Second Avenue Subway

Carolyn Maloney and the Second Ave. Phase II Sagas

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 31, 2013

Phase 2 of the Second Ave. Subway project extends the route north to 125th St. and west to Lexington Ave.

In last night’s post, I delved into Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Second Ave. Subway report card and issued a call for someone to take on the mantle of championing Phase II of the four-part project. Maloney and her office took exception to my angle, and yesterday, I’ve learned that Phase II may be inching closer toward a reality than we previous knew. Perhaps, it has one of its funding champions already in place.

In response to my article, Maloney issued the following statement:

“I appreciate your attention to my report on the Second Avenue Subway; however, you are mistaken to suggest that I am not paying attention to the need to move seamlessly from Phase I to Phase II. I sent a letter on June 11, 2013 requesting information about what the MTA is doing to plan for Phase II. They responded to me on June 21, 2013 confirming their commitment to moving seamlessly to Phase II. On June 21, 2013, I met with then Acting Chairman of the Board Fernando Ferrer and others regarding the need to move to Phase II. And, my report makes clear that the next report will take a closer look at what the MTA is doing to plan for Phase II.”

I’ve had the opportunity to view Maloney’s letter and current MTA Chairman and CEO Tom Prendergast’s reply. It bodes well for the future of the project. “With completion of Phase I in sight,” Maloney wrote, “it is time to turn our attention to Phase II. I want to make sure the MTA is beginning to put together its funding so that it can begin to build Phase II as soon as Phase I is completed. I would like to see a seamless transition between the first and second phases of the project.”

Maloney went on to ask the questions she should be asking. Has the MTA approached the Federal Transit Administration for funding assistance? What requests for Phase II money will be in the 2015-2019 capital plan? What design work, if any, is required before the MTA can execute a full funding grant agreement with the feds?

In a response, the MTA pledged to Maloney that it also is “working toward a seamless transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2.” This is, as far as I can tell, the first real recognition from the agency that it should and will be looking to expand the Second Ave. Subway at least as north as 125th St. While the Phase 2 price tag is similar to that of Phase 1, the work is easier. Much of the tunnel segments exist, and the engineering challenges that the project faces south of 63rd St. do not exist.

Prendergast updated Maloney on the progress of Phase 2 planning. “Currently,” he wrote, “the MTA is in the process of reconfirming the Phase 2 alignment that was included in the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement and included in the Record of Decision. This analysis, which considers lessons learned in constructing Phase 1 as well as changes to land use and population that may have occurred since 2004, will help us determine whether additional environmental review is needed and also will inform the Phase 2 cost estimate. Once we have a better understand of what, if any, changes will be needed from the project evaluated in the FEIS, we will begin more in depth discussions with the Federal Transit Administration.”

The MTA, Prendergast said, will reveal further plans for the Second Ave. Subway when it finalizes its Twenty-Year Needs Assessment later this fall. It is likely that the twenty-year plan will include the full Second Ave. line from the Seaport to 125th St., but Phase 2 — north from 96th St. to East Harlem — could begin in the earlier part of that two-decade window.

We could debate the relative merits of breaking up the Second Ave. Subway project into phases for hours. It is a move that likely will see costs exceed what they should have been, but it was also a move that allowed Phase 1 to move forward. Will that initial section essentially on auto-pilot, MTA planners should be moving forward on Phase 2, and if Maloney, a representative from the area who has come to recognize the subway’s benefits, can serve as a prod and champion, so much the better.

168 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesFare Hikes

How high could the subway fares go?

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 30, 2013

News that the MTA plans to raise fares every two years by an amount that exceeds the rate of inflation set off some alarm bells amongst the city’s transit advocates this week, and today, the Straphangers Campaign released some back-of-the-envelope calculations that show transit fares could rise to $3.75 a ride by 2023. It’s a sobering picture — perhaps one that relies a bit too much on sticker shock — but it should serve as a wake-up call to Albany.

“Constant fare hikes will overburden riders, discourage use of mass transit, and cannot be sustained over time,” Gene Russianoff, head of Straphangers Campaign, said in a statement. “Without more financial support from Albany, the MTA might as well start making announcements that “there is a fare hike right behind this one.’”

At the behest of the Straphangers, New York’s Independent Budget Office analyzed the fare history since the introduction of the Metrocard in 1996 and the MTA’s fare hike plans for the next ten. Noting that fares generally have to increase by around 8.4 percent to generate a 7.5 percent bump in revenue for the MTA, the IBO anticipates the possibility of a $168 30-day transit pass and a $3.75 per-swipe cost by 2023. Fares, they say, would increase a rate that exceeds inflation, and in constant 2013 dollars, the fares in 10 years would be approximately 15 percent higher than they are now.

In its defense, the MTA notes that the average fare is still lower today in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was in 1996 when Metrocards came onto the scene, but I am again left wondering if these constant increases that outpace inflation are sustainable. As I said yesterday, at some point, New Yorkers will stop begrudgingly accepted fare hikes and will start loudly protesting. What’s the breaking point though? A $3 fare? A $150 30-day card? Or are these figures and expectations simply the ever-increasing costs of life in New York City?

52 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Second Avenue Subway

What Rep. Maloney’s Second Ave. Subway report card doesn’t say

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 29, 2013

At the rate the grade inflation in her report cards are heading, Representative Carolyn Maloney will be primed to give the Second Ave. Subway an A+ just in time for it to open in late 2016 — if it indeed opens in late 2016. After giving the project a B- in 2009 and a B in 2010 and 2011, Maloney has now given the project a B+, its highest grade in four report cards.

Now that the Upper East Side has begrudgingly accepted the pace of construction and the MTA has made more than a token effort to alleviate some of the project’s hardships, the benefits are coming into view, and Maloney is paying more heed to the pluses. “The project’s merit, its economic benefits, the MTA’s outreach efforts and the pace at which construction is being completed all get high marks,” she said. “When the MTA broke ground for the Second Avenue Subway in April 2007, there were a lot of skeptics, but with the progress of the last six years, the skeptics are starting to have to eat their words. In fact, we have now crossed the halfway point for Second Avenue Subway construction. I encourage the MTA to continue its progress and to keep engaging the public, as the project continues.”

Over the years, the report card has gotten lengthier and lengthier. It now tops eight pages in printed or PDF form, but it covers familiar ground. The project’s merit and economic benefits again warrant A+ grades while the MTA has improved communication with the public. Maloney is happy that tunneling has been completed and sees reason to be hopeful that construction problems have been mitigated. The B+ grade in that category, she says, “signifies good progress in getting the job done, with room for improvement in hope that there will be no more accidents.”

As she shifts her attention to the more problematic aspects of the project, though, I found myself thinking more about the items missing from the report card than anything else. In giving the project planning a B, she devotes a few paragraphs to the Yorkshire Towers dispute. The MTA, she says, “has declined to satisfy community complaints about mid-block entrances for the 86th Street station despite broad condemnation by local residents.”

While Maloney has to protect her constituents (and her re-election chances), the Yorkshire Towers complaints are entirely without merit and are designed to protect a mid-block driveway on East 86th St. Seeing a politician sympathetic to this cause — which even some residents of the building do not support — is hardly comforting.

As she runs through the rest of the grades — better marks for budgetary management and projected on-time performance; C-range grade for construction impact mitigation and forward progress on station entrances and ancillary buildings — she’s notably silent on the Second Ave. Subway’s future, and now is the ideal time to start speaking up for future funding and future phases. For all intents and purposes, the MTA is through planning Phase 1 of the Second Ave. Subway; it’s through bidding out the contracts; and it’s through fighting for money. All that’s left is the actual work and some rolling stock delivers in mid-2016.

Maloney spills a lot of ink praising the project’s economic benefits and the current job creation numbers. She looks ahead to the ridership and notes the potential promise of a full line. In her press release, Sheldon Silver says that he “looks forward to the day when it reaches my Lower East Side community,” and in her report card, Maloney promises that the next edition — whenever that may be — “will also consider what the MTA is(or is not) doing to prepare for Phase II.”

But as a relatively powerful representative in Congress, Maloney is in a position to do more than just grade the MTA on its plans for the future. She can work to secure the next federal grand that could push the MTA to start the planning process for Phase 2 right now. The project needs a new champion, and Maloney could be it.

Cutting up the Second Ave. Subway project into phases was both its saving grace and a death knell. It made Phase 1 very easy to fund and complete but created a situation where Phases 2-4 are more theoretical than real. If Maloney and other East Side politicians want to see a full Second Ave. Subway line, the time to act is now. Otherwise, once Phase 1 opens, it will likely be, as Tom Prendergast said a few days ago, decades until the other phases are realized. If the subway riders of New York issue a report card, then, assessing our politicians’ overall commitment to the Second Ave. Subway, I’m not sure anyone would warrant even the B+ Maloney awarded yesterday.

20 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway Maps

Map: A more circular subway system

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 29, 2013
Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge. (Courtesy of Max Roberts)

The different designs of the New York City subway system have always piqued my curiosity. From purely schematic representations to quasi-geographical maps, visual presentations of subway systems run the gamut, and as the debate over Massimo Vignelli’s infamous 1970s-era map shows, they can lead to some strong opinions and lively debates. The latest entry making the rounds this week comes to us from Max Roberts, a U.K.-based psychologist, who has used his training and study of the human mind to present a map of circles.

After posts appeared on Gothamist and Co.Exist last week, Roberts supplied me with the version of the map I’ve posted above. He corrected some of the errors pointed out in other forums as he expects my readership to pick up on those even quicker than others have. In discussing his map with other outlets, he shared some of the rational behind the design.

The maps, he noted, are clearly not geographic in nature, and the partisans who hate the Vignelli map will dislike this representation as well. But, he noted, the map “isn’t trying to show where the network is. It’s trying to show how the elements of the network relate to each other.”

A close-up of the circles radiating out from Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn. (Courtesy of Max Roberts)

A close-up of the circles radiating out from Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn. (Courtesy of Max Roberts)

Still, Roberts himself isn’t too sure of the practicality of his maps. “I don’t think that these maps are particularly easy to use, and they do distort geography,” he said to Gothamist, “but they force a city into an unprecedented level of organization, and people find them fresh and exciting (or horrific, but I feel that if I delight half the people and horrify the other half then I must be doing something right).”

His solution though would bridge the gap between design purists and geographical advocates. “Personally, I think that every large network should always issue two maps, a good geographical map and a good diagram so that people can choose which they prefer,” he said. “You just can’t please all people with just one design, and the gulf between the desires for simple straight lines versus geographical precision is almost always impossible to resolve. That’s probably why there are so many independent maps of the New York subway on the internet and that you can buy.”

So there you have it. It may not be the most functional map of the subway system, but it will certainly make anyone who sees it pause. That, of course, is half the battle when it comes to constructing a useful map.

24 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fare Hikes

On the MTA’s plan to forever hike fares

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 29, 2013
The MTA budget documents released yesterday show how aggressive cost cutting and fare hikes could eliminate nearly all potential deficits through 2017. [pdf]

The MTA will rely more and more on fare hikes to close its budget gaps in the coming years. [pdf]

It wasn’t a big surprise when the MTA last week revealed a budget that relies on biennial fare hikes for the foreseeable future. Richard Ravitch put forth a plan in 2009 to rescue the MTA’s budget that would have spread the fiscal pain around equitably, and in it, he called for fare hikes every two years that aligned with inflation. The MTA is simply following through on their end of the bargain, but how long will the public be accepting of such hikes?

By the time mid-2017 rolls around, when the 7 line extension reaches the Far West Side and Phase 1 of the Second Ave. Subway is in revenue service, New Yorkers will have lived through two more fare hikes. The MTA anticipates that each hike will be around 7.5 percent and will generate, by 2017, nearly $1 billion in added revenue. The MTA needs this money because rising paratransit costs and health and pension obligations along with a never-ending stream of debt service payments will continue to tax their budget. When the new subway lines are ready for passengers, operating costs will go up as well. It’s an expensive, vicious cycle.

I’ve been wondering for the last few days how long New Yorkers will stomach these fare hikes. Already, subway riders complain about everything, and many of their complaints are with merit. Sometimes, we’re paying more for less, and usually, we’re paying more for the same. As complaints continue and fares go up, ridership increases as well. May, for instance, witnessed one of the most popular month’s in New York City subway history. At some point, though, the grumbling will grow louder, and New Yorkers may be able to make enough noise to get politicians to do something about the constant increases. That day hasn’t yet come.

I’m not the only one who’s noticed the ever-rising fares. In their Sunday editorial, the Daily News cast a wary eye on the MTA’s fiscal future. The planned fare hikes, they noted, far exceed the measure set forth in the Ravitch plan, and it’s time for something — whatever that may be — to be done.

Since 2008, the cost of a 30-day MetroCard has risen from $81 to $112. This represented a 38% leap at a time when inflation ran at 8%. Had fares tracked inflation, the 30-day card would cost $88…[Under the Ravitch plan], assuming the state fulfilled its obligation to provide adequate funding, riders would suffer hikes every two years. But how much would those increases be?

Here’s exactly what the Ravitch report stated: “The Commission’s view is that the MTA Board, as part of its normal, public budget making process should be empowered to increase fares and tolls no greater than the change in the Regional Consumer Price Index and no more frequently than bi-annually.”

…Since then, the MTA has kept to the every-other-year schedule and plans to do so again in 2015 and 2017. But each time it has factored in hikes of 3.75% a year, almost double the inflation rate. Asked why and how the MTA set the raises at 3.75% annually, or 7.5% for two years, the agency’s spokesman replied, in effect, that no one had any idea. MTA Chairman Tom Predergast must change the basic assumption as to how much the riders will be asked to pay. He needs to abide by the bargain struck with the MTA’s financial rescue five years ago. The riders will do their part by ponying up for inflation — and no more.

On the one hand, the News raises a very good point about the Faustian bargain Ravitch had proposed. The fare hikes were supposed to be tied to the rate of the inflation, and that would have been a rather livable solution for many New Yorkers. But on the other hand, the editorial relies on a few assumptions — one that didn’t come true and one that’s highly problematic. The first is that the state did not fulfill its obligations. It torpedoed a congestion pricing plan that would have helped alleviate the fare hikes, and the state hasn’t developed a new significant source of regular and reliable transit funding.

More fundamentally, though, concerns the question of who should pay and for what. The MTA can raise revenue without state action only through fare hikes, and there is a very valid argument to be made that riders should be expected to pay for the service they need and want. Thus, if the MTA’s costs and budget demand more revenue, higher fares — to the tune of a 7.5 percent fare hike every other year — are the way to go. The problem here concerns costs. The fare hikes aren’t paying for more service for riders; rather, the money from the hikes is going to uncontrollable pension costs for former employees no longer working. Whether that’s fair for everyone is a question I’m in no position to answer right now.

So the fares will go up, and they will go up far more than we’d like. Until New Yorkers get so fed up with cost increases that they appeal to their representatives to do something, we’ll be left with 7.5 percent fare hikes every other year. The subways and buses aren’t getting cheaper, and the people who ride will be the ones footing more and more of the bill, for better or for worse.

78 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Weekend work impacting 16 subway lines and SIR

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 26, 2013

This is a busy weekend.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, downtown 1 trains run express from 72nd Street to Times Square-42nd Street due to cable work for Flushing CBTC.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, July 27, from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, July 27 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, July 28 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, July 28 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, downtown 2 trains run express from 72nd Street to Times Square-42nd Street due to cable work for Flushing CBTC.


From 3:45 a.m. Saturday, July 27 to 10 p.m. Sunday, July 28, there are no 2 trains between 241st Street and Nereid Avenue due to removal of old and installation of new track panels south of 241st Street. The Bx39 bus (daytime and evening) and free shuttle buses (overnight) will provide alternate service.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, July 27, from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, July 27 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, July 28 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, July 28 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, 3 service is extended to/from 34th Street-Penn Station due to cable work for Flushing CBTC.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, July 27 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, 4 trains run local in both directions between Grand Central-42nd Street and Brooklyn Bridge due to signal work between 14th Street-Union Square and 42nd Street-Grand Central.


From 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., Saturday, July 27 and from 8 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., Sunday, July 28, 5 trains run every 20 minutes between Dyre Avenue and Bowling Green due to signal work between 14th Street-Union Square and 42nd Street-Grand Central.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, Main Street-bound 7 trains skip 33rd, 40th, 46th, 52nd, and 69th Streets due to cable work between 33rd Street and 69th Street for Flushing CBTC.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, Coney Island-bound A trains run local from 59th Street-Columbus Circle to West 4th Street, then are rerouted via the F line to Jay Street-MetroTech due to asbestos abatement south of Chambers Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, July 27 to 5 a.m., Monday, July 29, 207th Street-bound A trains run local from 125th Street to 168th Street due to track maintenance north of 125th Street.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, July 27 and Sunday, July 28, Brooklyn-bound C trains are rerouted via the F line from West 4th Street to Jay Street-MetroTech due to asbestos abatement south of Chambers Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, July 27, from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, July 27 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, July 28 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, July 28 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, Coney Island-bound D trains run express from Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center to 36th Street due to track tie renewal at Union Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, July 27 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, 205th Street-bound D trains will make stops at 135th Street due to track maintenance north of 125th Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, downtown E trains run express from 34th Street-Penn Station to Canal Street due to asbestos abatement south of Chambers Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, Jamaica-bound F trains run express from West 4th Street to 34th Street-Herald Square due to track tie renewal at 23rd Street 34th Street-Herald Square and 42nd Street-Bryant Park.


From 3:30 a.m. Saturday, July 27 to 10 p.m. Sunday, July 28, there is no J train service between Broadway Junction and Myrtle Avenue due to switch renewal north of Myrtle Avenue-Broadway and track panel installation at Kosciusko Street. J trains operate in two sections:

  • Between Jamaica Center and Broadway Junction
  • Between Chambers Street and Myrtle Avenue, and then rerouted via the M line to/from Metropolitan Avenue.

Free shuttle buses operate between Broadway Junction and Myrtle Avenue, making stations stops at Chauncey Street, Halsey Street, Gates Avenue and Kosciusko Street. Transfer between J trains and free shuttle buses at Broadway Junction and/or Myrtle Avenue.


From 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday, July 27 and Sunday, July 28, L service operates in two sections due to switch work north of Rockaway Parkway:

  • Between 8th Avenue and Broadway Junction
  • Between Broadway Junction and Rockaway Parkway (every 24 minutes)


From 3:30 a.m. Saturday, July 27 to 10 p.m. Sunday, July 28, M service is suspended due to station renewal work at Fresh Pond Road, Forest, Seneca, Knickerbocker and Central Avenues. Customers should take the J train making all M stops between Myrtle Avenue and Metropolitan Avenue. (See J entry.)


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, July 27, from 11:30 p.m. Saturday, July 27 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, July 28 and from 11:30 p.m. Sunday, July 28 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, N trains are rerouted via the Q line in both directions between Canal Street and DeKalb Avenue due to general maintenance and prep work on the Manhattan Bridge prior to the Montague tube shutdown.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, July 27, from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, July 27 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, July 28 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, July 28 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, Coney Island-bound N trains run express from Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center to 36th Street due to track tie renewal at Union Street.


From 10:45 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 5 a.m. Monday, July 29, Manhattan-bound Q trains run express from Sheepshead Bay to Kings Highway due to track panel installation at Sheepshead Bay. Note: At all times until December 2013, Manhattan-bound Q platforms at Cortelyou Road, Beverley Road and Parkside Avenue are closed for station component work.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, July 27 and Sunday, July 28, R trains are rerouted via the Q line in both directions between Canal Street and DeKalb Avenue due to general maintenance and prep work on the Manhattan Bridge prior to the Montague tube shutdown. No N or R trains in either direction at City Hall, Cortlandt Street, Rector Street, Whitehall Street, Court Street and Jay Street-MetroTech. Customers should use the 4 at nearby stations.


From 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Saturday, July 27 and Sunday, July 28, Bay Ridge-bound R trains run express from Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center to 36th Street due to track tie renewal at Union Street.

SIR (Staten Island Railway)
From 9 p.m. Friday, July 26 to 4 a.m. Monday, July 29, there is no SIR service between Old Town station and St. George Terminal due to maintenance and repair work at the Grasmere station. All trains will terminate at Old Town station and free shuttle buses will provide service between the Old Town Road station entrance and St. George Ferry Terminal, Ramp E, making stops at the Grasmere, Clifton, Stapleton and Tompkinsville stations.

5 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Triboro RX

Brad Lander’s ‘Bus Mayor’ and the Triboro RX SBS plan

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 26, 2013
Christine Quinn's Triboro RX Select Bus Service plan is not the answer to the city's transit woes.

Christine Quinn’s Triboro RX Select Bus Service plan is not the answer to the city’s transit woes.

Updated (4:00 p.m.) with corrections from Quinn surrounding estimated Triboro RX costs: Throughout the course of the NYC mayoral campaign, buses and ferries have come to dominate the transit discussion. These aren’t transformative solutions that address the myriad access issues with the city’s subway network, but rather, they are two modes of transit over which the next mayor can actually assert control. Candidates don’t need to pay lip service to the unrealistic idea of an MTA under city control when they can, by action or fiat, better expand the city’s bus services or ferry networks.

If the right politician saying the right things on the city’s buses came around, we could embrace that person, and in discussions this week about his dreams for the city, Brad Lander did just that. The City Council member recently put forward a bill requiring the Department of Transportation to come up with a comprehensive ten-year plan for the city’s buses that would involve a massive rollout of Select Bus Service. I think the timeline could be reduced significantly, but Lander’s proposal would be a sea change in the way DOT has slowly brought SBS to the city’s streets.

Stephen Smith of The Observer spoke with Lander earlier this week, and he is sick of the slow process that gives too much weight to individual Community Boards in a vacuum:

To Mr. Lander, the piecemeal approach that the MTA and DOT took to the lanes, and their strict policy of not rolling them out without approval from local community boards and elected officials, doesn’t go far enough. “Of course you work with communities to make it happen,” Mr. Lander told The Observer (followers of Mr. Lander on Twitter can attest to the fact that “community” is by far his favorite word), “but I don’t think you can approach it so that each one has to be considered on its own, and any time some interest in a community seeks to block it, that can be enough resistance to stop it from moving forward.”

“The majority of New Yorkers,” he continued, “don’t own cars. We need to improve public transit, but unfortunately often community boards overrepresent car owners, and you can get interest groups to step up on something most people don’t know anything about, and block something that’s absolutely in the broader interest.”

…In addition to quantity, Mr. Lander wants better quality. SBS is not, some detractors claim, robust enough to qualify as true bus rapid transit, and Mr. Lander wants to give SBS routes physically-separated lanes—as opposed to the painted ones they have now, which he’d also like to see better enforced, ideally by cameras on the fronts of buses—and the busiest stops stations instead of mere stops, like with some of the more complete bus rapid transit implementations in Latin America and China. Mr. Lander also said he’d like to see SBS-like features to speed buses routes along streets that are not wide enough for the dedicated lanes that SBS requires. (B35 on Church Avenue, we’re looking at you!)

Lander, in closing, said that the next mayor could be the “bus mayor” much as Mayor Bloomberg is the “bike mayor.” All it would take is some political will and a solid plan. So does anyone currently in the running for Gracie Mansion have such a plan?

In her latest policy announcement regarding transit, Christine Quinn unveiled a challenger to the Triboro RX rail line. She is instead proposing the Triboro RX Select Bus Service line, and it is an unqualified disaster. The route would essentially mirror the Triboro RX line over 25 miles from Yankee Stadium to Bay Ridge but with enough twists and turns that it’s hard to see how it could be an express bus, let along a dedicated Select Bus Service/BRT combination, as she has proposed.

For starters, though, her heart is in the right place. “We need to update our city’s transportation to meet the needs of real New Yorkers,” she said in a statement. “Our subway system was completed in the 1950’s, when more than half of New Yorkers lived in Manhattan and less than 200,000 lived in Queens. Times have changed, and today Brooklyn and Queens together have nearly 5 million residents. Many of them commute to boroughs other than Manhattan. It’s time we make the MTA work for all New Yorkers.”

But otherwise, Quinn’s proposal is a mess. Without citing any studies — largely because there aren’t any — Quinn claimed that Triboro RX would cost $25 billion to build and take 40 years to construct. Those are figures for a surface rail system that would run on preexisting track and right of way. She claims Triboro RX could be up and running in a year and at a cost of $25 million instead, all numbers plucked from a 17-year-old, far more comprehensive regional report from the RPA [PDF].

After speaking of the $25 billion cost and originally printing it on her website, Quinn later revised estimates downward to $1 billion for the entire Triboro RX rail line. At that price point, why are we even considering a cockamamie bus route?

(As an added zinger, Quinn claimed that “we need to do a better job involving communities in the input process, in the development process.” I’m assuming she’s taking about the M60 SBS debacle, but as many have mentioned, the community input wasn’t the problem; rather, obstructionist politicians concerned about their parking spots and with a disproportionately loud voice were.)

Proponents at the Pratt Center spoke with Dana Rubinstein at Capital New York and seemed ready to chop up the Triboro RX SBS while embracing it. Joan Byron claimed that the Triboro RX SBS “wouldn’t clog up railroads that could be used to get more freight rail off city streets.” She also proposed “several different routes instead of trying to do it all with one.” I’m pretty sure that’s called a local bus network, and we already have that.

But this is the state of the campaign. No one has the vision for rail, and while the plan is out their for a bus mayor to embrace it, we get empty promises that can’t, won’t and likely shouldn’t be fulfilled. If all it takes to run for mayor is the ability to draw a bunch of connected lines on a map, well, we all should be out there campaigning.

66 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Manhattan

A transit opportunity, slipping away, arises with Midtown rezoning plan

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 26, 2013

Whenever I think of the Lexington Avenue line and Midtown on Manhattan’s East Side, I am reminded of a Yogi Berra quote. “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded,” the famed Yankee catcher once said. On its surface, it’s a silly line, but when you think about, it’s makes a lot of sense. No one new will go somewhere that’s too crowded.

Midtown East and the Lexington Ave. line fulfill Yogi’s Yogism perfectly. Both are so crowded that no one wants to go there anymore. Riding the 4, 5 or 6 trains at peak hour is a singularly unpleasant experience, and walking around Midtown during the work day isn’t any better. As far as the eye can see, there are people, and no one moves as fast or as efficiently as anyone walking through this mess of humanity would hope.

Furthermore, because of these crowds, many new businesses look elsewhere for office space. They look to the Flatiron District, Silicon Alley or Chelsea. They look for places with diverse transit alternatives that are more accessible to other parts of the city. They look for places where people go because they aren’t too crowded.

Now, don’t get me wrong; Midtown is still an exceedingly popular place to work. Few firms are jumping ship, and the convenience of Grand Central as a hub for subway riders from the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Westchester and points north remains unparalleled throughout the city. But this is my roundabout way of asking if we need more office space in the area without addressing transit capacity concerns. It’s a vital question as the mayor’s last great plan to reimagine Manhattan — a rezoning plan, at that — moves forward.

The Midtown rezoning effort seems like a fait accompli. Nearly everyone seems to recognize the major issues with the plan, but no one is willing to stop it. Bloomberg has reshaped as many parts of the city as he can, and in the last five months of his reign, he wants to upzone Midtown as well. It sounds good, but do we need it? On one the hand, with the Hudson Yards and 1 World Trade Central on the way, New York will have a glut of office space hitting the market over the next decade. On the other, we could always have more. The costs though aren’t commensurate with the increase in square footage, and another major issue remains: The plan does not increase transit access.

In a meandering piece that takes a stand against Bloomberg’s plan, Michael Kimmelman of The Times touches briefly upon the transit issue. The following three paragraphs should be the centerpiece of any argument against the Midtown rezoning and a hint toward the right path:

New York can surely never win a skyscraper race with Shanghai or Singapore. Its future, including the future of Midtown real estate values, depends on strengthening and expanding what already makes the city a global magnet and model. This means mass transit, pedestrian-friendly streets, social diversity, neighborhoods that don’t shut down after 5 p.m., parks and landmarks like Grand Central Terminal and the Chrysler Building.

If New York wants to learn from London, Tokyo and Shanghai, the lessons aren’t about erecting new skyscrapers. Big cities making gains on New York are investing in rail stations, airports and high-speed trains, while New York rests on the laurels of Grand Central and suffers the 4, 5 and 6 trains, which serve East Midtown. They carry more passengers daily than the entire Washington Metro system.

Improving the lives of the 1.3 million people riding those trains would instantly make the city more competitive. Adding thousands of commuters who work in giant new office buildings without upgrading the surrounding streets and subways — the Second Avenue subway won’t do it — will only set the city back.

There’s no doubt in my midn that Kimmelman is correct. Without paying attention to the transit needs, the Midtown rezoning plan will overburden and already overtaxed transit line. The 4, 5 and 6 cannot fit more people, and the inbound 7 trains to Grand Central are nearing crush loads as well. East Side Access will help deliver more suburban commuters to the area, but the subways cannot handle the load.

Yet, instead of sacrificing the Midtown rezoning to the transit gods, what if we turned the plan into a transit savior? Through the proper combination of tax-increment financing and assessments on developers, the city can rezone Midtown while collecting money to ensure that the Second Ave. Subway can move forward — and through the upzoned area. Such a plan would be a win-win for a neighborhood that needs new building stock but also needs better transit access.

We shouldn’t be afraid of Bloomberg’s plan to upzone Midtown, and we shouldn’t be afraid of more density. We should be concerned with a plan to increase office space without a corresponding bump in transit capacity though. A creative solution isn’t far away, and a true leader would bring the two to the public in tandem. It’s not too late, but Bloomberg’s lame-duck clock just keeps on ticking.

110 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Politics

Countdown clock locations as a campaign issue

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 25, 2013

Shortly after making the Metrocard’s replacement a campaign issue, Christine Quinn dragged the MTA’s countdown clocks into the fray as well. As A Division riders adjust to the comforts of life with countdown clocks, Quinn wants the MTA to expand the program so that the clocks are available outside of subway stations. Quinn claims, incorrectly, that most stations do not have clocks visible until after a customers has swiped through fare control, and she wants to make transit more efficient by eliminating the need to walk downstairs to check on the next arriving train.

“Providing riders with information is not complicated; it’s the least the MTA can do,” she said. “By taking common-sense steps and making simple changes to the way information is provided to subway riders, we take the frustration and anxiety out of daily commuting.”

The MTA hasn’t responded to Quinn’s statements, but I don’t think this is quite as big a concern as she thinks. Essentially, at an undetermined cost, Quinn wants to move countdown clocks from fare control to the surface level while other options — real-time subway tracking apps, for instance — exist. At stations where CBS Outdoors has installed their advertising screens, the MTA could incorporate the Subway Time API into the digital feeds, but this seems like a solution in search of a problem. A far better proposal would involve funding for speeding up the effort to bring these clocks to the B Division’s lettered subway lines.

In the same release, Quinn also proposed providing audio announcements on buses and subways in Spanish throughout the system and “other native languages…in communities where it is most helpful.” It’s a noble gesture, but aren’t we deluged with enough noise pollution in the subways as it is? Do we have to be told about suspicious packages or unavoidable delays in two or three other languages when we often just want to ride home in peace?

18 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Penn Station

What the City Council vote means for Penn Station and MSG

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 25, 2013

The Garden will loom over Penn Station for at least another ten years.

The lengthy ULURP process for Madison Square Garden came to an end yesterday with the promise of only a decade more for the aging arena. With various civic groups advocating for a new Penn Station, the City Council voted yesterday to extend MSG’s operating permit for only another ten years as the city’s effort to reconstruct and reimagine Penn Station is now on the clock. Despite the overall coverage of the vote, it’s not a death penalty for the World’s Most Famous Arena.

By a vote of 47-1, the City Council did not, as the Daily News says in its headline, vote to move Madison Square Garden in ten years, and neither, as Gothamist claimed in a tweet, was the Garden “basically evicted.” Rather, the City Council has said that it wants to see what can happen to the spot. The various stakeholders — MSG, Amtrak, the MTA, New Jersey Transit, the City of New York, the States of New York and New Jersey and the federal government — now have ten years to develop a plan for a new Penn Station and find a new location for the Garden. If they don’t succeed, the Garden can and will apply for another permit extension in 2023.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has requested a task force be set up to plan out the next decade and hailed the vote — one she was instrumental in securing — as a good launching point. “This is the first step in finding a new home for Madison Square Garden and building a new Penn Station that is as great as New York and suitable for the 21st century,” she said. “This is an opportunity to reimagine and redevelop Penn Station as a world-class transportation destination.”

The Garden issued a more muted statement. “Madison Square Garden has operated at its current site for generations, and has been proud to bring New Yorkers some of the greatest and most iconic moments in sports and entertainment,” a company statement said. “We now look forward to the reopening of the arena in fall 2013, following the completion of our historic, three-year, nearly billion-dollar transformation, which will ensure our future is as bright as our celebrated past.”

Of course, the $1 billion investment is nearly besides the point. If the Garden has to move in ten years, MSG will have recouped these expenditures, and the Garden will be 55 years old by the time 2023 rolls around. It’s not nearly as onerous a future as the arena’s proponents have made it to be, but should we even expect that future to come to pass?

As we sit here in mid-2013, it’s tough to see a plan for Penn Station that would involve a resolution within the next decade. The train station’s stakeholders will first have to come to an agreement on their next steps, conduct various environmental reviews and secure funding. MSG’s owners will have to identify a new location for an arena that is as prime as its current spot and proceed through formal reviews as well. For the train station, as I’ve written in the past, expanding transit access — and not just constructing a pleasant building — has to take centerstage, and with space in Manahttan at a premium, a plan to move the Garden, forced or otherwise, has to be developed.

So no, this isn’t a death sentence for the Garden, and the Knicks won’t find themselves homeless in ten years without an arena to host them. Rather, it’s a challenge to everyone clamoring for a solution to the Penn Station problem: Work together, figure out a fix and find some funding. Ten years should be ample time, but then again, the MTA released the FEIS for the East Side Access project in early 2001. Nothing this expansive gets done in New York within ten years. So in a decade, the Garden can come back to the City Council for another extension, and the World’s Most Famous Arena will continue to dominate the discussion surrounding the one of the world’s most depressing train station.

183 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts