Author

Benjamin Kabak

Courting controversy as TWU/MTA talks begin

by Benjamin Kabak February 2, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 2, 2012

When the TWU accused the MTA of “negotiating through the media,” union leaders staged a public walk-out from the negotiations and refused to sit down with their authority counterparts for two weeks. Today, as talks were due to start up again, the authority had a chance to respond to union press leaks, and respond they did.

The New York Post reported this morning that the TWU had “won” a key concession from the MTA. Subway drivers may receive three days off following any incident, fatal or not, in which their train strikes a person. Furthermore, conductors could get time off if they observe someone fall between cars or slip between the subway and platform edge. In the past, conductors did not receive such time off, and drivers had to be behind the wheel of a fatal accident to qualify. “Protecting conductors and operators from these horrible incidents underground was one of the main goals,” The Post’s source said.

As TWU President John Samuelsen reacted to an MTA leak, so too did the authority react to a TWU leak. “It is the MTA’s policy not to negotiate through the press,” MTA Chairman Joe Lhota responded in turn. “However, we will not allow inaccurate or leaked statements regarding negotiations to stand as fact. Today’s New York Post story is harmful to the collective bargaining process.” It is unclear if The Post report is accurate or what the TWU may give up in return for these protections, and despite the tense war of words over media reports, sources confirm to me that neither party anticipates a strike even if a deal is not yet on the horizon.

February 2, 2012 7 comments

Straphangers Campaign

Straphangers: Subway station conditions need some work

by Benjamin Kabak February 2, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 2, 2012

Water damage and missing tiles mar the walls at 7th Avenue on the IND Culer Line. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

As far as transit services go, subway stations are caught amidst a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, it’s far more important for the MTA’s offerings to ensure that tracks, its signal system and the rolling stock are in top shape than it is to gussy up its subway stations. On the other hand, though, subway station appearance sets a tone for the level of care the authority gives its outward-looking infrastructure. Decrepit stations with rats and garbage indicates a level of inattention to passenger environment.

Today, the Straphangers Campaign released their assessment of subway station conditions, and the report attempts to quantify what we see on a daily basis. Their team observed 250 station platform at 120 randomly selected stops. That figure, they say, represents 28 percent of the system’s 909 platforms. During the survey, conducted last year, they found some good, some bad and some ugly.

As they highlight it, the good is a bare qualifier. Every station they saw had garbage cans present, and somehow, only one of the 250 suffered from overflowing trash cans. Furthermore, only six percent had visible garbage bags lying about. The bad included rats in 15 out of 139 underground stations — a figure that seemed low to me — missing tile, exposed wiring and cracked floors and staircase. The ugly though was ugly. Nearly 80 percent of stations had substantial peeling paint while 53 percent suffered from water damage.

Yet, despite these findings, I am inclined to think that the Straphangers over-rate the state of the stations. It’s the subtle things that matter. Sure, every station may have a trash can or two, but as I’ve noted in the past, at 7th Ave. on the Culver Line for instance, the last garbage can is a few hundred feet from the end of the platform. Thus, garbage piles up far from the trash receptacle.

Meanwhile, while recently renovated stations alleviate the underground blight, those that haven’t gone under the knife in decades, if ever, look worse for the wear. In the Bronx along the IRT lines, in Brooklyn both above and below ground, throughout Queens, stations are literally falling apart. Walls are bare, floors are grimy, benches are just flat-out gross. Franklin St. in Tribeca might look great, but the 149th St.-Grand Concourse subway station has needed a substantial amount of work for at least two decades, if not longer.

It’s hard to maintain over 468 subway stations, many of which suffer from decades of deferred maintenance. It’s costly and time-consuming to keep up with the seemingly unattainable State of Good Repair, and painting over leaky walls and cracked ceilings is akin to putting make-up on a pig. But between rats and water damager, dark corners and garbage bags, the city’s stations need some help. This report is just another voice calling out for better repairs.

February 2, 2012 19 comments

MTA Economics MTA Politics

The Great New York State Bond Swindle

by Benjamin Kabak February 2, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 2, 2012

When the MTA announced last week that it was hoping to refinance its debt, the Bloomberg News reporters who covered the story let slip an oft-overlooked fact. Because of an obscure provision at the end of the New York State Public Authorities Law, the MTA must pay to the state $8.40 for every $1000 it borrows through the sale of government-backed bonds. In other words, if the MTA borrows $1 billion, it owes the state $8.4 million.

When we actually stop to think about that, it seems a bit contradictory. Public Authorities exist, to some degree, to allow states to escape constitutionally-bounded debt limits. States are often banned by their founding documents from taking out too much debt, but public authorities, quasi-state entities, can avoid those debt limits. Thus, the MTA can become one of the nation’s largest debtors while the New York State books are technically clear of these debt obligations.

On the other hand, the state is charging the MTA for its own ineptitude. Why is the MTA looking to issue another few billion dollars in debt? Because the state hasn’t come up with a better funding scheme and is happy to put paying for today’s upgrades on the shoulders of tomorrow. In a way, then, the MTA is paying double: It has to pay this so-called “cost recover” fee now while paying down debt later.

In The Daily News today, Pete Donohue reveals a shocking figure: The MTA has paid $105 million to the state in debt issuance fees since 2006. That’s enough to fund the 2010 service cuts and restore bus service for millions of New Yorkers. “These unnecessary fees add to our total debt and strain our ability to provide bus and subway service,” Allen Cappelli, an MTA board member, said. “Our riders deserve relief so that this money could be used to provide restorations and improved service.”

Donohue has more:

In the last fiscal year, the MTA paid the state nearly $20 million in bond issuance fees, according to data provided by the state controller’s office. In the fiscal year ending in April 2009, the MTA paid the state more than $30 million. Since 2006, the MTA has paid $105 million in fees. But the agency borrowed extra money to cover the cost of those fees. That debt adds up to $6.5 million in interest payments annually, authorities said.

The MTA this year plans to sell an unusually large amount of bonds to raise new money and refinance existing debt. It potentially could wind up paying the state another $75.4 million in fees. MTA Chairman Joseph Lhota has asked the state budget director to grant a waiver lowering that amount by tens of millions of dollars.

State controller Thomas DiNapoli said the bond issuance fee also is “an issue for other public authorities that issue debt. As the State moves toward greater fiscal discipline, this is a practice that should be reviewed.”

That’s a rich one: Not only must the MTA pay these unnecessary fees, it also has had to borrow additionally money to pay the state to borrow more money. If you think about it for too long, it becomes a blackhole of terrible and irresponsible fiscal policies.

This is a broken system. The state won’t adequately fund transit maintenance and improvements, and in fact, the state is levying a penalty on the MTA for trying to do so. The authority can ill afford to see Albany remove another $20 million from its budget, but without reform of this law, straphangers will continue to pay for political mismanagement by and from those we continuously send to Albany.

February 2, 2012 15 comments

Queens

From Queens, a call to reactivate the Rockaway Beach Branch

by Benjamin Kabak February 1, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 1, 2012

A schematic shows the Rockaway Beach Branch service from 1955 until it was shuttered in 1960. (Courtesy of Railfan.net)

Before Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced plans to build a convention center in Ozone Park, Queens residents were gearing up to square off over a decommissioned bit of former LIRR tracks. Park advocates with some vague stirrings of NIMBYism wanted to turn the rail right-of-way into a park while rail advocates rightly objected. The convention center proposal, complete with a vow by the developer to fund transit to the area, has thrust this small section of rusted rail tracks back into the spotlight, and now the trail advocates are fighting back hard.

In The Daily News today, Carl Perrera, David Krulewitch and John Rozankowski put forward a compelling argument for reacativating the Rockaway Beach Branch line, and they put forward various solutions for such a reactivation. Krulewitch and Rozankowski are no strangers to this issue, and Perrera has been advocating for rail use for years. Now, they offer up this argument:

Some have suggested the revival of the JFK-Super Express service. Since there are more A trains running today than in the 1980s, a service conflict would be created and the needs of the convention center would not be met. Fortunately, there is a better alternative: the revival of the northern section of the old Long Island Rail Road Rockaway branch. The Regional Rail Working Group Rockaway Subcommittee and other transit advocates have studied this line and offer the following options:

The Railroad Option would have the LIRR resume operations between Penn Station and Aqueduct. Two stations would be built — at Rego Park and at Aqueduct. The latter would allow transfers to the A train and to the Air Train (if it were extended from Howard Beach). If rail cars are developed with the ability to operate on both lines, a one-seat ride from Midtown to JFK would be created.

The Subway Option would divert the M or R subway line east of 63rd Drive (via an already built connection) to the northern section of the Rockaway line. The subway would converge with the A train north of the Aqueduct Station and continue into the Rockaways. At Rego Park, two stations would be built, one for the subway and one for the LIRR mainline to permit transfers between the two services.

This would allow Rockaway riders a quick trip to Midtown or to eastern points in Long Island. Under both options, additional stations can be added after consultation with the affected communities.

The trio note that, if the MTA is not interested in such a proposal, the city could, as it has done with the 7 line, foot the bill since it is the legal owner of the right-of-way. In fact, for any rail development along the Rockaway Beach Branch to see the light of day, someone else — the city, the state or Genting — will indeed have to foot the bill.

Furthermore, the three authors parry with neighbors who claim a rail line would have a negative impact on their quality of life. Perhaps noise for a few would be an issue, but an electric train line would not impact pollution levels. Plus, the increased transit access would lead to a jump in property values as well.

They end with a call for a Rockaway Line Reactivation Task Force: “Does CB9 want to be the spoiler conducive to the inundation of Ozone Park with traffic, thus continuing transit misery for Rockaway riders and to block a chance to link Queens in an effective crosstown service? Or does CB9 prefer to be a good neighbor and support a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve mass transit for everyone’s benefit?” The choice, to me, is an easy one. If the state is going to build a convention center in Ozone Park, they must do everything right, and that includes rail access.

February 1, 2012 81 comments

Asides Self Promotion

Event Tonight: SAS presents ‘Problem Solvers’ the Transit Museum

by Benjamin Kabak February 1, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 1, 2012

A final reminder: Tonight is the first event of my “Problem Solvers” discussion series at the Transit Museum. The event starts at 6:30 p.m., and you can find directions to the Museum right here. If you’ve never been, it’s a great spot in the decommissioned Court St. subway stop. The event series will take an intimate look at the people who are working behind the scenes to change the face of our transit system as the subway approaches its 110th birthday. My first guest will be Sarah Kaufman, currently with NYU Wagner’s Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management and formerly the MTA’s open-data guru.

While with the MTA, Kaufman created a conference and online exchange between the MTA and software developers and assisted in developing the agency’s social media program. She specializes in the use of cutting-edge technologies in transportation, particularly mass transit, and the opportunities for community involvement in transportation management through interactive technologies.

Sarah and I will talk for a bit about her work and the problem of access to transit-related information she has worked to solve before we open the floor to audience questions. The program kicks off at 6:30 p.m., and doors to the museum will open at 6. Guests are invited to walk through the museum and to explore the collection of old trains as well. Light refreshments will be available as well. Hope to see you there.

February 1, 2012 6 comments

View from Underground

Improving commutes through communication and headways

by Benjamin Kabak February 1, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 1, 2012

During a recent weekend, West Side IRT headways were a bit tighter than they should have been. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

Last night, I enjoyed one of those typical nights where the MTA communications network broke down. I was coming back home from the West 4th area to Park Slope and had hoped to take a B train. According to the MTA’s schedule, I had two B trains left to catch before the route shut down for the night, and all things being up to snuff, I would have had no problem.

Of course, things weren’t up to snuff. I wanted a few minutes past the scheduled B train arrival time, and the D showed up. Luckily, to coincide with the D train, an announcement noted that B service had stopped for the evening. The PA voice offered no reason for the shutdown, two trains and ten minutes earlier than it should have been, and it wasn’t until the D was crossing the Manhattan Bridge that I had a chance to learn of a “rail condition” impacting B and Q service.

Ironically, the first notification of a problem came via a tweet from OEM. The city’s Office of Emergency Management claimed that “normal B train service” had been restored following an “earlier rail condition.” That seemed to be at odds with Transit’s in-system announcement that B service had stopped for the evening, and I wasn’t about to wait around for 15 minutes trying to assess which agency was telling the truth. Something had happened, and passengers weren’t informed of the fact.

When I arrived at Pacific St., I just missed an IRT local train that could have taken me to Grand Army Plaza, and the countdown clocks told the story of a wait. The second train out was, properly, 12 minutes away, but the next train was still nine minutes away, approximately three minutes behind schedule. By the MTA’s own internal metrics that give trains five minutes of leeway, that next train was on time. By my own metrics, I was on the verge of waiting nine minutes for a train at 10:45 p.m. with another train just three minutes behind it. That is not good service.

Were this an isolated incident, I would be more willing to overlook it. Rail conditions happen. That’s the price we pay for a 24/7 underfunded system that features significant outdoor mileage. Yet, this is also a matter of information. I had to wait at West 4th St. for too long before any announcement concerning downtown express service filtered into the station, and even then, it conflicted with the most recent information I could access. Transit still hasn’t figured out a way to transmit real-time status alerts to customers who are in their system and have no access to cell service. That’s been a gripe of mine for years.

The headway problem is another issue entirely, and it’s one I see with increasing frequency along the IRT routes. At rush hour, there is often a six-minute gap between East Side express trains before two arrive nearly on top of each other. Late at night, when the downtown 3 makes only two stops before merging with the 2 line, these uneven headways are even less explicable, and yet, they happen all the time. The photo atop this post is an extreme example I observed two weekends ago.

Tiny operational efficiencies — better communication, regular headways, shorter waits — can lead to less agitated customers and a more pleasant commute. It’s often tough to realize that in a complex system, but later, it seems as though these small improvements are just flat-out missing.

February 1, 2012 16 comments

Asides TWU

‘Slowdown’ on tap as labor talks resume

by Benjamin Kabak January 31, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 31, 2012

This morning, it took my 4 train a whopping ten minutes to go from 14th St. to 42nd St., and as the announcements kept blaring about “train traffic ahead of us,” my mind wandered to this Daily News article. In the wake of a series of gruesome deaths a few weeks ago, the TWU has told its train drivers to “use extra care” when entering stations due to safety concerns. It’s a perfectly legal move employed during labor negotiations that tend to drive straphangers nuts.

Meanwhile, after two weeks of stewing over “bad faith negotiations” brought about when the TWU objected to an apparent leak of the MTA’s demands, the two sides will resume formal talks on Thursday. While the TWU’s outrage over the MTA’s supposed negotiating tactics has stalled forward progress, MTA Chairman Joseph Lhota says that he and TWU president John Samuelsen have maintained an open line of communication over the past few weeks. A deal though is still not on the horizon, but neither is a strike.

For a full glimpse at the MTA’s demands, check out this pdf. They range from benefit reductions to operational improvements, but OPTO, sadly, is not among them.

January 31, 2012 22 comments

7 Line Extension

Archive: How the Olympics ruined the 7 line extension

by Benjamin Kabak January 31, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 31, 2012

On Saturday afternoon, I walked the High Line, and as I stood at the fence at the northern end of the park’s reach, I pondered the Hudson Yards area. Had Mayor Bloomberg secured the 2012 Olympics, that expanse of future development would have been bustling with activity as crews would have been hard at work finishing up the stadium that would have played host to the Summer Games. Instead, we’re waiting on the future of the Javits Center, eventual mixed use development above the rail yards and a one-stop extension of the 7 line that won’t open until early 2014.

In London, the city is trying to finish various infrastructure improvements and Olympics-related construction projects. The city has spent $10 billion on transportation improvements, but they are still urging commuters to change their travel patterns during the games. The Olympics crowds across the pond will make the East Side IRT at 6 p.m. seem downright empty.

As London’s expenses for the games spiral well above budge, I wanted to revisit and revise an old post on the 7 line extension and how the failed Olympics bid changed the project. What would have happened, I asked, had the city secured the Olympics. Let’s find out.

The 7 line project — one now destined to serve residents of a real estate complex not yet built or even paid for — got its start in Bloomberg’s desires to see the Olympics come to New York. It was that same desire and the subsequent loss of the games to London that has led to the downfall of the station at 41st and 10th Ave.

We know the project’s recently history fairly well. The project’s design phase started in 2002 when Bloomberg launched his plan to develop Manhattan’s last great frontier, the Hudson Yards land. At the time, the Mayor hoped to lure the Jets from New Jersey with a stadium that would also serve as the home for the 2012 Summer Olympics. In June 2005, amidst massive public protest, the state legislature failed to guarantee financing for the stadium, and a few months later, the IOC, citing that failure, awarded the Olympics to London.

Still, the 7 line extension did not die with the Olympics. Originally, the project’s timetable was an aggressive one. Project Design Completion was due to be wrapped up by December 2006 with construction beginning that year and revenue service in time for the Olympics in 2012. Today, the MTA still lists TBD as the Project Design Completion date. Construction started on December 15, 2007, over a year later than originally anticipated, and revenue service is right now scheduled to start during December of 2013. The MTA will miss those Summer Olympics by a good 17 months.

Over the course of project’s history, the City and MTA have fought over nearly every aspect of it. The City, the primary funding partner for this extension, refused to fund cost overruns and an expensive station stop at 41st and 10th Ave. The MTA has had trouble securing a deal for the land rights to the Hudson Yards area, and the current $1 billion offer from Related is on borrowed time, already one month past the anticipated closing date.

What though would have happened if the Olympics had come to New York? For that, we hit the maps. Take a look at the map below. It is an excerpt from a special map the MTA printed in 2005 showing the potential locations for all of the Olympics events. (To view the map in full, click here.)

Any Olympics plan for the city included heavy usage of the Far West Side. The Javits Center would have hosted six key events, including weightlifting, fencing, wrestling and table tennis, and the planned West Side stadium would have featured some track-and-field contests and the soccer matches. To ensure capacity for those events, the city would have needed a subway stop at 34th St. and 11th Ave. and probably would have paid to build the one at 41st and 10th as well. Instead, the costs skyrocketed, and we’re left with REBNY’s protests, years too late.

Today, progress along the 7 line may be slightly delayed. MTA Capital Construction will release an update within the next few months, but revenue service may not start until the first quarter of 2014. Michael Horodniceanu, head of the unit, has said the Mayor will ride the subway he views as his legacy whether it is a test train or not. No one though is surprised at the delay. Meanwhile, we can remember when the Olympics nearly came to New York. Enthusiasm amongst city residents was decidedly mixed, but the subways would have benefited once the athletes all went home. The station at 41st St. would have been a reality instead of a lost opportunity.

January 31, 2012 29 comments

MTA Politics

In search of a louder voice advocating for riders

by Benjamin Kabak January 30, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 30, 2012

As I’ve delved into the politics of the MTA and New York City’s love-hate relationship with the subway system, I’ve often believed that transit riders are an untapped political constituency. Most New Yorkers can’t be bothered to learn the intricacies of the MTA’s bureaucratic structure or understand who in our city or state government has proper oversight over the authority. New Yorkers blame the MTA for its institutional, political or economic failings whether it deserves to bear the full brunt of the blame or not.

Part of the problem is one of numbers. The Straphangers Campaign is basically three people with limited money, and Transportation Alternatives doesn’t focus exclusively on transit. There’s just one subway rider advocate on the MTA Board, and somehow these organizations are supposed to represent the interests of five million commuters who just want to get home quickly, maybe have a seat and not pay more for less service.

The other problem is one of message. It’s hard to craft a tale that is both compelling and informative. Take, for instance, the recent Trans Alt survey that found riders unhappier with their commutes in 2011 than they were two years ago. That’s a very negative message, and while Transportation Alternatives leaders stressed Albany’s role in our declining service offerings, the headlines splashed across the front of the city’s newspapers concerned only the unhappiness and not the cause. We can talk, but nothing will change if no one is listening.

The third problem perhaps is one of scope. In a piece for City Room that highlights just how riders are left out of important MTA decisions, Clyde Haberman last week spoke with rider advocates. What should riders want, he asked. The answers:

Too bad that whenever the [union] negotiations resume, an important party will not be at the table. This would be the group of New Yorkers who are supposed to be the bosses of both other parties. We’re referring, of course, to those who ride the subways and buses. Oh, sure, the other sides will say they have nothing but the riders’ interests at heart, and maybe there is some truth to that. But, as ever, a passengers’ representative will not be present…

To fill the vacuum, we turned to a couple of people who have a good sense of what’s on the minds of many commuters. All we asked is that they skip demands like lower (or at least stagnant) fares and improved (or at least not worsened) service. Who doesn’t want those things? But fares are bound to rise, and more frequent trains and buses do not seem in our immediate future. “People are concerned about the cleanliness of stations — that’s a big thing,” said William A. Henderson, executive director of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee, a branch of the transportation authority that is a voice for riders. There is “at least a perception” that stations have become dirtier, Mr. Henderson said.

Also, he said, riders want to see workers put back into vacant agent booths. “With the closing of the booths, people do remark on how lonely it is,” he said. “If something happens, you don’t know if anybody will be there to see it or do anything about it.” Those empty booths also troubled Gene Russianoff, staff attorney for the Straphangers Campaign, a riders’ advocacy group.

Russianoff also spoke of quickening the pace of activation of the countdown clocks as well as streamlining the MetroCard bonus system. Haberman himself called for an end to the alarms on the oft-abused emergency exits and a tidier system for the free newspapers that often flood station entrances. These are little quality-of-life upgrades that could improve the experience of riding in the morning.

Still, I can’t help but think that these are small and incremental ideas. Facing with a recalcitrant Albany, few people with prominent platforms are calling for a reprioritization of how we spend transportation dollars and allocate street space in New York City. Few are highlighting which representatives have repeatedly voted to withdraw money for transit funding that has led to fare hikes and service cuts. No one is calling for massive infrastructure investment on such a scale that would expand subway service as city planners once envisioned with the IND Second System.

Ultimately, we need a mixture of big and little. We need proposals to fix the funding mechanisms, ensure sounder oversight and improve the riding experience. Right now, though, who’s listening? New Yorkers are content to hate the MTA, hate their commutes and vote, over and over again, for the politicians responsible for this mess. It’s a never-ending cycle.

January 30, 2012 20 comments

Subway Maps

Transit debuts limited edition night map

by Benjamin Kabak January 30, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 30, 2012

A glimpse at the night map shows the changes in service after 11 p.m. (Click to enlarge)

Once upon a time, back in the mid 1990s as Manhattan Bridge work caused numerous subway reroutings, New York City Transit released a two-sided map showing peak service on one side and off-peak on the other. The map survived for a few months before the ever-shifting patterns across the bridge caused the MTA to discard the redesign for something a little less malleable. Still, the need for a night map has persisted.

Even though the subways run for 24 hours a day, not every train runs at every hour, and not every route is the same at 4 a.m. as it is at 4 p.m. Some rains run express during the day but not at night. Some run stunted shuttle routes during late-night hours. Others, such as the poor B train, run only until some indeterminate time between 10-10:30 p.m. Yet, as apps such as the KickMap show the scheduling changes, our subway map depicts robust service at all hours of the day.

I had first gotten wind of this development earlier this fall, and today, the MTA unveiled its first night subway map. Designed with subtle shades of grey and dark blue to connote a later hour, the night map — available here as a pdf — shows how service should be after the peak hours are over. To make it an even more alluring document, the authority has released only 25,000 in its initial press run with a copy of MTA Arts for Transit’s “City of Glass” on the bank. Subsequent printings will feature different artwork as these maps slowly become collector’s items.

Beyond that aspect of the map, though, these are mostly useful diagrams of late-night service. Much like the refillable unlimited ride MetroCards, these night maps should have been available years ago as it helps late-night straphangers adjust to the vast difference in service offered once the evening rush is over, but because of constant overnight track work, even the night map won’t always be entirely accurate. It is customer-friendly, if you can find one.

“The standard subway map depicts morning to evening weekday service,” MTA Chairman Joseph J. Lhota said in a statement. “This companion night map will, for the first time, depict service for a particular portion of the day. This is the latest effort we’ve taken to improve the availability of information and detail we provide to our customers.”

For now, the map is available for free at the Transit Museum (host for my Wednesday event) and at the Transit Museum Annex in Grand Central. It was developed in house, and the MTA is also making 300 unfolded press sheets available for purchase a the Transit Museum Annex for $20 a piece. They were not yet available for sale when I stopped by the Museum Annex shortly before 2 p.m. They will be great, though, for framing.

After the jump, a bulleted list of the difference between the Night Map and the regular subway map.

January 30, 2012 47 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts