Brooklyn

Will the G train extension remain once the Culver Viaduct rehab is completed?

A few weeks ago, when the MTA opened up the northern staircase at 4th Ave. and 9th St., a few Brooklynites grew concerned over the state of the Culver Viaduct rehab. With over a year still left on the work — and the reopening of Smith/9th Sts. delayed until the fall — these folks grew concerned that the MTA would take away the very useful five-stop G train extension that’s been in place since 2009. Keep it, they rightfully argued.

Now, I know the value of this extension quite well. I live a short walk away from the 7th Ave. stop at 9th St. in Brooklyn, and ever since the G train has been extended through my station, trips to Williamsburg, Greenpoint and beyond have been much, much quicker. I don’t have to wait interminably for an F train only to have to wait interminably a few stops later for a G train. A one-seat ride, especially late at night, makes all the difference, and the crowded G train as it snakes through Brownstone Brooklyn is a testament to the success of this extension.

That the viaduct work won’t wrap until 2013 and that the G train extension has been successful, though, will not stop New Yorkers for getting all up in a tizzy. Since it appeared as though the end of the work was at least in sight if not actually around the corner, local leaders found a transit issue they could exploit. That, at least, is my pessimistic take on the issue.

The Straphangers along with Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz joined together to form the 5 Stop Fan Club, an advocacy group with a mission to convince the MTA to keep the G train extension alive. They started a petition drive, garnered front-page coverage in New York’s free dailies and earned a few brief TV and public radio spots. It’s a pro-transit campaign getting mainstream press coverage!

The comments came fast and furious. “Ending this service will have a profound effect on the community and the mom and pop stores along these five stops,” de Blasio said. “I encourage every New Yorker who wants to see the G train service preserved to join the 5 Stop Fan Club and let your voices be heard.” A Carroll Gardens resident echoed this concern. “The extension is a minor inconvenience for them to keep open, but it’s a major convenience for the public, especially on the weekends when service is slower,” George Luis Cordero said to The Daily News.

Something about this petition drive rubbed me the wrong way though. When I expressed my doubts via Twitter, Cate Contino of the Straphangers parried with me. I think the politicians signed on are just looking to garner constituent favor and that the G train extension will be saved if lower-case-s straphangers actually use it. The Straphangers, rightfully so, seek to raise awareness of a useful subway extension that will cost the MTA the operating budget equivalent of 3-4 extra train sets.

Yet, the MTA never said ti would axe the G train extension. At the start of the Culver rehab, the authority said the extension would be temporary with an evaluation to be conducted at the end of the work. That’s the line they’re still pushing today. As I’ve said, if the ridership warrants it, the G train extension to Church Ave. will become permanent, and so far, ridership appears to warrant it.

So here’s my proposal: Sign the petition; raise awareness about it. But in the end, as the folks petition over the M8 back in 2010 showed, if the ridership isn’t there, no amount of petitioning can save a doomed transit route once the MTA puts it under the cutting knife. So ride, ride, ride, and the G train won’t be going anywhere.

Will the G train extension remain once the Culver Viaduct rehab is completed?

As the Culver Viaduct rehabilitation project inches forward, residents in Brownstone Brooklyn are only half-hearted embracing the good news. Everyone wants service restored at Smith/9th Sts., but no one wants to lose the G train extension to Church Ave., a benefit of the project. With the rehab set to wrap until next winter, the G extension may be up in the air.

The G train extension has long been billed as a temporary benefit to the Culver Viaduct work. It was, in fact, one of the first news items to warrant a post on this site back in 2006, and the MTA instituted the new service pattern in May of 2009. At the time, the authority said it was a temporary extension that could become permanent if it gained enough popularity. It should stay.

By extending the G train to Church Ave., the MTA has connected some popular destinations throughout Carroll Gardens, Boerum Hill, Clinton Hill, Williamsburg and Greenpoint with Park Slope, Kensington and beyond. It improves intra-borough, intra-neighborhood travel, something that the New York City subway does not always do well. Now, as the Viaduct project reaches milestones on the road toward completion, Brooklyn residents, as The Brooklyn Paper recently reported, want to see the extension become permanent. Natalie O’Neill had more:

MTA Spokesman Charles Seaton told The Brooklyn Paper that “a decision hasn’t been made” about whether the agency would keep the G train running at those five stations come next fall, declining to comment further until reviewing a feasibility report. The agency initially said it would make the G train extension permanent, but later backtracked amid budgetary woes.

…Many straphangers said the addition of the staircase is no consolation if the MTA plans to eliminate the G train extension. “It’s a pain,” said Matt Flammer, a Fort Greene resident who commutes to Park Slope. “It means you have to wake up half an hour earlier. And that makes you that much more grumpy in the morning.”

Thankfully for commuters along the G line, transit insiders say there’s still hope for the train. Gene Russianoff, a spokesman for the transportation advocacy group the Straphangers Campaign, said the city will likely consider how much use the G train gets at those five stations before deciding whether to make the temporary service permanent. “I can tell you from private meetings with [city officials], they’ve been impressed by the amount of ridership at those locations,” Russianoff said. “I’d like to see it continue.”

It’s often hyperbole to say that literally no one opposes anything, but it’s awfully tough to find some with a legitimate gripe against added G train service. Selfishly, I love it as it allows me a quick ride from my home neighborhood up to the bars and restaurants in Williamsburg and my friends along the G train’s route. The MTA should be in the business of providing adequate train service, and maintaining this G extension should become a priority as the Culver Countdown reaches completion.

Once upon a time, neighborhood activists called for a G connection with Atlantic Ave., and at other times, civic groups have rallied to save service on this oft-crowded and sometimes-neglected IND line. This one is a no-brainer though. Even when the viaduct rehab is over, the G should remain a Church Ave.-bound train.

In an effort to enliven a dead spot on the avenue, the east subway entrance at 4th Avenue between 9th and 10th Streets in Brooklyn, seen here last year, have been reopened. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

As part of the extensive Culver Viaduct rehabilitation project, the MTA has reopened a subway entrance that had been closed for more than four decades. Transit announced today that the long-shuttered entrance underneath the viaduct on the east side of 4th Ave. between 9th and 10th Streets has been reopened, pleasing neighbors who had viewed the conditions under the viaduct as unsafe blight. Pedestrian advocates too are happy with the reopening as straphangers will now no longer have to cross a busy and dangerous 4th Ave.

“During the initial phases of this project, we decided it was the perfect opportunity to reopen the east side station house on 4th Avenue,” NYC Transit President Thomas F. Prendergast said in a statement. “We are grateful to the elected officials whose contributions allowed us to do even more than we had planned at this historic station.”

The project, as I reported last year, was funded through an $800,000 grant from Assembly Representative Joan Millman’s office and $2 million from Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz as well. Both politicians praised the authority for its work. “The opening of the east side entrance to the 4th Avenue-9th Street station is a big win for the community and the first stage of what will be the eventual transformation of Fourth Avenue into a grand ‘Brooklyn Boulevard,’” Markowitz said. “Soon, the area adjacent to this entrance will be filled with retail, and the exterior archways and windows will be opened and restored to their original glory.”

Despite today’s reopening, Transit says it still has to put the finishing touches on the revived entrance and has a ways to go as it completes the station renovation. The doors that open onto 4th Ave. are temporary, and those that open onto 10th St. will remain closed until later this year. The historic arch, covered by billboards on both sides, will be unveiled by the end of the year as well as Transit works to give the station a “lighter, more open look.”

Other improvements to the 4th Ave. area include a fresh coat of paint for the underside of the viaduct, improved lighting above the sidewalks and new retail storefronts for the both the east and west side of the streets. Transit plans to award contracts for those stores in 2013. All told, it’s a welcome improvement to what is an ugly but well-trod block along 4th Ave.

It’s been a busy week for me, and I find myself without much strength to write a full post tonight. So let’s dig into the Second Ave. Sagas Wayback Machine and visit a post on a once-planned and still-needed subway extension deep in the heart of Brooklyn…

The proposed Second System subway expansion plans issued in 1929 called for subway lines down Nostrand and Utica Aves.

In the annals of New York City subway history, the Second Ave. Subway carries with it the grand stigma of futility. First proposed in 1920, the SAS went through various iterations, groundbreakings and funding crises before the current construction efforts relaunched in 1995. Barring an economic catastrophe, at least Phase 1 of the Second Ave. line will open before the end of the decade, and the Second Ave. Subway will pass from myth to reality.

Elsewhere, though, other subway expansion plans have languished for nearly as long as the Second Ave. Subway. While none of these plans have as tortured a history as the future T line does, many of them are common-sense system expansions that have been on and off the city’s transit table since the early days of New York’s subway system. Take, for instance, the Marine Park-Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach area.

Although Brooklyn’s subway service is nearly as comprehensive as Manhattan’s, a glance at the borough map reveals a large gap in service in the southern reaches of eastern Brooklyn. The Marine Park-Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach triangle is serviced only by the B and Q along Flatbush Ave. to the west and a bunch of local buses. To the north, the Flatbush Ave./Brooklyn College stop serves as a terminal for the 2 and 5 trains, and with Nostrand Ave. running south from that station, that road would serve as the natural starting point for new service.

In fact, that’s long been the dream of city planners, and that final stop on the 2 and 5 wasn’t built as such. Rather, it was supposed to lead into the Nostrand Ave. subway line. Talk of the Nostrand and Utica Ave. subway extensions pop up as early as 1910 when The Times discusses future expansion of the young system into Brooklyn. A century ago, planners anticipated a branch of the subway running out to the ocean, and the IRT awarded its Brooklyn expansion plans in two contracts. Only the first part saw the light of day, and when Flatbush Ave./Brooklyn College opened in 1920, no one knew this station would become the de facto terminal for the IRT.

In 1929, when the city unveiled its ambitious Second System proposal, both Nostrand and Utica Ave. extensions were included. The Nostrand spur would have completed the IRT’s early 1910 plans for subway expansion, and the Utica Ave. route would have been the southern part of the new Williamsburg train lines. A 1939 post-Depression version of the Second System had the Utica Ave. line reaching Floyd Bennett Field.

The 1939 plans for subway service to Floyd Bennett Field.

As we know from the history of the Second Ave. subway, though, a World War interrupted the city’s ambitious expansion plans, and the Nostrand and Utica subway lines were once again shelved for nearly 15 years. As the mid-1950s dawned and the city looked to build the Second Ave. line, so too did it give approval for the Nostrand and Utica Avenue extension plans. The Nostrand spur would again see what we now call the 2 and 5 extended south while the Utica Avenue plans were scaled back. Instead of a new line coming south from Williamsburg, the 1950s plan called for a spur from what is today the end of the 4 line in Brooklyn. The extensions were estimated to cost $82.15 million — or around $656 million in today’s money — and be ready for service by 1960.

A proposed rendering from 1969 of the Utica and Nostrand Avenue subway expansion plans.

But the city’s debt and deferred system maintenance led to a different reality. By 1957, it was clear that the two subway lines in Brooklyn would not see the light of day, and as transportation money went to modernization instead of growth, the plans laid dormant for another ten years. In 1968, the city again approved a massive subway expansion plan that included the Nostrand and Utica Avenue lines, and again, the city’s financial situation would intervene. Over the next three years, the bond request that would fund these expansion plans became a hot political issue. The city and state had no money, and many transit watchers did not believe the price tags for the capital plans were accurate. With Theodore Kheel, a current advocate for free transit, banging the financial drum, voters turned down the transportation bond request, and although another bill would pass a few years later, the Nostrand and Utica Avenue subways died in 1971.

On March 21, 1971, The Times penned a requiem for these plans. City planners thought the Utica Ave. routing would lead to even more overcrowding on the already-stuffed IRT lines and wanted to extend the Canarsie BMT — today’s L train — instead. The price tags for the two projects had reached $350 million in 1971 or $1.8 billion today, and no one believed that estimate to be accurate. These concerns still ring true today, and when Kheel attained his victory in the early 1970s, the Nostrand and Utica Ave. plans would become but another unbuilt relic of the subway system.

Today, the areas that would have enjoyed subway system 80 or 90 years ago are among the more isolated and car-dependent neighborhoods in Brooklyn. While the Second Ave. line, whose fate was seemingly intertwined with the Nostrand and Utica Avenue plans, is now under way, no one is advocating for service in southern Brooklyn even though the city would be better off for it.

The BQE reconstruction will not move forward.

In mid-2010, after years of community meetings and design forums, New York State unveiled some ambitious plans to overhaul the BQE. With price tags ranging from a few billion to many billions of dollars, the proposals included a tunnel that would run underneath the Gowanus and Fort Greene neighborhoods to the Brooklyn Navy Yards that would allow for connections to the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges while siphoning traffic away from the always-congested cut in Carroll Gardens and Brooklyn Heights. Despite the pie-in-the-sky nature of such a project, I liked the ideas behind it.

Today, though, we learn that the project will not go forward. The money simply isn’t there, and the state Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration do not consider repairs for the BQE and Gowanus Expressway to be “critical needs” any longer. “We assumed it was a necessity because they described the BQE as very deteriorated and substandard,” Brooklyn Heights Association Executive Director Judy Stanton said to The Post. “But if all they are going to do is continue Band-Aid repair work at the city’s expense, it won’t be sufficient.”

Rich Calder has more:

Blaming the national economic downturn, state and federal transportation officials said yesterday that they are abandoning plans to modernize and revamp crumbling stretches of the Brooklyn-Queens and Gowanus expressways…Cobble Hill activist Roy Sloane, who has been fighting for the BQE improvements for many years, said the decision to discontinue studying a highway makeover is a big blow to public safety.

“We were told by the state that the BQE was in danger of collapsing in the 80s,” said Sloane. “It’s also pathetic that they put all these years and effort in, spent money on all sorts of designs and are now dropping it.

However, a state DOT spokesman said recent inspections of the two highways showed they “do not require major repairs at this time.” Naomi Doerner, an urban planner who consulted the state DOT on the BQE project, said in an email that that the city and state “will continue to support efforts to ensure” the highway “remains a safe and reliable roadway in our transportation system.”

So it sounds bad that the state has decided roadways that a few years ago, could not withstand the pounding they took from daily traffic are suddenly sufficient just because the money isn’t there to replace them. That portends ill for the city’s aging transportation and transit infrastructure. But there’s a second side to this story that indicates perhaps it’s not such a bad decision after all.

Take, for instance, Cap’n Transit’s past coverage of the BQE plans. As the Cap’n astutely notes, transportation dollars are limited, and money spent to reconstruct roads in New York City will ultimately mean fewer dollars for competing transit projects. If the state spends a few billion to rebuild the BQE and tunnel through some Brooklyn neighborhoods, that’s a few billion dollars they can’t spend to build better transit service that would take cars off the road anyway.

In that sense, then, not moving forward with BQE reconstruction plans seems perfectly acceptable, if not ideal, for those who want to spend on transit to the exclusion of roads. Building, say, the Triborough RX line could have the same impact on traffic as constructing a BQE tunnel would, and the rail line would be a net gain for the environment and non-auto mobility as well.

Ultimately, if the physical infrastructure is secure, there’s no need to spend billions on a reconstruction. Spend those dollars, if they exist, on transit instead, and congestion will decrease. I’d still like to see the city move forward on plans to green the BQE trench as that would have a tangible positive impact on the Hicks St. neighborhood, but failing to build this multi-billion-dollar project that would increase road capacity isn’t a net loss for the city.

Renderings of the Barclays Center show a new planned subway entrance, but we do not yet know how access to the platforms will be reconfigured.

At the crossroads of Atlantic Ave. and Flatbush Ave. in Brooklyn rests one of the borough of Kings’ busiest subway stations. Over the next few years, it’s only going to get worse, but proposals to expand and adapt the station to new uses from the Barclays Center and, eventually, Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards complex have yet to see the light of day.

The brouhaha over the Atlantic Yards is a well-covered story. Under heavy pressure from local politicians, the MTA, as we know, sold out the air rights over the Vanderbilt Rail Yards to Bruce Ratner for well below-market. Originally, Ratner planned to build a new basketball arena for the Nets along with a massive mixed-use complex at the corner of three low-rise brownstone neighborhoods. Due to the financial crisis, though, the plans for the array of towers were shelved, but progress on the arena, set to open in September of 2012, has moved forward.

Late last week, though, Ratner announced plans to build some of the Atlantic Yards towers in 2012. With some financing in place, Ratner will build a 32-story residential building at Flatbush Ave. and Dean Street. that will house 350 units. The current plans include 14 other residential buildings, including one of 50 stories.

Enter the Atlantic Ave./Pacific St. In terms of those swiping in, the station is the third busiest in Brooklyn and the 30th most popular in the city. In 2010, over 10.1 million straphangers entered the station, and the station saw an increase of traffic of 4.4 percent over 2009. That tells only part of the story though as the station serves as a major transfer point between the subway and the LIRR as well as an inter-system transfer point between the 4th Ave. lines, the IRT and the Brighton Line.

So what happens when the Barclays Center and, eventually, the Atlantic Yards complex opens? Right now, the station has a variety of entrances from various street corners. There’s an entrance to the 4th Ave. platform at 4th Ave. and Pacific St., an entrance to the LIRR and the local Manhattan-bound IRT station in the Atlantic Center and an entrance to the Brighton Line off of Hanson Place. It isn’t perfect, but it works.

Meanwhile, changes are in store. As the renderings for the Barclays Center show, work on the arena includes a new street-level entrance to the Atlantic Ave./Pacific St. station that will go from the plaza outside of the arena to, well, somewhere, and the fact that the “somewhere” is undefined is concerning. Over the past few weeks, I’ve asked the MTA for renderings of the subway improvements, and although the arena and work on subway access has been long-planned and will open in ten months, the MTA doesn’t yet have renderings. They have only schematics that have yet to be released to the public, and we have no idea how the flow of people will be improved or addressed at a major subway location in Brooklyn.

When the Atlantic Yards project was first negotiated, transit improvements were part of the deal. To add so many people to a small area right on top of an already-busy subway station was simply inviting transit capacity disaster, and Ratner pledged to improve the Atlantic Ave./Pacific St. subway station and also the LIRR terminal. So far, all we know for sure is that the subway stop will bear Barclays’ name when the arena opens. Anything else is conjecture.

Ultimately, these designs will be released for the public, but as Ratner begins to work on the new Atlantic Yards terminals, he shouldn’t get off so lightly. Transit improvements and a plan to address the added demand his units will bring must be a part of the planning process as his buildings move forward. To avoid the subject will leave straphangers out in the cold.