Author

Benjamin Kabak

TOD coming to NYC, but to what end?

by Benjamin Kabak April 15, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 15, 2011

Here’s an interesting tidbit from The Wall Street Journal today: With some federal seed money, New York City is going to invest in its own version of transit-oriented development in an effort to “revitalize areas around under-developed transit hubs.” According to the report, New York’s Department of City Planning will use the $3.5 million to explore ways to add housing stock and commercial development to areas along the city’s commuter rail lines. This should include spots in East New York and in the Bronx along Metro-North. The Journal says the city will search for ways to develop areas “around subway stops” as well.

What’s intriguing but also odd about this news is how New York City is one giant transit-oriented development. Outside of a few pockets of eastern Queens and southern Brooklyn, the entire city is close enough to a frequent bus route or subway stop to be well within acceptable walking distances. Rehabbing the area around the LIRR stop in East New York is more a matter of urban reclamation than transit-oriented development. The neighborhood is already well-served by multiple subway routes.

Ultimately, transit-oriented development through what are ostensibly low-income neighborhoods won’t work without a corresponding change in fare policy. It might be faster for a commuter to hop the LIRR in East New York to get to downtown Brooklyn or jump on the Metro-North stops through the Bronx to reach Grand Central. But the fares — $5 per ride off peak, $7.25 during peak hours — are far too high to convince riders to eschew the 3 train in Brooklyn or the 4, B and D in the Bronx. We’ll see how this goes.

April 15, 2011 24 comments

MTA Economics

The slippery slope of an unfunded capital budget

by Benjamin Kabak April 15, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 15, 2011

In the 1980s, subway cars were filthy, and stations were decrepit and unsafe. (Photo via NYCSubway.org)

The MTA’s current fiscal situation pales in comparison with the budget wranglings that have enveloped Albany and Washington, D.C., over the past few weeks, but for New York City’s economy and productivity, a relatively stable MTA is vital. Over the past 25 years, the authority has worked to upgrade its massive infrastructure, and while the system isn’t yet at a State of Good Repair, it has made great strides since its nadir thanks to the five-year capital budgets.

Today, though, there is a problem: The capital fund is nearly empty. The MTA has a $10 billion gap in its current five year plan — and that’s a gap that I’ve heard may be a few billion dollars higher — and after this five year plan, it can no longer bond out construction projects. It has reached the limits of debt it can take on and pay off in the future, but it must continue to invest in its system. That is, after all, the problem with running a modern subway system through a 110-year-old physical plant.

Last Friday, in this space, I examined how the MTA could close the gap in its capital budget through fare increases, and my conclusion wasn’t an optimistic one. The MTA would have to raise fares significantly to generate enough revenue to close that $10 billion gap, and the riding public has little appetite for fare hikes these days. So what happens if the fares don’t go up and the capital budget remains unfunded? That’s a topic Noah Kazis tackled on Streetsblog yesterday.

Evoking the “disrepair” of the 1970s, Kazis warns of a long, steep fall for the MTA. If you look closely, it’s sort of starting to happen now as the MTA simply cannot keep up with the demands of its aging infrastructure. He writes:

At the other end of the spectrum from fare-backed borrowing, the MTA could decide that it cannot take on any additional debt. In that scenario, the MTA would simply have to cancel or postpone every unfunded maintenance and expansion project — most of the next three years of the capital program. You can see those projects at the MTA’s capital dashboard, here. The result will be breakdowns, delays, and a slide back toward the decrepit and dangerous subway system of the late 1970s.

“You can expect to see the condition of the system decline pretty rapidly if you’re not doing this work,” said Felice Farber, the director of external affairs for the General Contractors Association of New York. “It’s not too hard to get back to the poor quality service of the past,” she said.

“You’ll have older buses, so they’ll be breaking down more often,” explained Pete Foley of TWU Local 100. “Subways will have to go slower,” as they pass over worn out tracks, he continued. “Eventually you’re going to have cracks. You’ll have derailments if you have a crack in the rail.”

