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

Public Transit Policy

On transit issues, fighting an uphill battle

by Benjamin Kabak March 18, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 18, 2011

I often think that New Yorkers should care more about transit issues than they do. Whether people realize it or not, the subways are the hidden, underground force driving the New York City economy, and without them, the city will slow down. New York is the city that never sleeps because its subways never stop.

Still, most people are happy to remain in the dark on issues surrounding transit. They’re happy to repeat disproved tales of two sets of books and don’t understand the admittedly complicated financial structure that supports the MTA. They pay little attention to transit policy or the politics behind it. Most people do not have the time or energy to stay informs, and others will do it for them.

A recent Quinnipiac poll supports that belief. In a survey of New Yorkers’ political views and beliefs, the pollsters found that few people believe transit issues are that pressing. In fact, when asked what the most important problem facing New Yorkers are today, only five percent said mass transit issues were most important. Far more picked on education or the economy or even the overall budget as more pressing.

On an micro level, the numbers are even worse. Only three percent of respondents believe that quality mass transit/public transportation is a major problem while just one percent believe that highway or traffic congestion are of great concern. Of course, while those numbers are depressing, the poll is a binary one. Something either is the most important issue or isn’t, and respondents couldn’t grade issues on a sliding scale. Perhaps New Yorkers believe transit is a compelling problem but not the compelling problem of the day.

Over at Streetsblog, Noah Kazis found the silver lining in these poll numbers. Highlighting how more people picked public transit over congestion as a problem, Kazis wrote, “The voters most concerned with transportation — the ones who will be thinking about it at the ballot box — are far more interested in transit than traffic flow.”

That may very well be true, but it’s hard to find comfort in those figures. New Yorkers don’t mind public transit. They complain about it; they want trains to run more frequently, be less crowded and be nicer. But when push comes to shove, the economy and education will always remain of paramount importance.

What then can we do? I want to see a better transit system. I want to see smarter traffic and transit policies, a more robust investment in the system by our state politicians and realistic expansion plans that can happen in the next decade. I’d rather not see endless fare hikes and service cuts while the MTA races to cover its bottom line, but that’s where we are.

Until New Yorkers begin to pay more attention, transit will always just be a background issue. It’s easy to kick around the MTA because they mostly deserve it, and few people will bother to learn more about it. That’s just the nature of things right now. It might be an uphill battle, but I’ll keep fighting it. Transit should be a bigger issue amongst New York voters, but right now, it has a long way to go.

March 18, 2011 4 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesNew York City Transit

Signal worker pleads not guilty in inspection scandal

by Benjamin Kabak March 17, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 17, 2011

Ilya Klyauzov, 57 and the first MTA worker to face criminal charges in the ongoing signalgate investigation, has pled not guilty to charges of tampering with public records and official misconduct. MTA investigators found photocopied signal bar codes in Klyauzov’s locker following a raid on an MTA workroom earlier this year, but the signal inspector claims he is being scapegoated. “We’re going to beat them; don’t worry,” he said to reporters this morning.

Kylauzov is the first of what should be many to face prosecution for this ongoing scandal. According to Transit investigators (and per The Daily News), he “falsely claimed in an NYC Transit division logbook that, on two different dates in December and January, the maintenance team he supervised completed inspections of 15 pieces of equipment along the No. 7 subway line…On another date, he is suspected of falsely reporting work on 20 subway relays.”

While Kylauzov’s lawyer denied the charges, District Attorney Cy Vance vowed to prosecute to the fullest extent allowed by law. “The defendant falsified the MTA’s records in an attempt to save himself from necessary work,” Vance said in a statement. “Crimes like these can lead to delays in service, or far worse. My Office will continue to work closely with the MTA Inspector General in order to ensure the safety of New York City commuters, whom we believe deserve much better.” If convicted, Kylauvoz could face up to seven years in prison.

March 17, 2011 2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Queens

At Court Sq., a new name but no transfer yet

by Benjamin Kabak March 17, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 17, 2011

The sign, sent out to reporters by the MTA a few minutes ago, pretty much says it all — except for when the Court Sq. transfer between the G and 7 will open.

Updated (5:05 p.m. with a correction): While the immediate opening date of the Court Sq. transfer between the 7 and G train remains unknown, New York City Transit has announced that the 23rd Street-Ely Ave. station on the Queens Boulevard local line is now Court Square-23rd Street. The name-change, says Transit, is “in anticipation of the opening of the free transfer” that was supposed to have opened in February. It’s current status is unknown, but the new station name will begin appearing on subway maps and train announcements soon. New signage as well will go up at the station.

