View from Underground

Fixing the unpleasantness of underground passageways

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 24, 2013

The underground passageway connecting 6th and 7th Avenues beneath 14th Street is not the friendliest of places. (Photo via @EnriquePenalosa)

Underneath New York City, the catacombs of the subway stretch beyond our imagination. New Yorkers vaguely remember passagesways — the one under what used to be Gimbels, the one stretching north from Herald Square — shuttered due to crime and budgetary concerns. The ones we do know are austere and ugly. The massive IND mezzanines seem desolate, the walk between 7th and 8th Avenues underneath 42nd St. is cramped and crammed with people. These passageways do nothing to make us feel good about the subways.

Over the weekend, former Bogota mayor and current NYU scholar Enrique Peñalosa found himself in one of those passageways and issued something of a challenge to New York. While walking underneath 14th Street between 6th and 7th Avenues, Peñalosa snapped the photo you see atop this post and issued a short missive. “Walking under the city in subway tunnels,” he said, “is not pleasant.”

Those ten simple words capture the essence of these tunnels. The stations with pleasant walkways, such as those maintained privately that run under 6th Ave. near Rockefeller Center, are few and far between, and the rest seem barely functional with not much in the way of attention paid to them. It’s a sorry state of affairs really.

These passagesways shouldn’t be like that. Even though I’m skeptical of spending, say, billions of dollars to beautify a PATH hub or the Fulton St. Transit Center, the environment of the subways can create better attitudes among passengers. If the system looks maintained and cared for, if we feel comfortable walking down hallways and aren’t assaulted by the smell of urine or something worse, we are inclined to feel more confident in the system and to look it more.

To that end, I asked my Twitter followers how we can fix up the MTA’s passageways. Take a look at a few of the replies:

I posed the same question on my Facebook page and got another array of answers all with a similar theme. The answers focused around better lighting and the use of more color, whether through advertising or an Arts for Transit installation. The Under Bryant Park installation in the short passageway between the 6th Ave. Line and the 7 train seems to draw rave reviews across the board.

Infrastructure for subway passengers doesn’t have to be drab or foreboding. Even the bare minimum of upgrades can make an otherwise unappealing passageway seem less threatening, and the psychology of riders and the way they interact with and appreciate the system can be improved through simple fixes. If international leaders find subway tunnels unpleasant, New Yorkers shouldn’t just accept them as part of the everyday drudgery of the subway ride.

55 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Queens

Link: The R to JFK via the Rockaway Beach Branch

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 23, 2013

One proposal for the Rockaway Beach Branch Line involves sending the R train to the airport. (Map via Cap’n Transit)

As the effort to convert the Rockaway Beach Branch Line into a park gains state funds and media recognition, transit advocates are starting to raise their voices against the plan. As I’ve written in this space recently, we need to give rail its due as well. At the least, rail should be placed on equal footing with the QueensWay option, and at the most, reactivating a disused right-of-way should take clear precedent if it is technically feasible.

A few fine gentlemen both in need of promotions have gotten the proverbial ball rolling. Capt. Subway and Cap’n Transit have launched a petition urging Gov. Cuomo to reactivate the rail line, and Capt. Subway, writing on Cap’n Transit’s site, offers up his idea. He wants to send the R to Howard Beach via the Rockaway Beach Branch and restore G train service to the Queens Boulevard line.

Here’s a snippet of the argument:

Unfortunately the local tracks, while also theoretically capable of 30 trains per hour, are presently only running at about 20 trains per hour in the peak period. This is necessitated by the terminal at 71-Continental, which can only turn around about 20 trains per hour at the limit, and that not very well. For this reason the 63rd St connection to Queens Boulevard required a “robbing from Peter to pay Paul” switcheroo: the “G” line had to be cut back to Court Square and its slots on Queens Boulevard given over to another, Manhattan oriented service, first to the “V”, and now to the “M”. (For the first few years the “G” line ran to and from Forest Hills nights and weekends, when there was no “V” train service. But this passenger friendly part-time service died to make weekend service changes more doable).

Of course it needn’t be that way. Even in the original MTA plans from the late ‘60s “G” service would have remained intact. The express by-pass alone would have insured this. This is where the old LIRR Rock Line comes into play. By connecting this line to the Queens Boulevard line east (subway north) of 63rd Drive station – the tunnel bell mouths are there specifically for that scenario – the path to another local service terminal would be created, i.e. now the “G”, along with the “M” and “R” could run along the Queens Boulevard local tracks, with one of these service branching off after 63rd Drive and heading off to a new terminal at either Howard Beach or, it would be hoped, JFK, and thus not threatening to overwhelm 71-Continental as a terminal. In this way peak trains per hour on the Queens Boulevard local tracks could be raised from the present day 20 trains per hour up to 27 ½ trains per hour, given the current timetables on those three lines. This would be a significant improvement in service, especially if the “G” were equipped with full length trains.

These are the transit advantages of reactivating the Rockaway Branch as a subway line. Neighborhoods like Woodhaven, Rego Park and Ozone Park get quicker service to Midtown. Greenpoint and Williamsburg can be reconnected to Astoria and Jackson Heights with revived G train service. Local stations on the Queens Boulevard line see seven more trains an hour.

I have very little commentary to add. This proposal is an ideal one for many reasons and would require far less capital investment than building a new line from scratch. At a time when mobility matters and vulnerabilities have taken center stage, reactivating the rail line deserves as much attention, if not more, than the QueensWay initiative. So check out the two Captains’ efforts and give that petition a good skim.

128 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Why the renewed attention to subway-related deaths?

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 23, 2013

The latest TWU poster admits to being a ‘slight exaggeration’ but still urges a slowdown until the MTA finds a ‘better solution.’

While you were enjoying a three-day weekend, a drunk 26-year-old from New Jersey decided to take a nap in the crevasse next to a set of active subway tracks early Sunday morning. He awoke when his leg splayed out and an E train drove over it. He survived but will live with one leg. On Monday morning, a man or maybe a woman leaped in front of an oncoming 2 train at Times Square. He or she was DOA in a suicide.

These are but the latest in what seems to many like an uptick in subway/passenger accidents. For the last few weeks, we’ve heard terrifying stories of two incidents involving someone pushing another straphanger into the path of an oncoming train. We heard of someone who fell into the tracks while defecating between subway cars (which, by the way, is something that doesn’t happen too often). We’ve heard of threats of an TWU-requested slowdown, and now we have Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer calling for an MTA Inspector General audit on subway safety. What exactly is going on here?

The answer, you may be surprised to hear, is nothing. At least that’s one rational take on it. As Dana Rubinstein expertly detailed in Capital New York yesterday, subway accidents aren’t on the rise. Rather, the only thing on the rise seems to be the attention we pay to them. Rubinstein writes:

In 2012, 141 people were struck by trains and 55 died. That fatality number was up from in 2011, when 146 people were struck by trains but 47 died. In 2010, 127 people were struck by trains and 51 died. In 2009, 136 people were hit by subway cars, of whom 49 died. The M.T.A.’s data on this only goes back to 2001, but in those years, the high mark for fatalities was set at 55 in 2007, and matched last year.

The number of people hit by trains is essentially holding steady, but the incidents seem to be getting more attention lately, after two particularly ghoulish homicides in December, both of which involved mentally unstable assailants allegedly pushing strangers in front of oncoming trains and to their deaths…

The M.T.A. says that reducing entry speeds would reduce the number of trains that could move through the system by up to 40 percent, which means there would be longer waits for trains, and more crowding on subway platforms, leading to even more collisions between straphangers and subway cars. The authority also suggests that what the union is actually advocating is a work slow-down in disguise.

Whether or not this spate of subway deaths is a problem depends upon one’s perspective. People who witness these accidents say they are horrific, and train operators, in particular, bear the psychological brunt of these collision. The City Council, never one to miss an opportunity to gain media attention, also seems to be in on the action. “Standing by without a plan of action as incident after incident occurs is not an option,” Transportation Committee Chair James Vacca said in a statement. “The MTA needs to bring all the stakeholders to the table and acknowledge that this is a serious problem that demands a coordination solution, and they must tell the public what their plan is.”

But how much should we spend on this problem? A subway slowdown isn’t the answer anywhere else, and it’s not the answer here. Until we start responding to automobile deaths in a similar fashion, it’s hard for a rationalist to see subway deaths as a major problem. But it seems as though the MTA will have to answer to someone, be it the public, the TWU or the City Council.

So we’re left with a problem that isn’t really solvable at a reasonable cost, a union playing politics with people’s lives over a tenuous contract situation and a government oversight body snatching at headlines. Call me cynical, but that seems to be a perfect storm heading toward a bad solution to something that we could consider an intractable problem.

94 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BrooklynService Advisories

Map: FASTRACK hits the edges of Brooklyn

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 22, 2013

With the three-day weekend and a quick jaunt down to Philadelphia on my agenda, I didn’t have a chance to post this ahead of time, but as FASTRACK continues for four nights, news about this week’s treatment is still timely. For the first time in its short history, FASTRACK is descending upon a part of the subway system not too close to its neighboring lines. This week’s work focuses on the 2 train’s Nostrand Ave. line from Franklin Ave. to Flatbush Ave.

The details: From 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. each night this week, there will be no 2 trains south of Franklin St. The 2 is heading to Utica Ave., and the B44 Limited is being tasked with picking up the slack. Service on the 3 train will end early, and the fare-free buses will make limited stops from the Nostrand Ave. subway stop to Flatbush Ave. The 4 train is running local from Borough Hall to New Lots Ave.

This FASTRACK tests a basic assumption of the program. As the MTA says, “These FASTRACK efforts have been designed around the careful determination that there is adequate alternate means of transportation, including enhanced services along some bus lines during work periods.” Here, the MTA is running some extra buses and urges riders to consider Q train service. Unfortunately, corresponding stations on the Q’s Brighton Line are between 0.8 miles and 1 mile away from the 2 train’s Nostrand Ave. line. This is, so far, the largest distance between a FASTRACK’d line and the nearest active line.

Ultimately, this problem of adequate service could have been solved ahead of time had the MTA and NYC DOT managed to implement Select Bus Service along the B44 in less than four years, but you know how that goes. If anyone out there is experiencing significant problems due to this FASTRACK, I’d love to hear from you. Next week, we get the BMT Broadway line’s first FASTRACK.

27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Manhattan

To rebuild or not to rebuild? That is the South Ferry question.

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 22, 2013

Water filled even the overpass above the 1 train’s terminal tracks at South Ferry. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

In Lower Manhattan, a very expensive problem is brewing. The 1 train’s South Ferry Station, essentially totaled by flooding from Sandy, is in very bad shape, and the MTA estimates that fixing the damage caused to this terminal and the electrical infrastructure will cost $600 million. After years of supporting overpriced subway expansion, New Yorkers are finally experience subway sticker shock as many are questioning the wisdom of rebuilding South Ferry as it was.

When the House passed the Sandy relief package a few days ago, the question probably became a moot one. After all, the MTA will get its $600 million in federal funds it has earmarked for the project, and although my tour of the station last week revealed just how much work hasn’t been done to clean up the station, with money on hand, the MTA can begin assessing the damage and bidding out contracts for the restoration effort. Still, it’s worth examining a few arguments for and against. In the grand tradition of the Internet, there’s a poll at the end of this post.

The Argument Against Rebuilding

1. It’s too darn expensive.
It didn’t make sense to spend $545 million to build a new South Ferry station in the first, and it certainly doesn’t make sense to spend $600 million repairing one that just opened four years ago. Even though the money in both cases will have come from the federal government, the final price tag for South Ferry and its rebuild will top $1 billion. Even in today’s age of insanely high-priced capital projects, this dollar amount should give us pause. Is there no better or cheaper solution on hand?

2. Spending $600 million somewhere else.
One counterargument that I don’t address in the post concerns an analogy to the ARC Tunnel. Gov. Chris Christie canceled ARC because he felt, in part, that the money could be better used elsewhere. Am I making the same argument here? Perhaps so, but if we assume that the dollars are not unlimited, maybe the $600 million would be better used on hardening the subway system or funding capital projects that will encourage people to look away from flood-prone areas of the city. We can spend this $600 million in a way that doesn’t strain more resources in vulnerable neighborhoods.

3. It’s just going to flood again.
For many reasons — including the fact that it just hasn’t been quite long enough to look ahead — the MTA has been mum on how it will spend $600 million. Does this plan include enough station hardening and infrastructure protection? Aren’t we just rebuilding a station that will flood again in the next major hurricane and the next major storm surge? How many times can we the taxpayers expect to foot the bill for a station reconstruction after natural disasters floods the same area over and over again?

4. What about those other nearby stations?
The R train still stops at Whitehall St., and the 1 train’s Rector St. station is a four-block walk from South Ferry. Plus, the 4 and the 5 are right there at Bowling Green. West Side-bound riders can either take the R or walk to the 1, and those heading to the East Side didn’t need South Ferry anyway. These nearby stations should be enough to shoulder the load if South Ferry doesn’t reopen again, right?

The Argument For Rebuilding

1. Access to the Staten Island Ferry Terminal
Despite those nearby stations I just mentioned, the South Ferry stop services a lot of Staten Island Ferry-bound travelers. Prior to Sandy, the station had seen a steady uptick of passengers, and in 2011, over 29,500 people used the South Ferry/Whitehall St. complex on a daily basis. It’s the 33rd busiest station in the system, and the MTA shouldn’t be asking these subway riders to walk another half a mile or so the nearest 1 train station. It’s popular for Lower Manhattan workers, Staten Island residents, Ferry-bound travelers, tourists and everyone in between.

2. Key signal infrastructure and a convenient transfer
The new station features a significant amount of key signaling infrastructure for the old South Ferry loop and the West Side IRT from Rector St. and points south. It may have been folly to leave such vital equipment unprotected, but no matter what happens to South Ferry, it needs to be rebuilt somewhere. Since the electrical infrastructure is a major component of the price, we shouldn’t give up the station for it. Let’s just protect it instead. Plus, we can’t discount the value of an in-system transfer to a train that serves Brooklyn. The 1 and R do not meet again until Times Square, and this transfer point is a vital part of many people’s journeys.

3. The new station adds to 1 train capacity and is ADA-compliant.
With the opening of South Ferry, the MTA could run 24 trains per hour up the 1 line to Van Cortlandt Park. It couldn’t do that with the old loop station, and as this line has seen tremendous growth, especially in Harlem and Washington Heights, we have to maintain train capacity. We also cannot overlook ADA requirements. The new South Ferry was a fully-compliant station, and whatever replaces it would have to be ADA compliant as well. Retrofitting an old station would cost a considerable amount and pose additional engineering challenges.

4. The old South Ferry loop station in bad shape.
I didn’t have the opportunity to take a look at the old station, but it’s in bad shape as well. It too flooded during Sandy, and at a minimum, the signal infrastructure, which was controlled by the room in the new station, would have to be replaced. Overall, that station which hasn’t been in revenue service since early 2009 would need a considerable investment. The gap fillers are gone, capacity is limited, and reactivating it is not as simple as flipping a switch.

So there you have it. This is, of course, a non-exhaustive look at the issues, but it touches on the key concerns. I have major qualms about the final price for the station restoration, but it’s an important terminal that we cannot just discard. If the feds want to pay for a complete rebuild just a few years after funding the original construction, let’s not stop them. What say you?

Should the MTA rebuild the 1 train's South Ferry terminal?
View Results
155 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Weekend work impacting 12 subway lines

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 19, 2013

Before we delve into the weekend service advisories, a few points of clarification on some posts from the past few days:

  • I took a tour of South Ferry on Thursday and guessed that it would be at least until 2014 before the 1 train’s terminal is back in service. The MTA on Friday said it could take up to three years to restore service. Such an estimate leads to me question whether spending $600 million to rebuild is the best use of funds. It’s a prickly topic, and one I’ll try to explore next week.
  • Next, we have a follow-up on the MTA’s decision to kill the SBS’ flashing blue lights. According to a report on Transportation Nation, the MTA fielded a grand total of one complaint concerning the flashing blue lights before a group of Staten Island politicians decided to make an issue out of it. It’s hard not to see this move as retribution from a transit-hostile group of representatives who were upset that the MTA and DOT took away a lane of automobile traffic. The MTA will now have to spend more money than it should on an issue about which no one was really too worried. New York City politics at work.

Now, the fun stuff:


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, Rector Street-bound 1 trains skip Dyckman Street due to floor tile installation at Dyckman Street.


From 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Saturday, January 19 and Sunday, January 20, the last stop for some uptown 1 trains is 137th Street due to track panel installation north of 231st Street in the Bronx.


From 3:45 a.m. Saturday, January 19 to 10 p.m. Sunday, January 20, 2 service operates in two sections due to track panel installation north of 219th Street in the Bronx:

  • Between Flatbush Avenue and East 180th Street*
  • Between East 180th Street and 241st Street

Customers may transfer between trains at East 180th Street.

*2 trains are rerouted to Dyre Avenue at East 180th Street during this time.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, there are no 3 trains between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue due to switch replacement at Utica Avenue.

  • 3 service operates between 148th Street and Franklin Avenue and via the 2 line between Franklin Avenue and Flatbush Avenue.
  • Free shuttle buses operate in two segments between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue:
    1. Local between Franklin Avenue and Sutter Avenue.
    2. Non-stop between Franklin Avenue and Sutter Avenue and local between Sutter Avenue and New Lots Avenue.

Customers may transfer between trains and free shuttle buses at Franklin Avenue. Note: From 12:01 a.m. to 6 a.m., the 3 operates between 148th Street and Times Square-42nd Street only.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, there are no 4 trains between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and New Lots Avenue due to switch replacement at Utica Avenue.

  • 4 service operates between Woodlawn and Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center. Take 2 or 3 trains between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and Franklin Avenue.
  • Free shuttle buses operate in two segments between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue:
    1. Local between Franklin Avenue and Sutter Avenue.
    2. Non-stop between Franklin Avenue and Sutter Avenue and local between Sutter Avenue and New Lots Avenue.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, January 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, 4 trains operate local in both directions between 125th Street and Grand Central-42nd Street stations due to signal work between 42nd Street-Grand Central and 59th Street and track work near 86th Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, uptown 4 trains run express from 125th Street to Burnside Avenue due to station rehabilitation at 149th Street-Grand Concourse.


From 3:45 a.m. Saturday, January 19 to 10 p.m. Sunday, January 20, 5 service is suspended due to station rehabilitation work at 149th Street-Grand Concourse. Customers should take the 2 and/or 4 train instead.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21 (and the next 9 weekends), there is no 7 train service between Times Square-42nd Street and Queensboro Plaza due to Flushing Line CBTC. Customers may take the E, N, Q and S (42nd Street shuttle) and free shuttle buses as alternatives.

  • Use the E, N or Q* between Manhattan and Queens
  • Free shuttle buses operate between Vernon Blvd-Jackson Avenue and Queensboro Plaza
  • In Manhattan, the 42nd Street S Shuttle operates overnight

*Q service is extended to Ditmars Blvd. (See Q entry for hours of operation.)


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, January 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, Coney Island-bound D trains run local from DeKalb Avenue to 36th Street due to switch replacement north of Atlantic Avenue.


From 9:45 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, Jamaica-bound F trains are rerouted via the M from 47th 50th Sts to Roosevelt Avenue due to station work at Lexington Avenue/63rd Street for SAS project. F trains run express from Queens Plaza to Roosevelt Avenue.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, Coney Island-bound F trains run express from 34th Street-Herald Square to West 4th Street due to electrical work at 34th Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, Jamaica-bound F trains run express from Church Avenue to Jay Street-MetroTech due to work on the Culver Viaduct rehab and the Church Avenue Interlocking.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, there are no G trains between Church Avenue and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts due to work on the Culver Viaduct rehabilitation and the Church Avenue Interlocking. Customers should take the F instead.

  • For F service, customers may take the A or C between Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. and Jay Street-MetroTech.
  • G service operates in two sections:
    1. 1. Between Court Square and Bedford-Nostrand Aves and
    2. 2. Between Bedford-Nostrand Aves and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. (every 20 minutes).


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, January 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, Coney Island-bound N trains run local from DeKalb Avenue to 59th Street due to switch replacement north of Atlantic Avenue.


From 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday, January 19 and from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Sunday, January 20, Q trains are extended to Ditmars Blvd. in order to augment service between Manhattan and Queens.


From 11 p.m. Friday, January 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, January 21, Brooklyn-bound Q trains run local from 34th Street-Herald Square to Canal Street due to electrical work at 14th Street-Union Square.

(42nd Street Shuttle)
From 12:01 a.m. to 6 a.m. Saturday, January 19, Sunday, January 20 and Monday, January 21, 42nd Street S shuttle operates overnight due to weekend work on the 7 line.

32 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BusesStaten Island

Flashing blue lights no longer an SBS hallmark

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 18, 2013

Due to a state law, the MTA has turned off the flashing blue lights on its SBS vehicles. (Photo by flickr user Stephen Rees)

Buried deep with the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Laws is a peculiar provision governing the use of flashing lights on motor vehicles. The law states that, except as otherwise outlined, only white lights may be used outside of vehicles. Those exceptions, as you may have guessed, cover emergency vehicles. Blue lights, for instance, may be used only by volunteer firefighters and, in combination with red and white lights, by other emergency responders on their vehicles.

“That’s great, Ben,” you may be thinking, “but why should we care about flashing blue lights?” Well, since 2008, when the MTA and DOT launched Select Bus Service, the city’s half-hearted attempt at a bus rapid transit network, the MTA SBS vehicles have been adorned with flashing blue lights to distinguish these vehicles from local buses. Today, the MTA issued an order rescinding the use of such lights and a statement:

Reacting to specific concerns, MTA New York City Transit has agreed to turn off the flashing blue lights that have served to alert riders to the arrival of Select Bus Service buses (SBS) since the speedier service was introduced. This measure is being taken to eliminate the possibility of confusing the vehicles with volunteer emergency vehicles, which are entitled by law to use the blue lights. We are currently in the process of developing an alternate means of identifying SBS buses.

The statement and its timing are both interesting. The MTA doesn’t make a nod toward the Vehicle and Traffic Law provision which it has ostensibly been violating, and it’s unclear if anyone in enforcement actually cared. A 2010 Pete Donohue piece on the questionable legality of the flashing blue lights featured a NYPD Highway Unit captain who had no idea the blue light law was even on the books.

Yet, this dispute arises from somewhere, and for that somewhere, we turn our eyes to Staten Island. Staten Island has never been much for road re-allocation, and some politicians raised a stink when the MTA added SBS lanes to Hylan Boulevard. State Sen. Andrew Lanza and City Councilman Vincent Ignizio issued a call this fall for the MTA to change the lights. The two were concerned that drivers would become “desensitized” to flashing lights.

Another SI rep added a gem: “These were highly distracting, partially blinding and made drivers unreasonably nervous when they saw flashing blue lights in their rearview mirrors,” Assembly member Joe Borelli said. I’m not sure how many times people have confused the sky blue SBS lights with a volunteer fire fighter’s car or a police vehicle, but I digress.

This whole dust-up seems to be the perfect storm of careful planning and needling politicians looking to make a point. The MTA will have to pay to retrofit its Select Bus Service vehicles with other flashing lights, and a group of Staten Island politicians can claim political victory over that meddlesome new bus service. And to think, all of this could have been avoided if the MTA had simply consulted with lawyers familiar with state law in the first place.

54 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Queens

Queens Assembly rep calls for Rockaway Beach reactivation

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 18, 2013

The Rockaway Beach Branch Line has fast become most discussed unused rail right-of-way around. (Map via The Queens Tribune)

Despite The Times’ best efforts at minimizing the rail option, the Rockaway Beach Branch may yet have a champion in a position of some power. A few weeks after Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office awarded a $500,000 grant to the group championing the QueensWay rails-to-trails proposal, Assemblyman Phil Goldfeder of Ozone Park has called upon the governor to give money to a feasibility study for rail as well.

“The restoration of transportation on that line is good for the entire borough,” Goldfeder said to The Queens Tribute this week. “It is good for creating short term jobs and it’s good for spurring our economy.”

The Tribune’s Luis Gronda had a bit more in an article replete with interesting tidbits:

Assemblyman Phil Goldfeder (D-Ozone Park) announced at last week’s Community Board 10 meeting, which covers Howard Beach, Lindenwood South Ozone Park, Tudor Village and parts of Ozone Park and Richmond Hill, that he would be meeting with Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office sometime this week to discuss getting money to do a feasibility study to revive the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) train line that used to run in southern and central Queens…

Goldfeder said at the meeting that he will continue to push forward with the idea of revitalizing the LIRR because people living in the Rockaways and Southern Queens desperately need better transportation options than the ones that are currently available and because it would benefit all of Queens.

Goldfeder said that while he has met with the governor’s office before regarding reviving the LIRR line and improving public transportation options in general, this latest meeting is in response to the QueensWay getting the grant money for the study. “I wanted to make sure that they were aware of the many different options and desires for that land,” he said.

According to The Tribune, residents in southeast Queens are more in favor of a rail reactivation than those further north up the unused right-of-way. Such a rail line would provide better connections to subway lines and could ease congestion on Cross Bay Boulevard. But their neighbors to the north have a different take on things as they worry that a rail reactivation would impact the Forest Hills and Rego Park houses unwisely built on top of a rail line.

Meanwhile, Goldfeder and the Woodhaven Residents’ Block Association are engaged an interesting war over ideas as well. The right-of-way runs along the eastern edge of Woodhaven, and residents there feel both the QueensWay and the Rockaway Beach Branch reactivation would have a negative impact on property value and quality of life in the area. So not only is this response the Grand Poobah of NIMBYism, but it’s blatantly wrong as well. Although it pains me to admit it, an active park would have a positive impact on property values and so too would the rail line. Goldfeder has said before that doing nothing that benefits no one is not an alluring option.

And so a great land use and transportation debate takes shape in Queens. On the one hand are park advocates, on the other are rail advocates and on the third are people who just want to be left alone. The NIMBYs might actually win because moving forward on either a park or a rail line may face too many political and economic obstacles right now. Goldfeder, however, deserves the support, and if he can become a leading voice for rail reactivation, such a cause could have an ally to rally around in Albany.

90 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Manhattan

A look inside South Ferry, three months later

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 17, 2013

Dirt, debris and the odor of water damage fill the new South Ferry Terminal. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

A few years ago, on a winter afternoon, I ventured into the 1 train’s new South Ferry terminal for a pre-opening media tour. This station — part of the post-9/11 Lower Manhattan recovery effort — was to be a crown jewel for the subway system. It connected the 1 with the R, allowed Transit to run 24 trains per hour on the West Side IRT and brought a climate-controlled ADA-compliant station to the Staten Island Ferry Terminal.

Superstorm Sandy, apparently, had other plans in mind. The storm surge from Sandy overwhelmed the barriers placed in front of the station, and the 1 train’s section of South Ferry flooded up to the mezzanine level. We’ve seen the dramatic photos and the videos from the days following the storm, and we know that the 1 train is terminated at Rector St. and using the decommissioned South Ferry loop station to turn around. We don’t know how long this makeshift set-up will last, but based upon what I saw today on another media tour, it’s going to be a long time.

Even after a thorough cleaning that had switch relays looking brand new, corrosion from saltwater exposure creeps back in. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

Led by Wynton Habersham, a 30-year vet of the MTA, I saw a station in ruins. Tiles have fallen from the ceiling and walls, debris is everywhere and the electronics — the hidden aspect of the station — are completely wrecked. “It’s like throwing a computer into seawater,” Habersham said of the rampant destruction. The station filled up with 80 feet of water, and crews eventually pumped out 14.5 million gallons of damaging brackish saltwater.

While the station looks bad, the cosmetic impact is nothing compared to the destruction to key signal systems and train control infrastructure. All of the equipment inside the signal relay room will have to be replaced, and in fact, the entire signal system south of Rector St. will likely have to be completely overhauled as well. Vital infrastructure — the very systems that keep trains from colliding with each other and on the right tracks — is useless, corroded from saltwater exposure.

The system’s newest station will remain closed for a considerable amount of time. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

The bad news for many Lower Manhattan residents, commuters and Staten Island ferry riders concerns the timing. Habersham estimated that it would take a least a year to replace all of the electronic equipment that was destroyed by the storm. That’s 14,000 daily riders looking for an alternate route for a rather lengthy amount of time. Beyond that vague estimate, the MTA will have to assess if the best solution is simply to gut the station and rebuild it. It’s unclear how much saltwater seeped in behind the walls and how quickly it will corrode the structure. I had never been seen rust on a subway staircase, and the rails were covered in it as well.

So if all goes according to plan, perhaps we’ll see South Ferry reactivated in 2014. But the MTA has to decide how to repair the station and what hardening takes place. As it stands now, it is a monument to the destructive powers of nature and saltwater. A photo slideshow follows after the jump.

Continue Reading
73 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MetroCardMTA Economics

On the costs of a yellow school bus vs. a Student MetroCard

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 17, 2013

I can’t say I’ve thought much about Student MetroCards in the years since the MTA threatened to do away with them entirely in late 2010, but something about that dust-up always struck me as wrong. As enrollment numbers in New York City public schools spiked at the end of the last decade, the MTA — and not the city or city — shouldered the increasing fare burden. Both the city and state have contributed $45 million a year each while the MTA’s contributions — once also around $45 million annually — have spiked to nearly $100 million. What was one an even funding agreement is anything but.

When the MTA threatened to do away with free student rides in 2010, I supported the idea. The MTA is a transportation agency and not a school bus company. If New York City wants its students to be able to get to school in the most cost-effective way possible, it should pay the transit fees. Word emerging from this week’s yellow school bus strike drives that point home.

In an article in today’s Times, Al Baker highlights a driving force behind the strike: It has simply gotten too expensive for the city to continue to pay as much as it does for busing for 10 percent of its students. Take a read at one great anecdote and some eye-popping figures:

The day before the start of New York City’s first school bus strike in 34 years, a long yellow bus pulled up at Public School 282 in Park Slope, Brooklyn, and the little bodies that popped out could be counted on one hand: Three. The big bus had dropped off part of its cargo earlier, at another school, but in all, 10 children had ridden on a bus fit for about 60. A similarly large bus pulled up with 17. Finally, a modern-looking bus whose side panel said it could carry 66 children arrived with its passengers: Five children.

“I think in some cases, we have one child on the bus,” said Kathleen Grimm, the city’s deputy schools chancellor for operations.

The strike that began Wednesday, which idled more than half of the city’s school buses and forced about 113,000 children to find new ways to school, was prompted by a fight over union jobs. But its true roots are in an attempt to reform one of the most inefficient transportation systems in the country, one that costs almost $7,000 a year for each passenger, an amount so high that many of those children could hire a livery cab for about the same price. By comparison with the next three largest school districts, Los Angeles spends about $3,200, Chicago about $5,000, and Miami, $1,000.

Take whatever said you please in this labor dispute, but one thing is for sure: Those figures are insane. The city spends $7000 per student — per student — to employ yellow buses. Some reports cite the total city expenditure as topping $1 billion annually to bus around 150,000 students. Meanwhile, for the students who don’t arrive via yellow bus and request a free student MetroCard — approximately 500,000 cards are handed out per semester — the city pays the MTA a whopping $45 million. What’s wrong with this picture?

88 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts