Home Author
Author

Benjamin Kabak

Public Transit Policy

A Mayor leaving transit riders out in the cold

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 29, 2011

With the news this week that the Mayor’s plan to allow livery cab drivers to pick up passengers in Outer Borough was to be torpedoed by the taxi industry, Michael Bloomberg suffered yet another political defeat of a transit promise made during his 2009 campaign. Since he won election to a third team as the city’s chief executive, his tenure has been marred by marked failure in the transportation and transit arena. Despite the fact that millions of New Yorkers rely on subways, buses and taxis to get around the city every day, Bloomberg has not been able to fulfill his transit policy promises, and it appears as though his team is now subtly turning their backs on these badly needed improvements.

Bloomberg’s first major defeat wasn’t even that. As part of the centerpiece of his 33-point transit policy plan, Bloomberg called upon the MTA to provide free crosstown buses for everyone. Not 48 hours after securing election, the Mayor seemed to backtrack on the idea, and it has all been downhill since then.

While preparing this post, I went digging for the Mayor’s proposal, and I was shocked to find that it’s not available online any longer. His reelection site had posted it online right here in 2009, and it came with a companion PDF document that used to be available right here. Both of those links have long since been reassigned, and it is as though Bloomberg and his team are trying to erase their lofty promises from existence. I’ve tried to piece together the major components from my coverage and old articles in The Times and on Streetsblog.

It appears that Bloomberg’s proposal broke down in neat little buckets. The first concerned subway upgrades that were already in progress and out of his control. These included the expansion of the countdown clock program and a comprehensive bus-tracking program as well as F express service and a host of other quasi-populist desires the mayor cannot control.

But other transit areas were well within his purview. He proposed an expansion of the dollar van program as well as better taxi service for those beyond east of Manhattan or north of 96th St. He wanted to pilot either light rail lines or streetcars along the Brooklyn waterfront, and he wanted to usher in the expansion of bus rapid transit routes throughout the five boroughs.

What has happened to nearly every single one of those proposals has been failure. That taxi program we know is on the rocks. The group ride/dollar van program died a quiet death because the city seemingly wasn’t interested in learning how to make it work. NYC DOT has determined that streetcars for Red Hook will be too expensive and underutilized without up-zoning the area. The 34th St. Transitway — what should have been the city’s shining BRT moment — has been toned down in the face of NIMYBism and local opposition. Other ideas — an Adopt-a-Station plan to keep the subways cleaner — went nowhere.

For now, Bloomberg still has a few irons in the fire. He’s working on a plan to improve ferry service, and DOT and the MTA are still working on Select Bus Service routes. But the list of New York City transit improvements that have fallen by the way side during the first 16 months of Bloomberg’s third team have grown steadily.

Over at Market Urbanism earlier this week, Stephen Smith noted these mounting failures, and something he said struck a chord. Noting that transit reform advocates have been focused almost exclusively on defending bike lanes, it’s quite possible that we’ve lost sight of how people get around. Bike lanes should be a key part of the city’s transportation infrastructure, but tens of thousands stood to benefit instantly from the 34th St. Transitway.

Simply put, the city needs these transit improvements that haven’t gained traction, and the mayor must find a way to usher them through. Not doing so is a failure of leadership. With another two and a half years to go, Bloomberg is running out of proposals to let fall by the wayside, and already, New York’s commuters are worse off.

15 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway Maps

Map of the Day: Subway service at night

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 28, 2011

An excerpt of the night subway map from Astoria Bike. Click the image for a full version.

One of the constant complaints concerning the MTA’s subway map is how it isn’t exactly a comprehensive glimpse at service. Rather that representing the subway system as it is at all times, the current subway map shows service as it is during peak hours. It doesn’t reflect mid-day service changes; it doesn’t reflect weekend routes; and it certainly doesn’t show overnight service.

These shortcomings have long been recognized by the authority. In fact, the new map explicitly warns straphangers of its limitations, but although it urges users to check its website for information on off-peak re-routing, nowhere does a map exist on the MTA’s site with that information. In the digital age, that is a resource that should be readily available to the public.

Now, though, the writer behind Astoria Bike has tried to cure that omission. He has produced a late-night subway map. He offers up the impetus behind the map and a tale of trying to get the MTA on board:

Unlike every other city in the world, the MTA has never made a map of night service. This is a pretty big omission. Want to know how to get home? The official MTA party line is, “Overhead directional signs on platforms show… late night service.” Well that’s not much help! Especially given the horrible up-to-20-minute Zombie Wait (cue dripping water and rats). And God forbid you have to transfer. Or make an honest mistake because you trusted the day map! I pity the poor person waiting for the R late at night to take them to Queens…

The other night I was at Court Street in Brooklyn and was overjoyed to see the N train pulling in. I guess it does so every night. But I didn’t know. Because it’s not on the map.

After that night I actually wrote the MTA and offered to make a map night for them. Not surprisingly, I sort of got the runaround. So I did my best with photoshop and what I could find on line. I know the MTA is kind of anal about things like this, but my intentions are pure and non-commercial. This is a public service. I did the best I could. And any errors are my own (do let me know if you find mistakes). I do not claim any rights to this map (nor should you). It’s the MTA’s, if they want it. But they had nothing to do with the production.

Those interested can find a PDF version of the map right here, and it’s a useful thing to have late at night. Outside of the cost, there’s really no good reason for the MTA to avoid producing its own overnight map. There are just too many system changes after midnight and enough riders to justify the guide.

19 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Taxis

A plan to limit taxi medallions to Outer Boroughs

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 28, 2011

A hybrid taxi roams the streets of New York City in 2007. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

With Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to allow livery cabs to pick up cruise for passengers hitting a bump in the road, yet another of his campaign promises to improve transportation in the city may falter. Yesterday, I discussed the opposition to the plan from the well-organized yellow cab driver industry, and today, The Times sheds some more light on the rejiggered proposal. The Mayor isn’t going to let this promise die without some type of compromise.

According to Michael Grynbaum’s sources, the city is trying to develop the contours of a solution that would bar soe cab drivers from making pick-ups in Manhattan. In an effort to incentivize drivers to better serve Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, these cabbies would be able to purchase cut-rate medallions limited by the geography of the individual boroughs. He reports:

The city is weighing a proposal to create a class of yellow cabs that would be prohibited from picking up passengers in most of Manhattan, the taxicabs’ traditional territory, but would be able to do so in other parts of the city, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

Under the plan, which is being made final, new medallions would be issued for the restricted cabs. The medallions would be sold for a small fee, or, in one version of the plan, at no cost. Regular medallions, which bestow the right to pick up passengers on any city street, are typically sold at auction and can be worth nearly $1 million.

Officials say the revised proposal would achieve their goal of providing better regulated, more equitable taxi service to the wide section of New York City that is perpetually underserved by yellow cabs, which congregate in denser parts of Manhattan where they are more likely to find fares.

With this newest proposal, the city is, as Grynbaum put it, looking to “mollify yellow-fleet owners who feared their medallions would lose value” if livery cabs were allowed to pick up hails. This new plan may encroach upon the turf of private car companies, but the Taxi and Limousine Commission thinks it will provide lower-cost taxi transportation. “The mayor’s bottom line is quality taxi access in all five boroughs,” TLC Commissioner David Yassky said. “I am confident we’re going to get there.”

The Taxi & Limousine Commission says it can enforce the geographic limits through GPS tracking, but deep concerns remain over the profitability of such a plan. In a piece on WNYC, which you can listen to below, Kathleen Horan explores why cabbies think Outer Borough rides are unprofitable. The issues, she says, concern return trips and the need to pick up a certain number of passengers to make a living.

Essentially, cab drivers say they need between 20-30 trips to make a profit, and long trips to the Outer Boroughs with no guarantee of a return fare eat into their time and intake. Still, says the TLC, part of the agreement that comes with the medallion requires cab drivers to take passengers anywhere within the city, and the commission is looking to raise fines to $500 for drivers who refuse any city-based trips.

If current medallion owners do not find it worth their whiles to take passengers to the far reaches of Brooklyn or Queens, it’s doubtful that an Outer Borough-based medallion system which bars drivers from cruising the most popular of avenues in Manhattan will alleviate that crush. Even with cheap medallion prices, cab drivers have to combat gas at $4 a gallon and a host of other daily costs that require them to stay busy throughout the day.