The press release though is vague on the connection. It says that debut of the new transfer is expected “sometime this spring,” but that’s been the party line for months. I recently heard that disputes over Citi’s obligations and some slow work on the escalators are responsible for the delays.

When the transfer is complete, the 7 stop at 45th Road-Court House Square will also be renamed Court Square, and the G station will no longer carry the “Long Island City” moniker on the subway map. The entire station then will be Court Square-23rd Street.

The press release also included a bit of New York City history: “Opened in 1939, the station is located on 44th Drive between 23rd and 21st Streets in Long Island City, Queens. Ely Avenue was the original name of 23rd Street before streets in the borough were given numbers by the Queens Topographical Bureau in 1915. It is the last station in the borough on the Queens Boulevard line before crossing the East River through the 53rd Street tunnel into Manhattan.” One day, our free transfer amongst the E, M, G and 7 trains will come.

March 17, 2011 51 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

On the waterfront, $3 billion for redevelopment

by Benjamin Kabak March 17, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 17, 2011

The city has released a $3 billion plan to revitalize the waterfront with 130 different urban planning projects.

The lasting image many people have of the New York City waterfront comes from a movie of a similar name. The miles of waterfront property coulda been a contender, as Marlon Brando once put it. Instead, the city has a tenuous relationship with its shoreline. At various points, multi-lane highways, industry and infrastructure have laid claim to prime waterfront spots, and while a port city needs its access to water, development north of the port has been slow.

That all will change if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way. As part of his third-term effort to leave a lasting impact on the city’s landscape, the Mayor announced earlier this week a $3 billion plan to redevelop the waterfront. I hesitate to call it a comprehensive one because it gathers numerous projects at various stages under one roof, but by and large, it would allow for the city to return access to the waterfront to people.

The driving force behind this effort is a 190-page document entitled “Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan.” The city has identified 130 projects — along with an expanded ferry service introduced last month — that planners hope will “catalyze waterfront investment, improve water quality, and expand public access” to the city’s shore.

Those in charge of the city’s economic development policies are happy because waterfront space is indeed a valuable commodity. “The waterfront represents an enormous opportunity for economic growth throughout the five boroughs,” EDC President Seth Pinsky said. “By investing in and expanding the working waterfront, we will be creating immediate job opportunities for New Yorkers as well as a source of long-term economic growth for New York City. Developing our waterfront infrastructure, so that we can expand industries like container shipping, will allow us to stay competitive with other waterfront cities around the world.”

Michael Howard Saul from The Journal had more on the details:

The $3 billion-plus initiative includes the development of more than 50 acres of new waterfront parks, the creation of 14 new waterfront esplanades and new ferry service.

Many of the projects are already in the city’s capital plan, and while these types of initiatives are often delayed—sometimes indefinitely—aides at City Hall said the mayor and the speaker are determined to make these 130 a high priority before their terms in office expire in December 2013.

The most expensive portion of these projects, a total of $2.57 billion, will be overseen by the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, which is funded largely through water rates. The remainder of the projects, valued at more than $700 million, are funded directly by city taxpayers.

Other projects include pier renovation and reclamation work; development of 50 acres of waterfront parks; more miles of greenway; and a push to bring more jobs to the Brooklyn Navy Yard space. “New York City’s waterfront has always played a major role in its history and is one of its greatest assets – we have more miles of waterfront Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland combined – but for decades New Yorkers have been blocked from it and it’s become less and less a part of their lives,” the Mayor said. “We’re committed to making it a part of New Yorkers’ lives again by completely revitalizing the waterfront and waterways.”

Yet for all the back-slapping that went on during this week’s press conference, Steve Spinola of the Real Estate Board of New York had an interesting statement on the proposal. “The question is how to you get people to the waterfront—to live or to the work or to play,” he said. “You need this blend of open space and infrastructure improvements, as well as the ability to attract investors to help pay for the ongoing cost of maintaining the waterfront.”

For $3 billion, Bloomberg’s proposal is noticeably short on answering Spinola’s question. The issues of getting people to the waterfront have long bedeviled New York’s city planners. Part of that is a historical happenstance: As roads developed, subway routes didn’t reach the waterfront. But part of that is geography: The land around the waterfront cannot support subway infrastructure. So the city will turn to ferries and hope that people are walking.

I can’t complain about waterfront development. Incorporating the views and riverfront space back into the daily routine of urban life would be a welcome development for New Yorkers. But for $3 billion, the city should make sure it can get people to the waterfront in the first place. Building up without adequate transportation is the recipe for an empty esplanade.

March 17, 2011 13 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesHigh-Speed Rail

Northeast Corridor receives HSR designation

by Benjamin Kabak March 16, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 16, 2011

In a letter Senator Frank Lautenberg sent earlier this week, Ray LaHood, President Obama’s Secretary of Transportation, announced that the popular Northeast Corridor has been designated as the 11th and final High-Speed Rail corridor. As Transportation Nation noted, this designation means that Amtrak can now apply directly for high-speed rail funds, and the states do not have to go through the process of applying for funding for individual segments. As Senator Robert Menendez said on Twitter, the NEC is now eligible to apply for the $2.4 billion in federal funding Florida is in the process of sacrificing.

It always made sense to designate the Northeast Corridor as one eligible for high-speed rail, and it’s kind of surprising it’s taken this long. Amtrak’s Acela service is the most popular and profitable in the nation, and improving that service would reduce auto traffic between Washington, D.C, and Boston as well as air traffic. That the feds are coming together around such a plan is a positive sign indeed.

Of course, plenty of challenges remain though. Amtrak would have to fast-track the Gateway Tunnel and could do so with federal funds. But acquisition costs for land around the corridor will be high. In fact, when Amtrak unveiled its high-speed rail plans for the Northeast Corridor in the fall, the pricetag was a stunning $4.7 billion a year for 25 years. This designation is a great first step, but it’s only that. High-speed rail through New York City remains just a good idea on paper.

March 16, 2011 44 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Economics

Moving toward a payroll mobility tax repeal

by Benjamin Kabak March 16, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 16, 2011

Some news from Long Island: State Senator Lee M. Zeldin, one of a group of Republican representatives from outside of the city, is thrilled to announce that a recent Senate Budget Resolution is an “important first step” on the road to a repeal of the payroll mobility tax. The resolution, which will still need to get through the Assembly and past Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s desk, ends the tax on public and private school. It is, said Zeldin, “the first steps in my efforts to completely eliminate this job killing tax. Exempting schools also removes a school district operating cost, which is paid for by property taxes.”

In addition to this new exemption, the resolution would demand the MTA submit to a full-scale forensic audit within 60 days of its enactment. Allegedly, the audit will find “hundreds of millions more in savings that can be used to support complete repeal of the MTA payroll tax for every employer in the MTA Region.” The MTA, of course, has long embraced a forensic audit, and if such an examination reveals that much savings, it would be a welcome development.

Ultimately, this road to repeal can be a dangerous one for New York and the MTA. As Jay Walder said a few weeks ago, “It would be impossible for the MTA to replace $1.4 billion.” Zeldin and those who support repeal have their constituent interests in mind, but the money is going to have to come from somewhere lest our transit network and regional economy suffer the consequences.

March 16, 2011 21 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA

A tenuous relationship between transit and developers

by Benjamin Kabak March 16, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 16, 2011

Vornado says they will fund and maintain transit improvements underneath 15 Penn Plaza. (Click to enlarge)

The relationship between transit and development in New York City is a tight one indeed. While early subway routes snaked their way through population centers of the day, the expansion of the system throughout Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx spurred on dense development in areas of the city far from Manhattan’s Central Business District. It’s no stretch, then, to say that without the subways, the city wouldn’t be as big and as far-flung as it is, and landlords wouldn’t be nearly as well off as they are.

Why then do management companies and building owners have such a tenuous relationship with transit investments? Those constructing new buildings and complexes that will exert a pull on the transit system must contribute to expansion plans, but those landlords who enjoy the benefits of transit improvements are reluctant to pay for routine maintenance and upkeep. The Union Square escalator saga is a prime example of that phenomenon.

In the Real Estate section in today’s Times, Julie Satow explores how the MTA is trying to work with developers to improve investment in transit-related properties and encourage better cooperation between interested the parties. She writes:

There are more than 600 miles of subway track and hundreds of stations in New York City, and zoning requires that developers in high-density areas like Midtown Manhattan, Union Square and Downtown Brooklyn move nearby subway entrances into their property lines and renovate them. As a result, private entities may be responsible for public services, a situation that some experts say is not always ideal.

“The M.T.A. has learned the hard way that it is one thing to ask a developer to make an upfront capital investment, and quite another one to maintain something on a day-to-day basis over the years,” said Juliette Michaelson , the director of strategic initiatives at the Regional Plan Association, a policy, research and advocacy group. “In 10 years, when that escalator fails, who fixes it? These details must be worked out in advance.”

To improve its dealings with private developers, two years ago the transit authority quietly opened a three-person Office of Transit-Oriented Development. It hired Robert Paley, a real estate expert who spent time in the private sector — as an executive at AvalonBay Communities he helped develop Avalon Chrystie Place on East Houston Street — and also worked previously at the M.T.A. on projects like the Atlantic Terminal Mall in Brooklyn.

Paley, writes Satow, is in charge of coordinating “the many public agencies and other stakeholders that are often involved in large, privately financed transit improvements.” His role, he says, is taking on increased importance as the real estate market begins to rebound. “It was very quiet when I first came onboard, but in the past several months, the phone in our office has begun ringing, indicating to me that developers are warming to the idea of building again,” Paley said.

The test case for the authority’s new approach will be Vornado’s plan to reopen the Gimbel’s Passageway as part of its 15 Penn Plaza development. Vornado is hoping to build a two-million square foot office building at 15 Penn Plaza, and in exchange for gaining an exemption to the zoning regulations, it has pledged to fund extensive transit improvements at Penn Station.

Paley wants to hold the company’s feet to the fire. “if the construction starts, and the building moves quickly, there is a risk that the public improvements that were promised will get left behind,” he said of efforts to secure a firm plan for the upgrades before 15 Penn Plaza rises.

Still, as Satow highlights, even these pre-build deals don’t fully address issues of continuing maintenance. That’s the real problem. Escalators that remain broken and never get repaired are a blight upon the system and inconvenient as well. Entrances that remain closed over disputes between upkeep — such as the one at the north end of the 50th St. station along 8th Ave. — lend only the illusion of access. Developers and building owners should be more committed partners in this dance, and hopefully, Paley can realize that goal.

March 16, 2011 3 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesNew York City Transit

Report: Dion drunk before Union Square accident

by Benjamin Kabak March 15, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 15, 2011

Over the past few months, I’ve been following the tale of Michael Dion somewhat closely. In mid-December, Dion fell off the IRT platform at Union Square and found himself pinned between the gap-fillers and a 4 train for 30 minutes before rescue workers could free him. In January, he vowed to sue the MTA for $15 million. At the time, I noted how his sobriety would become a major issue in the case, and indeed it has.

As both The Post and Daily News note today, the initial police report and subsequent MTA assessment allege that Dion was visibly intoxicated. “Witnesses reported seeing him staggering about the platform while holding a can of Budweiser,” the report says. It also notes that the train operator “observed a Budweiser can beside Mr. Dion, and in his opinion, Mr. Dion appeared to be inebriated.”

Dion’s lawyer, of course, denies this charge and questioned again why the gap fillers have remained as unsafe as they were when first built over 100 years ago. The beer can, the lawyer claims, was placed near Dion by another passenger. “He was not slugging beer on the platform,” Jay Dankner, the lawyer, said. “He refutes anybody saying he was carrying an open can of beer in a bag or not on the platform.” Clearly, Dion’s sobriety or lack thereof will be a major issue of fact for the jury if and when this case reaches trial. A lot of money in damages could hinge on it.

March 15, 2011 22 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Buses

Amidst NIMBYs, a new look for 34th Street

by Benjamin Kabak March 15, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 15, 2011

The latest plan for 34th Street isn't nearly as ambitious as the Transitway was.

The Department of Transportation unveiled another new new look for 34th Street on Monday, and despite my earlier doom and gloom, the proposed design isn’t all bad. Despite giving more space over to cars and parking while removing many of the benefits for pedestrians, it seemingly prioritizes buses and does give more sidewalk space to those who most need it.

Per the latest DOT presentation, 34th Street’s new look will feature dedicated — but not physically separated — bus lanes as well as bus bulbs and more curbside space. Traffic will be confined to one late in each direction, and from 9th Ave. to 3rd Ave., only one side of the street will enjoy precious curbside access. Plus, the MTA will institute pre-boarding fare payment procedures this year, thus speeding up the bus in the process.

During the presentation last night, DOT officials spoke about their goals for 34th Street. As it stands right now, the street plays host to 33,000 bus riders per day, but the vehicles average only 4.5 miles per hour. It also features some of the most tourist-laden sidewalks in the city and, as the Far West Side emerges as a residential and commercial hub, will play host to future growth.

Meanwhile, with input from the community, DOT tried to incorporate a variety of aspects into the new plan. While the old Transitway reserved most space for pedestrians and buses, the new proposal called for shared road space. DOT tried to “improve curbside access wherever possible” while also maintaining two-way traffic. Despite the focus on cars, though, the department also wanted to make sure that pedestrian improvements were key. Thus, the new plan includes 18000 square feet of new pedestrian space while increasing daytime loading spots from 55 to 355. As compromises goes, this one, while far from ideal, isn’t awful.

The future for 34th Street, though, is still hazy. Nearly four years after the Transitway was first presented to the public, DOT still has another year to go on this new plan. It will conduct open houses on March 30th and 31st before presenting a traffic analysis in the fall and an environmental assessment report by early 2012. We’d be lucky to see these badly needed street improvements before the next presidential election. That’s a timeline far too elongated by rampant NIMBYism.

And that brings me to this interesting article in The Times’ Week in Review. Noting the small but loud minority of folks who hate the Prospect Park bike lane, Elisabeth Rosenthal accuses liberals in particular of espousing green development — except for when it impacts their lives. She writes:

Nimbyism is nothing new. It’s even logical sometimes, perhaps not always deserving of opprobrium. After all, it is one thing to be a passionate proponent of recycling, and another to welcome a particular recycling plant — with the attendant garbage-truck traffic — on your street. General environmental principles may be at odds with convenience or even local environmental consequences.

But policymakers in the United States have been repeatedly frustrated by constituents who profess to worry about the climate and count themselves as environmentalists, but prove unwilling to adjust their lifestyles or change their behavior in any significant way. In Europe, bike lanes crisscross cities, wind turbines appear in counties with high-priced country homes and plants that make green energy from waste are situated in even the wealthiest neighborhoods. So what is going on here?

Robert B. Cialdini, an emeritus professor at Arizona State University who studies environmental behaviors, points to two phenomena: Humans hew to the “normative” behaviors of their community. In places where bike lanes or wind turbines or B.R.T. systems are seen as an integral part of society, people tend not protest a new one; if they are not the norm, they will. Second, whatever feelings people have about abstract issues like the environment, in practice they react more passionately to immediate rewards and punishments (like a ready parking space) than distant consequences (like the threat of warming).

It’s something to chew on at least as we’ve seen an ambitious plan for 34th street pared down to some relatively minor bus improvements. Of course, NIMBYism is a curse and a blessing for any democracy, but at some point, those of us who espouse pedestrian- and transit-oriented development have to win those folks over to our side. Along 34th Street, we didn’t, and the future plans are worst off for it.

March 15, 2011 19 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesView from Underground

Great Moments in Urban Planning: Curbside Cafe reaction

by Benjamin Kabak March 14, 2011
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 14, 2011

As part of the next Department of Transportation measure designed to make the city’s sidewalks more pedestrian- and business-friendly, the agency is set to approve 12 curbside cafes in Brooklyn and Manhattan that will extend the sidewalks by six feet. DOT is working hand-in-hand with community boards to gain approval and set standards — including the hours — for these outdoor spots that are prevalent in Europe, but still The Post is upset. Road space and parking spots might be taken away! How terrible.

The piece in this weekend’s paper by Susan Edelman contains a few gems too. Sean Sweeney, head of the SoHo Alliance and noted hater of all things livable streets, says, “We don’t want outdoor dining or public plazas in our neighborhood!” Imagine that: SoHo, one of the most walkable and restaurant-rich neighborhoods in the city, doesn’t want public plazas.

But that reaction pales in comparison to the statement uttered by Maury Schott, a North Carolina transplant who’s now the chair of CB2’s sidewalks committee. “If a driver happens to be texting,” he said, “he could slam into a cafe at 35 to 40 mph.” Got that? We should protest street improvements because if a driver happens to be illegally texting while speeding, someone might get hurt. As businesses rush to apply for permits for these outdoor cafes, that is some sound logic from folks grasping at straws.

March 14, 2011 17 comments
0 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