Delays will be more common during rush hour as well, due to the lack of regular preventive maintenance. “You’ll be fixing things when they break,” said Foley. “They’ll wait until it’s an emergency.”

That is a grim picture made worse by the reality of the way the MTA spends capital dollars. For every dollar in capital spending, 23 cents go to expansion plans, 27 cents go “basic repairs,” 35 cents go toward rolling stock replacement and the remaining 13 cents are used to upgrade communications and technology infrastructure. The MTA can ill afford to let any of these projects stop, let alone all of them.

“In reality,” Kazis writes, “the MTA can choose to mix and match between fare-backed debt and deferred maintenance, putting off the features that might be nice to have and charging riders for the ones they need to have. The MTA could also potentially swap in service cuts or layoffs for fare hikes.”

That’s a bad reality. We’ve seen the MTA cut the Second Ave. Subway from three tracks to two; we won’t enjoy a station at 10th Ave. and 41st St. along the 7 line extension. What else will go before some action is taken to rescue the system from the slippery slope of the 1970s? Let’s hope we can avoid making the same mistakes of the past; that’s one history I’d rather not see repeated.

April 15, 2011 45 comments

View from Underground

Video of the Day: The East River Tunnel at 63rd St.

by Benjamin Kabak April 14, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 14, 2011

While this morning I spoke of the subway extension to nowhere, the city’s original subway to nowhere involved the 63rd St. tunnel. What began as an ambitious project to bring super-express service to Queens Boulevard eventually devolved into an expensive extension of subway service underneath the East River that terminated just one stop into Queens. The entire project, which began in 1969, would not wrap until 2001.

Today, the excellent NYC The Blog highlights a 15-minute video report from the early 1970s on the 63rd St. tunnel. Take a watch:

Today, the F train serves Queens Boulevard route via that 63rd St. route, but the bi-level tunnel has yet to realize its potential. The current station at 63rd St. currently plays host to an unused track and platform that will one day be a part of the Second Ave. Subway while the lower level will be integrated into the East Side Access project. Overall, then, is one never-ending forty-year project.

April 14, 2011 27 comments

Asides MTA Absurdity

Supervisor to be disciplined for garbage SNAFU

by Benjamin Kabak April 14, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 14, 2011

When news surfaced yesterday that MTA crews had loaded up a passenger train with garbage bags, I figured heads would roll, and already, the authority is doling out the discipline. According to the Daily News, the worker responsible for supervising the work gang that collects trash from the tracks at 59th St. on the East Side will be disciplined. “We can’t state strongly enough that refuse is absolutely not to be stored or transported on passenger trains,” the agency said in a statement.

Per the News, the MTA determined that workers had collected the refuse from the tracks near the 59th St. station. Instead of carrying it above ground as they should have, the supervisor ordered trash loaded onto the next passenger train in order to take it to 42nd St. where a work train would pick it up. “This was not done with the knowledge or acquiescence of any senior manager,” MTA spokesman Charles Seaton said. “This is a complete no-no.”

Labor officials, meanwhile, hinted that this practice may be more widespread than anyone would prefer. “I have seen supervisors order cleaners to place garbage bags on passenger trains for transportation to a storage facility,” Marvin Holland, a TWU Local 100 member, said. “It’s a health and safety issue for passengers, and our members will not do it unless specifically ordered by supervision.”

April 14, 2011 8 comments

7 Line Extension

Stirrings of development at Hudson Yards

by Benjamin Kabak April 14, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 14, 2011

Work on the 7 line extension is moving quickly, but the same cannot be said of development at Hudson Yards. Photo by Photo by Clayton Price for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Over the past four and a half years, I haven’t smiled upon the 7 line extension. A pet project of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s that serves as a living relic of the city’s failed Olympics bid, the $2.1 billion extension has seen useful elements — such as a station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. — eliminated. While the new stop at 34th St. and 11th Ave. is one that will benefit an eventual neighborhood, at a time when subway expansion dollars are very limited, this Subway to Nowhere isn’t the best use of funds.

Yet, the project is, as we learned recently, moving forward. Just last week, the MTA unveiled photos from inside the station cavern, and the authority has maintained that the 7 will head to the Far West Side by December 2013, nearly 32 months from now.

Unfortunately, nothing will be there when the 7 train extension opens. Sure, the Javits Center will still host conventions and the few people who live and work in the undeveloped area will have quicker access to the rest of Manhattan. But Related Companies, the real estate developer who agreed to purchase the land above the rail yards from the MTA, doesn’t anticipate opening a building there until 2015 at the earliest. Things, though, may be moving forward on that front.

According to article in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, Related is attempting to convince Time Warner to anchor the Hudson Yards development. Apparently, Time Warner’s still-new corporate headquarters above Columbus Circle could now command such a high price that it would make more sense for the telecom giant to sell its space and move west. While talks, according to the Journal, “could fizzle,” Time Warner wants to move but “isn’t close to a decision.”

Eliot Brown and Lauren Schuker report:

If Time Warner makes the jump, it could finally open up a long-planned frontier in Manhattan development by the Javits Center. Related has been pushing a long-term plan to deliver a city-within-a-city to be built over the Long Island Rail Road storage yard. It’s slated to include 12.9 million square feet of new office, retail and residential development

The deal would be a major boost for Related Chairman Stephen Ross, who agreed in 2008 to a $1 billion long-term lease with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to become the site’s developer. Related has said it needs a large tenant to begin construction and has pledged to make space available to the first tenants at the cost of development…

Time Inc. and HBO, both divisions of Time Warner, lease more than two million square feet of space in Manhattan that expires in 2017 and 2018, according to research firm CoStar Group Inc. It is unclear if those divisions would be part of a move to Hudson Yards. But the timing of the lease expirations would allow for it. Related has said it could deliver the first phase of the development by 2015.

The two reporters note that Related has yet to secure a tenant for its planned buildings but believes it will lease out around 3.5 million square feet this year. The company is targeting Coach as a potential anchor tenant as well.

Meanwhile, the subway moves forward. Optimistically, construction will be completed at least two years before the buildings start to grow above the rail yards that abut the Hudson River, but the Subway to Nowhere will go west nonetheless.

April 14, 2011 38 comments

Asides MTA Absurdity

Report: Passenger trains hauling garbage

by Benjamin Kabak April 13, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 13, 2011

It’s become abundantly clear over the past few months that the MTA has a garbage problem. As budget cuts have led to fewer station cleaners, trash piles up in the subway, and along with the refuse come rats. Operationally, workers remove trash via the garbage train, but even this morning at 10 a.m., I saw MTA employees dragging bags of trash through the 7th Ave. station along the Brighton Line in Brooklyn. The leaking bags smelled terrible, and it was just a flat-out mess.

I found it fitting then when I spotted this story in the Daily News. According to a transit worker, some MTA crews have been using passenger trains to move garbage through the system. This action is, of course, against the rules, and no one is happy about it. Passengers are disgusted when trash bags start leaking, and the MTA spoke out against this practice. “It is not our practice to use in-service trains for trash removal,” the authority said.

So what’s going on here? TWU President John Samuelsen has an idea. Despite MTA denials, he claims workers are being instructed by supervisors to do so. “To bring those bags on passenger trains and expose riders to potential of rats jumping out of the bags is outrageous,” he said to the News. “When track workers walk past those bags, we give them a wide berth, knowing if you walk close to a bag, a rat could jump out right on top of you.” Heads should roll.

April 13, 2011 19 comments

Subway History

Video of the Day: Transit in the 1970s

by Benjamin Kabak April 13, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 13, 2011

In certain respects, New York in the 1970s was a much different place than it is today. Long before the Disney-fication of Times Square and the gentrification of many neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs, the city was a dangerous place to live. Yet, its transit offerings were robust enough that even Sesame Street celebrated them. In the latest video making the rounds, the narrator acknowledges as much: “New York is one of the few places where you can get around without a car.”

This 90-second clip is a gem of a time capsule. It focuses on the various ways in which city denizens can get around town without a personal car, and the part on the subway is, obviously, my favorite. We complain a lot about the current state of the city’s public transit system, and while those complaints certainly are valid, it’s easy to lose sight of far we’ve gone.

As the woman taking about the subways says in the video, 35 years ago, the subways were crummy. “You get pushed; you get shoved,” she said. “Sometimes you get mugged in the subway during the daylight. I remember when public transit was the pride of New York. What happened?”

Of course, as some things change, the more they stay the same. “New York is almost broke,” one woman says. “You know why? Because too much money is going to the suburbs. They’re killing us.”

April 13, 2011 5 comments

Public Transit Policy

IBO: Bridge tolls could generate $970 million

by Benjamin Kabak April 13, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 13, 2011

By allowing motorists to ride for free across a select group of bridge is costing the city nearly $1 billion in annual revenues, the city’s Independent Budget Office said recently. The IBO has released its annual report of city budget options, and one of their recommendations includes tolling the East River bridges to generate revenue. Although the IBO is issuing this proposal with an eye toward the city’s depleted coffers, I have long supported a plan to toll the bridges in an attempt to generate revenue for transit.

In its report, the IBO runs the numbers. By tolling the East River bridges at $9.60 per round trip — rates comparable to those levied on drivers crossing through the Brooklyn-Battery and Queens-Midtown Tunnels — the city would generate $690 million in revenue. By placing a $4.40 round-trip fare on the eight Harlem River spans would lead to an additional $280 million.

“On all of the tolled bridges, buses would be exempt from payment. IBO’s revenue estimates assume that trucks pay the same tolls as automobiles,” the report says. “If trucks paid more, as they do on bridges and tunnels that are currently tolled, there would be a corresponding increase in total revenue. IBO estimates that exempting all city residents from tolls would reduce revenue by more than half, to $440 million.

In its report, the IBO runs through the pros and cons, and the arguments are near and dear to our hearts:

Proponents might argue that the tolls would provide a stable revenue source for the operating and capital budgets of the city Department of Transportation. Many proponents could argue that it is appropriate to charge a user fee to drivers to compensate the city for the expense of maintaining the bridges, rather than paying for it out of general taxes borne by bridge users and nonusers alike. Transportation advocates argue that, although tolls represent an additional expense for drivers, they can make drivers better off by guaranteeing that roads, bridges, tunnels, and highways receive adequate funding.

Some transportation advocacy groups have promoted tolls not only to generate revenue, but also as a tool to reduce traffic congestion and encourage greater transit use. Peak- load pricing (higher fares at rush hours than at nonrush hours) is an option that could further this goal. If more drivers switch to public transit, people who continue to drive would benefit from reduced congestion and shorter travel times. A portion of the toll revenue could potentially be used to support improved public transportation alternatives. Finally, proponents might note that city residents or businesses could be charged at a lower rate than nonresidents to address local concerns.

Opponents might argue that motorists who drive to Manhattan already pay steep parking fees, and that many drivers who use the free bridges to pass through Manhattan already pay tolls on other bridges and tunnels. Many toll opponents may believe that it is particularly unfair to charge motorists to travel between Manhattan and the other boroughs. These opponents draw a parallel with transit pricing policy. With the advent of free MetroCard transfers between buses and subways, and the elimination of the fare on the Staten Island Ferry, most transit riders pay the same fare to travel between Manhattan and the other boroughs as they do to travel within each borough. Tolls on the East River and Harlem River bridges would make travel to and from Manhattan more expensive than travel within a borough.

In addition, because most automobile trips between Manhattan and the other boroughs are made by residents of the latter, inhabitants of Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx would be more adversely affected by tolls than residents of Manhattan. An additional concern might be the effect on small businesses. Finally, opponents might argue that even with E-ZPass technology, tolling could lead to traffic backups on local streets and increased air pollution.

The report seems particularly relevant today after my recent discussion on distance-based fares. While I do not advocate for a zone system for New York’s subways, tolling the bridges would generate revenue for transportation projects and user fees for upkeep while discouraging unnecessary car trips. As those who drive into Manhattan’s Central Business District are significantly wealthier than those who do not, these tolls wouldn’t penalize those who cannot afford it. The money should go, in part, toward boosting public transit, and the city would be better off for it.

Meanwhile, as Streetsblog noted in its coverage of the report, the IBO proposed a number of other transportation-related initiatives: “Other transportation-related suggestions in the report include making private school students pay for yellow bus service and MetroCards ($37 million), restoring the fare on the Staten Island Ferry ($4.8 million) and replacing late-night Staten Island Ferry service with buses ($3.7 million).” Those all seem rather sensible to me.

April 13, 2011 36 comments

MTA Construction

A glimpse inside the Bleecker St. rehab

by Benjamin Kabak April 12, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 12, 2011

Photo by Benjamin Kabak. Click to enlarge.

I found myself this afternoon waiting for an uptown 6 train at Bleecker St. The blue construction door, hiding the southern extension of the uptown platform, was locked, but I could see through a hole in the fence. Using my cell phone camera, I snuck a photo in before the 6 train arrived.

The Broadway/Lafayette-Bleecker St. rehab is an extensive one. The station will soon be ADA-compliant, and the uptown 6 platform will be connected to the rest of the complex via a mezzanine that runs under the IRT tracks. Currently, straphangers can transfer from the 6th Ave. B/D/F/M trains only to the downtown 6. To accomplish this new crossover, the uptown platform is being extended a few hundred feet south, and that’s what you see above.

Work at the station has moved relatively slowly. We glimpsed the first renderings in late May of 2007 and saw some cross-section diagrams in mid-2009. Last year, Transit went behind the blue fence and sent out some official updates. The $94 million project is still set to wrap by November of this year.

April 12, 2011 32 comments

MTA Absurdity

Video of the Day: Not lovin’ the elevator

by Benjamin Kabak April 12, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on April 12, 2011

This one’s making the rounds this week. Originally uncovered by NYC The Blog, this four-minute video condenses a Friday night ordeal in an elevator at the 181st St. station along the 1. The blog’s author summarizes:

On April 8, an elevator inside the 1 line station at 181st Street stopped working with 28 people inside, including an MTA assistant who was operating it. Isabella, a 35-year-old neighborhood resident who didn’t want her last name used, was inside when the elevator failed. It’s not clear if this elevator was one of new ones reportedly installed at that station in 1999.

It was hot and crazy when the unit failed, Isabella told NYC The Blog in an email, and hard to breathe. One of those trapped was a young girl who had asthma. “She was scared,” Isabella wrote, and had a “hysterical attack.” The MTA employee present called 911 “several times” but otherwise was just as helpless as the others. Some passed the time with friendly conversation. “What’s your favorite song,” one asked. Others fanned the young girl to keep help keep her cool.

The FDNY arrived to help extract the trapped commuters about an hour later. “I need the young and the old,” a firefighter told the crowd after he opened a hatch on the elevator’s roof. Trapped passengers were placed in another elevator and lifted out. Still inside the broken elevator, Isabella panned her camera around as people said hi. At least one said hello to YouTube, a sly acknowledgment that the video would likely end up there.

The MTA said they tested the elevator for 24 hours before putting it back into service yesterday morning, but some of those who were stuck vowed to find a better way home. “Why are no there stairs in the whole station?” Isabella said to NYC The Blog. “Where are the emergency exits? What could happened if the electricity didn’t work, how would all the people get out from underground?”

I’ve always been reticent about taking the MTA elevators. I’m always wary about the ones at Clark and Court Sts. in Brooklyn, and if I’m using the Court St. station, I’ll usually take the sketchy staircase instead of the sketchy elevator. It’s the lesser of two evils.

April 12, 2011 14 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts