Home Author
Author

Benjamin Kabak

MTA Politics

Crazy ideas: Directly electing the MTA Board

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 9, 2010

Throughout October’s campaign season as the MTA repeatedly came under fire, those running for office continued to call for more direct control over the MTA Board. Some of the candidates wanted to bring the MTA under the auspices of the New York State Department of Transportation or under the direct control of the governor. Others even advocated for the direct election of MTA Board representatives. New York politicians, it seems, do not know their history.

Once upon a time, the city’s transit oversight fell to the Board of Transportation, a six-man body appointed solely by the mayor. Transit policy was highly political, and it led to both disastrous fare policies and overbuilt subway lines. It is impossible to raise the fare when politicians are held directly accountable for those hikes, and even though we dislike fare hikes, it is often necessary to raise fares at the very least to keep pace with inflation.

Cap’n Transit has another take on the issue. He explores the idea within the framework of democracy, access and accountability. I’ll quote at length but do visit the good Captain’s site:

Many years ago, I was in an officer of a small student political group in a distant city, and I got a call from a bicycle activist I knew. He wasn’t a member of our organization, or even our political party, but he was running for election to an obscure municipal board that just happened to have influence over bicycle policy. I helped this guy reach out to the student body in a way that clearly violated campus rules, and he won by a small margin, quite possibly entirely due to that outreach. Now that city has over four hundred miles of bicycle facilities.

Sounds great, right? The results are impressive, but the whole thing was completely undemocratic. A tiny, dedicated group was able to sway an election to represent a fifth of the city. Only a small number of people were informed enough to know who they were voting for when they went into the booth. If you want democracy, you want the issues and agendas to be disclosed and debated well in advance. The only reason I feel comfortable with this is the knowledge that the pro-car people were pulling the same kinds of tricks. It was a dirty fight, so we fought dirty.

I’m pretty sure that this kind of dirty politics…is the kind of thing that regularly happens on school boards around the country. If you’ve been paying attention for the past year and a half, you’ll be well aware of the number of people who haven’t. Very few people know who their State Legislators are, and of those people, a tiny proportion know that these legislators have been redirecting money “dedicated” to the transit system for other purposes. Would you trust these people to vote for a representative to the MTA board?

…The most democratic way to run New York’s transit system is to have it be an executive agency just like the Department of Transportation…In fact, it might not have been as easy for Cuomo to duck the question of transit funding for as long as he did, if it had been clearly spelled out that the Governor controls the subway system.

Even beyond the theoretical, the MTA was born out of the need to remove transit decision-making from the political sphere. Politicians shouldn’t be making technocrat decisions that demand and require a certain expertise that they don’t possess, and I’d much rather have Jay Walder heading the MTA than suffering through a politically-dominated authority board. Fares cannot rise appropriately and service cannot be adjusted to meet demands without the right people making the decisions.

The real problem — and it’s not a sexy one — is oversight. Despite a new authority oversight board that doesn’t yet have much teeth, New York doesn’t have an adequate mechanism for authority oversight. The mayor has a few votes on the MTA Board and so too does the governor. But absent legislative action and the power of appointment*, there is no executive control over the MTA Board.

*It would help if the state executive would appoint qualified people to the Board as well. In the past, real estate interests dominated the MTA Board when a proper mix of people would involve transit planners, financial experts, union representatives and rider advocates. Eliot Spitzer’s and David Paterson’s appointments have been strong steps in the right direction.

So fix the MTA, if it’s truly broken, by consolidating power but do so in a way that doesn’t jeopardize fiscal contributions. The mayor wants his say and can threaten to remove funding if the governor seizes the MTA. The governor might want oversight but can’t risk losing the money. Even outside of the realm of politics, the MTA is still a political problem.

5 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ARC Tunnel

The son of the return of the ARC Tunnel

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 9, 2010

Could high-speed rail plans keep some iteration of the ARC Tunnel alive?

The ARC Tunnel just won’t die. Even though New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie killed it dead, even though the feds are now asking for $271 million and a full accounting of expenses, the idea of another cross-Hudson rail crossing is one that won’t stay dead. For the region, of course, that is a positive development even if it might be another two decades before ARC Jr. can start servicing the city.

We join this story now in progress. Shortly after Christie officially pulled the plug on the ARC Tunnel, various advocacy groups and politicians continued to push for a sensible transit policy, and the effort seemed to coalesce around comments Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican in line to chair the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the wake of James Oberstar’s defeat. While most Republicans do not look favorably upon the northeast, Mica is a supporter of high-speed rail and urged the Obama Administration to reexamine its plans for HSR.

In effect, as a comment in Progressive Railroading noted, Mica has advocated for a consolidation of the plans around the profitable and popular Northeast Corridor route. “I am a strong advocate of high-speed rail, but it has to be where it makes sense,” he said. “The administration squandered the money, giving it to dozens and dozens of projects that were marginal at best to spend on slow-speed trains to nowhere.”

In a sense, if America is serious about starting a high-speed rail network while simultaneously improving travel along the Northeast Corridor, focusing federal efforts in the northeast makes sense. Other states have, as Yonah Freemark recently explored in depth, been lukewarm or downright unreceptive toward Obama’s HSR plans, and if the northeast can be the staging crowd, albeit an expensive one, who are we reject the dollars?

Yesterday, Amtrak through a wrinkle into the scheming as they let word drop that they are interested in reviving ARC as a possible high-speed rail tunnel. “We’re looking into common project opportunities with NJ Transit,” Amtrak Spokesman Cliff Cole said. “We’re not sure if there are even any opportunities that would work but we’ve been asked to sit down and talk with them and we’ve begun that process.”

Other Amtrak officials spoke of their efforts as a salvage mission. “A partnershipwould be the immediate strategy to get two tracks as soon as possible,” Al Engel, Amtrak Vice President of High Speed Rail said. “We’re beginning to explore what value there is in the ARC work that can be salvaged.”

New Jersey Transit characterized these talks as very preliminary, and Gov. Christie reiterated his stance on the ARC Tunnel. “To repeat yet again, the ARC Tunnel project is over,” his statement said. “While no new conversations have taken place between Amtrak and NJ Transit, the Governor previously tasked both DOT Commissioner James Simpson and NJ Transit Executive Director James Weinstein to work with the pertinent partners to explore fiscally viable alternatives for a trans-Hudson tunnel. As such, we will continue to explore solutions to the trans-Hudson transportation challenge.”

Still, there’s a chance that something resembling the ARC Tunnel could pop up again sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, sooner is all relative. Although it’s going to take New Jersey up to a year to shutdown work on the ARC Tunnel, Amtrak doesn’t believe the second generation of the ARC project would see revenue service until 2030 later. The government would have to conduct environmental studies and design work before securing funding, and transit activists are going to work to ensure that the next ARC Tunnel does not suffer from the dead-end, deep-cavern design flaw that plagued the version Christie killed.

These developments though do present something of a proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. The National Association of Railroad Passengers has continued to call for a new trans-Hudson rail tunnel. Even if we have to wait 20 years, the ball can still be rolling on this vital infrastructure policy. A sensible pattern of federal investment and a willingness to cooperate from New Jersey could keep ARC hopes alive in some form or another.

25 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Economics

Vacca, advocates: Keep state hands off of transit money

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 8, 2010

James Vacca, chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, is quickly becoming transit advocates’ most vocal supporter in New York government. Today, Vacca along with Gene Russianoff, Paul Steely White and Kate Slevin issued a call for New York state, mired in a budget crisis, to keep its hands off of money ostensibly earmarked for transit.

The letter comes on the heels of the news that the state is facing a $315 million tax revenue shortfall, and the situation is eerily similar to the one that developed last fall. In 2009, when faced with a similar crunch, the state opted to take $143 million in funds earmarked for transit away from the MTA. Earlier this year, the state did the same when federal medical assistance payments came up short. To combat yet another financial move, Vacca and his co-signers are urging Gov. David Paterson, Sheldon Silver and John L. Sampson to respect the transit lockbox.

Says the letter, which I’ve embedded after the jump:

Out concern is stoked by the events of last December. Confronted with a midyear budget deficit, the State diverted $143 million from our mass transit “lockbox” to the general fund, in effect raiding a pot of dedicated taxes that were specifically enacted to support the MTA and New York straphangers. This budget “sweep” shook the MTA’s already-unstable fiscal house. As a result, the authority implemented the most severe service cuts in its history, eliminating dozens of bus and subway lines and reducing service on over 100 others. Those cuts stranded tens of thousands of New Yorkers and saddled thousands more with longer waits, additional transfers, and more crowded commutes.

Despite the drastic service cuts anda 7.5% fare and toll hike scheduled for January — the third in as many years — the MTA’s budget outlook remains bleak. the MTA projects an operating deficit of $87 million next year and substantially higher deficits in the out-years. Its five-year capital plan is short nearly $10 billion with no funding provided by the State past the second year. Straphangers face the real possibility of additional service cuts or fares hikes if the MTA cannot identify steady funding sources. At a time when the State should be focused on shoring up the future of mass transit funding — and restoring the $143 million that was diverted last year — conducting another “sweep” would send a terrible message.

The MTA’s subways, buses, and trains are the engine that drives New York’s economy. New York City cannot survive without a vibrant mass transit system, and our mass transit system cannot survive without a stable source of funding. Denying the MTA any additional funds from its dedicated tax stream at this time would be a short-term fix with severe long-term consequences. We urge you to take a different route.

I’ll have more on the idea of a transit lockbox in the coming months, but the real problem here is that the lockbox doesn’t exist. The state and city taxes that are ostensibly earmarked for the MTA are deposited into the state’s general fund, and the legislature is then supposed to redistribute the receipts to the MTA. This set-up makes it way too easy for the state to divert transit dollars to other areas of the budget, and in times of crisis, the MTA’s coffers make an appealing target.

California’s transit funds are now constitutionally protected. It’s time for New York to take the same plunge before the MTA’s dollars are diminished even further.

After the jump, read the letter in its entirety.

Continue Reading
1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Queens

In Jackson Heights, empty real estate draws ire

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 8, 2010

As the economy improves, the retail spaces at 74th St./Roosevelt Ave. in Jackson Heights should fill up.

Updated (4:10 p.m.): The MTA’s vast real estate holdings make for easy political fodder. Politicians do not want the authority to raise fares or cut costs until every single cent has been squeezed out of the MTA’s air rights, commercial retail space and office buildings. On the one hand, when it comes to deals such as the highly problematic Vanderbilt Yards sales, politicians are right to cast a wary eye on the authority’s deal-makings, but sometimes, the MTA’s vacant commercial real estate holdings face criticisms out of touch with the economic times. This is not one of these cases.

On Friday, NY1’s John Mancini produced a piece on Jackson Heights’ recently renovated 74th St./Roosevelt Ave. hub. The station underwent a five-year, $132-million rehab earlier this decade, and it was supposed to be home to a series of retail establishments as other subterranean hubs are. The MTA, though, has had trouble filling three of the 14 spaces, and politicians are unhappy.

“This is a shining example of MTA incompetence,” Queens Councilman Daniel Dromm said while standing in front of two vacant, street-level spaces. “They promised me that this store right here behind me would be open by September as a pizza parlor. As you can see, they’ve had a lot of success.”

At first blush, it seems as though Dromm is needlessly picking on an authority doomed by bad timing. After all, commercial retail vacancies are up across the city, and the MTA can’t do much to fill spaces. But after a few discussions with sources close to both Dromm and the retail space, this does indeed sound as though the MTA dropped the ball.

First, take not of a Times article on the situation. Fernanda Santos explains some of the details:

The transportation authority first requested proposals for the space on Roosevelt Avenue in 2006 and got back a single response, from a Korean businessman who wanted to open a bakery, agency officials said. The businessman signed a 10-year lease in 2007, paid a $40,000 deposit and then an additional $75,000 in 2008, when he told the agency that he needed more time because of problems with the architect he had hired for the project.

The second space — a triangular store of about 200 square feet — cannot accommodate a ventilation system because of its odd configuration, making it impossible to house a pizza parlor that someone had intended to open there, the officials said.

No lease has ever been signed for the smaller space, and the lease for the larger one was not voided until September 2008, almost two years after it was signed. Though the Korean businessman forfeited his deposits, he never paid any rent on the space.

“That’s the ultimate absurdity of this whole deal,” Mr. Dromm said. Mr. Dromm is particularly troubled by the impression that the shuttered stores might leave on visitors. The subway station is a gateway to the neighborhood and “it’s not a good thing if the first thing you see is boarded-up commercial space,” he said.

The backstory grows deeper though. When the MTA rebuilt the Roosevelt Ave. hub, they turned the biggest space — the still-empty storefront — into a two-level store but did not install the ADA-required elevator. Instead, the terms of the lease they are trying to negotiate with businesses requires that the leaseholder install the necessary elevator at a cost. Because elevators are expensive, locals anticipate that this will add at least $500,000 to the cost of opening a business. The space too currently is just a shell with no floor subdividing the levels.

Dromm has suggested a variety of solutions for the MTA. He has asked them to subdivide the space and use the lower level for storage while renting out the top. He’s asked them to turn it over to the city so that he can use Council funds to attract a non-profit. He’s even requested temporary bike parking spaces to fill the vacancy.

In essence, this empty storefront has created what neighborhood activities are terming “blight” in front of the focal point of Jackson Heights. The subway stop is among the most active in Queens, and people see bordered-up windows as they go to work in the morning and come home at night. It needs to be a magnet for people and small business, but right now, it’s a sore spot on the very visible face of an up-and-community community.

Meanwhile, although The Times says that the MTA has untangled itself from the bakery lease, sources close to Dromm tell me that won’t speed up the process. As of July, the two sides were still haggling over the lease, and once the MTA is free of that commitment, it must again prepare an RFP and hold it open for six months. The authority seems to believe this will prevent them from picking a tentant for at least nine months, and it could be another two or three years before the space is filled. The station rehab wrapped years ago.

The authority’s real estate department is working on new approaches. “Expectations are that it’s not high-quality retail. And by high quality, I don’t mean expensive, I just mean interesting, good design,” MTA Director of Real Estate Jeff Rosen said to NY1. “The kind of place you’d want to stop and pick up something for convenience, but also for fun.”

That it remains empty highlights the tensions between community needs and MTA planners. This time, it seems, the authority had unrealistic assumptions and did not work closely enough with Jackson Heights leaders to make it work. The resolution too is still a few years away.

11 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
7 Line Extension

Musings on the need for planning ahead

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 8, 2010

Seemingly forward-looking at the time it was built, the station shell at South 4th Street now represents wasted money and opportunity. (Photo via Subway & Rail)

When the route we now know and love as the G train was completed in 1937, it was supposed to be just one part of an expansive plan to change the face of subway travel into, out of and between Brooklyn and Queens. Twenty-four years in the making, the Crosstown line, part of the Municipal Subway system, connected population centers in the city’s two most populous boroughs, and it was just a small part of the IND Second System.

As city planners constructed subway routes through Brooklyn and Queens, they provisioned other stations into their plans. Even though the funding wasn’t in place to build, say, the entire Utica Ave. subway, the Board of Transportation made sure that new stations that would eventually serve as transfer points were built as such. Thus, the IND Fulton St. stop at Utica Ave. (A/C) has a station shell that angles with Utica Ave., and the Broadway station along the G train has a six-track shell parallel to Williamsburg’s South 4 and Meserole Streets.

The IND Second System, as I explored in depth last week, never materialized, and for the better part of 73 years, the South 4th St. station has sat unused and largely forgotten. Known only to railfans and New York City historians, the station and the subway expansion plans fell to the wayside, and all that remained was a station shell, empty, abandoned and barely acknowledged by the MTA. It took, of all things, a highly illegal and dangerous street art stunt to return the South 4th St. station to the city’s consciousness.

Today, New York is engaged in its largest subway expansion effort since the IND system became a reality. Modest by the standards of the 1930s, Phase 1 of the Second Ave. Subway and the 7 Line Extension promise to improve access to underserved areas of Manhattan, but the provisioning isn’t nearly as robust as it once was. The Second Ave. Subway was once envisioned, unnecessarily so in the 1920s, as a six-track subway, but recent iterations have seen that total go from four to three to two. In this instance, while the Second Ave. Subway will be constructed to allow connections to the Bronx and Brooklyn, the MTA isn’t provisioning for anything along the route.

The 7 line meanwhile through a similar problem. Although tail tracks would potentially allow a southern extension or a potential connection eastward, the sticking point for this capital project has been the station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. Originally, the extension was to consist of two stops, but rising costs have slowly cut back those plans. At one point, the city proposed building a shell station — much like the South 4th St. ghost — at 41st and 10th so either it or the MTA could fund proper construction when the economy improved. The MTA rejected this plan when the city refused to foot the bill for it, and now, the last hope for this stop rests on the shoulders of a few federal official trying to find the money for it.

It is a gross oversight to skip even the provisioning for this station, and while the $800 million price tag is a legitimate concern, the city and MTA must figure out a way to include the ability to build it later. There is, though, one solution: The ARC Tunnel money is out there for the taking.

We know New York City officials are jockeying to secure their share of the $3.3 billion New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie gave up when he canceled the tunnel, and the 7 line would be the perfect destination for it. This is a capital project that needs an infusion of dollars, and the omitted station wouldn’t soak up all of the federal funds. It wouldn’t improve interstate mobility, but it would right a wrong in New York City.

In a recent short piece on the proper role of borrowing in infrastructure spending, Cap’n Transit briefly highlighted how poor spending can lead to 73-year-old station shells that go unused, but despite the labeling, the South 4th Street station doesn’t quite fit that bill. It was part of a larger plan that couldn’t get implemented because the money wasn’t there. Had the city tried to realize the IND plans after building the Broadway stop without that shell, it would have cost more and been more difficult to construct from an engineering standpoint.

Today, we’re on the verge of making a different mistake. We aren’t borrowing or finding the money to build something — a station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. — that will indeed increase revenue. The ARC money is out there, and it’s not too late to rectify this problem. But as the construction continues along the West Side, time’s a-wastin’. It will be worse to have no station at all than it is to have a 73-year-old shell just sitting there.

29 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Three private companies bid for LI Bus as future hazy

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 7, 2010

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

The MTA’s showdown with Nassau County has continued into the fall as neither party has given up ground in the fight over Long Island Bus. The MTA is being forced to pick up millions in costs for Nassau County’s bus system while the county will throw in only $9.1 million. The MTA has, rightly so, threatened to pull the plug on this service without more operating subsidies.

Ideally, as the Nassau County legislature recently discussed, the county would slowly up its contributions to the bus route while the MTA would continue to operate the transit system. The MTA would be receptive to this plan, but the Nassau County Executive has engaged in a classic misdirection. He’s called for Jay Walder’s resignation instead of taking responsibility for his county’s bus route.

The solution from Nassau County’s side has been privatization, and as Newsday reported yesterday, three companies have submitted bids for an LI Bus takeover. MV Transit from Fairfield, California, First Transit from Cincinnati and Veolia Transportation from Lombard, Illinois, have all submitted bids. The county is amidst reviewing bids, but it seems to want a deal that will, as Mobilizing the Region notes, allow it to capture fare revenue without contributing any direct subsidies.

Unfortunately for Nassau County, even in areas of the country where these private operators run bus routes, they do so with heavy subsidies. Veolia, for instance, receives $36 million in subsides from Tuscan, Arizona, where ridership is half that of Nassau County’s Long Island Bus. Nassau County wants to have its cake and eat it too.

The MTA and Nassau County will continue to work toward a solution, and the authority has to give the county 60 days’ notice before withdrawing service. Still, Nassau County is playing chicken with a service that its residents can ill afford to lose. It is a dangerous game indeed. “I can’t get around Long Island without the bus,” one 40-year rider said. “There are a million of us who can’t.”

12 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Video of the Day: The people on your subway car

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 6, 2010

Here’s a little fun for your weekend Internet browsing. Check out this weekly video blog called Why Are You On My Train? Run by Alli Goldberg and Jen Jamula, two aspiring actresses, the site’s videos try to anser that age-old New York question: Who are all of these people who ride the trains?

With camera in tow, the two quiz riders about their interests and backgrounds. “Our blog was partly born out of riding the subway to and from auditions and a) wondering who the people were around us and b) wanting to engage,” Jamula said to the Subway Art Blog.

They’ve interviewed college hockey players and have quizzed folks about their favorite suspicious packages. My favorite though is the one below with the rider waxing nostalgic for the subways when they had more “character.” He isn’t, it seems, a fan of the new sterile rolling stock. These are the people are on your subway car.

MTA Ballers from whyareyouonmytrain on Vimeo.

1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Weekend changes ahead of the marathon

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 6, 2010

Once again, it’s time for the New York Marathon. On Sunday morning, distance runners will take to the streets, and the MTA has a guide to the best viewing spots in the city. Take a look at the map below and click to enlarge.

Meanwhile, this weekend brings work but less of it. The advisories below come to me from New York City Transit and are subject to change without notice. Listen to on-board announcements and be sure to check the signs in your local station. Subway Weekender has the map.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, November 6 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, uptown 1 trains run express from 14th Street to 72nd Street due to track work south of 66th Street.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, November 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, 1 service is suspended between 242nd Street and 168th Street due to rehab work between 242nd Street and Dyckman Street stations. The A trains, free shuttle buses and the M3 bus provide alternate service. Free shuttle buses operate:

  • On Broadway between 242nd Street and 215th Street stations, then connecting to the 207th Street A station.
  • On St. Nicholas Avenue between 191st and 168th Street stations.
  • 1 trains run local between 168th Street and 34th Street then express between 34th Street and 14th Street where it terminates.

Downtown 2 and 3 trains run local from 96th Street to Chambers Street. Uptown 2 and 3 trains run local from Chambers Street to 42nd Street, then express to 96th Street.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, November 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, there is no 1 service between 14th Street and South Ferry due to Port Authority work at the WTC site. The 2, 3, and free shuttle buses provide alternate service. During the daytime hours, 1 train service runs express between 34th Street and 14th Street where it terminates. The 2 and 3 trains replace the 1 between 34th Street and Chambers Street. Free shuttle buses replace the 1 between Chambers Street and South Ferry. Note: During the overnight hours, downtown 1 trains run local between 168th Street to 14th Street. The 3 trains run express between 148th Street and 42nd Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, November 6 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, downtown 2 trains run local from 96th Street to Chambers Street and uptown 2 trains run local from Chambers Street to 42nd Street, then express to 96th Street. These changes are due to Port Authority work at the WTC site and track work south of 66th Street.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, November 6 and Sunday, November 7, downtown 3 trains run local from 96th Street to Chambers Street and uptown 3 trains run local from Chambers Street to 42nd Street, then express to 96th Street. These changes are due to Port Authority work at the WTC site and track work at south of 66th Street.


From 4 a.m. Saturday, November 6 to 11 p.m. Sunday, November 7, Flushing-bound 7 trains skip 82nd, 90th, 103rd, and 111th Streets due to switch renewal work at 111th Street.


From 10:30 P.M. Friday, November 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, free shuttle buses replace A trains between Far Rockaway and Beach 98th Street due to station rehabilitations. A trains replace the S (Rockaway Shuttle) between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, November 6 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, Coney Island-bound D trains run on the N line from 36th Street to Coney Island/Stillwell Avenue due to structural repair and station rehabs from 71st Street to Bay 50th Street and ADA work at Bay Parkway. There will be no Coney Island-bound D trains at 9th Avenue, Ft. Hamilton Parkway, 50th, 55th, 71st, 79th Streets, 18th and 20th Avenues, Bay Parkway, 25th Avenue and Bay 50th Street stations. To reach these stations, customers may take the D or N to New Utrecht Avenue/62nd Street or Coney Island/Stillwell Avenue and transfer to a Manhattan-bound D.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, November 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, free shuttle buses between Metropolitan Avenue and Myrtle Avenue-Broadway replace M service due to platform edge rehabilitation.


From 11 p.m. Friday, November 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, uptown N trains skip Prince, 8th, 23rd, and 28th Streets due to track work north of Prince Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday. November 6 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, Manhattan-bound N trains run on the D line from Coney Island/Stillwell Avenue to 36th Street due to track panel installation between Kings Highway and north of Bay Parkway. To reach these stations, customers may take the N to 62nd or 36th Streets and transfer to a Coney Island-bound N.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, November 6 and Sunday, November 7, uptown R trains skip Prince, 8th, 23rd, and 28th Streets due to track work north of Prince Street.

(Rockaway Park Shuttle)
From 11 p.m. Friday, November 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, November 8, A trains replace the S between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park due to station rehabilitations

3 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesSecond Avenue Subway

Second Ave. residents out of homes for another month

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 5, 2010

Two weeks ago, I reported on some goings-on above ground at Second Ave. The MTA was set to allow residents of 1873 Second Ave. to move back into their apartments after what would have been a two-month temporary relocation. However, as Patrick Egan at The Real Deal reports today, these residents will be out of their homes for another month as the MTA says that “unanticipated underpinning and stabilization of the foundation” will keep this building closed until December 4.

Residents who had hoped to be in their homes for Thanksgiving are none too happy. “I’m glad our safety has been taken into consideration, but I really just don’t want to spend the holidays at a hotel,” said one. “I want to be at home with my stuff.” Still, this conflict over these buildings remains a sore point for the MTA as the Second Ave. landlords are to blame for the condition of their buildings, but the MTA has found it cheaper and more efficient to shoulder the costs of the engineering work. Hopefully, the authority has learned its lesson as it plans for future phases of the Second Ave. Subway.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Abandoned Stations

Photos from a recent trip to the Underbelly

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 5, 2010

Workhorse's contribution to his Underbelly Project gallery has been defaced. (Photo via Bury Me in Brooklyn)

The Underbelly Project story hit the Internet like a wave on Sunday night, and as the story broke, it seemed clear that PAC and Workhose, the project’s curators, had told those who participated that they could talk about it on October 31. From a look at most of the pictures and some Exif data sleuthing, it appeared as though the photos taken by Luna Park and Vandalog were taken in late July and early August. It would only be a matter of time before the more adventurous and foolhardy among us tried to access the site.

Recently, some intrepid urban explorers have taken the initiative to find the South 4th Street station and photograph it today. Bury Me in Brooklyn posted what they found on an excursion to the site earlier this week, and it appears as though local taggers have defaced the art. While some of the pieces have remained graffiti-free, many have been tagged over (1, 2, 3, 4).

In the realm of the illegal, the high road doesn’t exist. As Cap’n Transit pointed out to me via Twitter, the debate focuses around a conundrum: “You put your vandalism on my artwork! No, I put my artwork on your vandalism! No! Yes! No!”

Yet, from the perspective of street art morals and artistic romanticism, the taggers shouldn’t have defaced the Underbelly Project. I’ve heard that locals were upset about the way PAC and Workhorse’s efforts drew both internationally famous street artists and such overt attention to what had been a relatively secret spot. Either way, it is a testament to the fleeting nature of this project, and while the MTA has no plans to erase it, time and other artists will take its toll.

Let me take this opportunity to remind my readers that is both illegal and highly dangerous to access the South 4th Street station and the Underbelly Project area. It’s trespassing in off-limits MTA property, and the authority has repeated stressed how violators will be caught and prosecuted. Don’t do it.

9 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts