Author

Benjamin Kabak

NJ Transit riders still dissatisfied with rail service

by Benjamin Kabak February 16, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 16, 2012

Toward the end of last year, New Jersey Transit released its first quarterly customer assessment report, and the results were not good. Overall, the agency drew in a 5.3 on the customer satisfaction scale with rail scoring even lower. Now, the next quarter results are available, and the pictures looks even bleaker.

As the survey shows, customer satisfaction with New Jersey Transit is now down to 5.1. Only 55 percent of rail travelers say they would recommend the service to a friend, and perception of on-time performance is lagging as well. NJ Transit, however, noted that its own on-time rail performance was at a very respectable 94.9 percent. Other complaints focused around dissatisfaction with communication during service disruptions — a challenge transit agencies everywhere must face — and issues surrounding frequency of weekend service.

So what’s going on here? One article on the survey speculates that riders remember only the bad trips and the myriad problem-free rides. The long delays stick out and cause headaches, and New Jersey Transit should get credit for improving its on-time record and upgrading its rolling stock. Furthermore, the agency won’t be raising fares this year. Still, without added cross-Hudson capacity, the commuter rail network will never be able to achieve its potential, and its customers seem to recognize as much.

February 16, 2012 8 comments

Second Avenue Subway

What future the Second Ave. Subway?

by Benjamin Kabak February 16, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 16, 2012

A glimpse inside what will one day be a station cavern for the Second Avenue Subway. (Photo courtesy of MTA, Patrick Cashin)

Before leading us into the cavern of the 7 line extension last Friday, MTA Capital Construction President Michael Horodniceanu spoke at length about the megaprojects currently under his auspices. We know the story of the city-funded 7 line extension and the ever-ballooning costs and construction timeline for the East Side Access project. We know too that Phase 1 of the Second Ave. Subway is currently on pace for revenue service in December 2016 even if initial reports seven years ago predicted a 2012 finish. But what of the rest of the project?

During his talk on the MTACC, Horodniceanu mentioned in broad sweeps the future of the Second Ave. Subway. For many years, MTA officials refused to speak much about Phases 2-4 of the project. They were focused on securing funding for the remainder of Phase 1 and ensuring that this part of the long-awaited East Side subway line would truly see the light of day this time around. After three failed attempts at building the line, after all, and with billions of dollars in federal money on the line, the MTA couldn’t afford to let this opportunity pass.

Now, though, we’ll have a subway that connections from the BMT Broadway stop at 57th St., swings east to 63rd and Lexington and continues north to 96th St. and Second Ave. It is Phase 1 of a four-phase project, and maybe one day, when the 2015-2019 capital plan comes up, the MTA will look for more funding for future phases. Of course, as Horodniceanu explained, the irony is that with some extra money now, the MTA could have built SAS up to 115th St.

Since preexisting tunnels connect from 99th St. to 105th and from 110th to 119th, the MTA, said Horodniceanu “could now build stations at 105th St. and 115th St.” The cost would be a cool $750 million – $1 billion per station, but the only obstacle is the money. The environmental impact statements are completed, and the tunnels themselves are in place. In fact, some of the tunnel north of 99th St. will be used as tail tracks for Phase 1.

Of course, as we know, the MTA isn’t going to build those stations any time soon. In fact, we don’t even know if future phases of the so-called stubway line will see the light of day. On Friday, Horodniceanu estimated that the remaining three phases could cost a total of $23-$24 billion. Seven years ago, the four phases combined were expected to cost a total of $16 billion. By the time the authority puts their shovels or TBMs into the ground, I’m sure that estimated total will increase to even higher levels.

Essentially, the original decision to split the Second Ave. Subway project into four phases doomed it from the start. The origins of that decision these days have always been a bit murky. Some have said it came about due to pressure from Sheldon Silver and the realities of funding. The MTA didn’t think it could secure the full funding amount at the start and tried to break the project into more palatable pieces.

A Times story from 1999 tells a slightly different story: “Transit officials said they had limited the plan for new construction to upper Manhattan because of the engineering difficulties and expense of extending a new line under the more congested parts of midtown.” In this telling, it almost seems as those Phases 3 and 4 were simply for show. Phases 1 and 2 were easier and cheaper, but the charade of Phases 3 and 4 could keep hope alive. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Today, we live with this decision. We’ll have Phase 1 at least, and Phase 2, while also expensive, should see the light of day. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess. Phase 3 through Midtown will be a challenge, and Phase 4 through Lower Manhattan will be too. The MTA though made this bed 13 years ago, and today, as the pace of construction slows and costs go up, we live with it.

February 16, 2012 136 comments

Asides MTA Construction

FASTRACK set for year-long trial

by Benjamin Kabak February 15, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 15, 2012

The early returns from FASTRACK, the MTA’s weeknight shutdown program, have been successful enough to warrant a year-long trial, the Daily News reported this week. Per Pete Donohue, the MTA has scheduled 12 more weeks of shutdowns beyond the four currently in the works. By year’s end, Transit will have shuttered trains through Manhattan for a total of 448 hours.

As Transit officials justified the move, advocates gave it a lukewarm embrace. The MTA has billed it as an efficiency program, but the authority is providing less overnight service in bits and spurts. “We know it’s an inconvenience to our customers and we apologize for the inconvenience,” Senior Vice President of Subways Carmen Bianco said. “Hopefully, our customers will only have to walk a block, or two blocks at the most, to get alternate service.”

Ultimately, the FASTRACK program has its limitations. Due to the need for nearby redundant service, Transit cannot expand it to the areas outside of the Manhattan core without seriously impacting mobility. Yet, some of the stations in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn need more attention than those in Manhattan. For now, though, we’ll have to cope with weeknight changes through the end of November.

February 15, 2012 13 comments

View from Underground

A long, slow good bye for the wooden benches

by Benjamin Kabak February 15, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 15, 2012

Straphangers awaiting a downtown train at West 4th Street make good use of the station's wooden benches. (Photo by flickr user Grim Santo)

The wooden benches that fill our subway system offer something of a respite for weary travelers. Wood because the material has been cheap and is fairly resilient to everything people throw at it, the benches are designed with low, thick arm rests to discourage permanent residents, but they seem to attract everything from blackened gum to spilled beverages and any unidentifiable liquid in between. They’re also on the way out.

For years, we’ve been hearing about Transit’s plans to replace the wooden benches. In late 2010, the MTA first started debating potential replacements. Some folks, in the wake of reports of bed bugs in mid-2008, called the wood unhygienic while others thought that stainless steel, a potential replacement, was too cold, both literally and figuratively, for the subway system. Yet, stainless steel doesn’t rot or attract bugs, and it seems to have won the day.

As Pete Donohue reports in today’s Daily News, Transit will begin to phase out wooden benches in exchange for the stainless steel variety. Sneak a peek at the planned replacements right here. Donohue has more:

The MTA has chosen a sleek, modern style to be installed in stations when they come up for major overhauls or more modest face-lifts, the MTA said. One of the new subway seats is already in place at the R station at Whitehall St., at the southern tip of Manhattan where straphangers gave mixed reviews.

“It’s better,” Luis Pares, 46, a concierge from New Jersey, said of the metal three-seat bench. “It’s more comfortable. It’s the best thing they’ve invented.”

But Carol Godfrey, 52, a subway conductor who plopped down on it while waiting for a train home called it “horrible…It’s cold,” she said. “There’s nothing like the old wooden ones. They’re sturdier. Put back the old wooden benches. No, put back new wooden benches.”

That, folks, is a perfect example of a he said/she said story. One person likes the subway benches; the other does not. Such are the way of things underground.

If we go slightly beneath the surface, it’s easy to discern the decision-making process here. First, stainless steel benches will last longer than wood. Instead of absorbing anything that lands on them, the benches will deflect instead. Second, as Godfrey noted, by being literally colder than wood, the benches could discourage long-term inhabitants from moving in. They too have arm rests to discourage horizontal sleeping. Ultimately, says the MTA, stainless steel is “easier and less costly to maintain” although the authority didn’t release cost figures for the new benches.

Despite this new approach though, don’t expect to see the new benches spring up too frequently. The cash-starved authority says it can replace wooden benches only when the stations they’re in are up for full renovations. It will be a gradual phase-in as the new and old co-mingle throughout the system. Meanwhile, I wonder what will happen to Tom Otterness’ little fellows at 14th St. who make a better use of those wooden benches than anyone else around.

February 15, 2012 16 comments

Asides Public Transit Policy

Link: Congress considering federal oversight for subways

by Benjamin Kabak February 14, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 14, 2012

When it comes to the nation’s rail networks, many transit advocates insist — and generally rightly so — that federal oversight is holding us back. The FRA imposes crash-test regulations that lead to train cars that are unnecessarily heavy and operations unnecessarily slowed down. Thus, train travel cannot achieve speeds and efficiencies it otherwise should.

It is, then, somewhat alarming that we now learn Congress is considering federal oversight for subway systems. Basically because subways are under local rule and Congress grew concerned over a spate of crashes in its own backyard involving the WMATA, the country’s federal legislative body is now toying with the idea of bringing every subway system’s safety regulations under federal control. “We have federal safety standards for planes, trains and automobiles. It’s shocking we don’t have them for the 7 million Americans who rely on metro systems every day,” Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said to The Washington Post.

As we sit here in New York, though, we shouldn’t embrace this idea. Already our subway cars are generally heavier than they need to be. We also don’t have the same troubled history with safety regulations as the WMATA does. If Congress is truly concerned with that bi-state (and one district) subway authority, it should exercise its oversight powers there. Otherwise, federal oversight of New York City subways will likely lead to onerous regulations and unfunded mandates that will slow down service and rob us of our efficiencies. It’s just not necessary.

February 14, 2012 22 comments

Asides Queens

Queens pols, QueensWay advocates square off over rail line

by Benjamin Kabak February 14, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 14, 2012

As Gov. Andrew Cuomo continues to promote Genting’s plans for Ozone Park as a potential “destination complex,” politicians and park advocates are squaring off over the unused Rockaway Breach Branch of the LIRR. On the one side are neighborhood activists who want to turn the rail ROW into a park, and on the other are Queens politicians who know that increased transit options — and not just a super-express A train — are keys to any convention center/casino complex’s success.

Recently, two Assembly representatives from Queens, Phil Goldfeder and Michael Miller, announced their support for a rehabilitation and reactivation of the Rockaway Breach Branch line. The two envision this routing as a faster way for people from Ozone Park and the Rockaways to reach Manhattan. With the convention center, Goldfeder said, “the commute for people here is only going to go from bad to worse. You can’t talk about a convention center without talking about transportation.”

Activists for the so-called QueensWay, a rails-to-trails project that would forever sacrifice the rail option for the Rockaway Beach ROW, had a different take, and it is probably the group’s most out-there statement yet. “The building of a new rail line in this economy and the destruction it would cause into adjacent neighborhoods including Forest Park is not feasible,” Andrea Crawford of Friends of QueensWay said. Reactivating an old rail line certainly is feasible, and it would not cause destruction of any neighborhoods. Ultimately, the stumbling blocks will not be quasi-NIMBYism from QueensWay supporters but Genting’s reluctance to spend too much money and a lack of any other funding source.

February 14, 2012 27 comments

MTA Politics

Lhota: ‘I do not support’ a subway food ban

by Benjamin Kabak February 14, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 14, 2012

Were the food ban to pass, this man would not be permitted to eat in the subway. (Photo by flickr user phogel)

Senator Bill Perkins does not, like most New Yorkers, like rats all that much. He doesn’t want to be reminded that millions of them coexist with the human residents in this fine city of ours, and he particularly doesn’t want to see them at his subway stop, on his subway platform, in the tracks or perhaps even in the train. I can’t say I blame him too much.

The truth about rats in New York City — and it’s one we don’t like to admit — is that they are drawn to human waste. They feast on our garbage, and as long as we supply them with garbage, they’ll eat and be merry. The subways provide them with ample garbage. Harried New Yorkers are always eating, and although most straphangers make use of the trash receptacles, as the MTA has dubbed them, even if just a few bad eggs throw their food scraps onto the tracks or station floors, the rats will find a way to them.

And so Bill Perkins wants to head off that behavior by cutting off the source of food. There shall be, he has proposed, no eating in the subway. His bill has cleared the State Senate’s Transportation Committee, although 9 of the 16 yea votes came with reservations, and now it sits with the Finance Committee. Perhaps it will pass, and the challenge will fall to the enforcers. Perhaps it shall die a death in Albany.

Yesterday, while on a trip to speak out in support of transit funding, MTA CEO and Chairman offered up his views on the proposed food ban, and it is not on his transit wishlist. “I do not support the bill,” Lhota said to The Times. “It severely hurts and impacts minority communities. I don’t want to deny the kid the only time that day he’s going to get food.”

The new Chairman says that too many people, from workers to students, need their commute time to grab a quick bite and that the ban would be a burden. Lhota, however, is familiar with Perkins’ work as the two have tried to combat New York’s rat problem for years. The MTA head though didn’t offer up praise for the Senator. “The idea that we worked together in the past goes far beyond the reality. As a legislator, he does nothing but talk and talk and talk, and he does nothing,” he said.

Perkins countered with a different take. He claimed Lhota once offered up support for the food ban and believes his bill to be the key to controlling rats underground. That is a bold claim indeed. “If that’s his position, I’m sorry to hear that,” Perkins said of Lhota. “I think there is a great need for us to control eating in the subways to get control of the rodent infestation. We’re still trying to convince him.”

There is, of course, another way to look at this issue. As Cap’n Transit noted to me via Twitter last night, perhaps this issue is being improperly framed. The problem isn’t that people can eat underground; rather, the problem is that no one is there to clean up the garbage. Trash bags sit in stations for days, and rats find their ways to neglected sources of food. The Cap’n believes rehiring cleaners could make stations tidier while providing jobs for the unemployed. If Albany were to focus on such a solution, it could create a better win-win-win.

Meanwhile, I’m torn. Eating on the subway is not the most sanitary of things to do, and folks who chow down on complex meals are often disrespectful toward their fellow commuters and themselves. That people think the subway floor is an appropriate place for discarded chicken bones or unwanted french fries simply makes it worse. And so, dear readers, I shall leave the question up to you.

Should eating be outlawed in the subway system?

Update (2:30 p.m.): Facing criticism from other state officials for his comments, Lhota, noted during his time in the Guiliania Administration for his temper, issued a formal apology to Perkins this afternoon. “I would like to apologize to Senator Perkins for my comments in The Times today,” he said. “Bill is an excellent legislator with great constituent services, and I share his commitment to addressing the problem of rat proliferation in New York City. Though we agree on many rat related issues, we disagree on banning food on the subways. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Perkins.”

February 14, 2012 32 comments

Asides View from Underground

Link: On improperly enforced photography laws

by Benjamin Kabak February 13, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 13, 2012

Since the mid-2000s, when the MTA considered a misguided and borderline unconstitutional ban on photography, many people from transit workers to cops to straphangers believe snapping photos of subways, buses and authority infrastructure will land you with a one-way trip to Guantanamo. That isn’t, of course, the case, and veteran railfans and infrastructure shutterbugs know to carry a copy of the MTA’s Rules of Conduct which state as much. Still, every now and then, a story pops up that reminds us, even seven years after the proposed ban was discarded, not everyone knows the current state of the rules.

This time around, our story comes from Times photography David Dunlap. As he relates on City Room, he was told by an MTA property protection agent that he was not permitted to take photos of a bus depot from a public sidewalk. As Dunlap notes, the agent was wrong to tell him he could not take photos from the public sidewalk and wrong to tell him he could not take photos of the MTA property.

For its part, the MTA apologized to Dunlap and said that “the actions of the property protection agent…will be investigated.” That’s a convenient after-the-fact action though. In 2012, MTA employees and those who work to keep the system safe should know that photography is allowed, and anyone with a camera, from amateurs to professionals, shouldn’t have to fear an encounter with an authority figure who isn’t versed in the current rules.

February 13, 2012 8 comments

Moynihan Station

Moynihan Phase 1 scaled back amidst cost concerns

by Benjamin Kabak February 13, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 13, 2012

The chances of this Moynihan Station rendering becoming a reality are slim.

The Moynihan Station project won’t die and can’t really move forward either. Despite a TIGER grant and a groundbreaking in October 2010, the plan to spend more than a $1 billion without truly increasing cross-Hudson train capacity has hit a stumbling block. As The Wall Street Journal reports today, due to escalating costs, the already-modest Phase 1 is being further scaled back.

Phase 1 of the two-phase project was not a particularly ambitious set of improvements. For $267 million, the Port Authority, now the overseers of the site, had planned to build two new entrances to Penn Station from west of Eighth Ave.; double the length and width of the West End Concourse; drop 13 new access points to the platforms; double the width of the 33rd St. Connector between Penn Station and the West End Concourse; and make other critical infrastructure improvements. Now that bids are in on the work and every single one came in above budget, the PA is reducing the scope of Phase 1.

Ted Mann has the story:

State and federal officials wary about mounting costs plan to scale back the first segment of work for the future Moynihan Station, the latest setback for an ambitious project almost two decades in the making. Plans to revamp a concourse and upgrade passenger amenities in a portion of Penn Station were narrowed after officials determined that bids for the estimated $267 million project came in too high, said Patrick Foye, executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is assuming control of the long-delayed venture…

“The response of the federal government, state government, MTA and Port Authority to the higher-than-expected bids is a unified approach to reduce the scope of phase one and thereby reduce the amount to be spent,” Mr. Foye said in an interview on Friday. “Phase one is funded and all government parties are working closely together to move phase one forward.”

…Mr. Foye said officials agreed to rebid the contract, focusing on the expansion of the existing West End Concourse, nestled beneath the main steps of the Farley building. Other elements of the first phase, including improvements to the 33rd Street corridor under Eighth Avenue, two new entrances to the station across Eighth Avenue and a new passenger waiting area, will follow once costs can be lowered, Mr. Foye said.

As I’ve long maintained, the Moynihan Station project borders on being a total waste. It’s a fancy way to fund some upgrades for the Amtrak platforms and ventilation infrastructure. It doesn’t offer up more track capacity into or out of the city, and it seems to represent spending on a structure that would allow politicians to point to something nice but not entirely functional. If these cost overruns and rejiggered project allow planners to take a second look at Moynihan Station, so much the better.

February 13, 2012 56 comments

7 Line Extension

Photos: Inside the 7 line extension

by Benjamin Kabak February 12, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 12, 2012

The Far West Side of Manhattan is a bit of a no-man’s land. Outside of the Javits Center and some barbecue at Daisy May’s, only storage units, the Intrepid and some boat decks provide reasons for a trip west. Yet in just over 22 months, Manhattan’s first new subway extension since the late 1980s will open, and the 7 line will head to 34th St. and 11th Ave. to an extensive deep cavern station that may one day, if all goes according to plan, serve over 30,000 passengers per hour. The Hudson Yards development will one day be a big destination.

The 7 line extension is the MTA’s under-the-radar $2.1 billion megaproject. The route goes through sparsely populated lands without a heavy residential or mixed-used presence as Second Ave. is. It’s a project that was spurred on by the idea of bringing the Olympics to New York but outlived the failed bid for the 2012 Games. It’s been fully funded, to an extent, by the city, but cost overruns shelved what would have been a very useful station at 41st St. and 10th Ave.

In a sense, this project is a throwback to another era in New York City’s history. Despite lofty projections and a three-block-long mezzanine that puts the IND’s overbuilt system to shame, when it opens, the new station will see far fewer than 30,000 passengers an hour. Rather, this station is meant to spur on development at the Hudson Yards area. With a subway stop, Manhattan’s last frontier will become a much more desirable area. “When we open,” Michael Horodniceanu, the MTA Capital Construction president, said during a tour of the extension, “the ridership will yet to be there. We expect this to spur ridership.”

The mezzanine at 34th Street and 11th Avenue stretches on for three city blocks. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

On Friday, I took a tour of the 7 line extension. At 34th St. and 11th Ave., across the street from the Javits Center, the new station is a deep cavern, over 100 feet underground, with a mezzanine that spans over three city blocks. It will have inclined escalators and elevators leading into immense entrances. As the new extension will require six additional trainsets for the 7 line, the new build will have tail tracks that will stretch to 25th St. Horodniceanu said future development could lead to a station near Chelsea Piers or a further extension to 14th St. if the money ever materializes. In fact, such work could have been a part of the current extension had someone wished to fund it.

After entering at 34th St., we walked the length of the station and took a stroll through the tunnel connecting the new extension with the current terminal of the 7 train at 41st and 8th Ave. We walked underneath the Lincoln Tunnel, the Port Authority Bus Terminal and active IND tracks at 8th Ave. Still, the lost station was on my mind as I’ve long believed it to be a very costly mistake not to build it. Contractors have flattened out the otherwise steep grade of the tunnel for a stretch at 41st and 10th Ave., and again, if the money materializes, the MTA could build two side platforms there, rectifying this wrong.

The 7 line cuts through the IND's abandoned lower level platform at 42nd Street and 8th Avenue. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

By the time we reached 8th Ave., the old and the new merged. We took a peek at the 7 trains waiting to head to Queens and saw the remnants of the lower level IND platform at 42nd and 8th Ave. This platform, long rumored to have been built to block a westward expansion of the 7 train, served as a set for the movie Ghost and has been bisected by the new construction. Today, it serves as a staging area and temporary rest room for the workers underground.

The MTA offers up the 7 line extension of a project that can be built under budget, and while Horodniceanu said it has an “agressive” delivery date of December 31, 2013, they think they can still make it on time. The last contract isn’t due for delivery until June of 2014, and real estate acquisition problems slowed down the overall time frame. But the MTA is offering up substantial bonuses if the contractor can deliver before Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s third term is over. The 7 line extension, omitted station and all, has long been Bloomberg’s pet project, and he wants to ride that train before his days are out.

After the jump, a full slideshow of my photos from the tour.

February 12, 2012 26 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts