The Chambers St. stop on the BMT Nassau St. line is in need of more than just a paint job. (Photo by flickr user ciamabue)
Last night, as I promoted my appearance on a CBS 2 story about the MTA, I wrote about the MTA’s new approach to station renovations. Instead of picking only a limited number of stations for State of Good Repair overhauls, the authority is also going to target 130 stations that need various repairs. This Target Component Program will focus on fresh coats of paint, station lighting and sturdier platform edges.
Meanwhile, other stations that have recently been overhauled will be entered into the Station Maintenance Program. Here, teams of contractors will fix defects that have emerged since the latest renovations and then MTA workers will regularly inspect these defects and other components in an effort to maintain the cosmetics of the stations. At the same time, approximately 24 stations will undergo complete overhauls over the next five years aimed at achieving a State of Good Repair and ADA compliance.
Today, the Daily News has the cost breakdown of this component-based repair approach. The MTA plans to spend $700 million overall on station rehabilitation efforts in the next five-year capital plan. The 24 station renovations cost on average of $15 million for a rough total of $360 million. The remaining 130 will see, on average, $3.38 million worth of upgrades per station. These repairs will shore up leaky ceilings, repair eroding staircases and generally make Transit’s stations more pleasant for straphangers as they pass through and wait for their trains.
So with that in mind, let me ask if this is a smart use of funds. As my hyperbolic headline suggests, it’s not an ideal situation. In a perfect world, the MTA would have the money it needs to overhaul all stations and not just some at an anemic pace. With 468 stations in the system, Transit can’t repair just 24 every five years to a State of Good Repair and expect to keep up with the wear and tear 7.4 million daily users exert on the system.
Yet, this new component-based program is exactly what the headline describes. The MTA is taking their ugliest stations and trying to make them look good without reengineering the problems that lead to these unsightly messes in the first place. Will Transit be able to repair leaky waterproofing at Chambers St. on the BMT Nassau St. line? Corroded pipes that have ruined the mosaics on the 2/5 platform at 149th St./Grand Concourse? Shuttered and crumbling platform staircases at 7th Ave. on the BMT Brighton line that are far from the eyes of station employees and now reek of urine and human waste? These are systematic problems that cosmetic upgrades can mask for a few years but cannot repair.
I can’t complain too much about the MTA’s approach here. Having pleasant-looking stations that aren’t grimy and don’t have tiles falling down and paint flaking off the ceilings will go a long way toward improving New Yorkers’ attitudes toward the subway system, their commutes and, hopefully, the MTA. But it’s a band aid for now. Transit may, as President Thomas Predergast said, be trying to get “more bang for its buck,” but it can’t hide the fact that the agency simply needs more money to maintain not only the aesthetics of its system but the structural integrity of it as well.
37 comments
It seems like the right approach. With capital funding at current levels, all 468 stations will probably not reach SOGR in our lifetimes.
The Chambers Street stop on the Nassau Street Line is ugly, but there are more heavily used stations in greater need of repair. I am pretty sure that the platform shown in your photo is from the disused part of the station. It doesn’t look good, but riders do not actually use that platform, so the issue is mainly one of perception. I am not denying that it ought to be fixed eventually, but as rehabs go it would not provide much balm to the riding community, except esthetically.
Hey, in this economic crisis, I’m impressed that they can even afford to put lipstick on a pig.
As for those “reeking” staircases, I don’t think that THAT can be blamed on the MTA.
It sounds like it must be the result of those staircases getting befouled by people who are drunk, on drugs, mentally ill, or some combination of the above.
Agree – the elevator at Union Square from the Food Emporium to the mezzanine seems to permanently smell like unfortunate things that I won’t mention here. I’ve spent enough time in NYC that I can actually “tune it out,” but for people who are more sensitive to it (including the people in Brooklyn who I usually stay with), it’s pretty awful and there just isn’t much that NYCT can do about it – sadly, MTA finds itself in the position of unwilling social services provider. I haven’t personally seen it yet but I think some homeless use the elevators as a place to sleep during the winter, and they certainly use them as bathrooms. Certainly that happened in Boston, where an out-of-the-way ramp to the platforms at North Station was regularly inhabited by homeless people sleeping.
Is that picture from chambers st. It looks more like 7th avenue on the BMT brighton
The picture says “Chambers St.” in it. It’s from Chambers St., and it is indeed the closed platform. The rest of that complex doesn’t look much better.
But wouldn’t it be wasting scarce money to fix up a not-in-use platform?
It’s just a photo, Jerrold! I’m not saying that specific out-of-use platform needs to be restored. But if you want to see in-use station areas that look similar to that Chambers St. shot. Take a look at 7th Ave. on the Culver line or W. 4th St. here, here or here.The system is rife with stations that look like that.
I’ve been looking at that unused portion of the Chambers St station for years, and it’s only gotten worse. Would it kill the MTA to put up some plywood and paint it a nice bright color? If the platform isn’t being used, so be it. But why do commuters have to look at a crumbing station? And yes, Benjamin, the rest of the station doesn’t look (or smell) much better!
The abandoned platforms should not be “walled up” at Chambers Street. If anything, they should just be given a thorough cleaning and then hosed down every once in a while. They are part of history and remind us of what a grand, majestic, important, and busy station it used to be. I am totally against putting history behind plywood walls and forgetting about it. Just keep it clean and on display.
Agreed, but knowing the MTA’s track record of cleaning or hosing-down stations that are actually being used, I doubt they will keep an abandoned platform clean. I’d rather look at a plywood wall than a filty, crumbling platform reminding me of how nice the station used to be.
I’d much much rather look at a filthy, crumbling platform reminding me of how magnificent the station used to be than at a plywood wall. Chambers Street, as is, has tons of character. It fulfills the stately creepiness requirement of the subway.
Well SignalWatcher, your wish is granted! Feel free to look at the filthy, crumbling walls of the Chambers St station for years to come! I seriously doubt anything will be done in our lifetimes to fix it. And I don’t know about you, but i like my subway systems to be as little creepy as is possible. Take a ride on DC or LA metros and you’ll see what i mean.
It’s a shame too, as that station has some beautiful tile work (you can see a glimpse of the fanciful Brooklyn Bridge in that shot).
At the Transit Museum, they sell tile reproductions, and I have that one, along with Court Street’s, in my kitchen.
Time for naming rights, adopt-a-station, space leasing, more advertising (especially wrap ads), et al. There has got to be a way to attract more private dollars towards station maintenance. The city’s deal with Cemusa for above ground facilities was a good step forward.
Cemusa’s ULURP approval process took nearly 10 years. Can we hope that adopt-a-station agreements move considerably faster, since we’re talking purely about MTA property and not street space? Plus, we can expect the TWU to get in the way here as well.
I always hoped that some of the places to get the ball rolling with naming rights and adopt-a-station would be at the stations that already have place names for private institutions and landmarks. For example if Rockefeller Center or Yankee Stadium wish to continue having their brand names printed at their respective stations, then they’ll have to start forking over money for all that free advertising.
How about Times Square?
The problem with removing names that are also geographic signals is the ensuing confusion. 47th/50th Sts. carries the Rockefeller Center moniker because so many people riding to that stop want to go to Rock Center, and it’s the same with Yankee Stadium. We can’t start making it harder to navigate the subways in an effort to get landlords in the case of Rock Center or the city/Yankees in the case of Yankee Stadium to pony up the dollars.
I certain have to agree with that, Ben.
What about hospitals or universities whose names are on signs at the nearest subway station? It would not make any sense to tell those institutions to pay up or lose the signs.
You mean those gray signs? I totally agree with your qualm about hospitals. Likewise with public institutions.
But private universities? Milk that cow.
Are you kidding me? Columbia gets the city to rewrite zoning laws just for it. Do you really think it’s just going to pay money to keep its name in the subway?
If a pedestrianized Times and Herald Squares are a reality, then anything is possible.
And NYU, don’t forget NYU. Yeah, those two heifers will make a lot of cheeze.
I’m with you on NYU. I don’t understand why Christopher St. and 8th St. get the NYU appellation. I think though that there’s a fine line between names for the sake of convenience and names for the sake of commercialization.
Pedestrianized Times and Herald Square come from Bloomberg’s personal conviction that he needs to pedestrianize random parts of Manhattan to have a legacy. Getting Columbia and NYU to pay money for the subway instead of for bribing the city to approve their rezoning proposals does not have the same effect on legacy.
“How about Times Square?”
AFAIK Times Square is not a private institution, it’s not a building or building complex, and the NY Times is long gone from there. (I personally didn’t even associate Times Square with the NY Times until someone had to literally explain it to me.)
“The problem with removing names that are also geographic signals is the ensuing confusion…We can’t start making it harder to navigate the subways in an effort to get landlords…to pony up the dollars.”
I believe we could and should. Over the years my immigrant relatives could always get around to Macy’s, Gimbels, Bloomingdales, Abraham & Straus, Albee Square Mall, Junior’s, LIU, Citigroup Center, Time-Warner Center, the Apple Store, Madison Square Garden (speaking of confusing, my cousin felt absolutely sure it was at 5th and B’way because he saw “Madison Square” on a map once), USTA National Tennis Center, and various other popular sites without having the names of these private institutions mentioned explicitly in station names. My sister once said that the 51st St/Lexington Ave station should be called “Citigroup Center”. I said “Great, so long as Citigroup keeps paying for it.”
The 168th St. IRT station would be marvelous and majestic if it had not been neglected for the last 60 years.
That entire Nassau Street line is shot, isn’t it? It just seems derelict, though it’s not. Is there an argument for closing it down entirely?
That fully renovated stations seem to have decayed so fast is what I find so bothersome, and that strikes me as the reason for this new program. Is is that renovations are badly done, or just that with a 24 hour, heavily used subway that’s so close to the surface, wear shows on even the best work if it’s not continuously and carefully maintained? Has a competent consulting civil engineer said anything about this?
Chambers is probably the worst in the Nassau Street line. The rest of the line isn’t in great repair (I don’t think much was done to the Fulton Street platforms as part of the entire complex renovations). But it is not bad considering other stations in the system. Broad Street (serving the Stock Exchange) is fine.
I think the Nassau Street line has remained open just so Jamaica line trains have somewhere to go, and not every Jamaica train can use the Chrystie Street Connection to the 6th Avenue line.
I keep on seeing some people think about using the Nassau Street line from Chambers south and repurposing it for when SAS makes its way downtown as a cost cutting measure. I think it is a cool idea, and may be better used than MTA’s SAS alignment downtown (after all, the Nassau Street line does stop right on Wall Street and is closer to much of the work areas). If Phase IV ever becomes a reality, is such a plan a feasible alternative?
Agreed. Nassau Street should have (and I think would have been) part of a major north/south trunk line. Ironically, for the Rapid Transit Commission and later the Public Service Commission, the original IRT and Broadway Line were a piece of cake to build compared to Nassau Street. It’s a shame that all that effort has been forgotten and neglected.
“I keep on seeing some people think about using the Nassau Street line from Chambers south and repurposing it for when SAS makes its way downtown as a cost cutting measure. I think it is a cool idea, and may be better used than MTA’s SAS alignment downtown (after all, the Nassau Street line does stop right on Wall Street and is closer to much of the work areas). If Phase IV ever becomes a reality, is such a plan a feasible alternative?”
At first, this seems like a good idea, but there are some problems with it.
One is that the Second Avenue Subway could send 30tph down to Lower Manhattan. The J/Z runs at 12+tph, and could increase in the future. 42+tph doesn’t fly. Some would argue that some trains can be turned at Chambers, but that is not acceptable. You want your Lower Manhattan bound trains to stop in the Financial District, not outside it.
Even if the J terminates at Chambers, there is the Montague St. tunnel. The R currently uses it, so adding the SAS on top of that is also not going to work. Whitehall St would have trouble turning the R (and W if it is around.) Some of these trains could be turned at the lower level of City Hall, but then you’re not reaching the Financial District.
The bottom line is that SAS is needed to add capacity, not shuffle it around.
Thank you Russell, for your detailed analysis. I had figured that there was some logistical nightmare to using the Nassau Street line, because as I said above, it seems underused and in such a prime spot to be overlooked as part of the otherwise pretty well thought out SAS line.
If such a provision was considered a possibility, I would think investments would be made in allowing faster train turnarounds at Chambers and Broad to ensure the SAS kept on moving. Improved signalling, and reactivating some of the older tracks would probably help deal with added service. One reason I liked this concept is that it gave the SAS an ability to run to Brooklyn via the Montague Street Tunnel. I guess the reality is that for the time being, capacity dictates that its impossible. Perhaps if both the SAS Phase IV and the connection to Nassau Street line at Chambers were constructed, then the extra capacity would be built with the benefit of connecting the downtown SAS into the BMT network.
Well, Joe, it is underused in relation to its capacity, but not for the needs of riders.
The only way that I can see Nassau St making sense for the SAS would be if a two track subway were built from, and south of the “express” tracks at Chambers, and then down Water St. Even then, if it is more expensive than the current Phase 4, I don’t think that it is worth it.
One outside possibility for the unused capacity on the Nassau St line is to integrate it with the Transit Museum. This could be necessary if the IND Court St. station ever reenters revenue service, such as with the SAS.
How does one work “quickly” around the WARN act?
Wasn’t the original SAS supposed to have a new tube bringing the line into Bkln via the Court St. station that is now the Transit Museum? East side access for the A line! Granted you sort of get that now by transferring at Broadway/Nassau–as unpleasant an experience as anything else the subway offers, from the look of it (it’s never been part of my commute).
The current SAS plan doesn’t even have the shared platform at Grand Street. Brooklyn has 2 1/2 million people and the SAS, even fully realized, is entirely irrelevant to us unless we’re heading to the “upper” UES.
I understand this is off topic and irrelevant. Subway expansion is a joke now, IMHO, and you know, for a while, in the late 80s and early 90s when David Gunn was helping to revive the subways, things looked sunny. It’s a darn shame. Every time I think about the subways, what I think is, “What could have been.”
I looked at the map again. Maybe phase IV does allow for a transfer at Grand St. I couldn’t tell for sure.
The MTA hasn’t yet conducted the necessary environmental impact studies yet because the timeline is so undertain, but it’s the Authority’s intentions to offer a transfer between the SAS and the B/D at Grand St.
Paul, Phase 4, as it currently is on paper, does allow for a transfer at Grand St, but not a cross platform transfer. The current plan is to build an island platform for the SAS below the existing tracks and platforms used by the B and D. I personally think that this is a mistake, but I understand the MTA’s concerns about potentially greater construction difficulties. I wouldn’t break a sweat about this now because the MTA has to build Phases 2 and 3 before it gets to Phase 4, and that is years away, if ever.
From what I understand, Court St was going to be used by the SAS in the original IND plans. I believe that this is the way that the SAS should get to Brooklyn. There could be connector built from Fulton St to Franklin Ave so that one of two SAS lines would replace the Franklin Ave. Shuttle and terminate at Coney Island, while the other SAS line would terminate at Euclid Ave.. If the SAS was extended to Brooklyn in this way, there would be same platform transfers, with the A and C, at every express stop from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Euclid Ave.