7 Line Extension

The 7 to Secaucus and what New Jersey wants

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 15, 2013
The 7 to Secaucus will require the two states on opposite sides of the Hudson to cooperate.

The 7 to Secaucus will require the two states on opposite sides of the Hudson to cooperate.

For the past few years or perhaps centuries, New York has displayed a wee bit of a paternalistic attitude toward New Jersey. We scoff at the swamps and industrial areas that mar the landscape on the other side of the Hudson and view the state as some traffic-infested suburban wasteland rather than as a strong economic partner in the region. Gov. Chris Christie’s decision to cancel the ARC Tunnel felt like the final straw. If New Jersey doesn’t care about its ease of access into New York City, then why should New Yorkers care if Garden State residents can get here?

For the past few years, though, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has tried to cut through this interstate rivalry, but he’s taking a very one-sided approach. Since Christie’s ARC move, Bloomberg has pushed the idea of sending the subway to Secaucus. It’s a New York-centric way of controlling cross-border travel, but it’s one that could see the light of day if the mayor can find money. Yet, much like ARC, it suffers from a lack of interstate cooperation. New York wasn’t putting much into ARC construction, and New Jersey is hardly chomping at the bit to fund a trans-Hudson rail tunnel, let alone an extension of New York City’s subway system.

Still, the 7 extension to Secaucus is the idea that just won’t die. Last week, New York City’s Economic Development Corporation termed it feasible, and Staten Island threw a fit. As the MTA remains skeptical and broke, Trenton has done little more than acknowledge this idea’s existence. The Garden State won’t complain if someone else wants to build a rail tunnel for them.

But what if New York can eke out more than just some cheerleading and a promise not to intervene from New Jersey? What if New Jersey could be a funding partner? Bringing in New York’s neighbors to the east would greatly improve the project’s odd, and yesterday, The Record of Bergen County endorsed the idea.

The ARC tunnel was an expensive proposition with limited benefits. The trains would run to a new subterranean station below 34th Street; it would not have given commuters access to Grand Central Terminal, as a similar project under the East River eventually will do for Long Island Rail Road commuters. Additionally, New Jersey was on the hook for all cost overruns. Christie killed the project citing those costs as the main reason.

As years pass, it seems more likely the governor wanted the state funds committed to ARC for other transportation projects. Christie has provided no leadership on a new tunnel project. He has publicly been open to all suggestions, but has not put his political muscle behind any – not the possibility of extending the subway to Secaucus or the Gateway project that would allow for more Amtrak trains to cross under the Hudson.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which controls the New York subway, does not support Bloomberg’s plan. It does not see it as an economically viable project. There were no financial specifics in the report issued last week, so we are skeptical the MTA can make a valid judgment at this juncture. No doubt, Bloomberg sees the benefits for Westside development with an enhanced No. 7 subway. But the subway runs both ways and access to the Westside in Manhattan is access to North Jersey. The subway expansion would spur development around the Meadowlands and further support the proposed American Dream project…

The greater metropolitan region needs more than one trans-Hudson solution. None of these solutions will be inexpensive and all will take many years to complete. As superstorm Sandy showed us, our infrastructure is vulnerable. We need more transportation alternatives – traditional rail, light rail and subway. And we need them soon.

The most convincing argument in favor of the 7 line extension is in this editorial. It’s not just about development in New York City, and it’s not just about development in New Jersey. It’s about the potential to improve cross-Hudson travel while connecting New Jersey commuters and residents with Grand Central and spurring on development in the nearby Secaucus and Hoboken communities. It’s about realizing the economic power of the region rather than the isolationism of each state and the silo approach to transit planning.

I’d like to see The Record take its suggestions one step further. New Jersey should become a partner in the trans-Hudson efforts. Right now, Bloomberg is pushing his 7 line plan with no sure signs of success, and it’s not clear his successor would pick up the effort come January. Meanwhile, Amtrak is the only entity behind the Gateway Tunnel right now as New York and New Jersey have taken a step back there. Only through an interstate embrace will the region move forward with a new trans-Hudson rail tunnel. Otherwise, this is all just talk from lame-duck politicians and planners dreaming big but with no money to back it up.

124 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

FASTRACK returns to the Broadway Line

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 15, 2013

The Broadway Line will be without overnight service this week. (Click to enlarge)

FASTRACK returned to the Broadway Line tonight at 10 p.m., and the service changes are the same as last time.

  • The N will run between Ditmars Boulevard and Queensboro Plaza and between Stillwell Ave. and Jay St.-Metrotech, making local stops north of 36th St.
  • The Q will run from 57th St./6th Ave. over the Manhattan Bridge via the 6th Ave. line. Q trains will make express stops along the D in Manhattan.
  • R service in Manhattan ends early, and the R shuttle between Bay Ridge and 36th St. will start earlier than normal.

That’s all she wrote until May when FASTRACK returns to shutter the Fourth Ave. line between 36th St. and Bay Ridge.

11 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Transit Labor

Prendergast open to more OPTO

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 15, 2013

Word from Albany on Friday that, pending State Senate approval, Tom Prendergast would become the next MTA CEO and Chairman came as little surprise. Prendergast had been a runner-up during the previous search for an agency head, and he has the experience and respect within New York City to lead the MTA. He is unlikely to leave on his own before his term runs out but faces a number of looming challenges.

Sitting atop the list is the status of the contract with the TWU. The MTA’s largest union has been without an agreement for nearly a year and a half, and the MTA budget currently assumes a net-zero wage increase. Still, on Friday, John Samuelsen’s team issued kind words for Prendergast. “It’s a good move by Governor Cuomo. Prendergast has vast knowledge of the system, and that’s really what the MTA needs – not a bean counter like Walder or a person with big financial and political connections like Lhota,” union spokesman Jim Gannon said. “We’ve always had a good working relationship with Prendergast, despite a few flare-ups here and there. But on the whole, everyone on this side of the table respects him.”

Despite the TWU’s conciliatory tone, Prendergast will not easily bend or break for the MTA simply cannot afford him to. In today’s Daily News, the newly-appointed MTA CEO and Chair spoke at length with Pete Donohue about a variety of issues facing the MTA, and labor issues took up a chunk of the discussion. In a nod to a long-standing issue, Prendergast spoke about one-person train operations or OPTO.

“There are some lines that are more conducive to one person train operation than others,” he said to the News. “There are some that are more conducive to OPTO only at certain times of the day, and there are some lines where you may never use OPTO. It’s not always about savings. It may be the savings are reinvested in other parts of the system. So, if for argument’s sake, you save (a certain number of conductor positions) and put them on platforms that are extremely crowded, and you have fewer people falling to the tracks, that’s a better utility of resources.”

Interestingly enough, Prendergast has also called for a rapid expansion of automatic train operations in order to boost line capacity. The TWU has pushed back on this issue over concerns that it could lead to zero-person train operations. All of this, furthermore, is a lot more than recent MTA heads have said on this hot-button issue and provides a glimpse into the MTA’s labor future. Prendergast, according to the article, will try to get OPTO on lines with lower ridership totals at first. The overnight R shuttle service into Bay Ridge could be a prime spot for such a test.

Meanwhile, in a nod to the union, Prendergast spoke about the need to reallocate employees and encourage worker flexibility. Prendergast wants to restore customer service agents as many of those red-vested employees lost their jobs during the 2010 service cuts. Prendergast noted that moving to OPTO could give the MTA the ability to restore some of these positions. He also discussed the concept of platform conductors — MTA employees tasked with crowd control at some of the more popular stations. It’s a nascent idea at best.

That’s the good stuff with regards to labor, but Prendergast hit upon some other issues in the interview as well. We’re in for a lot of service changes as the agency copes with Sandy damage. Vital equipment will have to be replaced sooner rather than later due to saltwater corrosion, and Prendergast warned of the system “be[ing] out of service at a more impactful level.” That fare hike scheduled for 2015 is still firmly on the table, and Prendergast is skeptical of recent calls for mayoral control of the MTA. “If you’re going to take the responsibility,” he said, “you have to have the funding to go along with it.”

15 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Studying the way subway riders sit and stand

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 15, 2013
One of these three diagrams may represent the ideal subway car. Read on to find out which one it is.

One of these three diagrams may represent the ideal subway car. Read on to find out which one it is.

Debates and discussions over how New Yorkers choose to ride the subway could fill endless hours of debate and countless volumes of psychological journals. Where do we sit? Why do we decide to sit next to someone, if we do? Why do we choose to stand when seats may be available? And what’s the best way to configure seating in a subway car? Recently, a group of officials at Metro-North and New York City Transit have tried to study the issue with some obvious results and some surprising findings.

As we all know, New York City subway cars feature a wide array of seating choices. The bucket seats on the R68s and the R62s always seem far too narrow for comfort, and the eight-bucket benches on the R62s rarely fill up with eight people. Meanwhile, on the R68s, the forward-facing seats clash with the center-facing seats, leaving little leg room for those sitting in the window seats. On newer rolling stock, the bucket seats have given way to flat benches, but those often do not fill up efficiently either. Meanwhile, the various cars all have poles — or stanchions — in a variety of locations, sometimes in front of the door, sometimes not. There is no uniformity and no right way to go about it.

But learning how New Yorkers opt to sit and stand can help transit planners develop a better subway car. Should subway cars feature more seats and less room to stand — as is in the case with Washington’s Metro — or should the cars have fewer seats and more standing room as is seemingly the case in New York? I prefer the latter as it makes peak-hour rides more tolerable and exiting and entering a crowded car smoother. Still, New Yorkers have their preferences, and those preferences often involve standing in the way of everyone else.

According to the study, available here as a PDF, straphangers strongly prefer not to sit next to anyone, and they’d rather stand than squeeze into a space that may not seem wide enough. Seats next to the doors, with the buffer of a railing on one side and empty space on the other, fill up first, and similarly, on cars with forward-facing seats, the window seats fill up quicker than the aisle seats. That could be attributable to etiquette or the desire to avoid getting bumped by people standing in the empty space between seating benches.

(As a brief aside, my favorite note in the report concerns strategic seat choice: “Customers do change seats as seats become available due to passengers disembarking, but seat change maneuvers incur utility costs (movement effort, and risk of desired seat becoming occupied mid-maneuver); to find desirable seats often requires customers to relinquish their current less-desirable seats in advance of busy stops, and position themselves strategically close to where seat-turnover seem likely.” Strategic seat positioning is my, uh, favorite subway pastime during crowded morning commutes.)

Meanwhile, subway riders are happy to stand if as few as 70 percent of a car’s seats are taken. In fact, seating capacity doesn’t reach 90 percent until the total car load is at 120 percent of its capacity. In other words, some seats will remain empty even as standing room grows scarce. But why?

The answer lies somewhere between habit and design cues. Sometimes, we stand because of space concerns. It’s uncomfortable for three people if I choose to shimmy into a space not quite wide enough for me, but it’s only inconvenient for me if I choose to stand. Perhaps we stand because of the physical stigma attached to too much sitting these days. I often eschew a seat on short-haul subway rides due to the myriad studies alleging the long-term ills of constant sitting. Whatever the case, standing room begins to fill up long before all of the seating space is taken.

Design, though, plays a role as well in the choice between sitting and standing. According to the study, subway riders like to stand exactly where they shouldn’t. That is, straphangers don’t like to hang on those straps; rather, they prefer the so-called “doorway zone.” Why? The report’s authors explain: “Besides having multiple poles, “doorway zone” has other desirable features that attract standees: ease of ingress and egress, partitions to lean against, and avoidance of sometimes-uncomfortable feeling of accidentally making eye contact with seated passengers.” As they write, though, standing in the doorways increases subway dwell times and causes issues with standees blocking passengers who wish to enter or exit the train.

As for the design element, symmetrical subway cars — those with the same door alignment on both sides — encourage more standing in the doorway zone. “Visually, asymmetrical arrangements make car interiors look a little more open, and perhaps more inviting—hence luring passengers away from doors with potential dwell time, loading, and capacity utilization benefits,” the study notes. Which, of course, leads us to the ultimate question: What’s the best design for a subway car?

The recommendations do not unleash the perfect subway car. Such a design is based on a variety of constraints, but the research offer up some guidelines:

  1. Avoid symmetrical door layouts.
  2. Install stanchions between seating areas, rather than between doors.
  3. Where safe to do so, avoid installing poles or partitions in seats adjacent to doors; instead, install them in the middle of bench seats.

Other observations, involving some data from outside of the city, encourage a variety of best practices. These include eschewing center-facing seats as to avoid the aisle/window seat dichotomy; ditch the concept of a middle seat, especially on commuter rail lines; and use a combination of vertical and branching poles to encourage standees to move throughout a car. Anything to avoid subtle cues that lead to standees taking up shop in the doorway would be a welcome development.

Finally, the report concludes with the idea for a perfect subway car. Off-set doors and stanchions toward the middle would better distribute passengers while forward-facing seats at the ends of the car could be used for long-distance riders while bench seats would serve as sitting spots for short-haul trips. As a visual, take a look at choice C in the image atop this post. I don’t think we’ll see that layout come to New York City’s subway cars any time soon, but it’s certainly interesting to delve into the various factors that determine how we board and fill up a subway car.

61 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Weekend work impacting 15 subway lines

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 12, 2013

We’ve reached that time of the year where the media starts to have a collective freak-out over the MTA’s service advisories. With (supposedly) better weather, work outside during the day can ramp up a bit and Sandy recovery work continues underground. It’s a lot to digest, but it’s not out of the ordinary.

This week, the pure numbers seem high. The D, L and Q are the only lines operating normally (although the service change on the M is a long-term complete station closure). This has sent everyone into a tizzy. DNA Info had an online freak-out, and Gothamist seems surprised as well. None of these service advisories are things we’ve never seen before, and if we want better weekday service, the weekends will suffer.

Folks on the A line from Washington Heights to Inwood have it the worst, and many of the changes impact only overnight subway service. Let’s dive in.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, there is no 1 train service between 14th Street and South Ferry due to Cortlandt Street reconstruction. Customers may take the 2 or 3 trains and free shuttle buses instead.

  • Free shuttle buses operate between Chambers Street and South Ferry.
  • 1 trains operate express in both directions between 34th Street-Penn Station and 14th Street.
  • 2 and 3 trains run local in both directions between 34th Street-Penn Station and Chambers Street.

Overnight Note: Downtown 1 trains run local from Times Square-42nd Street to 14th Street.


From 5:45 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14, uptown 1 trains run express from 96th Street to 145th Street due to switch repairs south of 137th Street.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, 2 trains run local in both directions between 34th Street-Penn Station and Chambers Street due to Cortlandt Street reconstruction.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14, 3 trains run local in both directions between 34th Street-Penn Station and Chambers Street due to Cortlandt Street reconstruction.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, April 13, and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, April 13 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, April 14 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, April 14 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, uptown 4 trains run express from 14th Street-Union Square to Grand Central-42nd Street due to tie block renewal at 14th Street-Union Square.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, downtown (Manhattan-bound) 4 trains skip 138th Street-Grand Concourse due to station rehabilitation at 149th Street-Grand Concourse.


From 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14, there is no 5 train service between East 180th Street and Bowling Green due to station rehabilitation at 149th Street-Grand Concourse. 5 trains operate between Dyre Avenue and East 180th Street all weekend. For service between:

  • East 180th Street and 149th Street-Grand Concourse, take the 2.
  • 149th Street-Grand Concourse and Bowling Green, take the 4.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, uptown 6 trains run express from 14th Street-Union Square to Grand Central-42nd Street due to tie block renewal at 14th Street-Union Square.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, there is no 7 train service between Flushing-Main Street and Mets-Willets Point due to Flushing Line CBTC work. Free shuttle buses will provide alternate service.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, there is no A train service between 168th Street and 207th Street due to station painting at 175th Street. A service operates between 168th Street and Lefferts Blvd and between 168th Street and Howard Beach-JFK Airport. Free shuttle buses operate in two segments:

  • Between 168th Street and 207th Street, making stops on Broadway at 175th, 181st , 190th and Dyckman Street
  • Between 168th Street and 190th Street, making stops on Fort Washington Avenue at 175th Street and 181st Street only.


From 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14, there are no C trains between 145th Street and 168th Street due to station painting at 175th Street. Customers should take the A instead. A trains run local between 145th Street and 168th Street.


From 11:15 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 6:30 a.m., Saturday, April 13 and from 11:15 p.m., Saturday, April 13 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, April 14 and from 11:15 p.m. Sunday, April 14 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, Manhattan-bound E trains run express from Forest Hills-71st Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue due to ADA work at Forest Hills-71st Avenue.


From 12:15 am to 6:30 a.m., Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14 and from 12:15 a.m. to 5 a.m. Monday April 15, Jamaica Center-bound E trains run express from Queens Plaza to Roosevelt Avenue due to track renewal north of 36th Street.


From 11:15 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, downtown (Coney Island-bound) F trains are rerouted via the M line after 36th Street, Queens to 47th-50th Sts. due to station work at Lexington Avenue-63rd Street for Second Avenue Subway Project.


From 5:45 a.m. to 8 p.m., Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14, there is no J train service between Hewes Street and Essex Street due to Williamsburg Bridge maintenance. J Service operates in two sections:

  • Between Jamaica Center and Hewes Street
  • Between Essex Street and Chambers Street, every 15 minutes

Free shuttle buses provide alternate service between Hewes Street and Essex Street, making a station stop at Marcy Avenue.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, April 13, and from 11:30 p.m. Saturday, April 13 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, April 14 and from 11:30 p.m. Sunday, April 14 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, uptown (Queens-bound) N trains are rerouted via the Q line from DeKalb Avenue to Canal Street due to escalator replacement at Whitehall Street and electrical work at DeKalb Avenue.


From 9:45 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, downtown (Coney Island-bound) N trains are rerouted via the D from 36th Street to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue due to pier repair at 15th and 17th Avenue bridges.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14, uptown (Queens-bound) R trains are rerouted via the Q line from DeKalb Avenue to Canal Street due to escalator replacement at Whitehall Street and electrical work at DeKalb Avenue.

  • No Manhattan-bound N or R trains at Jay Street-MetroTech, Court Street, Whitehall Street, Rector Street, Cortlandt Street and City Hall.
  • Customers should use the 4 or A trains at nearby stations.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14, downtown (Manhattan-bound) R trains run express from Forest Hills-71st Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue due to ADA work at Forest Hills-71st Avenue.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, April 13 and Sunday, April 14, uptown (Queens-bound) R trains run express from Queens Plaza to Roosevelt Avenue due to track renewal north of 36th Street.

  • To 36th Street, Steinway Street, 46th Street, Northern Boulevard and 65th Street, customers may take the Jamaica Center-bound E or the 71st Avenue-bound R to Roosevelt Avenue and transfer to a Manhattan-bound E local or R.
  • From these stations, customers may take a Manhattan-bound E or R to Queens Plaza and transfer to a Jamaica Center-bound E or 71st Avenue-bound R.

(Franklin Avenue Shuttle)
From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 12 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 15, the Franklin Avenue Shuttle is suspended due to track work between Park Place and Franklin Avenue. Free shuttle buses provide alternate service making station stops at Franklin Avenue, Park Place, Botanic Garden and Prospect Park.

23 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
7 Line ExtensionAsidesStaten Island

Staten Island pol sounds off on 7-to-Secaucus plan

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 12, 2013

Albany: Home to a bunch of crooks, stool pigeons and politicians who are adept at cutting off their noses to spite their face. We know that Albany’s relationship with sensible transit planning isn’t a particularly strong one, but Diane Savino, a State Senator from Staten Island takes the cake this week. In response to the EDC endorsement of the 7 line to Secaucus, Savino has vowed a war. She will do all she can to block any state funding for such a subway extension until and unless Staten Island gets a subway connection to the rest of the city first.

“Are they out of their minds?” Savino said to the Staten Island Advance. “We are part of New York City, we are a borough of over half a million people, it is past time we have similar transportation alternatives that are provided to the other boroughs. The NYCEDC would be better served by following their mandate, serving the people of the City of New York.”

Savino’s attitude is beyond provincial and focuses far too much on state borders instead of the proper measures of use, efficiency and economic development. Would a subway from Staten Island to Manhattan (or even to the R train along 4th Ave.) be feasible, cheaper and, most importantly, as heavily utilized as an extension into Secaucus? Without much further study, we don’t know, but the Hoboken/Secaucus area has a much higher population density than Staten Island. Were Savino to make good on her threat, it could seriously impact a project that could be of great benefit to all of New York City.

Meanwhile, if Savino is serious about a subway to Staten Island, she could start by being a better transit advocate. Over the years, she has voted to reduce MTA subsidies without reading the bill at hand, she has urged for a repeal of the payroll mobility tax, and she has was disproportionately outraged over a request for information the MTA issued two years ago.

61 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Prendergast named as MTA CEO and Chairman

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 12, 2013

After 102 days without a permanent agency head in place, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has finally settled a new MTA CEO and Chairman, and he didn’t have to look far to do it. Cuomo announced this morning that Tom Prendergast, the current New York City Transit President and interim MTA Executive Director, is his choice to lead the agency.

“Tom Prendergast is a consummate public transit leader who is the ideal candidate to oversee the nation’s largest transportation system,” Cuomo said in a statement. “The MTA plays a vital role in New York’s economy and the daily lives of the millions of commuters who use its services. Tom has vast experience in infrastructure and transportation and has spent years managing commuter railroads as well as New York City’s subways and buses. From the track bed to the budget to modernizing our system for the 21st Century, I can’t imagine anyone having a better understanding of how the region’s vast system operates and the challenges that it faces.”

Prendergast, a Chicago native with an engineering background, first arrived in New York in 1982 as the Assistant Director of System Safety. In 1987, he became the General Manager of Staten Island, and in 1989 was promoted to Chief Electrical Officer. He served as Senior VP for Subways in the early 1990s and headed up the LIRR for six years. He spent a few years in the early 2000s in the private sector and headed up TransLink in Vancouver for two years before returning to New York in 2009 to serve as Transit’s president. In other words, unless pushed out for political reasons, he’s likely to stick around for a bit longer than his predecessors have. (Though perhaps the MTA CEO/Chair position is more like the Defense Against the Dark Arts professorship than we’d like to admit, as one of my Twitter followers noted.)

“It is an incredible honor to be nominated to lead the largest transportation network in North America, and to work with Governor Cuomo and his administration on the many challenges facing the MTA,” Prendergast said. “The MTA will improve the customer experience, operate more efficiently and build for the future. And we will aggressively rebuild smarter and better in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.”

Prendergast’s nomination will face State Senate approval, but that is likely to be a formality. In the near term, he’ll have to continue to address the MTA’s needs as it rebuilds and recovers from the damage inflicted by Sandy. In the long term, the TWU is still without a contract and the next five-year capital campaign needs to be developed and defended.

12 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

From Quinn, a (bad) idea for mayoral MTA control

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 12, 2013

Every four years, when Gracie Mansion casts around for a new tenant and the offices in City Hall need a new manager, a bunch of politicians come forward with ideas for transit. Sometimes, these ideas are loftier and more realistic than others, and sometimes, the mayoral candidates say what they think voters wants to hear. This year, the transportation platforms are not disappointing, and on Thursday, Christine Quinn, the Democrats’ leader in the polls, unveiled her less-than-inspiring and politically odd plan. For some reason, she wants MTA control.

With Joe Lhota leading the GOP polling, this year’s campaign should be about transit, and it comes on the heels of a fairly successful Bloomberg administration. In fits and starts, Mayor Bloomberg through his 12 years has seen through an extension of the 7 line, the launching of Select Bus Service and an expansion of the city’s bike network. His congestion pricing plan failed in Albany, but it would have been the most ambitious transit innovation in New York City in generations. Now, despite media coverage alleging the contrary, for SBS and the bike lane process, he and NYC DOT have been sure to engage the community almost to a fault. What happens next?

This year, Sal Albanese has taken on the mantle of transit reformer. The Brooklyn Democrat been trumpeting a congestion pricing plan based upon Sam Schwartz’s modeling, but his candidacy hasn’t gotten enough traction yet. When Christine Quinn talks, on the other hand, people listen, and what we heard yesterday was a bunch of nothing along with some wishful thinking.

In remarks delivered at La Guardia Community College, Quinn spoke about the need to improve commutes for Outer Borough residents. Noting that these New Yorkers’ rides are, on average, 20 minutes longer than most Manhattanites’, Quinn issued a series of calls for more city-subsidized ferry service, an expansion of Select Bus Service to encompass a whopping 10 more routes over four years, Metro-North service into Penn Station (which has long been a post-East Side Access goal), and, oh yes, city control over the MTA. Quinn’s ultimate aim is to make sure that no New Yorker has a one-way commute longer than 60 minutes.

On the one hand, Quinn’s proposals are admirable. The city and its various transit agencies should be trying to cut down on commute times where possible, and we have the tools — road space for buses, a bike network that Quinn never mentioned — to do it. But on the other hand, we also have geography with which to compete, and New Yorkers quite often live far away from where they work. Not everyone can live on Manhattan, and even if we recognize that a majority of New York City residents with jobs don’t commute into Manhattan, Manhattan is still the centralized job location for city residents and suburban commuters. We need better intra- and inter-borough connections, but Manhattan still drives the city’s economy.

In light of the challenges a potential Mayor Quinn would face in realizing this 60-minute time limit on commutes — the Rockaways and Bay Ridge ain’t getting any closer to Midtown — her ideas don’t do much. Promising 10 new Select Bus Service routes over four years is barely an improvement over the current pathetic pace, and Select Bus Service is hardly a major upgrade. Until someone starts talking about and pushing through physically-separated bus lanes and signal prioritization, SBS will be slightly better than super-express bus service. It’s hardly worth the brouhaha.

Ferry service is another red herring that doesn’t do much to speed up commutes, but the City Council loves the idea of subsidizing it. Why? I don’t know. It connects very well-off areas of Brooklyn and Queens with Midtown and Wall Street. These are hardly neighborhoods that require much in the way of transit subsidies, and although emptier, the ferries aren’t quicker than the subway. Again, here is where real interborough bus rapid transit would be a boon to these neighborhoods.

It’s not even worth spending too much time on Penn Station Access. Bringing Metro-North to the West Side and through the Bronx isn’t a Quinn original by a long shot. In fact, it’s been around longer than she has even been a part of city government.

I’ve saved, of course, the best for last: Quinn wants to be able to appoint the president of New York City Transit and the majority of seats on the MTA Board. Why? I have no idea. In her speech, she explained, “This change will keep our trains and buses operating as a regional system but will make sure that the majority stakeholders have a majority voice. And having the buck stop with the mayor will bring much needed accountability, just as we’ve seen with mayoral control of our schools…Having local control of our transit will allow us to focus like a laser on the gaps in the system, and commit more fully to getting commute times under control. It will also allow us to dramatically reinvent the way the MTA plans for new transit routes.”

Quinn essentially calls for a proactive MTA instead of a reactive one, and here, I agree. As we’ve seen with service along the F, L and G trains, the MTA is unwilling to increase frequencies until load guidelines require it. I think the MTA could increase transit usage by making service more frequent, but it’s a classic chicken-and-egg problem made worse by the MTA’s precarious budget.

But Quinn asserting control would be no better, and it ignores the history of New York City Transit. The MTA arose out of politics as the city politicians insisted on a fare that torpedoed the subway system’s budget. The city wouldn’t or couldn’t pay, and politicians turned fares into an electoral issue. It was an economic disaster and one we do not want to repeat.

With a Mayor Quinn in control, she would be blamed for everything that goes wrong, would have to deal with fallout from suburban interests and would have to be willing to take on the lion’s share of the MTA’s funding burden. The city just isn’t in a position to do that, and it goes against the maxim that a smaller government entity should never request to take over control of something as unwieldy as the MTA from a larger one. Work with the state and agency heads for a better responsiveness, but let the state maintain the control.

Over at The Observer, Stephen Smith picked up a similar thread, and I believe his kicker sums it up: “New York is fundamentally a rail-oriented city, and Christine Quinn apparently has no plan to add to this infrastructure, or even make more efficient use of existing lines, aside from the Metro-North plan the MTA is already working on. Buses and ferries are all well and good, but Ms. Quinn is going to need to do better if she wants to give the city back its subways.”

This isn’t a transportation plan; it’s a plan to win over voters by pinning the tail on the scapegoat. It just might work if Quinn’s endgoal is to reach City Hall, but it won’t help get those commute times below 60 minutes, for that would require true leadership.

40 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Brooklyn

Photo: Sneaking a peek at Smith/9th Sts.

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 11, 2013

A glimpse inside the entrance to the Smith/9th Sts. subway stop. (Photo via Second Ave. Sagas on Instagram)

On Sunday afternoon, I found myself on a long stroll through Brooklyn, and my walk took me east on 9th St. from the Carroll Gardens area. As we walked past the blue construction wall currently shielding the Smith/9th Sts. subway stop from the outside world, I noticed a sizable gap in the fence and snapped the above photo. It certainly looks like there is plenty of work to be done.

Now, the MTA is toeing the line with regards to the station reopening soon. Earlier reports indicated a potential April 22 service date, and MTA spokesman Adam Lisberg promised me trains before May Day. The Culver Viaduct rehabilitation project has no track record of on-time performance, but work doesn’t have to be completed for stations to be ready for passenger use. We’ll find out how things are going within a few weeks, but no matter the outcome, the station entrance area and platforms visible from the trains look much better than they did a few years ago.

14 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
7 Line Extension

MTA throws cold water on a tunnel to NJ

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 11, 2013

As the transit world once debates sending the 7 train to New Jersey, the MTA has once again attempted to douse this fire. In a very brief statement in response to the Economic Development Corporation’s report, the agency said simply, “We don’t see this as an economically viable idea.”

This is not the first time MTA officials have added a dose of reality to the project. Last April, then-MTA Chairman and CEO Joe Lhota issued a similar statement. “It’s not going to happen in anybody’s lifetime,” he said. “the expense is beyond anything we’re doing.” Of course, one of my complaints about the EDC report is that it doesn’t mention costs at all, but needless to say, those costs would be steep.

The Mayor, though, remains undeterred. In his own statement, he calls the 7 to Secaucus a “promising potential solution.” Said Bloomberg:

“It’s been a century since there was a new rail tunnel under the Hudson, and demand for travel between New Jersey and Manhattan is growing rapidly and quickly exceeding the capacity of existing transit infrastructure. The lack of new transit investment is creating a serious and urgent threat to New York City’s economic competitiveness. Extending the 7 train to Secaucus is a promising potential solution – it would leverage existing investments and be compatible with other proposed projects – and is deserving of serious consideration. We look forward to continuing to discuss this option, as well as other feasible proposals, with the numerous stakeholders involved.”

So is this all just a game of politics and economics? It seems like it. The 7 to Secaucus is the Mayor’s pet project, and it came about originally with virtually no input from the MTA. The MTA, with its own capital priorities, isn’t about to sink its finite resources into a subway to New Jersey, and if the mayor wants such a tunnel to be his lasting legacy, he will to find a way to promote — and pay for — this project whatever the costs may be. I tend to think Lhota was right a year ago; I doubt we will see this in our lifetimes. But it sure does have everyone thinking.

132 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts