Category:

MTA Politics

Sander nominates Howard Roberts to head NYCT

by Benjamin Kabak March 30, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 30, 2007

For the last 11 months, New York City Transit has been under the leadership of interim president Millard “Butch” Seay. Since Lawrence “I have no nickname” Reuter stepped down last April, no permanent replacement had been named. But now reports say that MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander is ready to name a new NYCT head.

This new president will be one-time NYCT VP and former Deputy GM of the SEPTA Howard H. Roberts. According to a report in the New York Post, Sander will soon make this an official appointment, and the MTA board will have to approve the selection.

Howard H. Roberts, 67, who was a vice president for New York City Transit buses in the 1980s when Sander worked in the division, is likely to become the next president of NYC Transit, sources said…

Roberts has since worked at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Philadelphia, where he is credited with helping to improve safety and security of the system, and most recently as a transportation consultant. He also is a former Citibank vice president.

Transportation advocates contacted by the Post believe that Roberts will be a fine choice. I’ll have more on the once and future MTA employee as the appointment becomes official.

March 30, 2007 3 comments

MTA Politics Second Avenue Subway

Kalikow not quite ready to leave MTA post

by Benjamin Kabak March 29, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 29, 2007

Remember away back in November when MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow announced he would step down? It sure does seem like a long time.

Four months ago, Kalikow was ready to step down “by the second quarter of 2007,” according to the reports. The new Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer clearly wanted someone in the MTA chairmanship with whom he could work well, and Kalikow was amenable to leaving as long he could secure funds for the Second Ave. subway and the LIRR-East Side rail link.

Now, with the Second Ave. subway groundbreaking set for April 12, Kalikow is in no hurry to leave. Metro New York has more:

Speculation has returned over when Kalikow will step down. He had previously said that might come as soon as the second quarter of this year. But yesterday Kalikow was in no hurry to leave. “Not yet,” he said. “I have not spoken to the governor about it. It’s on my mind.”

Of course, no one likes to leave his position or power, but it’s probably in the best interests of the MTA if the governor and the chairman of the state’s transportation authority got along well.

Meanwhile, within the same article, word comes that the tunnel at 99th St. in “pristine condition,” according to Elliot Lee Sander, MTA CEO. I for one am glad to hear that a decades-old tunnel left abandoned since funds ran out on the project last time is still in great shape. Skepticism, anyone?

March 29, 2007 3 comments

MTA Politics Second Avenue Subway

‘Pay no attention to the bad Second Ave. subway news’

by Benjamin Kabak March 21, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 21, 2007

Any politician worth his or her weight in savviness knows that the best way to counter bad news is with great news. So taking a page from the “Oops, an attorney general scandal; let’s raise the terror alert level” playback, that’s just what the MTA did today.

The bad news was swirling on Tuesday. A few days after Dan Doctoroff expressed his concerns with the SAS funding and just a few hours after The Times reported on the rising real estate costs of buildings along the Second Ave. corridor, the MTA announced that, oh wait, we have some good news! Look at us!

You see, that contract that was set to be signed next week was signed today, the MTA announced in an effort to capture the headlines. The MTA has more:

The first contract will provide for construction of a launch box between 92nd and 95th streets from which a tunnel boring machine (TBM) will excavate the tunnels from 92nd to 63rd streets. Also included in the first contract is the construction of two shafts at 69th Street and 72nd Street for the construction of the 72nd Street Station. The contract was awarded to S3 Tunnel Constructors, a Joint Venture composed of Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Schiavone Construction and J.F. Shea, in the amount of $337,025,000. Funding for this project consists of a combination of Federal Transit Administration grants and local funds provided by the New York State Transportation Bond Act of 2004 and the MTA Capital Program.

Mysore Nagaraja (pictured above), the head of capital construction for the MTA, seems pretty excited about the deal. “This contract paves the way for the first expansion of the subway system in more than fifty years. While the Second Avenue Subway has been talked about for years, it is now a reality, and you will soon see our construction teams hard at work on and under Second Avenue.” I don’t know how we’ll actually see the folks working under Second Ave., but hey, at least they’ll be there.

According to the MTA, a groundbreaking ceremony — the third of its kind for the Second Ave. subway — will be held in April. We’ll know when next week.

Amusingly enough, this announcement was totally timed to push the real estate news off the pages of the newspaper. The MTA”s PR machine went into overdrive after two straight weekdays of bad news. So they rushed the contract announcement by nine days. Why not? All the pieces were in place anyway.

The MTA is making real physical progress now on a subway line that should have been built during the La Guardia administration. And even more so than in the past, as SUBWAYBlogger noted, once they start, they won’t stop this time, real estate troubles and cost overruns be damned. It’s about time.

March 21, 2007 6 comments

MTA Economics MTA Politics Second Avenue Subway

Dan Doctoroff hates the 2nd Ave. Subway

by Benjamin Kabak March 16, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 16, 2007

After a week of good news for the 2nd Ave. subway, leave it to Dan Doctoroff to come and ~~sleet, snow and freezing~~ rain on everyone’s parade.

The Deputy Mayor and former head of the NYC2012 Olympics group threw some not-so-veiled threats in the direction of the MTA yesterday. Doctoroff is concerned about the finances behind the project. It’s so nice of him to worry about money after he was leading the fight to sink $1 billion into an ugly behemoth on the far West Side. The Sun had more:

“It will be the third groundbreaking for the same project. It sounds like the Freedom Tower,” Mr. Doctoroff told a gathering of about 400 transportation professionals at the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s annual meeting yesterday, referring to the ground zero memorial that has celebrated multiple groundbreakings but has seen little work thereafter. “We’ve seen how these things play out before.”

The Second Avenue line, known as the city’s greatest transportation project never built, is a planned two-track subway line that will run along Manhattan’s East Side to the financial district from 125th street. Construction on such a line stopped in 1975, when funds for the project ran dry. “We can’t afford that mistake again,” Mr. Doctoroff said. He stressed that even the expected federal funding for the project “does not mean a commitment to completing the job.”

But some involved think that Doctoroff is politicking around. The city – after signing up forthe project originally – has reneged on their promise to construct the 7 line extension; they won’t commit to cover the projected cost overruns.

The MTA has challenged all parties involved to come up with constructive funding proposals to avoid sending the MTA further into debt, and MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander noted that the agency may split construction into small pieces to allow more contractors to bid.

So take that, Dan Doctoroff. This subway will be built with or without your negativity.

That sexy shot of Dan Doctoroff courtesy of Building Congress.

March 16, 2007 4 comments

MTA Economics MTA Politics

Schaller calls for big ideas for PLANYC2030

by Benjamin Kabak March 6, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 6, 2007

Continuing our look at the Mayor’s PLAN2030 for a sustainable New York City, we arrive at Bruce Schaller, noted transportation consultant. While Schaller did not have the same official platform as Gene Russianoff did, he long has enjoyed a position of prominence in New York City’s transportation field.

Last month, Schaller penned a long piece in the Gotham Gazette on sustainable transportation measures that should be implemented between now and 2030. While containing a few little ideas that would make the city much more pedestrian-friendly, Schaller focused around big ideas that would ideally provide for better public transportation and greater disincentives to drive in the City.

On a macro level, Schaller recommends against the “chaotic” status quo, urges quick action on big capital plans (such as the 2nd Ave. subway) so that they won’t be derailed and calls for cooperation among government bodies and agencies. All of these suggestions are pretty standard stuff for the good government groups and consultants that serve as watch dog organizations in New York City.

Specifically, Schaller pushes for three ideas. The first encompasses the congestion tax that every public transportation and livable streets advocate has called for recently.

The economic signals need to fixed. That means congestion pricing for the Manhattan business district. Pricing should be applied as narrowly as possible, affecting only those motorists who by driving at the busiest times and places most contribute to slowing down everyone else. I’ve outlined a plan for peak period charges inbound to Manhattan in the morning peak period, outbound in the evening peak period, and for driving anywhere in the business district midday.

March 6, 2007 0 comment

MTA Economics MTA Politics

Transportation advocates call for more MTA funding from City

by Benjamin Kabak March 6, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 6, 2007

Around the halls of City Hall, the phrase “Sustainable City” has been making the rounds. The Mayor kicked off this focus on the future when he unveiled his PLANYC2030 initiative a few months ago.

Bloomberg, looking at how far the city had come since 1981, wants the next 25 years to be as prosperous for this rapidly growing Metropolis. Chief among New Yorkers’ concerns are issues surrounding transportation. From a congestion tax to new subway lines, to folks advocating for pedestrian-friendly traffic plans to groups calling for increased public transportation, how we will get around this fair city is on everyone’s minds.

As the mayor and his people are working to formulate concrete plans for the next two and a half decades, transportation advocates are having their voices heard. Last week, Gene Russianoff, senior attorney for the Straphangers Campaign, testified in front of the Transportation Committee. He spoke at length about adding capacity to the city’s crowded transportation system. Noting that average daily ridership during the week is at 7.2 million, Russianoff urged curbing traffic and adding funding to mass transit. Allow me to quote at length.

Achieving the goal of traffic reduction is only possible if the transit system can handle the increase in ridership from individuals shifting from driving to the subways and the buses…The City can help add transit capacity by providing added funding for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s core rebuilding program.

That program — at a price tag of $11 billion between 2005 and 2009 and with four more five-year multi-billion dollar increments through 2030 — now includes some funding for projects that would expand transit capacity. These include buying more subway cars and buses to modestly increase the size of the transit fleet and modernizing signal systems to allow for computer-driven subway cars that run faster and safer at more frequent service levels…All these projects could be more quickly advanced and have more ambitious goals with additional funding.

Right now, the City’s funding of the MTA’s core capital plan is the lowest it’s been in twenty years. The city now gives $70 million a year in general transit capital funds, a total of $350 million over the life of the 2005 to 2009 MTA capital plan. That’s about 3% of the funding for the plan…Tying specific goals to the 2030 timetable would help achieve the goal of added transit capacity set by Mayor Bloomberg. For example, the MTA and the City should move to computerized signals and a large transit fleet well before 2030 if they hope to move a City with a million more people.

It’s hard to argue with Russianoff. The City, no doubt, should be spending more on mass transit and other alternatives to automobile traffic. Even with the promise from President Bush, Governor Spitzer and Senator Schumer of money for capital projects (such as the 2nd Ave. Subway and the East Side LIRR link), the city should kick in more money.

Furthermore, with concrete goals, the city could earmark money for specific MTA projects as they have done with the 7 line extension. That way, money the mayor wants to go toward building a sustainable system wouldn’t be siphoned off by routine maintenance or increased salary demands. The MTA would still of course need to find those funds, but a plan that calls for improving transportation in a city of 9 million by 2030 should be able to earmark the funds for specific projects.

While Russianoff was speaking to the right crowd, he wasn’t the only one talking sustainable transportation issues. Transportation consultant Bruce Schaller discussed similar themes as it relates to PLANYC2030 in his most recent piece for the Gotham Gazette. Later today, I’ll take a look at what Schaller has to say about expanding and maintaining transportation capacity for the next 25 years.

March 6, 2007 3 comments

MTA Economics MTA Politics Subway Security

Paper: City subways hard to secure from possible attacks

by Benjamin Kabak February 20, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 20, 2007

Bag inspectors working to guard the City’s subways. (Courtesy of flickr user Runs With Scissors.)

I’m not exactly going out a limb if I were to state: “New York City and, in particular, the subways should be considered high priority homeland security targets.” No, around these parts, that’s fairly common knowledge.

But 230 miles to the south, those in charge of the federal purse strings have been loathe to see things our way. The Department of Homeland Security, led and created by those Republicans who aren’t beholden to a New York voter base, has hardly been forthcoming in giving New York the money it needs to adequately protect itself from another possible terrorist attack. As the media has documented, low-population states such as Wyoming have long received more money per person than the coastal states. Wyoming is no terrorist target when compared to New York, Boston, Los Angeles or other coastal cities.

In fact, DHS did such a good job allocating money that last year, grants to Washington, D.C. and New York City were slashed. That means less money for the subway, less money for the ports, less money for the Statue of Liberty, the Brooklyn Bridge and even the Washington Monument and Capitol building. That’s smart government.

So then, it comes as no surprise that U.S.A. Today recently noted that it is nearly impossible to protect the city’s subway system. Mimi Hall reported:

It has been a difficult, time-consuming effort just to get the work going, says William Morange, the transit authority’s security director. There are no 100-year-old records left behind to guide workers. No detailed descriptions of which parts of which tunnels were built in bedrock and which were dug out of silt.

Schiliro calls the MTA’s construction and other security upgrades “incremental risk reduction.” He says none of the nation’s subway systems will be as safe as they could be and should be without more help and money from the federal government.

This story is your typical “how to protect the subways” story, but it never hurts to see these reports in print. The litany of complaints is the same: There isn’t enough money; no government agency has ever completed an accurate risk assessment focusing on the subways in the urban (and largely liberal) areas of the country.

As U.S.A. Today noted the problem with protecting the subways, they also noted that the Democrats now in power in the halls of Congress are trying to secure more funding for subway security.

This is all well and good, but actual subway security only goes so far. There are too many access points, open areas and miles and miles of tracks to patrol. There are too many forgotten and neglected entrances and exits into the subway system, and too many nooks and crannies for everyone to inspect. I will always advocate more federal funds from DHS for security in New York City, but at the same time, I hope the Department is doing enough to protect the country from those who would perpetrate a terrorist attack in the subways. If we can prevent the terrorists — whoever they may be — from reaching the subways in the first place, we’ll have less to worry about underground as the subways continue to roll on.

February 20, 2007 0 comment

7 Line Extension MTA Politics

Sander: 7 line extension on hold due to funding battle with City Hall

by Benjamin Kabak February 14, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on February 14, 2007

In a surprising blow to the City’s plans to develop the Far West Side, MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander has put the plan to extend the 7 line on hold until cost overruns and other financial concerns can be addressed. Sander’s announcement has City Hall on the defensive as the Mayor’s Office won’t promise to fund cost overruns, and Sander won’t jeopardize other MTA construction projects.

The Times reports:

The new leadership of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority signaled yesterday that it had deep concerns over a deal with the city to build a $2.1 billion extension of the No. 7 subway line, saying the authority did not have the money to pay for possible cost overruns or other additional expenses.

“It is M.T.A.’s position that we are under no legal obligation to absorb any additional costs or overruns,” Elliot G. Sander, the new chief executive, wrote in a letter to Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat. He was responding to a letter from Mr. Brodsky expressing concerns that the project could exceed its budget. Mr. Brodsky made Mr. Sander’s letter public yesterday.

The conflict stems from the original agreement concerning the 7 line. Mayor Bloomberg, in an effort to promote his Hudson Yards project, hammered out a deal with the MTA where the city would pay for construction costs and the MTA would handle the project’s design and implementation. But this deal came with one caveat: The city’s contributions were to be set at $2.1 billion.

Well, as reported in November, the project’s budget was on the rise due in part to a weak dollar and the need to purchase new subway cars from Japan. Now, Sander says the MTA, focusing on the Grand Central Terminal-LIRR railink and the Second Ave. subway, can’t assume the cost overruns, and City Hall ain’t budging.

Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff had some firm words for The Times. “Our view is that we certainly had an understanding and that the city would be responsible for all costs up to $2.1 billion and that the M.T.A. would bear the responsibility for costs above that. We’re going to sit down and talk, but our view is, the deal is the deal,” he said.

Also involved in this brouhaha is Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky who oversees the Transit Authority. “If we keep to the basic principle, which is the city will pay and the M.T.A. will build, we’ll be O.K.,” Mr. Brodsky said to The Times. “But right now there are hundreds of millions to almost a billion dollars of costs that the M.T.A. would probably have to absorb that would endanger the Second Avenue line, the East Side link and other parts of the capital program, and that is simply unacceptable.”

So now what?

Well, someone has to blink in this game of New York politics, and hopefully, it will be the City. Right now, it’s clear that those on the MTA’s side are sticking up for this project. Sander has stressed the need for a Second Ave. subway and will not sacrifice these aims for the sake of the Hudson Yards development, a pet project seen as Bloomberg’s baby.

Meanwhile, the City should take responsibility for the funding promises it has made. Already, plans for the 7 line extension may be cut to build to build a station only at 34th and 10th Ave. and a shell at 41st and 11th Ave. that could be renovated into a full station in the future. For the sake of the subway, the City should be willing to kick in money for any projected cost overruns and both stations. A completed projected now will be much cheaper in the long run than the need to complete another station in the indeterminate future.

But for now, our Second Ave. subway is safe. It’s the silver lining in this dark and ugly cloud as two political powers face off over dollar signs.

February 14, 2007 2 comments

MTA Politics

New transit chief saying all the right things on service, security

by Benjamin Kabak January 17, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 17, 2007

Almost two weeks ago, we first met Elliot “Lee” Sander, the new MTA chief. Sander has stayed in the news since taking over the reins of the MTA, and this week, he is saying all the right things. Labor relations, service improvements and aesthetic changes are all high on his to-do list.

New York 1 caught up Sander to discuss his plans:

[Sander] says he’ll tackle overcrowding on certain transit lines, and he’ll make it a priority to change inaudible announcements into something more understandable on the subway PA systems.

He also says he’s put together a panel to examine labor relations and plans to bring in new management.

Already, Sander has been quick to act on one of his goals. He had lunch with Roger Toussaint at the Old Homestead this week. Toussaint, the somewhat embattled head of the transit workers union, came away pleased from this lunch, The Times reported.

“We discussed the relations between the T.W.U. and the M.T.A. and how to move the relationship to a better place. It was a very constructive conversation,” Toussaint said to reporter William Neuman.

In terms of his second goal, I would suggest that Sander find a way to free up some money for more trains. Nothing solves overcrowding that frequent service along perennial crowded lines, such as the L.

Meanwhile, a Representative Anthony Weiner issued a call for bomb-proof trash cans similar to the ones in the D.C. Metro to be installed in the subways, Sander also pledged to examine security in the subways. As the MTA examines the trash cans to make sure they work in the smaller enclosed spaces of the New York subways (as opposed to the cavernous D.C. stations), Sander noted that the MTA will work with the TWU to train subway workers as first responders in case of emergency or terrorist attack.

All in all, it’s a good start for someone who will play a big role in setting subway policy over the next few years.

January 17, 2007 0 comment

MTA Politics

Sander, new MTA CEO, to make first key appointment

by Benjamin Kabak January 4, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 4, 2007

Elliot “Lee” Sander is a big player in the transportation scene in New York. A professor at NYU, Sander has a wealth of academic and professional experience under his belt. Most recently, he served on the TLC’s Board of Commissioners. But now, he faces a high-profile position as Governor Eliot Spitzer has tapped him as the MTA’s newest executive director and chief executive.

As Spitzer has long pushed for an overhaul at the MTA, from Chairman Peter Kalikow on down, Sander will play an important role in shaping the future of transportation and transportation policy in New York. He’ll get to flex his muscles nearly immediately as Lawrence G. Reuter, the president of New York City Transit, announced his resignation. He’ll leave to, coincidentally, join the engineering firm that designed New York City’s IRT line 122 years ago. It now falls on Sander’s shoulders to find a suitable replacement for the man in charge of the city’s buses and subways.

Under Reuter, the city’s transportation system experienced a massive growth in ridership. As The Times reported, “Annual subway ridership reached 1.45 billion trips in 2005, the highest total since 1953 and a 31 percent increase over 1996, when Mr. Reuter took over the agency. Annual bus ridership rose by 53 percent, to 736 million trips, in the same period.”

For us subway and transportation buffs, this is a Big Deal. It’s Spitzer’s and Sander’s chance to put a real stamp on the future of the subways. Will they pick a visionary who could guide New York City Transit in its efforts to land the funds and will to build the needed subway lines? Will they find someone who can adequately address the potential of terrorism and the subways? Can they find someone who will partake in Mayor Bloomberg’s NYC2030 plan to clean up and renovate every subway station in the next 23 years? I hope so.

In other Sander news, the new MTA director announced earlier this week that he would try to ride “many” of the subway lines so that he can understand his job. Um, well, that’s a relief. I sure hope the MTA is headed up by someone who might ride the subway now and then and actually understand what he’s supposed to be doing. Now, if only they’ll start talking about that Second Ave. subway.

Image courtesy of NYC.gov.

January 4, 2007 1 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts