t near civic center — where there were other poorly thoughout urban renewal projects simultaneously. But those businesses that were there, never recovered and that area continues to be something of a skid row with long gone markets and merchants replaced with much lower quality merchants and lots of empty store fronts.
Local merchants do not have the access to credit that chains do, and the city needs to step and find away to mitigate damage and allow the continuity of the neighborhood to be maintained. It’s the best thing in the long run for the neighborhood and the small business community.
How was this matter handled in the past, during the construction of the other subway lines?
Such as, in the days when the original IND was being built under 6th and 8th Avenues.
(Remember, the 6th Ave. el was demolished and replaced by the 6th Ave. subway. The 9th Ave. el was demolished and replaced by the 8th Ave. subway. The 2nd Ave. and 3rd Ave. els were demolished and replaced by NOTHING.)
I wonder how the politicians of THAT time responded to the impact that the IND construction must have had on the businesses that were located along 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue. Are there any experts on N.Y.C. history here who might know something about that?
For one, those lines were built much more quickly. The original subway broke ground in 1900, and was complete by 1904. SAS broke ground in 2007, and is not expected to open even one section until 2017.
That’s true, but notice that I actually was talking about the IND subway. I believe that the original IND on 6th and 8th Avenues opened sometime around 1940.
I just checked Wikipedia.
Assuming that that source is correct, the 8th Ave. IND opened in 1932 and the 6th Ave. IND opened in 1936.
Those lines were built relatively quickly, too. The IND broke ground in 1925, and the full Eighth Avenue Line, from 207th to Hudson Terminal, opened in 1933.
The whole thing is a mess. And now that this is only a stub way – only a portion of the projected benefits will ever be realized.
Saying we need to spend more on mass transit is a no brainer. But without requiring a real ROI hurts us all. A three station train for $5B and 10 yrs of construction – in the worst economic climate in 60 years – will hurt us all for many many years (look at the MTA’S debt service) – because at various points no one asked “is this the best way to spend billions of dollars.”
Stupid stupid stupid, we will all pay for this mess.
What’s ROI?
Return on investment. The formula that’s always applied for transit projects but never for highway or airport projects.
I mean, there’s an argument to be made that the money could be better spent on signal modernization allowing 40 tph operation and on crosstown light rail north of 59th, but the do-nothing option is not really an option anymore. The 4 and 5 can’t run more than 1,600 people per train; the peak-hour average is already 1,300 as of 2006 and rising fast.
Ed, don’t forget also that the last “stub way” that we had was the 63rd St. “subway to nowhere”. A “stub way” does not necessarily STAY that way. We cannot assume that if Phase 1 of the SAS is built, the three other phases will never happen.
Also, even the phase 1 stub way would be useful to people living on the eastern half of the Upper East Side, who are the neighborhood’s majority, and to people who need to connect to the West Side. The Lexington line is always going to be the superior choice for going to Lower Manhattan, but SAS will have better West Side access and be closer to where most Upper East Siders live.
Jerrold:
In the latest capital plan, the MTA doesnt even plan or account for Phases 2-4. It aint gonna happen – Benjamin wrote about this the other day – to me that changes the whole analysis and thus my initial comment
“It ain’t goona happen” SOON.
That doesn’t mean it will never happen.
seriously? you think it’s going to happen in next 50 years? not a chance
I know the SAS is a huge megaproject, blah blah blah, and these things take a lot of time and money, but how much money would it take to finish the whole SAS in ten years? It happened in NYC when they first built the subway. It happens in Europe and China all the time. Is it that we are incompetent, or we just aren’t spending enough? I feel like the government should tell everyone they will build it for 40 billion, ask for that much, and then declare success when it only costs 30. This stuff gets financed over decades, is paid for by millions of people and will never stop being a great resource, assuming it’s maintained.
[…] discussing yesterday’s news that Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum has called for more support for Second Ave. businesses, a few SAS readers wanted to know about the impact previous subway construction efforts had on […]