Finally, cab drivers are also seeking a fare hike as well. Outside of the MTA surcharge added in 2009, cab fares have not increased in seven years, and rider activists say those rising gas costs are eating away at slim profit margins. The Taxi Workers Alliance is proposing an increase in the per-mile rate from $2 to $2.50 while all other surcharges and the drop-off fee would remain the same.

“When gas hits $4.50 a gallon, it can make it hard for a driver to pay the rent and put food on the table,” Yassky said of the request. “We will give it a look and evaluate it on the merits.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

18 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Buses

MTA Board votes to terminate LI Bus contract

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 28, 2011

Nassau County has not invested in its own bus system. (Graph via TSTC)

Following months of political maneuvering between Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano and the MTA over Nassau County bus service, which included a last-minute reprieve earlier this month, the authority’s board has voted to terminate its agreement with the county at the end of the year. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the MTA will, after 40 years, cease operating the county’s bus service following a bitter dispute over payments.

Board members, according to numerous reports over the past few months, are incensed at the county — one of the richest in the state — for its failure to fund transit, and those who spoke with reporters did not mince their words. “To take care of the riders of Nassau County, the MTA has provided $140 million, which has not been provided to the riders of Suffolk County, Westchester County, Dutchess County, Rockland County, Orange County, Putnam County and the City of New York for the bus systems that we took over,” Mitchell Pally, an MTA board member and Suffolk County resident said. “I think it’s clear to say that the only people who have been protecting the riders for the last 10 years in Nassau County is this board, not Nassau County.”

This vote comes after months of public wrangling between Mangano and the MTA, and it has not been a good experience for Long Island Bus riders. When the MTA first asked Nassau County to contribute to bus service, Mangano essentially called for Jay Walder’s resignation. The county, it seems, wanted its bus service without paying for it. After the MTA voted to terminate service this month, state representatives pushed through a plan in Albany to siphon some state capital funds to cover operating costs for the remainder of the year. Now the deal will be dead come December 31.

Mangano, of course, tried his typical appeal to the “bloated bureaucracy.” It might ring true with partisan voters, but it’s an empty threat considering the state of Long Island Bus funding. “It’s a sad day in America when a government agency such as the MTA chooses to maintain its bloated bureaucracy over the services it is charged to provide its residents,” he said. “Because the MTA has failed taxpayers time and time again, Nassau County will move forward with a public-private partnership that maintains bus service without demanding an additional $26 million from taxpayers. The MTA’s monopoly over transportation in Nassau County ends now.”

Of course, one might argue that it is a sad day in America with government officials want other county’s taxpayers to foot the bill for $26 million worth of bus service for someone else’s residents. One could say it is a sad day when zeroing out Nassau County’s financial reserves on the backs of bus riders becomes a political game. Nassau County, remember, contributed just $9.1 million toward the $140 million it costs to operate the county’s bus system, and the remainder has to come out of someone else’s pocket.

With the vote today, the MTA is being more than generous with Nassau County. The contract requires just 60 days’ notice of termination, but the board is giving the county an extra eight months to finalize privatization plans. Nassau County has been working toward a private solution since early fall, but no concrete proposals have materialized. County officials still maintain they can find a carrier to provide the same comprehensive bus service at lower costs than the MTA does, but my gut feeling is that the private solution will lead to numerous cuts of unprofitable routes or more pressure on Nassau County to pony up for transit service.

While I hate to draw too many sweeping conclusions from this saga, it’s hard not to see Nassau County’s maneuverings as indicative of transit policy throughout New York. Politicians want more and better service on the one hand, and they want to contribute fewer and fewer dollars to the operating costs on the other. The people who end up suffering the most are the riders who can least afford it.

21 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Taxis

Bloomberg’s livery cab plan on the rocks

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 27, 2011

The Taxi & Limousine Commission believes it has an Outer Borough* problem. They know that yellow cab drivers, looking to maximize their own profits, dislike long trips out of Manhattan, and they know that in all but the most well-off areas in Brooklyn and Queens, yellow cabs are nearly impossible to come by. The Commission has tried upping fines for belligerent drivers, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg has put forward an ambitious plan to allow livery cabs to pick up hails outside of Manhattan.

Yet, that plan appears to be on the chopping block. In the face of widespread and well-organized resistance from cab drivers and their advocates, City Hall’s plan to expand the contours of livery service is as good as dead, according to The Wall Street Journal. Per Andrew Grossman, the T&LC, in the face of opposition from the yellow cab drivers, is now looking for ways to, as the Journal says, “use yellow cabs—not livery cars—to expand taxi service outside of Manhattan.” Said on person, “I believe we are completely off the mayor’s original plan. I would go as far as calling it dead.”

Grossman has more on the opposition and the shape of things to come. He writes:

Yellow-taxi owners and drivers have been united in their opposition to Mr. Bloomberg’s initial proposal. They worry that if another type of non-yellow cabs are allowed to pick up people who hail them, revenue from fares and the value of a taxi medallion will decline. They also said that the city doesn’t do enough to enforce rules barring livery cars from picking up passengers without pre-arranged trips.

City officials rejected that argument, saying that since nearly all yellow-taxi pickups take place in Manhattan and at the airports, the new cabs wouldn’t cut into business. The taxi commission is increasing the number of citations it writes for illegal pickups. The City Council’s Transportation Committee is slated to hold a hearing Wednesday on legislation that would raise fines for violators.

Now, though, City Hall seems to be retreating on a central piece of the mayor’s plan for the outer boroughs: letting livery cars pick up passengers who hail them. Instead, the industry, City Council and the taxi commission are talking about plans that “preserve the yellow taxi’s exclusive right to a street hail,” while still giving people in more neighborhoods outside Manhattan the ability to hail a cab, another person familiar with the conversations said.

The details of the new plan are still being negotiated, but Grossman reports that it could include either more medallion sales with pressure to make more Outer Borough pick-ups or yellow cab stands in Outer Borough locations. For what it’s worth, cab stands within Manhattan have been met with limited success. It’s tough to see how that would translate to more availability outside of the island.

The Taxi and Limousine Commissioner David Yassky issued a guarded statement about the talks. “We’ve had some truly productive discussions with the Council and the various stakeholders on the plan, and a lot of ideas have gone back and forth across the table. Whatever form the final plan takes, Mayor Bloomberg said in January that we want to see the same high level of taxi service available to people in all five boroughs, and that’s the bottom line,” he said.

The issue though is one of market capitalism vs. a regulated industry. New York City’s yellow cabs are a regulated industry that exists by the grant of medallions from the Taxi & Limousine Commission. Along with that medallion comes terms that require cab drivers to travel anywhere within the five boroughs, but as cab drivers seek to make a living, they find that long trips outside of Manhattan aren’t profitable. There is no guarantee of a return fare, and the trip can take valuable time off the clock.

Yet, 80 percent of New Yorkers live outside of Manhattan and deserve better cab service, and cab drivers operating by a government license shouldn’t deny anyone a ride. A comprehensive plan would address all of these concerns, but with a strong taxi industry pressing back against changes, I’m not optimistic the compromise will be a good one for non-Manhattan residents of the city.

* I don’t use this team as a derogatory reference to parts of the city that aren’t Manhattan. It’s just meant to shorthand so I don’t have to type out “Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx” over and over again.

40 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Photo of the Day: Turning the B into a sleeper car

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 27, 2011

Photo by Benjamin Kabak

A few weeks ago, I was traveling from Midtown to West 4th St. on a B train shortly after 1:30 in the afternoon when I happened upon this scene. By all appearances, the man who made the B his own personal sleeper car didn’t seem to be homeless; he was just tired. So he fell asleep.

Now, because of the seating configuration of the R68s, an industrious sleeper can stretch out and form a human barrier. As this photo that I snapped surreptitiously shows, this sleeper is effectively taking up five seats for the price of one just so he can grab a little shut-eye on the subway. It’s a good thing this was a mid-day ride down the relatively uncrowded 6th Ave. corridor and not a trip with a few more passengers at an hour approaching peak travel times.

So riddle me this, loyal readers: Is this behavior acceptable? According to the New York Transit Rules of Conduct, it is not. This snoozer is violating at least one provision in Rule 1050.7 and could be accused of breaking a few more. He is, contra to Rule 1050.7(10)(2), placing his feet on a seat and is also occupying more than one seat. When I boarded the B, it wasn’t crowded enough to claim this guy was “interfering with the comfort of other passengers.”

Our time aboard a subway car is always a fleeting one, and yet people treat the seats as their own personal foot rest all the time. I’ve seen passengers scramble to remove their shoes from a seat that I’m about to use, and I always wonder how they would feel if I stomped all over their living room couch or dining room chairs. One person, one seat, and keep your feet on the floor, I say.

32 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City Transit

Markowitz ponders the future at 370 Jay St.

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 26, 2011

When word got out that the MTA is planning on selling its headquarters in Manhattan to better utilize its existing real estate holdings, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz raised an eyebrow. He again reiterated his desire to see something — anything — happen at 370 Jay St.

He said:

“Since 2008, I, along with other elected officials and the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, have called on the MTA to dispose of this property, which has remained nearly vacant and poorly maintained for more than a decade. The MTA’s response has been to reassert its desire to hold on to the property and to insist that the building is necessary for locating future back offices.

“Yet, while the rest of the surrounding business district has undergone tremendous and transformative growth, 370 Jay St. has languished in sidewalk scaffolding and a black scrim reaching to its highest floors to protect passersby from the structure’s crumbling facade.

The impact of this building’s neglect cannot be understated.”

The MTA’s internal report — entitled “MTA Office Space Portfolio Right-Sizing Business Plan” — features no mention of Transit’s Jay St. space, and the authority has long searched for the right funds to fix up the building. For now, it will continue to sit above a newly-renovated subway station but shrouded in scaffolding. One day, something might happen there, but it seems as though today is not that day.

11 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
PANYNJ

Calatrava’s WTC hub costs may hit $3.8 billion

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 26, 2011

Early renderings of the Calatrava hub show that $3.8 billion just doesn't go far these days.

The Port Authority’s Santiago Calatrava-designed PATH hub at the World Trade Center is becoming a transit boondoggle in the fullest sense of the phrase. Once projected to cost just $2.2 billion, the ornate station saw costs jump to $3.44 billion in February, and now, federal officials monitoring the project believe the hub could cost as much as $3.8 billion — or 70 percent above initial costs — when all is said and done.

Shawn Boburg of The Bergen Record first reported on the increases today. The hub, once set to open in 2011, may not wrap until March 2015, making it three months behind the current schedule. Boburg has more:

The report warns that — even after the controversial February increase — the “budget still does not appear adequate for the ultimate completion of the project.” It adds: “Recent discussions with the Port Authority” indicate a $3.8 billion final price tag. The 2005 budget for the project was $2.2 billion…

Officials at the Port Authority, the bi-state agency in charge of the federally funded project, brushed aside the estimate. “We remain confident in our budget” of $3.4 billion, spokesman John Kelly said.

And an official at the Federal Transit Administration, which is paying a majority of the hub expenses, stressed that the authority could still hit its current spending target if it manages the project properly…An FTA official said the $3.8 billion estimate included a “risk” assessment and was not certain.

FTA officials tried to downplay the bad news. “In its financial oversight role, the FTA is obligated to identify and measure risk associated with the PATH Hub project,” Brian Farber, the FTA’s associate administrator for communications and congressional affairs, said. “Having identified those risks, we still believe that if the Port Authority properly manages them, the project could meet the projected $3.4 billion budget.”

As costs escalate, the Port Authority will be expected to shoulder more and more of the funding burden. As Boburg notes, the FTA will fork over around $2.9 billion for the hub, and the Port Authority will have to foot the bill for nearly $1 billion more. Considering how the hub is largely cosmetic and does not serve to increase cross-Hudson rail capacity, this investment is growing more and more foolhardy by the quarter, and it highlights how misplaced the region’s transit spending priorities are these days.

70 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Transit Labor

With report, RPA wades into looming labor fights

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 26, 2011

In a somewhat surprising move, the Regional Plan Association has joined with city business leaders to call for union concessions from organized construction workers. In a report released to the city yesterday and entitled “Construction Labor Costs in New York City — A Moment of Opportunity,” the RPA urged unions to accept reforms that would significantly cut costs at a time when major projects are in jeopardy over rising price tags. With the MTA’s own labor fights with transit workers looming, the RPA’s stance could have a major impact on future negotiations.

While the report isn’t yet available to the public, Charles Bagli of The Times offered up a summary. He reports that the study calls for “major concessions from the unions that dominate the construction industry.” It says that “cuts are needed to allow major projects to move forward” and calls for the reform by eliminating “obsolete work rules and featherbedding; by adopting a standard eight-hour day for all building trades; and by reducing benefit packages.”

Robert Yaro, head of the RPA, spoke out in favor of the report. “Given the wrenching changes in the real estate industry since the recession,” he said to The Times, “a growing number of builders have found that they can no longer support high labor costs…This is not about what union workers are paid. It’s about work rules and productivity. Those are things that should be changed.”

Bagli has more:

The association’s report says developers and owners, who absorbed the higher costs of union labor during the real estate boom, are now under pressure to cut costs because of lower rents and stringent financing terms. But the report also says that leading developers and contractors are attached to union construction work, in part because “the best union labor continues to surpass nonunion in skills and productivity,” and because the jobs provide “a key channel of upward mobility for millions of Americans.”

The report describes as archaic various provisions that unions have succeeded in keeping around, in contracts that were also signed by employers. These include the required presence of master mechanics and oilers for heavy equipment like cranes, which have become technologically advanced enough that the mechanics and oilers have very little work to do; and rules that say steamfitters, electricians and plumbers must always be around to monitor heat, electricity and water service, which the report likened to an apartment building having a full-time plumber rather than simply calling one when a leak occurs.

The report also called for eight-hour shifts to officially begin when a worker reaches his station, not when he arrives at the ground level, an issue in tall construction sites where many men are using a few hoists to get to the floors where they are working.

Essentially, the RPA wants to see the difference between union and non-union expenditures drop to 10 percent from the current levels, which the organization says are closer to 20-30 percent.

The report, of course, is not without controversy. Union leaders say that the two primary authors, Julia Vitullo-Martin and Hope Cohen, are former Manhattan Institute conservatives who would prefer to see unions dismantled. Citing “Wisconsin” and “the Koch Brothers,” the Building and Construction Trades Council spoke out against the report.

Yet, despite these charges, the basic contours of the RPA study ring true. We’ve long heard about archaic work rules that limit productivity and flexibility and drive up costs. In an era of fiscal instability and across-the-board belt tightening, it’s not unreasonable to ask for rules that better reflect economic reality, and as the MTA readies to negotiate with its workers over very similar concerns, this RPA report will likely serve as a template for demands.

These battles — with the construction industry, with the TWU — will only get uglier as the year progresses. Few politicians have waded into the trenches yet, but someone might need to step in to negotiate a settlement that helps ensure both parties are protected. The near-term future of our transit agency may depend upon it.

15 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesSecond Avenue Subway

SAS hits: A contract for 86th St., small businesses suffer

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 25, 2011

I have a pair of Second Ave. Subway-related stories this afternoon. Let’s dive in: As the MTA’s tunnel boring machine moves southward underneath Second Ave., planning for the post-TBM construction efforts are well under way. Recently, as Tunnel Talk reported, the joint venture between Skanska and Traylor won the bid for the 86th St. station cavern contract. The JV’s bid of $302 million came in well below engineering estimates, and construction industry officials are not surprised by this figure. Due to the need to keep workers employed, companies are willing to bid low for these projects right now.

Per the report, work under this contract will include “excavation and finishing works of the 86th Street station as well as shafts and adits for the entrances, ancillaries and cross passages; demolition work in advance of entrances and ancillaries; and underpinning of existing buildings adjacent to the ancillaries and Entrance 1.” This contract, though, is not without uncertainties as the pending litigation over the relocated station entrances could delay some of the work at 86th St.

Meanwhile, Crain’s New York has yet another story on how businesses along Second Ave. are suffering amidst construction. The story is one we’ve heard for nearly three years now, and the situation isn’t going to improve any time soon. Businesses have seem revenues drop by 20 percent from 2008, and owners see no short-term relief coming their way. Of course, they do recognize the future benefits. As Ralph Schaller, owner of a grocery store at 86th St. said, “I guess business will improve when it’s over, if we’re still around.”

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts