Second Ave. Sagas

Category: MTA Economics

  • Seventy-five years later, IND opening shows the SAS real estate effect

    ind1932.jpg

    The Times’ coverage of the opening of the IND subway lines on Sept. 10, 1932, included diagrams of the entrances to the Times Square station.

    Today, we celebrate the birthday of the Independent Subway. Seventy-five years ago, at midnight on the morning of September 10, 1932, the turnstiles opened, and the first IND trains started the trip from Chambers St. to 207th St. along Eighth Ave. Ah, subway growth.

    When the AA made its first trip uptown, it rode through New York of a different era. This was New York as a growing city. Running parallel to the west of the new subway line was the West Side Highway, Robert Moses’ pet project. Large swaths of the city were still undeveloped, and the new subway lines would bring about development.

    At the same time, the things we love about New York — multiculturalism, diversity, ease of access — were hallmarks of the city in the 1930s. Today, The New York Times commemorates the subway line immortalized by Billy Strayhorn and Duke Ellington with an excellent article reflecting upon the opening of the new line. The MTA is following suite today, as the Authority has plans to run a special six-car train of original cars from 208th St. in Inwood to Chambers St. Catch it if you can. These folks say it’s set to leave between 10 and 11 a.m.

    Nostalgia aside, The Times’ archives are chock full of interesting articles about the celebratory opening, political machinations and first successful rush hour run of the new subway. The one I found most interesting, however, is one piece from September 11, 1932, with the headline “Opening of Subway Called Realty Aid.”

    In a sense, we in 2007, awaiting the arrival of the Second Ave. Subway, can glimpse the effect a new subway line had on real estate prices and development in Manhattan. The Times wrote:

    The civic interests hailed [the Eighth Avenue subway] as likely to foster improvement in leasing and building on the west side…The subway will have the effect in the Forty-second Street area of relieving congestion on other lines and linking the midtown district more closely to uptown and downtown Manhattan, and should bring commercial gains in the whole section between Seventh and Ninth Avenues…

    Improved transit facilities will help to accelerate the recovery of real estate values in the apartment districts of Chelsea, Central Park West, the Dyckman section and Washington Heights.

    Now, while the Second Ave. subway won’t help bring New York out of a Great Depression-influenced housing recession, the lessons today are the same. And you can be sure real estate agents are finely attuned to them. The IND, operating a few avenue blocks away, from the IRT, led to development; the Second Ave. subway, operating a few avenue blocks away from the Lexington Ave. lines will bring service to an under-served areas of the city. This subway will spur on economic development and lead to price increases and demand in the area’s real estate.

    This is not a groundbreaking argument, but for many living on the far East Side, this eventual reality may come as a shock. Rents will rise; apartment prices will skyrocket. Storefront space, particularly around entrances and exist, will be in high demand as well. In other words, the commercial and residential landscape along the East Side will change dramatically when the Q (and eventually the T) begins its trips up Second Ave.

    A few months ago, we saw these lessons in action in Beijing. Seventy-five years ago, we saw them along the West Side when the new Eighth Avenue subway lines opened. And, in five years if everything goes according to plan, we’ll see it again along Manhattan’s Upper East Side.

  • The Comptroller will have none of that fare hike

    The Comptrollers are revolting. (Well, then, maybe they should shower. I’ll be here all week.)

    Nearly three weeks after New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr., issued a report on how the MTA could avoid a fare hike, the State Comptroller Thomas P. Napoli has issued a similar finding. He says that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority should hold off on its fare hike until the agency can huddle with city and state legislatures to develop a cohesive plan to financing public transportation that doesn’t unfairly burden the riders.

    Citing the need to wait until after the congestion pricing panel issues its findings and recommendations, Napoli was fairly critical of the MTA’s willingness to move forward with a fare hike. From his office’s press release:

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority should hold off on its fare hike plans until after the City and the State have fully considered the recommendations of the recently established congestion pricing commission and the MTA’s proposed five-year capital program, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli said in a report released today. The MTA has proposed raising fares and tolls in early 2008 and again in 2010 to help address sizeable looming budget gaps.

    “The MTA should put New York’s commuters first,” DiNapoli said. “Before the MTA asks for more money from straphangers, it should develop a coordinated strategy with the State and City to balance its operating budget and to finance the next five-year capital program. The MTA has taken some good first steps to develop a long-term plan for its future fiscal health. But talk of a fare hike is premature. The City is trying to reduce congestion and encourage greater use of mass transit. Any fare increase should be the last piece of a comprehensive plan, not the first.”

    Napoli noted that, as many have observed said lately, the MTA doesn’t need the fare hike to run a balanced budget in 2008; the agency itself forecasts a net balance of $323 million.

    MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin issued his own press release (not yet available at the MTA’s own press site):

    We are grateful that Comptroller DiNapoli has acknowledged both the M.T.A.’s record ridership and the $6 billion in projected deficits we face over the next four years. These two factors dictate the fiscally responsible path we have proposed, which calls for internal belt tightening and contributions from all of our funding partners to address these deficits before they threaten service. The plan introduces stability and predictability to the fare structure by calling for biannual cost-of-living increases instead of much larger increases in crisis situations. The proposed financial plan accepts the M.T.A. responsibility to provide improved service to a rapidly growing city and region and acts immediately to put the agency on sound financial footing. Deferring the proposed 2008 fare and toll increase will only lead to more drastic increases and unacceptable service cuts in 2009.

    In my view, the MTA’s release dances around the fact that both Comptroller’s have now told the MTA to ask for more money from the City and State. While Soffin cannot come out and lay the blame at the feet of politicians who have long stifled the MTA and have deprived the agency of its rightful funds, I hope the MTA is at least pursuing this course as well. It’s better to beg hat-in-hand in Albany than it is to stick the straphangers with another fare hike.

    The full Comptroller report can be access here as a PDF or here as an audio file. Key bullet points after the jump:

    (more…)

  • The great student MetroCard swindle

    City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr., tried to help out the straphangers, but the weather would have none of that. Literally lost in yesterday’s flood was his report proclaiming the impending MTA fare hike could be avoided if Albany and the city fulfill their fiscal obligations to the MTA.

    While a pesky flood captured the city, Thompson’s report deserves another look. An analysis of the six ways in in which, combined, the MTA could draw in enough revenue to fend off a fare hike for now, Thompson’s work serves as public support for the subway rider, and buried in his report is a gem.

    Recommendation five concerns the ever-popular Student MetroCards. A favorite of students around the city who abuse this program for all its worth, this program is supposed to be covered by allocations from the City and State, but, unsurprisingly, the City and State are shirking their responsibilities. Thompson notes that an adjustment of the school fare reimbursement to “fully reflect the cost of all authorized student bus and subway trips” would provide the MTA with $71.5 million more.

    In other words, the City and State are not paying what they should be for the city’s students to ride the subways for free. He goes more in depth into the economics:

    The City should increase its reimbursement to NYCT for fares for schoolchildren. Such increases would make up for unilateral decreases in school fare reimbursements during the mid-1990s. Currently the City and the State each contribute $45 million per year to subsidize school fares.

    NYCT recently provided the Office of the Comptroller with data regarding student MetroCard use during the 2005-2006 school year. During that school year, students took 133.4 million subway and bus rides at a cost to the transit system of $161.5 million, based on average non-student bus and subway fares. After subtracting the combined City and State fixed school fare reimbursement of $90 million, NYCT provided $71.5 million of unreimbursed service last year.

    The emphasis there is mine, and yes, you read that correctly. The City and State seem to expect the MTA to simply foot the bill for student riders at a loss of $71.5 million to a cash-strapped Authority. That’s outrageous.

    Many politicians in and around New York City like to give lip service to the fare hike. We’ll do what it takes to avoid it, they say. Well, here’s your chance. End this ridiculous practice and reimburse the MTA for rides it gives to students. The MTA is under no obligation to provide this service, especially considering how many students abuse the privilege of these MetroCards. If the city and state refuse to reimburse the Authority for the service, the program should end. It’s as simple as that.

  • Stewart Airport rail link just a waste

    Did you know that New York City has a fourth airport that, once upon a time, was designated the next major Metropolitan-area airport? Well, so much for that plan.

    Nestled in Orange County, just west of Newburgh, lies Stewart International Airport. It’s 80 miles outside of New York City, and if you can get there, it is the home of the some of the cheapest flights around the area. It never did achieve Gov. Rockefeller’s goals of becoming the fourth major airport in the region (behind LaGuardia, JFK and Newark), but that hasn’t stopped various state entities from trying to boost its profile.

    The latest effort comes in the form of everyone’s favorite airport buzz phrase: a rail link. According to a report in Monday’s edition of The Sun, the MTA is studying the possibility of a rail link between Penn Station and the airport. The link, which would consist of a three-mile spur off of Metro-North’s Port Jervis line, would probably bring about a renewed interested in this transportation hub nestled just outside the world of New York City.

    Annie Karni of The Sun has more:

    Transit officials say a three-mile spur off the Port Jervis line on Metro-North Railroad, which could cost more than $600 million to construct, could be an efficient way to attract passengers and airlines to the underutilized upstate airport, where the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is expected to take control of operations in October.

    The airport now is accessible only by country roads, and driving to the airport from Manhattan takes about an hour and a half without traffic. The former military base, located about 60 miles north of Manhattan, accommodated 300,000 passengers last year; transit officials estimate that its infrastructure could be expanded to process up to 10 million passengers annually.

    The article is filled with various opinions on the rail link. Some officials say the area needs this fourth airport to be more accessible because the other three are, as any traveler can attest, overcrowded. But others, such as Jeffrey Zupan of the Regional Plan Association, think the rail link is not a financial viable idea unless it can siphon off upstate travelers who commute down to the city’s three other airports. “It’s going to be a real loser from an operating cost point of view. ” Zupan said to Karni. “It will have to run long distances and relatively frequent service, or people aren’t going to use it.”

    Meanwhile, this idea seems somewhat ridiculous. It right now takes an hour and a half on Metro-North/NJ Transit to reach the Salisbury Mills stop from Penn Station. Considering that it would take another train ride to get to the airport and airlines are asking people to get there 90 minutes earlier, travelers would have to begin their journeys up to four hours before their scheduled departure time. That is quite inconvenient.

    To me, this project seems like a no-brainer waste-of-money. But if the MTA is going to build something, they should fund it in a way similar to that used at JFK. The Authority could either have the airline passengers pick up the bill through a plane ticket fee and have the fares be such that costs are covered. With more pressing capital construction projects on the docket — Second Ave. subway, LIRR East Side Access plan, 7 line extension, Fulton St. hub — and a need for a JFK rail link, a line up to Stewart just seems superfluous and overly expensive at a time when the MTA really needs to prioritize.

  • Minnesota tragedy underscores infrastructure investments

    The Minnesota bridge collapse serves as a dramatic wake-up call over the state of public infrastructure. (Photo courtesy of flickr user Koldark.)

    When the I35 bridge collapsed last Thursday in Minnesota, the tragedy and its aftermath sent shockwaves through the country. The road and the bridge were built in 1967 at a time of massive growth in the numbers of automobiles owned by Americans.

    In the days following the bridge collapse, engineers and officials across the country have noted that many other bridges of similar age and design could present safety problems across the nation. Obviously, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will begin to take a more proactive role in assessing road standards, and states are going to be investing a lot of money into road maintenance, inspection and upgrades.

    But for those of us living in cities dependent on public transportation for our commuting needs, the lesson is the same. Too bad no one has mentioned it yet.

    The oldest parts of New York City’s subway system are over 100 years old. Even the newest parts of the IND lines are all around 70 years old. Outside of Manhattan much of our train system runs above ground. The Culver Viaduct over the Gowanus Canal is set to undergo a complete renovation; various parts of the elevated 7 tracks in Queens are on the MTA’s Capital Construction to-do list.

    But this is a short list of elevated parts of the subway dependent on aging infrastructure. The Broadway Bridge at the northern tip of Manhattan is from 1960. The elevated tracks at Yankee Stadium date from 1917. The list literally runs for miles and miles.

    For us in New York, as we debate ways to fund mass transit, ways to cover budget gaps, ways to build new subway lines and maintain old ones, the bridge in Minnesota should serve as a stark reminder to the age of our great subway system. At 100, the New York City subway is no baby. We need the money to maintain it; we need the money to keep old structures modern and sufficient for the demands of a very crowded subway that serves as the lifeblood of New York City.

    Now, with roads under the microscope, politicians may turn a little gung-ho in their efforts to inspect every roadway and bridge in the country. But the subways are just as important, and now is as good a time as any to remember that. A subway bridge collapse would be just as tragic and shocking as the one in Minnesota. We can’t afford to see that happen.

  • amNY can’t have it both ways on subway ads

    amnycoveraug2.jpg

    This cover is wrong on so many levels.

    Usually, I’ll leave the amNY bashing to this guy. But, hey, it’s the subway.

    Anyway, here’s the story. This morning, in my efforts to navigate the 68th St./Hunter College stop on the East Side, I noticed the cover of today’s amNY. It screamed at me: “Ads gone wild. Has surge in subway advertising gone too far?”

    With a knowing chuckle, I picked up the paper, and the articles did not disappoint. There was one article about how the MTA has increased its ad revenue by $34 million over the last ten years and is continuing to explore creative advertising trends.

    The other story, answering the question posed on the cover, was a whopping 194 words, and the answer was a resounding no. Straphangers – and, yes, amNY used the plural even though the one straphanger they interviewed was a 17-year-old from Jersey City – don’t seem to mind the advertising especially if it draws in more revenue for the MTA.

    Shoddy journalism aside – one New Jersey teenager doesn’t count as a representative sample of straphangers – I want to take amNY to task for this cover. Clearly, they were trying to stir up a debate as they did last week when they seemed to be so outraged over the fare hike. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t bemoan a fare hike and be unwilling to accept more subway advertising. So what if there are Westin Hotel ads in Grand Central? If that means more money for the MTA and, thus, better service for us, then good.

    As if to prove my point, the commute on the East Side IRT during rush hour is terrible. I had to get to a doctor’s office on the far reaches of the Upper East Side this morning. Negotiating Union Square is terrible, and it took me five minutes just to exit the station as 68th St. We need a subway line, and the MTA needs money. If advertising helps, I’m much more in favor of that than I am of cutting EMTs in the subways.

    ====

    On a side note, the first story about advertising in the subways features a few interesting comments from Roco Krsulic, head of the MTA’s real estate and advertising department. Krsulic supported Norman Seabrook’s plan from last week:

    Krsulic believes that more companies will cash in on new customers by dominating stations in targeted areas of the city with new forms of advertisement, such as the first ever Bluetooth interactive billboard used in the Westin campaign.

    “Coors Light may be very much interested in 161st Street Yankee Stadium, but a vendor like Donna Karan might be much more interested in 34th Street Herald Square,” Krsulic said.

    Well, hey! That’s exactly what I said. Let’s see it happen.

  • MTA may cut beneficial services to save money

    So the MTA seems to be taking this whole financial crisis thing pretty seriously. They’re even going to start cutting small problems that they consider to be non-essential.

    In The Daily News today is a report stating the MTA may cut its in-station EMTs. The Authority currently posts emergency response teams at seven of the system’s busiest stations, and those in charge feel the savings are worth it.

    The Daily News has more:

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which projects huge budget gaps, says it can save nearly $250,000 a year by killing off the “Sick Customer Response Program” in 2009.

    Sick customers are responsible for approximately 430 train delays a month, the third-highest monthly average.

    NYC Transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges said it’s “premature” to discuss the proposal, part of the MTA’s 2008-2011 budget plan.

    Now, to me this seems ludicrous. The MTA is projecting an operating deficit of nearly $1 billion if they don’t see a tax revenue situation similar to the one they enjoyed this year. But the Sick Customer Response Program is a minimum-cost program that can benefit riders throughout the system. If the MTA wants to cut down on delayed trains and disgruntled passengers, rapid emergency response teams are a necessity.

    Meanwhile, the good folks commenting on this story at Subchat are picking on the MTA for offering the holiday discounts in 2005. And can you blame them? The MTA stupidly handed out $50 million in discounted fares that didn’t do anything to increase ridership at the time. That would be enough to fund the Sick Customer Response Program for 200 years.

  • Maybe the MTA should just ask for that money

    Growing up, I learned to always say please when I wanted something. Now, one New York State Assembly member is suggesting that maybe the Metropolitan Transportation Authority should try the same approach.

    Richard Brodskey (pictured at right), representative from the 92nd Assembly District in Westchester, suggested last week that the MTA should ask Albany for more money as a way to avoid a fare hike. Another Assembly member, Linda Rosenthal of Manhattan’s West Side, echoed Brodsky’s sentiments.

    MTA Elliot “Lee” Sander notes that he would gladly accepted state money if the legislative and executive bodies could deliver. But, as The Daily News notes, history is not on the side of the subways:

    “We’ll take the money,” Sander said. “Maybe we will look at being more ambitious in our requests than we have been.”

    The state has been shortchanging the MTA for years, the transit officials said. Money that has been raised through a series of taxes was earmarked for mass transit, but state government never passed the required legislation to send it to the MTA. For the first time, the governor’s office has indicated it will abide by the formula, and the MTA expects that to bring approximately $330 million into its operating budget next year.

    To Sander, I say, “Go for it.” No one has ever come out behind by asking for more. With Gov. Pataki and Mayor Giuliani, the two men most guilty for diverting those funds earmarked for the MTA, out of office, maybe the MTA could even get that money from Spitzer and the legislature.

    For Bodsky though, I have to wonder about his intentions. He was, after all, one of the Assembly members who killed the congestion pricing. It’s great that he’s offering Sander his advice, but the MTA would have had access to plenty of funds if Brodsky and others had passed the original congestion fee plan. Now, Sander has to go hat in hand to a legislature that seems fairly hostile to New York City.

    The subways need the money to meet the demands of a growing city. Will the State of New York step up and give it to the MTA?

  • Selling out the subway a ‘balm for hurt minds’

    As we take our rides on the subway these days, advertising is just another part of our daily commute. Ubiquitous subway ads have always been there and seemingly will always be there. Now, as one MTA Board member is looking for creative ways to draw in revenue without raising fares, subway advertising has been thrust into the spotlight.

    First, a history lesson.

    (more…)

  • Straphangers: MTA may face drastic fare increases by decade’s end

    That Gene Russianoff, always keeping us on our toes. Today, Russianoff’s Straphangers Campaign issued a warning about the state of the MTA’s finances. Without a fare raise, a new study conducted by the Independent Budget Office said, the MTA could see deficits rise to the billions by the end of the decade.

    On the surface, the situation sounds drastic. The fares, the report estimates, would have to go up to $2.40 by 2010. Those $76 Unlimited MetroCards would cost a whopping $92. The commuter rail prices and tolls would spike. The Times summarizes:

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority will have to raise revenues significantly to stave off looming deficits in the next several years, increasing pressure on the authority to increase transit fares and bridge and tunnel tolls, according to a study by the city’s Independent Budget Office.

    Unless it can substantially cut costs, the authority will need to increase total revenues by about 20 percent over the next three and a half years, the report said.

    Over the last few years, we’ve heard proclamations similar to this one, and each year, the MTA’s tax windfall has staved off what seems to be an inevitable far hike. But in their report (available here as a PDF), the IBO warns that the MTA should not be relying on unplanned taxes to cover their operating expenses and possible debt.

    For many, though, this IBO report is nothing new. Back in February, the MTA issued its own report that arrived at a similar conclusion. And as he did in February, MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander stressed yesterday that the state of the subways will not degrade on his watch. “The one thing that we will not do is let the system go to hell, as it did in the late ’70s and early ’80s,” he said, “and so we must ensure that the system remains viable in terms of its infrastructure.”

    This all sounds well and good, but haven’t we heard this before? Hasn’t the MTA issued dire warnings of debt and higher fares? Well, as The Times notes, this new report however is different from these other warnings because the Straphangers actually agree with the MTA. The independent auditors see the need for a fare hike. No more cooked book scandals; no more unnecessary fare hikes. Like the boy who cries wolf, every now and then the MTA is right about the state of its economics. And maybe Sander has this organization turning a corner in terms of the face it presents to the public.

    Now, astute riders may wonder, “But what of the congestion fee? Isn’t that supposed to go to the subways?” And that, my dear readers, is a very good question. While the Straphangers acknowledge that the $900 million in anticipated revenue from the congestion fee will go toward the MTA’s coffers, the City and the MTA are working on a deal that would earmark some of the congestion fee to the Second Ave. subway, a multi-billion-dollar project that doesn’t even factor into the debt crisis the MTA could face by 2010.

    The IBO believes that a combination of fare hikes, slight property tax increases and federal and state contributions could help the MTA cover its debt, but the stars will have align just right for this dream to be realized.

    So where does that leave us, the not-so-meek riders of the MTA’s grand system? We should steel ourselves for a fare hike. We should pray for another tax windfall. We should ask the state legislatures to do the right thing and send the MTA more money. And we should support Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion fee. We can avoid the direst of predictions such as that $2.40 fare, but as the Straghangers are now echoing the MTA, subway armageddon may be upon us next year after all.