7 Line Extension

An EDC endorsement for the 7 to Secaucus, but …

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 11, 2013
An overview of the 7 to Secaucus. Click to enlarge.

An overview of the 7 to Secaucus. Click to enlarge.

The idea of sending the 7 train under the Hudson River to Secaucus just won’t die. This proposal first came about when Mayor Michael Bloomberg started yakking after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pulled the plug on the ARC Tunnel. It would be our very own answer to the trans-Hudson rail capacity problem, albeit one focused exclusively around a subway ride. Despite Joe Lhota throwing a bucket of very cold water on this hot idea last April, it’s come roaring back in the form of a feasibility study commissioned by the New York City Economic Development Corporation and released Wednesday morning. So let’s humor it.

The report issued yesterday isn’t quite an endorsement of a project Bloomberg is pushing as one for the history books. Despite the headlines and the excitement, the feasibility analysis [pdf] — a document that took the better part of 18 months to produce — essentially says that sending the 7 train to Secaucus is feasible from an engineering perspective and it would attract riders. Stop the presses, right?

Now, before I delve in with a hearty dose of skepticism, we should cover a few basic premises. First, while the EDC published the report, it was prepared by Parson Brinckerhoff, a company that would benefit tremendously from cross-Hudson extension of the New York City subway. Still, it presents a fair assessment of the question at hand, but the question itself is a pretty basic one. We’re not concerned with a few key factors I’ll cover shortly; we just want to know if it’s possible.

Second, extending the 7 line to Secaucus would lead to a projected 128,000 daily riders, and approximately 24,000 of those would be diversions from autos. In other words, it would likely generate far more than enough ridership to justify the construction. For more on this idea, check out Cap’n Transit’s thoughts on defining “enough” riders. So ridership and the engineering work aren’t the big deals.

So what then, you may be wondering, is in this report and why should we view it with a healthy dose of skepticism? Well, the bulk of the report is devoted to the how of it all. It charts the 7 line’s path from 34th St. and 11th Ave. to Secaucus. The route involves a tunnel along the ARC alignment beneath the Hudson River, a curve through New Jersey and then a climb of nearly 200 vertical feet to an above-grade terminus around 76 feet in the air at the Frank Lautenberg station in Secaucus. The PB study also includes building our dearly departed station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. and implementing platform access improvements at all of the 7 train’s current Manhattan stations. As to travel time, the engineering firm estimates an eight-minute ride from Secaucus to 34th St., 12 minutes to Times Square and about 16 minutes to Grand Central. It’s hard to do much better than that for a swipe of a MetroCard.

The 7 to Secaucus would include a side-platform station stop at 41st St. and 10th Ave.

The 7 to Secaucus would include a side-platform station stop at 41st St. and 10th Ave.

The questions though outweigh the answer. First, the report dispatches with the idea of any additional stations on the New Jersey side of the tunnel. It should at least contain a stop in Hoboken, if not a second prior to the Secaucus terminal. Second, the section on legal issues raises a number of concerns that warrant more than a few paragraphs in this feasibility study.

Some of the preliminary issues are easy to deal with. Real estate acquisition is simply a matter of cost, and and the same can be said of design considerations. But the real problem here is interagency cooperation. The MTA would need assistance and support from New Jersey Transit, and even though the right of way would be a good 40 feet off from NJ Transit’s and Amtrak’s current space, this type of interstate, interagency unity is rare for numerous reasons.

In a similar vein, the feds too would be involved in a subway that crosses state boundaries. What sort of FRA regulations would impact this project? And if the feds are funding it, in part, as PB assumes, what sort of control would they attempt to exert? Can the labor issues that would arise be easily resolved? And could a 7 to Secaucus simply piggy-back on environmental impact work already completed for ARC, as the report’s authors believe? These aren’t simple questions by any means, and many have never been asked, let alone answered, in the region before.

Beyond the legal concerns are the more practical considerations. PB and the NYC EDC punt on costs. Estimates for both the capital and operations costs, they say, will come about if this project moves into the Advanced Planning phase. And although PB estimates a three-year environmental review process, it’s not clear when work would begin or end. Ridership assumptions use 2035 as a baseline, but if Bloomberg wants this tunnel to be his legacy, he won’t argue for something that won’t see the light of day until he turns 93.

So where does this leave us and the 7 line extension? The report is too fresh for any of the next concrete steps. I like the idea of a subway to Secaucus and a one-seat ride from New Jersey to Midtown. I love the idea of building out the side-platform station at 41st St. and 10th Ave., but I’m not about to begin a countdown until the 7 train is in revenue service to Lautenberg station. From funding on down, the number of obstacles remains high, but if the city wants to turn this into its pet transportation project, there’s no need to stand in its way.

166 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Buses

On Select Bus Service and the missing blue lights

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 10, 2013

Due pressure from Staten Island politicians, the MTA had to turn off the flashing blue lights on its SBS vehicles. (Photo by flickr user Stephen Rees)

Picking up on the idea that the MTA needs permanent leadership as well as the ongoing confusion over Select Bus Service in light of the MTA’s move to turn off the flashing blue lights, an interested party sends the following missive:

You note that the MTA has essentially been rudderless in the water for 100 days since Joe Lhota left. One of the consequences of that is that the MTA exercised exceedingly poor judgment, and also failed adequately to cover its legal flank, when it issued a press release stating that it was turning the lights off “in response to specific concerns”. Four months before Mr. Lhota received a letter from a couple of Staten Island politicians opposed to exclusive bus lanes on Hylan Blvd., in which the safety of the flashing blue lights was speculatively called into question — despite the fact they had been in continuous use with all kinds of other vehicles without incident since June 2008. Moreover, this announcement came from out of the blue as there was no prior notice and no public hearing that followed. This, naturally, led to speculation that MTA had been doing something illegal for all those years (although that was not something specifically admitted to in the press release).

This contrasts with the years of public outreach since SBS was announced in 2004, a partnership with NYC DOT, and consultations with NYPD and FDNY about the safety of the new technologies being introduced – i.e., bus priority at traffic signalsl and flashing blue lights on buses. Moreover, the legislature got into the act, passing a law that permits automatic camera enforcement of exclusive bus lanes (but only for the first group of SBS routes).

So, one wonders if the MTA hadn’t thought about its possibly needing additional permission to use these lights? We do not know the answer to that.

Nevertheless, the MTA has now discovered the existence of VTL § 375, subdivision 41, and seems to have reacted in panic. Meanwhile, there is great deal of demand for the blue lights to be turned back on. Without leadership, the MTA shows no enthusiasm, or initiative, for developing a strategy to help its beleaguered bus riders.

I should note: there has never been a traffic summons issued to a bus driver for using the SBS lights. Also, nobody has ever sued the MTA to stop using them. Therefore there could never have been a judicial determination that the MTA’s use of blue flashing lights on SBS buses is wrong. (The MTA decided this entirely on its own, and also decided, in effect, to “plead nolo contendre”.) In hindsight, until a judge stopped the MTA, they should have continued to use the blue lights as they always had.

While we await remedial legislation (which may or may not be passed) to carve-out another exception from the volunteer firefighters’ over-reaching monopoly on the color blue, the MTA might consider giving itself legal cover to turn the lights back on by challenging the constitutionality of VTL § 375, subdivision 41 — because the 2002 law was over-broad — giving unnecessary monopoly control over anybody’s use of an important primary color to one group (whose own use of this power is strictly limited by that same statute).

Regardless of such a case’s outcome, the MTA should have affirmative steps to defend its course of conduct over the previous five years (of using the lights for the public’s benefit), as well as its continuing to use them. And, politically, it comes across as fighting for its ridership, instead of trying to remain invisible until Governor Cuomo puts a strong leader in charge of the entire operation.

Another argument in favor of adopting a litigation strategy is that it would be absolutely ridiculous for this cash-strapped agency to spend a large sum of money to replace a system that is in good working order across its growing fleet of specially fitted-out buses. (This seemed to me to be suggested by the press release.)

By the way, I live along the M15 SBS route, and it is anxiety-provoking for me — and everyone who uses it with me — to be unable to distinguish SBS from non-SBS buses. Also (would you believe?), it appears MTA had never asked for legislative relief from VTL § 375, subdivision 41. FYI A06076 (which incorrectly describes the lights) was introduced March 14th in response to constituent concerns like mine, but so far, it has no counterpart in the Senate.

Now, I don’t think the MTA has been as rudderless as this reader makes them out to be. As I said earlier today, Fernando Ferrer and Tom Prendergast have kept things moving along as a steady clip. But the SBS issue has raised a series of eyebrows from those belonging to East Side politicians on down. A number of riders have raised concerns over the inability to ascertain if an approaching bus is a Select Bus or a local bus, and with stops at opposite ends of the block — or on other blocks all together — boarding properly and in time becomes stressful.

The MTA hasn’t publicly addressed the issue in months, but Community Board 6 in Manhattan is taking up the cause tonight. They’re going to vote on a (non-binding) resolution 1) supporting legislative curative action, and 2) calling on the MTA to examine all options for turning back on its iconic pair of simultaneously flashing blue lights on SBS buses. (The meeting starts at 7 p.m. in Alumni Hall B at NYU Langone Medical Center at 550 First Ave., and anyone can speak.)

While CB6’s vote carries only some symbolism and garners some press, what’s the answer? Maybe the MTA should turn those lights back on, and maybe someone in Albany can lead a charge to secure the proper exemption. The lack of lights does the Select Bus Service and its riders no favors.

24 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Link: On the tracks as a train approaches

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 10, 2013

Over the past few months, news stories about 12-9s — train/person collisions — have taken center stage as the TWU has tried to turn it into a fight over train speeds and their current contract situation. Coverage of these collisions, whether caused by suicides, homicides or accident, has proliferated lately even as the impact to an individual’s personal safety remains somewhere between negligible and non-existent.

But what of the other side of the story? What of the people who wind up in the tracks to help an unfortunate person who may be in danger after an accidental fall? What’s it like to be in the path of an incoming train? Recently, at Bowling Green, Victor Samuel experienced just that as he hopped into the track bed to help a man who had fallen. He shared his story with The Times. I’ll excerpt:

I looked down the tunnel – we were at the uptown end of the uptown track – and saw a train coming. I gauged that I had a little bit of time and, without thinking any further, placed my right hand on the platform and jumped down. I didn’t anticipate the uneven surfaces below, and fell. I heard gasping and screaming from above. Looking down the tunnel at the circular train lights, growing larger, I felt very small, vulnerable and terrified. I had lost time. I got up, put my hand on the man’s back and guided him a couple of steps toward the platform. Then I bolted toward the platform myself. I had to get out of there.

I’m 6 feet tall. The platform was maybe 5 feet high. I placed both hands on it, bent my legs and propelled myself up with all the strength I could muster. I felt my knees bang the underside of the platform. My torso and waist were above the platform but I could not lift my knees and legs up there. I dropped down and jumped up again. Again my knees stung as they smacked the underside of the platform.

At this point, as I held my position – upper body above the platform, legs dangling below, glancing to my right at the approaching train – time slowed down. I forgot all about the stumbling man…I knew I didn’t have much time. I made sure to concentrate, not to lift my knees too early. I put my hands on the platform and launched myself again.

Samuel said his mind filled with fears of an impending impact as the train hurried into the station, but the operator was able to slow down just enough to give the two men opportunity to make it back to the platform. It’s not anything I would ever like to experience.

The MTA has been tight-lipped about track survival. They can’t readily give out advice because they don’t want anyone in the track in the first place. Some people say run in the direction the train is heading; others say to find shelter; others say jump. But it’s a larger gap between the track bed and platform edge than most people realize. Any way you look at it, though, subway tracks are a dangerous place.

12 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Marking a dubious 100-day milestone

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 10, 2013

Usually, in politics and otherwise, the first 100 days are cause for celebration. For new presidents, those first 100 days provides a time to enjoy the good feelings of the office and a time to push through a legislative agenda. For others, the first 100 days offers up a time for a new leader to shape a company as he or she sees fit. But what happens when the first 100 days isn’t about a new permanent leader but a lack thereof?

Today marks a rather dubious milestone for the MTA for it has now been 100 days since Joe Lhota, the last MTA CEO and Chairman took leave of his office to attempt a run for mayor. For 100 days, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has remained silent on the issue of agency leadership, taking credit for the good while hoping nothing bad happens. For 100 days, Tom Prendergast and Fernando Ferrer have split the duties with the former serving as both New York City Transit president and interim MTA Executive Director and the latter as the MTA Board’s chairman. For 100 days, we’ve waited for signs of action, a task force, anything, from Albany, but we’ve received only silence.

As the days have gone by, a few readers have asked why the MTA needs a permanent — or at least permanent until they quit or are forced out — CEO/Chairman. After all, the trains and buses are running on time, and day-to-day transit services and capital construction projects are moving ahead. What’s the point really? It’s worth a few minutes of our time, though, to explore why one full-time person is better than two folks with other demands and desires.

The first real issue concerns the bifurcated leadership currently in place. Both Ferrer and Prendergast have done professional and thorough jobs leading the MTA over the past 100 days, but the two-headed beast has a history of failure in the annals of the MTA. Most recently, we need look only at the dual tenures of Lee Sander and Dale Hemmerdinger to find conflict and uncertainty amidst split duties. Gov. Eliot Spitzer combined the roles for a reason.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that Prendergast, as both the acting MTA operational head and the current president of Transit, faces a difficult push and pull. The head of the MTA often has to hold off the head of Transit and prioritize accordingly. Prendergast has not, by all accounts, run into any conflicts, but it’s a difficult and time-consuming balancing act. He’s essentially working two jobs while either one on its own is challenging enough.

Meanwhile, there is also the issue of Albany. While Cuomo hasn’t acted by choice, he has not given the MTA a central point person. The Governor’s man isn’t in charge, and Prendergast and Ferrer are essentially holding the course without rocking the boat. Sometimes, a little bit of boat-rockin’ is a good thing for large agencies.

Finally, there are long-term plans that aren’t being realized but need to be considered, and the MTA needs someone in charge with the mandate to see through these plans. The next five-year capital plan has to be developed, presented and defended to the various bodies in charge of approval and oversight. The forward-facing MetroCard replacement project needs a strong champion. The Sandy recovery work and future storm preparation efforts must become an ongoing priority as well. The TWU is still without a contract, 15 months after its last one expired. With interim heads, maintaining the status quo and readying for the next appointed leader takes precedence over any of this.

Maybe the next man in charge is already there. Maybe the low-level rumblings of a replacement will come true. Maybe Tom Prendergast will get the job and the ability to set his own course. But that’s all just speculation. For 100 days, nothing has happened, and the city’s transit network remains in a state of uncertainty.

7 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
East Side Access Project

Video: East Side Access blasting wraps under GCT

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 9, 2013

After a month containing nearly 2400 controlled explosions, blasting has wrapped underneath Grand Central as part of the East Side Access work, the MTA announced today. According to the agency, crews blasted out 857,000 cubic yards of muck from the future LIRR terminal. It’s enough debris to cover the entirety of Central Park one foot deep.

“This is a very significant milestone for the East Side Access project,” Michael Horodniceanu, President of MTA Capital Construction, said. “The caverns are essentially now fully excavated. Much work remains to be done to build the platforms and tracks, and finish what is currently raw, cave-like space. But we now have a fully built shell in which all future work will take place.”

As part of the milestone announcement, the MTA released the video I’ve embedded above showing blasting and progress at the site. The East Side Access project is expected to wrap up eventually this decade.

13 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City Transit

A glimpse at the way we rode in 2012

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 9, 2013

For fans of subway ridership data, this time of year is always a joy for it is when New York City Transit unleashes the 2012 station-by-station ridership figures. We can see which stations are the most crowded and which have enjoyed big bumps in riders. We can drill down on Sandy’s impact on subway ridership — Queens, for instance, saw a bump of only 379 total riders over 2011 — and we can see which subway stations are losing riders. The data, in other words, is tremendous so let’s dive in.

First up, we get the usual suspects. In the MTA’s glance at the top overall stations, only one station from the 2011 top ten fell out of the list. Times Square, with over 62 million riders, and Grand Central with just under 43 million, occupied the top two spots with Herald Square, Union Square, the two Penn Station stops, Columbus Circle, Lexington at 59th St., Lexington at 86th St., and the 53rd St. station filling in the rest. The 53rd St. station, in fact, hopped over Flushing-Main St. to claim the tenth spot, and for the first time since 2009, the top ten most popular subway stations are all in Manhattan.

Now, that’s the boring stuff. I certainly know how crowded Times Square is; I see it every day on my way too and from work. The real story here though is that ridership at Times Square jumped by 2.4 percent and has increased by 3.5 million since 2007. The sheer number of people entering the system that is practically off the charts.

While 2.4 percent increase in riders is impressive — it’s well above the systemwide average of 0.9 percent over 2011 — it pales in comparison with some stations seeing massive growth. I always find more interesting to list these stations instead. Maybe we can see partners relating to New York City development or transit usage in certain areas; maybe we can see the impact of a nearby station closure forcing straphangers to hoof it a few more blocks.

To start, I usually weed out stations that were closed the year before. Elder Ave., for instance, saw growth of 168 percent in 2012 over 2011, but that’s because it was partially closed the year before. So which station took home the crown? That would be one whose need I’ve questioned before: 21st St. on the G train. Ridership at that station jumped by 28.7 percent last year, but it’s still just the 405th most popular station. In other words, only 13 stations have lower ridership, and most of those are on the Rockaways. In fact, many stations along the G train witnessed high growth, including Beford/Nostrand and Flushing Ave. with increases over 6 percent and Fulton St. with a jump of over 8 percent.

Another station showing intriguing and obvious growth was Rector St. In the weeks after Sandy, as straphangers streamed from the ferry terminal to the nearest 1 train station, overall ridership eventually jumped by 15 percent at Rector. Howard Beach, the A train’s terminal since the storm, also saw entrances jump by 15.7 percent as well. Other notables included Carroll St. (due to the nearby Smith/9th Sts. closure), Queensboro Plaza and New Utrecht Avenue.

Finally, the last bit of interesting information concerned the Atlantic Ave./Barclays Center station. The arena opened during the last weekend in September, but its first three months were enough to help push ridership up that station by nearly 800,000 riders or 7.5 percent. I’d imagine we’ll see even more of an increase after a full year of arena customers.

I’ll probably be breaking down some additional numbers over the next few days. The weekend ridership figures in comparison with weekday totals help highlight popular nightspots and the biggest 9-to-5 job centers. For now, feel free to peruse the raw data for annual riders right here. See anything particularly interesting?

15 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Map: FASTRACK on the IND Concourse line

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 8, 2013

During FASTRACK, the nearby 4 train will provide alternative travel for the IND Concourse Line. (via Second Ave. Sagas on Instagram)

The Yankees are out of town this week visiting the Cleveland Indians, and thus a large portion of the IND Concourse Line’s weeknight spring and summer riders won’t be needing subway service. To that end, starting in just under an hour and lasting each night from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. this week, Transit is bringing FASTRACK to the Concourse line north of 161 St.-Yankee Stadium.

Here’s the nitty-gritty: D train service is suspended between 205th Street and 161st Street in both directions. B train service will end early each night, and Bronx-bound D trains will skip 155th St. Customers should take the 4 just a few blocks to the west instead. Shuttle buses will run in between 205th St. on the D and Mosholu Parkway on the 4 only.

This is the same service patterns Transit implemented back in January when the agency first brought FASTRACK to the Bronx. If you’re interested in learning all there is to know about FASTRACK, stop by my event at the Transit Museum tomorrow night.

And in completely unrelated news, if you’re reading my site and haven’t yet checked out today’s XKCD comic — or the large version — do so immediately. You’ll see why.

7 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Self Promotion

Tuesday Event: ‘Problem Solvers’ on FASTRACK

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 8, 2013

My popular Q-and-A series at the Transit Museum returns tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m. with a look at the MTA’s FASTRACK program. Joining me will be Larry Gould, a senior director for operations analysis in the Operations Planning Division of New York City Transit. Here’s the blurb:

While the closures for FASTRACK are brief, the planning process is extensive. As a part of the Operations Planning division, Gould helps determine what parts of the subway system can be shut down, decides when to shut them down, configures service to accommodate the shutdown and coordinates customer communications. Join the New York Transit Museum on Tuesday for another installment of Problem Solvers, a series of informal discussions that takes an intimate look at the most interesting people and topics relating to moving millions of New Yorkers in a city with a century-old transit system.

Larry Gould is Senior Director, Operations Analysis in the Operations Planning division of MTA New York City Transit where he is responsible for short term service planning for capital construction, maintenance, emergencies, contingencies and special events. A native of the Bronx, Larry attended New York University as an undergraduate and graduate school at the Northwestern University Transportation Institute. Outside of NYC Transit, Larry is executive officer of the New York Chapter of the Congress for the New Urbanism, an advocate for compact, mixed-use neighborhoods, and he won the Sloan Public Service Award in 2004.

We’ll be discussing all things FASTRACK. How does the MTA coordinate service outages? How does the agency inform the public? What happens during these overnights anyway? Our talk will shed some light on a process that happens largely behind closed doors and shuttered stations. The Museum asks that interested attendees RSVP at this link. I’ll see you tomorrow night.

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Abandoned Stations

A glimpse of history underneath Nevins St.

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 8, 2013

A glimpse at the lower level at Nevins St. This 1905 original has never seen train service. (Photo courtesy of NYCSubway.org/David Justiniano)

When the MTA recommissioned the old South Ferry loop last week, New York saw a subway station once closed for good returned to service. In the history of the city’s subways, this is a rare occurrence with only a few stations once lost to time returned to service. Throughout the city, the abandoned or half-built and never-completed stations flash by like ghosts from another era. Stare hard enough into the dark and stations at 91st St. and Broadway or 18th St. and Park Ave. South materialize out of the tunnels.

Elsewhere, parts of a system never realized remain hidden from view, poking their heads out now and then before receding into the shadows of history. The South 4th Street station shell above the northern end of Broadway on the G’s IND Crosstown line had its moment in the sun two and a half years ago when street artists turned it into their Underbelly canvas. That shell is part of a series of provisions for IND Second System lines at various stations throughout the city, and while the hints exist for those who know where to look, they’re largely out of sight and out of mind.

At another station in Brooklyn, an intriguing abandoned/never-used platform exists underneath Nevins St. and runs for some distance nearly to the Pacific St. platform along 4th Ave. at the current Atlantic Ave./Barclays Center station. Unlike the South 4th St. shell, this one has wall tiling and completed tunnels, and various nearby stations — DeKalb Ave., in particular — were constructed with its usage in mind. Today, it exists off of the Nevins St. underpass and remains forever unused, a remnant of a time when the city planned ahead even it wasn’t quite sure of where those plans might lead.

Various explorers, sanctioned and not, have ventured into the Nevins St. area. Before a rehab of the upper levels, the lower level was visible from the cross-under, but the existing platform areas have since been sealed off. Still, the photos available show finished tile and mosaic work and track beds. LTV Squad has a series of photos showing the extended tunneling and water damage to the current area.

The history of the station, as Joseph Brennan has explored, hints at the politics behind early subway construction. The lower level at Nevins St. was not, in fact, part of the original plans, and the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners ordered a redesign amidst ongoing construction in April of 1905. Six months later, work started on the lower level, and it never came to use. Brennan explains:

The purpose of Nevins St lower was to allow two connections on the Brooklyn-bound local track that crossed under the other tracks. North of Nevins St, there could be a track coming from the Manhattan Bridge line (De Kalb Ave station) joining the Brooklyn-bound track. South of Nevins St, there could be a track diverging off the Brooklyn-bound track into a subway in Lafayette Ave. Running the other way, provisions were made for both the same connections in the wall alongside the main level local track…

The subway was opened in May 1908 to Atlantic Ave. The extension beyond was added in the Dual System plan in 1913, and was opened in April 1919. The provisions of 1905 for future construction were…:

3 West of Nevins St: Lower level trackway under main tracks to north edge of construction, and upper level removable wall. For two tracks off a Manhattan Bridge route. The BMT De Kalb Ave station was built as if this had still not been ruled out: its main track level is at the level of the IRT lower level, for the outbound track connection, and its upper mezzanine level has no structure blocking the path of a track off the IRT main level.

4 East of Nevins St: Lower level trackway under main tracks to east edge of construction, and upper level trace of provision for an opening in the side wall. For a Lafayette Ave subway. Such a subway was actually built for the IND system later.

5 West end of Atlantic Ave station: Upper level outbound local curve south into 4 Ave, and lower level crossing under main tracks to a ramp up to main level inbound local. Both are now obscured. The upper level curve is still visible in the wall of the Atlantic Ave station side platform, as extended northward in 1964. The lower level is hidden, and the ramp up is covered by the present westbound local track (2 3 trains) built 1962-1963.

Today, history sits beneath our feet at Nevins St., invisible to nearly everyone as thousands of passengers pass through the station each day. I’m always struck by the planning — or the over-planning — of the original builders of the subway. These days, we pare back our subway expansion plans from two stations to one, from four tracks to two. But a hundred years ago, construction was halted for six months to build provisioning never actually put into place.

These days, the BMT uses the connection over the Manhattan Bridge via DeKalb, and of course, it extends to Atlantic Ave. and beyond via tunnels that mirror the Nevins St. plans. That routing though swings north of and around the Nevins St. station. The IND, via the G, utilizes the Lafayette Ave. route and cuts through part of the tunnels constructed around Nevins St. Subway planners built the lower level at Nevins St. for a purpose, and though that purpose came to pass, trains forever bypass the station. All that remains is an intriguing abandoned station out of sight and out of mind.

26 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Weekend work impacting 17 subway lines

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 6, 2013

A reminder: On Tuesday, I’m hosting another Problem Solvers session at the Transit Museum. Larry Gould, a Senior Director, Operations Analysis in the Operations Planning division of MTA New York City Transit, will be my guest, and he and I will be talking FASTRACK. Find out what it’s all about. Details and an RSVP right here.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, uptown 1 trains run express from Chambers Street to 14th Street due to conduit and track work south of 14th Street.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, there is no 2 train service between 3rd Avenue-149th Street and 135th Street due to station rehabilitation at 149th Street-Grand Concourse. 2 service operates in two sections:

  • Between 241st Street and 3rd Avenue-149th Street
  • Between 148th Street 3 station and Flatbush Avenue

Free shuttle buses operate in three segments:

  • Between 3rd Avenue-149th Street and 135th Street only
  • Between 3rd Avenue-149th Street and 149th Street-Grand Concourse only
  • Between 149th Street-Grand Concourse and 135th Street only


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, April 6, and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, April 6 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, April 7, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, April 7 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, uptown 2 trains run express from Chambers Street to 14th Street due to conduit and track work south of 14th Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, April 6, and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, April 6 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, April 7 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, April 7 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, 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 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 6 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, 4 trains run local in both directions between 125th Street and Grand Central-42nd Street due to signal work between Grand Central-42nd Street and 59th Street.


From 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, April 6 and Sunday, April 7, there is no 5 train service between East 180th Street and 149th Street-Grand Concourse due to station rehabilitation at 149th Street-Grand Concourse. 5 service operates in two sections:

  • Between Dyre Avenue and East 180th Street
  • Between 149th Street-Grand Concourse and Bowling Green, every 20 minutes

Customers should use 2 trains and free shuttle buses as alternatives.

  • Take the 2 between East 180th Street and 3rd Avenue-149th Street.
  • Take the 149th Street bus shuttle between 3rd Avenue-149th Street and 149th Street-Grand Concourse.


From 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, April 6 and Sunday, April 7, 5 trains run local in both directions between 125th Street and Grand Central-42nd Street due to signal work between Grand Central-42nd Street and 59th Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, 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 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, 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 at 175th, 181st , 190th and Dyckman Street
  • Between 168th and 190th Street making stops at 175th Street and 181st Street only


From 11:15 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, Queens-bound A trains run local from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Utica Avenue due to ADA work at Utica Avenue.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, April 6, and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, April 6 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, April 7 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, April 7 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, downtown A trains run express from 145th Street to Canal Street due to track maintenance north of 47th-50th Streets.


From 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, April 6 and Sunday, April 7, there are no C trains between 145th Street and 168th Street due to station painting at 175th Street. Customers should take the A instead.


From 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, April 6 and Sunday, April 7, downtown C trains run express from 145th Street to Canal Street due to track maintenance north of 47th-50th Streets.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, there are no downtown D trains at 7th Avenue, 47th-50th Sts, 42nd Street-Bryant Park and 34th Street-Herald Square due to track maintenance north of 47th-50th Sts. Downtown D trains are rerouted via the C from 145th Street to West 4th Street. D service operates in two sections:

  • Between 205th Street and the 2nd Avenue F station
  • Between West 4th Street and Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue


From 12:15 a.m. to 6:30 a.m., Saturday, April 6 and Sunday, April 7 and from 12:15 a.m. to 5 a.m., Monday, April 8, Jamaica Center-bound E trains run express from Queens Plaza to Roosevelt Avenue due to track renewal north of 36th Street. (See R entry for travel information.)


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 6 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, Manhattan-bound E trains run local from Union Turnpike to Roosevelt Avenue due to ADA work at Forest Hills-71st Avenue.


From 11:15 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, downtown 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 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 6 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, downtown (Manhattan-bound) F trains run local from Union Turnpike to Roosevelt Avenue due to ADA work at Forest Hills-71st Avenue.


From 5:30 a.m. Saturday, April 6 to 10 p.m. Sunday, April 7, there is no J train service between Broadway Junction and Jamaica Center due to structural rehabilitation from Cypress Hills to north of 121st Street. Free shuttle buses and E trains provide alternate service via Jamaica-Van Wyck.

  • J trains operate between Chambers Street and Broadway Junction
  • Free shuttle buses operate between Broadway Junction and 121st Street, and connect with the E at Jamaica-Van Wyck, where service to and from Sutphin Blvd and Jamaica Center is available.


From 9:45 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, uptown (Manhattan-bound) N trains are rerouted via the D from Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue to 36th Street due to pier repair at 15th and 17th Avenue bridges.


From 12:01 a.m. to 6:30 a.m., Saturday, April 6 and Sunday, April 7, and from 12:01 a.m. to 5 a.m., Monday, April 8, downtown (Brooklyn-bound) N trains are rerouted via the Q line from Canal Street to DeKalb Avenue due to escalator replacement at Whitehall Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 8, uptown (Manhattan-bound) Q trains run express from Kings Highway to Prospect Park due to track tie replacement north of Kings Highway.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, April 6 and Sunday, April 7, downtown (Brooklyn-bound) R trains are rerouted via the Q line from Canal Street to DeKalb Avenue due to escalator replacement at Whitehall Street.

  • No Brooklyn-bound N or R trains at City Hal, Cortlandt Street, Rector Street, Whitehall Street, Court Street and Jay Street-MetroTech.
  • Customers may use the 4 or F trains at nearby stations.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, April 6 and Sunday, April 7, 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.


From 9 p.m. Friday, April 5 to 4 a.m. Monday, April 8, there is no SIR service between the St. George Terminal and Clifton stations due to maintenance and repair work. Free shuttle buses operate between the St. George and Clifton stations.

  • Shuttle buses at St George Station leave from the Skyway
  • Shuttle buses at Clifton Station leave from Bay Street and Norwood Avenue


From 10 a.m. Friday, April 5 until Friday, July 12, one stairway at the Stapleton Station will be closed due to platform construction work. Customers must use the stairway at Prospect Street for access to and from Stapleton Station.

14 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts