Second Ave. Sagas
  • About
  • Contact Me
  • 2nd Ave. Subway History
  • Search
  • About
  • Contact Me
  • 2nd Ave. Subway History
  • Search
Second Ave. Sagas

News and Views on New York City Transportation

View from Underground

On the economic lifeblood of New York City

by Benjamin Kabak February 17, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 17, 2012

Every few months, when the MTA institutes seemingly endless weekend service changes that rob some neighborhoods of their train service, local news outlets feature stories on the economic impact of the subway service reductions. Every few months, I’m reminded of how New Yorkers take the subway system for granted and how truly important it is for the city’s economy.

This month, we have two stories from two different neighborhoods. DNA Info highlights how the L train service changes impact Brooklyn businesses. Foot traffic is always done when the L train doesn’t run, and even though merchants know the service cuts are for technological upgrades, it doesn’t help ease the pain.

Daniel Squadron, the State Senator who represents the area, has asked the MTA to make sure the diversions are only when necessary. “Good coordination, communication and planning can help make the effects less damaging for businesses and communities,” he said to DNA Info. “This is the first step, organizing businesses together to identify solutions for mitigating the effects.”

Meanwhile, business owners in Long Island City are living through a lengthy 7 line outage, and they’re suffering as well. Right now, we’re amidst a stretch without the 7 serving the area until April, and Transit says it will happen again for six weekends after baseball season ends. “It happens every year,” one restaurant manager said. “So we’ve been dealing with it for the last nine years.”

New businesses too are noticing the impact. A new comedy club in Long Island City says that advanced sales are down when the subway is out. People who would otherwise make the trip from Manhattan do not care to add a longer walk or a shuttle bus ride to their journey. His compromise is to refund those who do come $2.25, the price of their ride. “If the MTA is going to give us a middle finger, we might as well fight back with ours,” Steve Hofstetter, the club owner, said.

Now, none of this should come as a surprise. After all, a city of 8 million with its central business district an island wouldn’t be able to function without the subway system. The city wouldn’t be as vast and as powerful if millions didn’t have relatively quick and efficient ways to get around. The subway is the lifeblood of the city’s economy.

Yet, oftentimes, complaints and not appreciation are the norm. We want better service, cleaner stations, fewer problems. We want cheaper fares and faster construction. We want the system to be better so we don’t have to worry as much about our travel options. None of these desires are wrong, and if anything, they show how New Yorkers want more out of their transit system. More though requires political and economic support. Without a voice fighting for the subways and without the proper mix of subsidies that spur on growth, we’re left with a system that will sag under its age.

Whether New Yorkers care to recognize it or not, the city is what it is because of the subways. Perhaps it was dumb luck that got us here, and we’ve sort of stalled as the subway system hasn’t expanded in decades. But we need look no further than businesses that suffer when the subway isn’t running to appreciate the impact public transit has on our city. It may not always be pretty, but we’d be lost without it.

February 17, 2012 12 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesBuses

NICE BUS, $7.3 million in the red, already threatening service cuts

by Benjamin Kabak February 16, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 16, 2012

When Veolia took over operations of Long Island Bus from the MTA, the company never made explicit promises to maintain service levels or the fare structure. Now, just a few months into their tenure, the company has announced proposed service cuts totaling $7.2 million set for April. “A budget shortfall makes service changes necessary, although the changes are significantly less than those proposed by the MTA last year, involve no route cancellations, and are designed to impact the fewest possible passengers,” the company said in a statement.

Clearly, Veolia is a bit touchy about these service cuts. In the statement, they claim that they have realized $35 million in operating efficiencies and that the cuts are only a portion of the $26 million in eliminations proposed by the MTA. Of course, that MTA proposal was designed as a ploy to call Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano’s bluff. The MTA simply wanted Nassau County to be upholding its end of the funding agreement.

So how is Veolia planning on these “reductions and reconfigurations”? They offered up this take: “Our proposed system re-design is the result of a very careful analysis of how riders use the system. We rode every route and every stop, seven days a week, recording actual passenger usage and travel patterns. After a rigorous analysis, we focused on making the smartest changes that would impact the fewest passengers. Naturally, we focused on the routes that are least used by customers and are thus the most expensive to operate.”

Essentially, then, Veolia is doing what the MTA threatened to do. Since Mangano cut county contributions to the bus system from $9 to $2.5 million, NICE BUS is essentially placing that funding cut on the backs of its riders. Perhaps the are operating at greater efficiencies than the MTA. Perhaps the MTA was bluffing about a $26 million cut to force Mangano’s hand. Either way, Long Islanders are no better off now as their county leadership continues to withdraw funding for transit.

February 16, 2012 20 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesNew Jersey Transit

NJ Transit riders still dissatisfied with rail service

by Benjamin Kabak February 16, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 16, 2012

Toward the end of last year, New Jersey Transit released its first quarterly customer assessment report, and the results were not good. Overall, the agency drew in a 5.3 on the customer satisfaction scale with rail scoring even lower. Now, the next quarter results are available, and the pictures looks even bleaker.

As the survey shows, customer satisfaction with New Jersey Transit is now down to 5.1. Only 55 percent of rail travelers say they would recommend the service to a friend, and perception of on-time performance is lagging as well. NJ Transit, however, noted that its own on-time rail performance was at a very respectable 94.9 percent. Other complaints focused around dissatisfaction with communication during service disruptions — a challenge transit agencies everywhere must face — and issues surrounding frequency of weekend service.

So what’s going on here? One article on the survey speculates that riders remember only the bad trips and the myriad problem-free rides. The long delays stick out and cause headaches, and New Jersey Transit should get credit for improving its on-time record and upgrading its rolling stock. Furthermore, the agency won’t be raising fares this year. Still, without added cross-Hudson capacity, the commuter rail network will never be able to achieve its potential, and its customers seem to recognize as much.

February 16, 2012 8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Second Avenue Subway

What future the Second Ave. Subway?

by Benjamin Kabak February 16, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 16, 2012

A glimpse inside what will one day be a station cavern for the Second Avenue Subway. (Photo courtesy of MTA, Patrick Cashin)

Before leading us into the cavern of the 7 line extension last Friday, MTA Capital Construction President Michael Horodniceanu spoke at length about the megaprojects currently under his auspices. We know the story of the city-funded 7 line extension and the ever-ballooning costs and construction timeline for the East Side Access project. We know too that Phase 1 of the Second Ave. Subway is currently on pace for revenue service in December 2016 even if initial reports seven years ago predicted a 2012 finish. But what of the rest of the project?

During his talk on the MTACC, Horodniceanu mentioned in broad sweeps the future of the Second Ave. Subway. For many years, MTA officials refused to speak much about Phases 2-4 of the project. They were focused on securing funding for the remainder of Phase 1 and ensuring that this part of the long-awaited East Side subway line would truly see the light of day this time around. After three failed attempts at building the line, after all, and with billions of dollars in federal money on the line, the MTA couldn’t afford to let this opportunity pass.

Now, though, we’ll have a subway that connections from the BMT Broadway stop at 57th St., swings east to 63rd and Lexington and continues north to 96th St. and Second Ave. It is Phase 1 of a four-phase project, and maybe one day, when the 2015-2019 capital plan comes up, the MTA will look for more funding for future phases. Of course, as Horodniceanu explained, the irony is that with some extra money now, the MTA could have built SAS up to 115th St.

Since preexisting tunnels connect from 99th St. to 105th and from 110th to 119th, the MTA, said Horodniceanu “could now build stations at 105th St. and 115th St.” The cost would be a cool $750 million – $1 billion per station, but the only obstacle is the money. The environmental impact statements are completed, and the tunnels themselves are in place. In fact, some of the tunnel north of 99th St. will be used as tail tracks for Phase 1.

Of course, as we know, the MTA isn’t going to build those stations any time soon. In fact, we don’t even know if future phases of the so-called stubway line will see the light of day. On Friday, Horodniceanu estimated that the remaining three phases could cost a total of $23-$24 billion. Seven years ago, the four phases combined were expected to cost a total of $16 billion. By the time the authority puts their shovels or TBMs into the ground, I’m sure that estimated total will increase to even higher levels.

Essentially, the original decision to split the Second Ave. Subway project into four phases doomed it from the start. The origins of that decision these days have always been a bit murky. Some have said it came about due to pressure from Sheldon Silver and the realities of funding. The MTA didn’t think it could secure the full funding amount at the start and tried to break the project into more palatable pieces.

A Times story from 1999 tells a slightly different story: “Transit officials said they had limited the plan for new construction to upper Manhattan because of the engineering difficulties and expense of extending a new line under the more congested parts of midtown.” In this telling, it almost seems as those Phases 3 and 4 were simply for show. Phases 1 and 2 were easier and cheaper, but the charade of Phases 3 and 4 could keep hope alive. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Today, we live with this decision. We’ll have Phase 1 at least, and Phase 2, while also expensive, should see the light of day. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess. Phase 3 through Midtown will be a challenge, and Phase 4 through Lower Manhattan will be too. The MTA though made this bed 13 years ago, and today, as the pace of construction slows and costs go up, we live with it.

February 16, 2012 136 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Construction

FASTRACK set for year-long trial

by Benjamin Kabak February 15, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 15, 2012

The early returns from FASTRACK, the MTA’s weeknight shutdown program, have been successful enough to warrant a year-long trial, the Daily News reported this week. Per Pete Donohue, the MTA has scheduled 12 more weeks of shutdowns beyond the four currently in the works. By year’s end, Transit will have shuttered trains through Manhattan for a total of 448 hours.

As Transit officials justified the move, advocates gave it a lukewarm embrace. The MTA has billed it as an efficiency program, but the authority is providing less overnight service in bits and spurts. “We know it’s an inconvenience to our customers and we apologize for the inconvenience,” Senior Vice President of Subways Carmen Bianco said. “Hopefully, our customers will only have to walk a block, or two blocks at the most, to get alternate service.”

Ultimately, the FASTRACK program has its limitations. Due to the need for nearby redundant service, Transit cannot expand it to the areas outside of the Manhattan core without seriously impacting mobility. Yet, some of the stations in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn need more attention than those in Manhattan. For now, though, we’ll have to cope with weeknight changes through the end of November.

February 15, 2012 13 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

A long, slow good bye for the wooden benches

by Benjamin Kabak February 15, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 15, 2012

Straphangers awaiting a downtown train at West 4th Street make good use of the station's wooden benches. (Photo by flickr user Grim Santo)

The wooden benches that fill our subway system offer something of a respite for weary travelers. Wood because the material has been cheap and is fairly resilient to everything people throw at it, the benches are designed with low, thick arm rests to discourage permanent residents, but they seem to attract everything from blackened gum to spilled beverages and any unidentifiable liquid in between. They’re also on the way out.

For years, we’ve been hearing about Transit’s plans to replace the wooden benches. In late 2010, the MTA first started debating potential replacements. Some folks, in the wake of reports of bed bugs in mid-2008, called the wood unhygienic while others thought that stainless steel, a potential replacement, was too cold, both literally and figuratively, for the subway system. Yet, stainless steel doesn’t rot or attract bugs, and it seems to have won the day.

As Pete Donohue reports in today’s Daily News, Transit will begin to phase out wooden benches in exchange for the stainless steel variety. Sneak a peek at the planned replacements right here. Donohue has more:

The MTA has chosen a sleek, modern style to be installed in stations when they come up for major overhauls or more modest face-lifts, the MTA said. One of the new subway seats is already in place at the R station at Whitehall St., at the southern tip of Manhattan where straphangers gave mixed reviews.

“It’s better,” Luis Pares, 46, a concierge from New Jersey, said of the metal three-seat bench. “It’s more comfortable. It’s the best thing they’ve invented.”

But Carol Godfrey, 52, a subway conductor who plopped down on it while waiting for a train home called it “horrible…It’s cold,” she said. “There’s nothing like the old wooden ones. They’re sturdier. Put back the old wooden benches. No, put back new wooden benches.”

That, folks, is a perfect example of a he said/she said story. One person likes the subway benches; the other does not. Such are the way of things underground.

If we go slightly beneath the surface, it’s easy to discern the decision-making process here. First, stainless steel benches will last longer than wood. Instead of absorbing anything that lands on them, the benches will deflect instead. Second, as Godfrey noted, by being literally colder than wood, the benches could discourage long-term inhabitants from moving in. They too have arm rests to discourage horizontal sleeping. Ultimately, says the MTA, stainless steel is “easier and less costly to maintain” although the authority didn’t release cost figures for the new benches.

Despite this new approach though, don’t expect to see the new benches spring up too frequently. The cash-starved authority says it can replace wooden benches only when the stations they’re in are up for full renovations. It will be a gradual phase-in as the new and old co-mingle throughout the system. Meanwhile, I wonder what will happen to Tom Otterness’ little fellows at 14th St. who make a better use of those wooden benches than anyone else around.

February 15, 2012 16 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesPublic Transit Policy

Link: Congress considering federal oversight for subways

by Benjamin Kabak February 14, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 14, 2012

When it comes to the nation’s rail networks, many transit advocates insist — and generally rightly so — that federal oversight is holding us back. The FRA imposes crash-test regulations that lead to train cars that are unnecessarily heavy and operations unnecessarily slowed down. Thus, train travel cannot achieve speeds and efficiencies it otherwise should.

It is, then, somewhat alarming that we now learn Congress is considering federal oversight for subway systems. Basically because subways are under local rule and Congress grew concerned over a spate of crashes in its own backyard involving the WMATA, the country’s federal legislative body is now toying with the idea of bringing every subway system’s safety regulations under federal control. “We have federal safety standards for planes, trains and automobiles. It’s shocking we don’t have them for the 7 million Americans who rely on metro systems every day,” Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said to The Washington Post.

As we sit here in New York, though, we shouldn’t embrace this idea. Already our subway cars are generally heavier than they need to be. We also don’t have the same troubled history with safety regulations as the WMATA does. If Congress is truly concerned with that bi-state (and one district) subway authority, it should exercise its oversight powers there. Otherwise, federal oversight of New York City subways will likely lead to onerous regulations and unfunded mandates that will slow down service and rob us of our efficiencies. It’s just not necessary.

February 14, 2012 22 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesQueens

Queens pols, QueensWay advocates square off over rail line

by Benjamin Kabak February 14, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 14, 2012

As Gov. Andrew Cuomo continues to promote Genting’s plans for Ozone Park as a potential “destination complex,” politicians and park advocates are squaring off over the unused Rockaway Breach Branch of the LIRR. On the one side are neighborhood activists who want to turn the rail ROW into a park, and on the other are Queens politicians who know that increased transit options — and not just a super-express A train — are keys to any convention center/casino complex’s success.

Recently, two Assembly representatives from Queens, Phil Goldfeder and Michael Miller, announced their support for a rehabilitation and reactivation of the Rockaway Breach Branch line. The two envision this routing as a faster way for people from Ozone Park and the Rockaways to reach Manhattan. With the convention center, Goldfeder said, “the commute for people here is only going to go from bad to worse. You can’t talk about a convention center without talking about transportation.”

Activists for the so-called QueensWay, a rails-to-trails project that would forever sacrifice the rail option for the Rockaway Beach ROW, had a different take, and it is probably the group’s most out-there statement yet. “The building of a new rail line in this economy and the destruction it would cause into adjacent neighborhoods including Forest Park is not feasible,” Andrea Crawford of Friends of QueensWay said. Reactivating an old rail line certainly is feasible, and it would not cause destruction of any neighborhoods. Ultimately, the stumbling blocks will not be quasi-NIMBYism from QueensWay supporters but Genting’s reluctance to spend too much money and a lack of any other funding source.

February 14, 2012 27 comments
3 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Lhota: ‘I do not support’ a subway food ban

by Benjamin Kabak February 14, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 14, 2012

Were the food ban to pass, this man would not be permitted to eat in the subway. (Photo by flickr user phogel)

Senator Bill Perkins does not, like most New Yorkers, like rats all that much. He doesn’t want to be reminded that millions of them coexist with the human residents in this fine city of ours, and he particularly doesn’t want to see them at his subway stop, on his subway platform, in the tracks or perhaps even in the train. I can’t say I blame him too much.

The truth about rats in New York City — and it’s one we don’t like to admit — is that they are drawn to human waste. They feast on our garbage, and as long as we supply them with garbage, they’ll eat and be merry. The subways provide them with ample garbage. Harried New Yorkers are always eating, and although most straphangers make use of the trash receptacles, as the MTA has dubbed them, even if just a few bad eggs throw their food scraps onto the tracks or station floors, the rats will find a way to them.

And so Bill Perkins wants to head off that behavior by cutting off the source of food. There shall be, he has proposed, no eating in the subway. His bill has cleared the State Senate’s Transportation Committee, although 9 of the 16 yea votes came with reservations, and now it sits with the Finance Committee. Perhaps it will pass, and the challenge will fall to the enforcers. Perhaps it shall die a death in Albany.

Yesterday, while on a trip to speak out in support of transit funding, MTA CEO and Chairman offered up his views on the proposed food ban, and it is not on his transit wishlist. “I do not support the bill,” Lhota said to The Times. “It severely hurts and impacts minority communities. I don’t want to deny the kid the only time that day he’s going to get food.”

The new Chairman says that too many people, from workers to students, need their commute time to grab a quick bite and that the ban would be a burden. Lhota, however, is familiar with Perkins’ work as the two have tried to combat New York’s rat problem for years. The MTA head though didn’t offer up praise for the Senator. “The idea that we worked together in the past goes far beyond the reality. As a legislator, he does nothing but talk and talk and talk, and he does nothing,” he said.

Perkins countered with a different take. He claimed Lhota once offered up support for the food ban and believes his bill to be the key to controlling rats underground. That is a bold claim indeed. “If that’s his position, I’m sorry to hear that,” Perkins said of Lhota. “I think there is a great need for us to control eating in the subways to get control of the rodent infestation. We’re still trying to convince him.”

There is, of course, another way to look at this issue. As Cap’n Transit noted to me via Twitter last night, perhaps this issue is being improperly framed. The problem isn’t that people can eat underground; rather, the problem is that no one is there to clean up the garbage. Trash bags sit in stations for days, and rats find their ways to neglected sources of food. The Cap’n believes rehiring cleaners could make stations tidier while providing jobs for the unemployed. If Albany were to focus on such a solution, it could create a better win-win-win.

Meanwhile, I’m torn. Eating on the subway is not the most sanitary of things to do, and folks who chow down on complex meals are often disrespectful toward their fellow commuters and themselves. That people think the subway floor is an appropriate place for discarded chicken bones or unwanted french fries simply makes it worse. And so, dear readers, I shall leave the question up to you.

Should eating be outlawed in the subway system?
View Results

Update (2:30 p.m.): Facing criticism from other state officials for his comments, Lhota, noted during his time in the Guiliania Administration for his temper, issued a formal apology to Perkins this afternoon. “I would like to apologize to Senator Perkins for my comments in The Times today,” he said. “Bill is an excellent legislator with great constituent services, and I share his commitment to addressing the problem of rat proliferation in New York City. Though we agree on many rat related issues, we disagree on banning food on the subways. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Perkins.”

February 14, 2012 32 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesView from Underground

Link: On improperly enforced photography laws

by Benjamin Kabak February 13, 2012
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 13, 2012

Since the mid-2000s, when the MTA considered a misguided and borderline unconstitutional ban on photography, many people from transit workers to cops to straphangers believe snapping photos of subways, buses and authority infrastructure will land you with a one-way trip to Guantanamo. That isn’t, of course, the case, and veteran railfans and infrastructure shutterbugs know to carry a copy of the MTA’s Rules of Conduct which state as much. Still, every now and then, a story pops up that reminds us, even seven years after the proposed ban was discarded, not everyone knows the current state of the rules.

This time around, our story comes from Times photography David Dunlap. As he relates on City Room, he was told by an MTA property protection agent that he was not permitted to take photos of a bus depot from a public sidewalk. As Dunlap notes, the agent was wrong to tell him he could not take photos from the public sidewalk and wrong to tell him he could not take photos of the MTA property.

For its part, the MTA apologized to Dunlap and said that “the actions of the property protection agent…will be investigated.” That’s a convenient after-the-fact action though. In 2012, MTA employees and those who work to keep the system safe should know that photography is allowed, and anyone with a camera, from amateurs to professionals, shouldn’t have to fear an encounter with an authority figure who isn’t versed in the current rules.

February 13, 2012 8 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts

About The Author

Name: Benjamin Kabak
E-mail: Contact Me

Become a Patron!
Follow @2AvSagas

Upcoming Events
TBD

RSS? Yes, Please: SAS' RSS Feed
SAS In Your Inbox: Subscribe to SAS by E-mail

Instagram



Disclaimer: Subway Map © Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Used with permission. MTA is not associated with nor does it endorse this website or its content.

Categories

  • 14th Street Busway (1)
  • 7 Line Extension (118)
  • Abandoned Stations (31)
  • ARC Tunnel (52)
  • Arts for Transit (19)
  • Asides (1,244)
  • Bronx (13)
  • Brooklyn (126)
  • Brooklyn-Queens Connector (13)
  • Buses (291)
  • Capital Program 2010-2014 (27)
  • Capital Program 2015-2019 (56)
  • Capital Program 2020-2024 (3)
  • Congestion Fee (71)
  • East Side Access Project (37)
  • F Express Plan (22)
  • Fare Hikes (173)
  • Fulton Street (57)
  • Gateway Tunnel (29)
  • High-Speed Rail (9)
  • Hudson Yards (18)
  • Interborough Express (1)
  • International Subways (26)
  • L Train Shutdown (20)
  • LIRR (65)
  • Manhattan (73)
  • Metro-North (99)
  • MetroCard (124)
  • Moynihan Station (16)
  • MTA (98)
  • MTA Absurdity (233)
  • MTA Bridges and Tunnels (27)
  • MTA Construction (128)
  • MTA Economics (522)
    • Doomsday Budget (74)
    • Ravitch Commission (23)
  • MTA Politics (330)
  • MTA Technology (195)
  • New Jersey Transit (53)
  • New York City Transit (220)
  • OMNY (3)
  • PANYNJ (113)
  • Paratransit (10)
  • Penn Station (18)
  • Penn Station Access (10)
  • Podcast (30)
  • Public Transit Policy (164)
  • Queens (129)
  • Rider Report Cards (31)
  • Rolling Stock (40)
  • Second Avenue Subway (262)
  • Self Promotion (77)
  • Service Advisories (612)
  • Service Cuts (118)
  • Sponsored Post (1)
  • Staten Island (52)
  • Straphangers Campaign (40)
  • Subway Advertising (45)
  • Subway Cell Service (34)
  • Subway History (81)
  • Subway Maps (83)
  • Subway Movies (14)
  • Subway Romance (13)
  • Subway Security (104)
  • Superstorm Sandy (35)
  • Taxis (43)
  • Transit Labor (151)
    • ATU (4)
    • TWU (100)
    • UTU (8)
  • Triboro RX (4)
  • U.S. Transit Systems (53)
    • BART (1)
    • Capital Metro (1)
    • CTA (7)
    • MBTA (11)
    • SEPTA (5)
    • WMATA (28)
  • View from Underground (447)

Archives

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram

@2019 - All Right Reserved.


Back To Top