Second Ave. Sagas

Skanska/Traylor bid leading the pack at 86th St.

by Benjamin Kabak March 9, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 9, 2011

Ben Heckscher over at The Launch Box has up an interesting bit on Contract C-26008 today. For those unfamiliar with the number, that’s contract 5B for the Second Ave. Sagas for work on the 86th Street station cavern. According to Heckscher, the bid results were recently made public, and the Skanska/Traylor joint venture is in the lead with a bid of $301,860,000.

Interestingly, as Heckscher notes, this bid is well below the amount the MTA expected to spend on the cavern and mining work around East 86th Street, and that low bid is in line with what Denise Richardson of the General Contractors Associate said at the Museum of the City of New York a few weeks ago. Because these contractors are itching to keep their workers employed and their machines running, now is a good time to submit contracts for bids. Companies are willing to operate efficiently if it means more work. As the MTA’s capital budget comes due for more money, I hope Albany is paying attention.

Meanwhile, the 86th St. contract will be an interesting one to watch because the litigation over the station entrances could pay a role yet. As Heckscher writes, it isn’t clear how the lawsuit will impact this work, but for now, the cavern work can proceed apace. Not until demolition work and entrance scoping begins does the above-ground machinations affect the construction below.

March 9, 2011 4 comments

Asides Buses

Transit orders 90 low-floor vehicles from Nova Bus

by Benjamin Kabak March 9, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 9, 2011

Nova Bus is readying an order of 90 low-floor systems vehicles for a New York City Transit test run, the company announced yesterday. As part of a plan to develop the next generation of rolling stock for New York City’s bus system, Transit has requested three different kinds of 40-foot buses, and Nova Bus will fulfill this $40-million order at its Plattsburgh, NY-based plant. “The Nova Bus team is keenly focused on sustainable business development,” Gilles Dion, the company’s president and CEO said, “and we are pleased to have the opportunity to pursue our partnership with one of the leading transit authorities in North America.”

According to a company spokesperson, the buses will arrive in New York within the next few weeks, and the initial tests could lead to more orders if the trials are successful. “Not only does it benefit New Yorkers downstate who get to ride these Nova buses, but more importantly, this creates good-paying jobs right here in Plattsburgh,” Senator Chuck Schumer said. “The MTA is now a repeat customer with Nova, and this new contract reaffirms that Nova is a first-class facility doing great work in Plattsburgh.” Nova Bus is currently working on an order of 60-foot articulated buses for the MTA as well.

March 9, 2011 4 comments

View from Underground

Why do people hate transit?

by Benjamin Kabak March 9, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 9, 2011

As this past week’s Transportation Camp Unconference settled into its routine, someone proposed one intriguing idea that never made it into a session. The theme was a simple one with a complex answer. “Why do people hate transit?” this card said.

Since first espying this topic and realizing we wouldn’t have a chance to explore it, I’ve been turning this idea over in my head. There is no doubt that people in New York City have a tense relationship with transit. We hear millions clamoring for better subway service, faster bus service and less congestion.

But when ideas are implemented — when bus lanes and bike lanes are proposed and built, as subway construction tears up a neighborhood and a commercial strip — the din is deafening. We’re seeing it along 34th St. and Prospect Park West and at one apartment building along 86th St. as lawsuits and whining take over. Essentially, New Yorkers want better transit as long as it doesn’t inconvenience them, take away their precious parking or car lanes or lead to improvements that alter their behavior.

That’s a very broad generalization on my part, though, and as I’ve thought harder about it, I’ve come to the realization that there are seemingly two camps of people in New York City. First, there are those who hate the MTA and want emptier trains to come more frequently while they pay less for the service. Then, there are those who hate the idea of public transit. They want the luxuries of a life in the city without being told that they should give up their cars or being subtly urged toward greener and more socially friendly modes of transportation.

The twain, however, shall meet. Both groups are united by a seeming dislike of the inherent social aspect of transit. I know I’m guilty of harboring ill will toward fellow passengers when I’m too tired to think in the morning but have to shove my way onto a train car packed with people who won’t move in and are blasting music through leaky earbuds. I scoff at those who litter at a station, throw something into the tracks or eat on a train car with no regard for their surroundings. I roll my eyes at those who think they are entitled to two seats or make only a token effort to get out of the way while standing in front of a subway car door.

In other words, we dislike transit because we are exposed to aspects of ourselves and society that we’d rather not confront. We are inherently selfish and hate to share personal space, but on the city’s trains and buses, we have to. When we factor in the condition of Transit’s physical plant and New Yorkers’ rational and irrational distrust of the MTA, it’s not hard to figure out why people seem to hate public transit.

The other folks — the drivers who think cars should trump bikes, buses and pedestrians in urban areas — are tougher to pinpoint. It too is a form of selfish NIMBYism that trickles up to those who represent us in Albany. Although cars pass through vibrant economic hubs in urban areas and drivers often do not stop to shop, car drivers can get very protective of their lanes. They feel threatened by better transit options because better transit options will inevitably lead to less parking or less surface space for cars.

The $64,000 question then is how to fix it? It isn’t feasible or cost-effective for the MTA to run enough service to please everyone. They can’t improve the bus system without taking space from drivers, and they can’t run trains that arrive every two minutes throughout the day while keeping fares as low as they are today. They could make station environments more pleasant by cleaning up or accelerating the station rehab plans. That costs money that the agency doesn’t have.

Ultimately, transit is one of those things most people begrudgingly rely upon for their every-day existence. It’s impossible to please everyone all the time, and transit agencies and advocates have to forge ahead with an unfortunate mix of paternalism and patience. People hate transit, but without it, New York City wouldn’t be where it is today.

March 9, 2011 46 comments

BART

In praise of hard plastic seats

by Benjamin Kabak March 8, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 8, 2011

People aren't the only things nestling into BART's cushioned seats. (Photo by flickr user Olivier Hill)

Our subway system’s familiar plastic seats may not be kind on either the rear or the eyes. The bucket seats were designed for people far skinnier than even the thinnest of New Yorkers, and the blue benches in the new rolling stock tend to grow more uncomfortable as the subway ride stretches ever on.

That said, after reading this article on BART seats in The Times this weekend, I have vowed never to complain about New York’s hard plastic again. Zusha Elinson of the Bay Citizen journalism project writes of the various…things…found in the cushions of the Bay Area’s metro cars:

The Bay Citizen commissioned Darleen Franklin, a supervisor at San Francisco State University’s biology lab, to analyze the bacterial content of a random BART seat. The results may make you want to stand during your trip.

Fecal and skin-borne bacteria resistant to antibiotics were found in a seat on a train headed from Daly City to Dublin/Pleasanton. Further testing on the skin-borne bacteria showed characteristics of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, the drug-resistant bacterium that causes potentially lethal infections, although Ms. Franklin cautioned that the MRSA findings were preliminary.

High concentrations of at least nine bacteria strains and several types of mold were found on the seat. Even after Ms. Franklin cleaned the cushion with an alcohol wipe, potentially harmful bacteria were found growing in the fabric.

Dr. John Swartzberg, a clinical professor at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, played down the threat of infection from harmful bacteria on a BART seat. “I suspect it’s not a very big problem,” Dr. Swartzberg said. “That said, if there’s another way to do it, where you can clean it better, then you should do it.”

A spokesman for BART called the results of the test “not surprising.” Yummy.

The article explores how much BART spends on cleaning, what their procedures are for tackling the dirtiest of the dirty and plans to replace the cushions in 2017 with something else. A similar test of hard plastic seats on MUNI found only “benign bacteria colonies” instead of the “veritable forest of mold and colorful bacteria” swiped from the seats.

For their parts, riders who are anticipating new rolling stock are rooting for the plastic. “I would seriously sacrifice my comfort for a more sanitary surrounding,” Carrie Nee said. “Granted, you’re going to be comfortable with the seats they have now, but I think your health is much more important than having your butt hurt for half an hour.” I too would take fewer germs and bacteria over a cushion or two on the ride home.

March 8, 2011 25 comments

View from Underground

Graphic of the Day: Pregnant on the subway

by Benjamin Kabak March 8, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 8, 2011

I’ve always enjoyed pondering and writing about subway etiquette, and one of the more obvious areas of this field concern pregnant women. People on subway trains are notoriously adept at avoiding eye contact with others on the subway and often pretend they don’t see those who are pregnant. In fact, my girlfriend witnessed a pregnant lady board a crowded train along Queens Boulevard, and she couldn’t secure a seat for a stop or two.

To the highlight the problem, Elizabeth Carey Smith of The Letter Office charted her progress in the subway while pregnant and presented the results in graphic form. Click the image below for a much larger version.

Essentially, she found that people on the G train rarely gave up their seats while women on the 6 and men on the L were most forthcoming. More men than women gave up seats, and more people did so in the morning than in the evening. The graphic is a good reminder to those who aren’t or will never be pregnant: Give up your seat to those who need it.

March 8, 2011 65 comments

SEPTA

Building a better subway bench

by Benjamin Kabak March 8, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 8, 2011

Veyko-designed benches in Philadelphia's subway system meld art and style to create a durable subway bench. (Photo via AN Blog)

Every few months, the benches in the subway system — those sometimes-convenient, often-dirty wooden slabs that provide a few minutes’ respite while the subway comes — sneak their way into a news story. Sometimes, we hear about bedbugs in the wood; sometimes, we hear about plans to do away with the unhygienic wood. Still, the wood lingers, attracting gum, spills and other less-than-appealing discolorations.

Out of Philadelphia, though, we hear today of a project a few years in the making. In late 2009, with the support of a federal grant, design shop Veyko unveiled a stainless steel bench that doubled as an Arts for Transit installation. It’s functional, comfortable and, most importantly clean.

Jennifer K. Grosche from the Architect’s Newspaper A/N Blog profiled the bench and its makers recently. She spoke with the team behind the bench. “As a fabricator, you often see these blob forms, but my particular interest was taking that form and putting it in the most caustic situation, which is a major urban transit system,” Richard Goloveyko said. “We wanted to see that form built well enough to exist the wear and tear of a subway station.”

As Grosche notes, the benches have been proven to last:

The benches have resiliency thanks to their bent wire design. The idea for the shape came from the way subway travelers wait in the station: they sit or they lean. By modeling these positions in Rhinoceros and Solidworks, the team created a map between the two postures, and the curved, skeleton-like form took shape. Bench frames were cut using a five-axis water jet machine, while CNC wire forming bent 5/6-inch stainless steel strands to meet exact parameters set forth in the computer model. Wires are spaced at 1-1/8 inches on-center to create a comfortable, structurally sound design that also allows water and small debris to pass through.

The ten, 20-foot-long benches fabricated by Veyko were bolted to station walls using Hilti epoxy anchors, giving cleaning crews easy access to clean the floor beneath. As another sanitary measure, the stainless steel is electro-polished, resulting in a mirror-like finish that resists dirt and bacterial buildup, similar to finishes used on sanitary hospital equipment.

The design of the benches discourages anyone from lying on them, a parameter in the competition guidelines, but “virtually everyone uses them differently,” said Goloveyko. Kids tend to nestle into the seat, some people sit on the area for leaning, and some gather in the small alcoves formed by the arched seat. Now, about a year after installation, the benches show no signs of damage—no small feat for a station that sees tens of thousands of travelers a day.

The various angles allow those waiting for a train to use the bench as they please. (Image via Veyko)

Goloveyko says the prototype installed in Philadelphia is too expensive to mass market to transit agencies around the country, but he’s working on developing a lower-cost solution to transportation seating woes. Instead, the complex design is viewed as a potential one-off installation for those looking to add style and interesting architecture to otherwise-drab transportation surroundings.

In New York, we’ll continue onward with our wooden benches. They’re cheap to manufacture and seem to absorb everything that gets tossed their way. Maybe when our new subway routes open in a few years, shiny benches will come with them, but for now, we’ll just admire them from afar.

March 8, 2011 18 comments

Subway Security

DiNapoli: MTA security improvements over budget

by Benjamin Kabak March 7, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 7, 2011

The MTA’s capital security improvements are moving forward slowly, but these key investments are way over budget and four years behind schedule, according to yet another report released today by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. The audit — the seventh from DiNapoli in recent years that focuses on the agency’s security efforts — praises the authority for improving the porous system’s safety but worries that there is not enough money to fund 16 necessary projects. Furthermore, DiNapoli notes that the projects which should have wrapped in September 2008 are not due to finish until mid-2012 and that costs on key projects — including the camera system — have more than doubled in the ensuing years.

“The capital security program the MTA has implemented since 9-11 has made New Yorkers more secure,” said DiNapoli said in a statement. “The MTA has made progress, particularly in the last two years. But the mass transit system is still inherently vulnerable. Individual projects in this program are months if not years behind schedule and well over budget, and additional capital improvements are needed. My office will continue to track MTA management of this program.”

DiNapoli’s press release sums up the report (pdf):

The projects in Phase 1 of the MTA’s capital security program target the system’s most vulnerable and heavily used assets, including stations, transit hubs, bridges and tunnels. Each project involves one or more facilities and security improvements to elements such as electronic security and surveillance, fire, life and safety and evacuation enhancements, perimeter protection and structural hardening. This phase, originally scheduled for completion by September 2008, will not be completed until June 2012.

After more than nine years, the MTA has completed 11 of the original 16 security projects as well as elements of the five remaining projects. The MTA has hardened all 14 facilities planned for Phase 1; improved lighting, communication systems, and smoke and fire detection equipment in 15 facilities; installed perimeter protection around four facilities; and despite significant setbacks, the electronic security program.

As of December 2010, the MTA had completed 31 of 38 planned construction tasks and the remaining seven tasks were all in the process of construction, though more than 60 percent of the 38 tasks were behind their established schedules, including 11 that were behind by more than one year (five tasks were more than 30 months late). The cost of Phase 1 (including two facilities that were deferred from Phase 1 to Phase 2) has grown from $591 million to $851 million, an increase of 44 percent.

Ultimately, according to the report, Phase 2 will attempt to fund 33 of the original 57 areas that need security upgrades, but 16 projects will remain only on the drawing board until money becomes available.

As DiNapoli notes, since 2007, he has issued 27 releases on the MTA which include 14 audits and 13 top-line reports. He is still conducting eight more audits and a forensic audit on overtime and another performed in conjunction with the city comptroller’s office. Still, I’m left with the same question I have every time he sends out a release: What’s the point?

The MTA’s troubles with their security improvements and the exponentially increasing costs have drawn newspaper headlines for years. DiNapoli’s report doesn’t highlight ways in which the authority can implement cost-savings measures and fails to mention what they’re doing wrong. Do we really need to expend more taxpayer dollars on something we already know?

March 7, 2011 6 comments

Subway Advertising

Coming soon: In-tunnel subway advertising

by Benjamin Kabak March 7, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 7, 2011

As the cash-starved MTA looks to milk dollars out of its existing physical plant, the authority may soon begin running moving ads inside its subway tunnels, WNYC’s Jim O’Grady reported this morning. The authority, says O’Grady, has been receiving bids from companies looking to run these ads and believes these ads will help boost its ad revenue. “Anywhere there’s a dark tunnel, you could do it,” authority spokesman Aaron Donovan said said.

O’Grady has more on the latest push to find non-tax sources for dollars:

The tunnel ads would show a string of varied images that, when viewed from a passing train, would move like a flip book. A similar effect is visible in a subway artwork called Masstransiscope between the Manhattan Bridge and the DeKalb Avenue station in Brooklyn. As the D train glides by an unused station at Myrtle Avenue, painted images flash behind vertical slits and appear to be animated.

Donovan said most ideas for non-traditional ad placement come from advertisers themselves. In recent years, the MTA has permitted video on the outside of buses and ads that wrap entire train cars, like the 6 train that became a long rolling ad for Target last fall, when the company opened a store on 116th Street in Harlem.

Then there is a program called “station domination,” in which a single company plasters ads on multiple surfaces — columns, stairwells, turnstiles — throughout a subway station. Ads at Union Square Station have even been projected onto floors and walls. And now the MTA website displays ads for free credit checks and the Crate & Barrel wedding registry.

Over the past few years, the MTA has seen a marked increase in advertising revenue. Despite a recession that has hit the advertising industry particularly hard, the authority drew in $109 million annually in 2009 and 2010 and has seen that total annual take increase from $27 million just 20 years ago. The authority is hoping to realize $120 million in sales this year.

These days, ads are everywhere underground. From branded stations to fully wrapped train cars, we see commercial space throughout the system, and the in-tunnel ads will be just another source of revenue upon which transit agencies throughout the world have long relied. For a few dollars more, I’ll take it.

March 7, 2011 31 comments

MTA Technology

On the tensions between technology and transit

by Benjamin Kabak March 7, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 7, 2011

This weekend, I did something I haven’t done in years: I went to camp. This wasn’t my old sleep-away sports camp or the baseball camp I attended for years in the early 1990s. Rather, it was OpenPlans’ Transportation Camp, an unconference that gathered many of the sharpest minds working the transit and transportation space working on the side of the country.

Now, the very idea of an unconference makes people raise an eyebrow. Shouldn’t conferences be structured with set agendas and leaders conducting the pace of things? In a society driven by open-source development and collaboration, a transportation unconference is an ideal format for people to meet and greet each other while bouncing ideas around. I met many readers there and many folks I read elsewhere. While San Francisco gets to enjoy a West Coast gathering next week, I’m already looking forward to next year’s event in New York.

The sessions — which are listed here — were uniformly interesting. I sat in on a Q-and-A with MTA COO Charlie Monheim and US DOT’s Giovanni Carnaroli and Peter Appel. I met the gang from Greater Greater Washington, listened to a presentation on subway signaling and the PA/CIS system and checked out a discussion on matching service with demand. Other sessions — including those on taxi cab applications, road pricing and congestion alleviation — drew raves, but unfortunately, I couldn’t be in more than one room at a time.

Throughout the weekend, the theme was clearly the interaction between technology and infrastructure, and although I missed most of Monheim’s keynote speech due to the MPRE, he hit upon a theme that bears discussion. While the MTA’s data leads itself quite easily to app development, there is an inherent incompatibility between the MTA’s system and technological investments. Last week’s stories on the supposedly obsolete fiber-optics network and the NYPD’s communications problems highlight that gap.

Essentially, this conflict boils down as such: When the MTA purchases rolling stock and upgrades its physical plant, it expects its equipment to last for decades. Subway cars, for instance, have a shelf life of around 40 years before they’re up for replacing, and in the interim, it’s possible that hundreds of newer and better models have hit the rails since then. For better or worse, the same is true for major station renovations, signal upgrades and rail replacement projects.

Meanwhile, when I purchase a new piece of technology, I expect it to last for four years, and I know it will be painfully obsolete by the time those four years are up. My laptop isn’t meant to last 40 years, and the technology behind it improves too quickly for it stay usable much beyond half a decade. For example, the software powering the R160 FIND displays will be obsolete long before the rolling stock is ready to be retired; in fact, the FIND displays have long since passed technological middle age. How then does a transit agency as extensive as the MTA incorporate rapidly-changing technology into a system built for long-term durability?

This conflict is one with which the MTA must grapple on a regular basis. Take, for instance, the BusTime project. As the MTA moves forward with bringing the technology to more than just the B63, those behind the initiative are eying all 800 of Staten Island’s buses, and they hope to retrofit the buses and get the system up and running before the end of 2011. With over 6000 buses operating throughout the city, it’s not a surprise then that it takes a few years to get these wide-reaching technological initiatives up and running.

From Transportation Camp, then, I drew the conclusion that transit agencies face two tasks when it comes to technology. They must make sure that the data these innovations produce gets into the hands of developers who can bring it to the public, and they have make sure that the innovations are compatible with infrastructure that will outlive the technology. What will happen to the countdown clocks in 10 years when they’re due for upgrades? What happens with those FIND displays as they age?

We scorn the MTA’s on-again, off-again attempts to bring technology underground, but ultimately, it’s just not as easy as plug-and-play. As long as the developers have access to data though and the authority is willing to share the real-time information it produces, the public should benefit.

March 7, 2011 16 comments

View from Underground

Video of the Day: Sub City New York

by Benjamin Kabak March 5, 2011

written by Benjamin Kabak on March 5, 2011

Sub City New York from sarah klein on Vimeo.

Tom Mason, one of the creators behind this video, sent this along to me earlier this week. The description is a simple one: “It’s a short film – a visual poem – about that moment in New York when you emerge from the subway and find yourself in a new and sometimes unexpected world.”

It certainly captures that fleeting moment of finding yourself transported via the subway of somewhere new and sometimes unknown. As a sunny and warm Saturday arrives in New York, enjoy.

March 5, 2011 2 comments

Load More Posts