Despite a raging fire yesterday afternoon, Metro-North restored full service by the evening rush hour. (Photo via WTNH)
Say what you will about the MTA’s management structure. Carl Paladino, for one, called it “corrupt and bloated” while touring Manhattan island. Yet, the authority’s constituent parts certainly know how to keep their trains running.
For three hours yesterday afternoon, Metro-North’s only point of access for trains into and out of Manhattan and the popular Grand Central Terminal was a fiery inferno. A transformer explosion set fire to the wooden pier until the 138th St. Lift Bridge across the Harlem River, and for nearly four hours from 11:45 a.m. to around 3:30 p.m., the bridge burned. Officials feared damage to the structure, but Metro-North ran regular rush hour service to and from the city.
For governing officials, this Metro-North fire raised the fears of another great infrastructure collapse. Just a little under a month ago, a fire near Jamaica, Queens knocked out service on nearly every Long Island Rail Road line, and it took the MTA nearly a week to restore full service. A few years ago, in 2005, a fire in a Chambers St. signal room raised fears that service on the 8th Ave. IND would be slowed for years. Service was back up to speed within weeks.
In discussing the aftermath of the 138th St. Lift fire, Andrew Siff as NBC New York asks if the MTA has an infrastructure problem. “When you don’t do as much maintenance,” Bill Henderson, head of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA, said to Siff, “things start to happen, and that’s what we’re concerned about.”
Another long-time critic of the MTA, New York City’s Comptroller John Liu, voiced similar concerns. “The MTA has a difficult job,” he said. “The system is over a hundred years old, more investment needs to take place with regard to keeping the infrastructure up to date.”
Of course, with funds stretched, the MTA can’t pour millions into infrastructure upgrades as often as it would like, but it benefits in other ways from the care of its forefathers and smart planning today. Particularly with regards to the subway, the MTA’s current systems have built-in redundancies that allow operations at high capacity levels even in the event of an emergency. Not all of its signal systems for the 8th Ave. line, for instance, were arrayed in the storage closet that caught fire in 2005. When the Twin Towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, the ability to switch trains from various local tracks to the express lines allowed Transit to run trains to nearly every part of the city.
For Long Islanders, the fire in August exacerbated the problems with a poorly designed system. Because nearly every train out of Penn Station bound for points east has to route through Jamaica, one fire could knock out the system. But for Metro-North, the same does not hold true. Had the fire destroyed part of the 138th St. Lift, the MTA could have used the new Yankee Stadium stop as a terminal. Although doing so would strain capacity on the Manhattan-bound 4, B and D trains, the new station was designed to serve as a de facto terminal in case of an emergency in Manhattan. Redundancies, in other words, are necessary to keep a system moving.
Unfortunately, as money grows scarce and costs rise, redundancies are among the first to be eliminated. As the MTA builds part of the Second Ave. subway, plans have shrunk the new line for four tracks to three to two, and the Second Ave. Subway would be one of the few parts of the system in which no bypass or express option would be available in the event of stalled train or more serious emergency. These redundancies aren’t a luxury; they’re a necessity that helps the MTA meet the demands millions of people place on its 24-hour transit network daily.
The MTA may have a problem with aging infrastructure, but that problem could be worse in 30 years when we realize we haven’t spent wisely on new infrastructure. The older parts of the system just might age better.
12 comments
No, the redundancies are a luxury. They’re a luxury of organizations that don’t want to make the effect to ensure critical transport links aren’t disrupted. Tokyo and Paris are both full of single points of failure. Block a single segment on the Chuo Line west of Shinjuku and you’ve just stranded two million commuters.
Not really. Many points on the Chuo are served by other lines. Marunouchi, Inokashira, Touzai, etc. You could lengthen a lot of people’s commutes but it would be pretty hard to strand anyone on the Chuo. The subway doesn’t have express tracks, but Tokyo has way more redundancy than New York.
With about a million daily riders, the Tozai Line is already at twice its capacity. It can’t handle all the people from the Chuo Line. The Marunouchi Line could handle some, but not anywhere near two million. It’s not like in New York, where Metro-North has so little traffic that the 4 and the B/D could handle it.
Surface transit can and should be a redundancy for subterranean transit as well. This will be the benefit of the express bus lines on 2nd Ave. Would be better for speed and efficiency if we had surface rail.
Hear, hear! Redundancies are a necessity for a 24-hour system. The old BRT didn’t need to give the Brighton Line all of it’s redundancies, but 90 years on—now that massive, disruptive rehab work is being done—those extra tracks, more often than not, still allow revenue service on this heavily used route. And yet, like you said, the TA will give the SAS none whatsoever…[facepalm].
Such was the advantage of the old cut-and-cover system vs. the tunnel boring machine now needed to avoid any NIMBY objections to new subway lines. Work just under street level, and a 50-60 foot wide trench, or even a 25-30 foot wide one with two levels, is easier to dig out to allow four-track operation than a TBM that has to make four passes through the same area to do the job. Hopefully, someone has squirreled away some future plan for a bi-level Second Ave. express line, so if demand ever gets high enough and funds are available, express tracks can be hollowed out beneath what will eventually be the line’s local tracks.
As I’ve said here in the past, there is also the issue of the stations being too far apart.
Even if the ENTIRE project gets completed, it will be like an express line in which they forgot to build the local stations, rather than vice versa.
Consider these gaps:
Houston St. – 14 St.
42 St. – 55 St.
55 St. – 72 St.
72 St. – 86 St.
And let’s not forget the gap between Times Square and the Javits Center on the #7 extension. AT least there is SOME hope that there will eventually be a 10 Ave./41 St. station.
IT IS possible to say that the original IRT placed its stations too close together, but the SAS plan is making the opposite mistake. The IND seems to have gotten it right when it comes to the distance between stations.
Those gaps are perfectly normal by non-New York standards. The average interstation in Tokyo, London, and Mexico City is 1.25 km, i.e. 15-16 Manhattan blocks. In Seoul, it’s 1 km, i.e. 12 blocks. All numbers are somewhat lower in the central areas, in line with how SAS has shorter interstation segments like 14th-23rd-34th-42nd, and somewhat higher elsewhere.
There’s no reason for SAS to make a stop between 42nd and 55th, between 55th and 72nd, or between 72nd and 86th. Between Houston and 14th, it might be a good idea to add St. Mark’s, but there’s no destination of similar importance in the three other long segments. 72nd is a great placement for a relief line, since it’s right between two stations on the 6; 79th and 66th would both add service to people who need it less.
The 7 extension is something different. Like with 72nd Street, a stop at 10th and 41st would provide service to people who currently don’t have it.
I do not see the issue as one of “destinations of importance”.
The spacing of the stations is the issue.
In my point of view, there should be stations approximately at 51 St., 60 St., and 79 St.
I of course agree with you about St. Marks Pl.
55 St. would not be needed under such a plan.
Just look at the stations on the existing IND lines,
Even if you disregard the IRT and BMT.
When you consider that the station at 72nd St. will have an entrance between 74th and 75th Sts. and the station at 86th St. will have an entrance at 83rd St., what’s the piont of a station at 79th St? The same is true of the others. There is no reason to make the station stops too close together.
The IND would be relevant if the purpose of SAS were to drive the Lex into bankruptcy. But it’s not; it’s to relieve overcrowding and provide better subway service to the eastern end of the East Side. The second goal would be best served by having stations that interpolate the Lex. 72nd and 55th are useful for this; 51st, 60th, and 79th aren’t.
The average station spacing on SAS between 125th and Hanover Square is going to be a bit less than 900 meters, or 11 blocks, which is low by international standards. It goes without saying that some segments will be shorter and some longer; that by itself is nothing to worry about.
I wouldn’t worry about the southern end of the line. If the entire northern end gets built to 125th Street, I’ll be pleased. But it has to happen in the next few years, before the whole country goes broke.
If built to 125th Street, the Second Avenue Subway would be the redundancy. It would provide an alternative if the Lex were shut down, to replace the signals for example. Bronx trains could use 125th Street as a terminal.