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

Second Avenue Subway

Residents on 86th file suit over entrances, again

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

These proposed entrances for the Second Ave. Subway on 86th St. are the subject of another federal lawsuit.

Since the end of the days of Robert Moses, NIMBYism has become a rallying cry across New York City. Residents use it to block almost any major project while construction proponents point to it as a major cause of a lack of unified planning in New York City. No where is it more evident than in a suit filed this week by residents of the Yorkshire Towers building on the northeast corner at 86th St. and 2nd Ave.

The building is suing a variety of federal agencies as well as MTA, New York City Transit and MTA Capital Construction over what they allege was a faulty environmental impact assessment of the decision to relocate entrances from the corner of 86th St. and 2nd Ave. to mid-block on 86th St. The court filings are extensive. Thanks to Twombly’s heightened pleading standard, the initial complaint reaches 85 pages and is available for those who wish to read it after the jump. Essentially, though, the plaintiffs claim that the MTA’s decision to relocate entrances from the Food Emporium at the corner to a mid-block alternative violates a variety of laws. We’ll return to those claims in a minute.

This isn’t the first time Yorkshire Towers has filed suit over the MTA. In fact, in a related case in late November, they sued the MTA over a FOIL request. In that suit, the plaintiffs requested the documents concerning the Supplemental Environmental Assessment that showed how relocating the entrances would have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Now, the suit alleges that the MTA and FTA were arbitrary and capricious — legal jargon that basically means they were outside the bounds of their authority — in making the changes.

The complaint itself is a slog. It appears to draw a few conclusions of law when it should be presenting facts, but thanks to increasingly murky federal pleading standards, that’s the state of procedure in federal courts right now. The suit runs through a litany of complaints concerning the impact of the new entrances and the ways in which the MTA seemingly ignored legitimate environmental changes and also the gripes of neighbors who do not want to see subway entrances appear in front of their Upper East Side apartment building.

In an interview with New York 1, the plaintiff’s lawyers tried to distill the issue down. Because of the high volume of anticipated peak-hour subway riders at this station and because of the number of people in the building, this change, they allege, could impact thousands of residents, bus service and traffic along 86th St. “There’s only going to be left about 12 feet of sidewalk space left. A 40-percent reduction in sidewalk space. And so, 3,600 people; which is about the size of an army regiment, are going to flood — during peak hour alone — in front of this building,” attorney Joseph Ceccarelli said.

Another attorney for the plaintiffs — Jeffrey Glen — offered a simple solution. “The MTA can solve the problem on 86th Street very simply: they can put the station locations right on the corner where they belong,” he said. Of course, that alternative was ruled out when it became apparent that the building could not withstand the physical demands of corner entrances. It’s something of an engineering Catch-22.

The media coverage has been, by and large, sympathetic to the residents. Take, for instances, this DNA Info piece. Despite the fact that the two entrances point away from the driveways in question, Yorkshire Tower residents are concerned about pedestrian flow on an already-busy 86th St. “It will be a problem for our driveway because there will be no end to pedestrians all day long and part of the night,” Sheil Fine, a 74-year-old resident, said. “And this building has over 200 senior citizens with various problems of not being able to move or walk.”

ABC News too ran a story with equally faux-heartfelt claims. Speaking of the projected 3600 people who will use those entrances, a tenant’s association lawyer worried about the children. Won’t someone think of the children? “That is 60 people a minute cueing to get into a subway, moving past where children are being picked up by their school buses, where the elderly are getting to be picked up to go their senior citizen centers,” Glen said.

Call my cynical, call me unsympathetic, but I think there’s more going on here. In a sense, it’s just another example of NIMBYism writ large. First, it’s important to note a self-imposed limitation in the complaint. Paragraph 33 reads, “Plaintiffs Owners and Tenants Association do not oppose the Second Avenue Subway. Nor do they oppose subway stop at the corner of 86th Street and Second Avenue. What they oppose is the arbitrary and unnecessary siting of a subway entrance, and all of its associated adverse impacts, directly in front of Yorkshire Towers and its 2000 residents without the required statutory reviews.”

Talk about a backhanded acceptance. The Yorkshire Towers Tenants Associate loves the idea of the subway — as long as its in someone else’s front yard. Now that the entrances have been placed on either side of their curb-cut driveway, someone’s legal head must roll.

The staircases at Entrance 2 have been designed to minimize passenger flow in front Yorkshire Towers by siphoning riders away from the active driveway.

Furthermore, the entrances themselves feed away from the driveway. Because of the flow of traffic, sight lines, as the above diagram shows, exiting the driveways shouldn’t be impacted all that much, and it seems to me as though the plaintiffs are overstating the material adverse impact to shoot for the unlikely hope that the entrances will move.

Ultimately, the complaint doesn’t ask for much despite its length. It wants the MTA to conduct a proper Supplemental Environmental Impact Study and gain the proper approvals. It wants to see the costs associated with the complex engineering behind the Food Emporium site. It wants to make sure procedure is followed, and if procedure is followed or has been determined to be followed already, the Yorkshire Towers plaintiffs are out of luck. Of course, they could also want a settlement prior to any trial that sees the entrances moved.

For now, the complaint alleges that, since work isn’t due to begin on the 86th St. entrances for some time, this lawsuit won’t delay the Second Ave. Subway or add to its costs. The MTA isn’t commenting on this — or any — ongoing litigation. I think it’s tough to separate the legitimate gripes from the NIMBYism, and overwhelming the court with fact-based conclusory pleadings probably won’t help. This is just another wrinkle in the ongoing saga of the Second Avenue subway.

To read the full complaint, click through.

Continue Reading
February 18, 2011 30 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Absurdity

Scandal Watch: Signals and SAIC

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

It’s time once again for everyone’s favorite activity: scandal round-up time! First up, signals. The Daily News reports today that the MTA is going to fire a “subway manager and several workers” who were caught faking signal inspection reports. These employees are the first to confront sanctions and dismissal for their roles in this ongoing scandal. Those fired are among the employees who were caught with photocopies of signal barcodes last month.

Transit officials defended the firings while TWU President John Samuelsen claimed the rank-and-file workers were being scapegoated for management failures. Management, he said, is “trying to deflect attention to workers and away from senior management who caused the whole problem to begin with.” Criminal investigations are ongoing.

In other news that should have happened months ago, the MTA Board voted this morning to cancel its contract with SAIC, the contractor currently embroiled in the CityTime scandal. The board had approved a $118 million deal last month for a new FCC-mandated radio system, but after pressure from the comptroller’s office, management said it was “no longer comfortable” with the deal. The contract will be reopened for bids, but time is of the essence. The MTA will face a $1-million-per-day fine if its radio network is not modernized soon.

February 17, 2011 6 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Economics

Report: Apple definitely coming to Grand Central

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

The world’s largest Apple Store is definitely coming to Grand Central Terminal, Leander Kahney of Cult of Mac reported this morning. Just a week after we first heard rumors of Apple’s interest surface, Kahney says the store will likely open in “early September,” and it is supposedly set to be “Apple’s largest retail space in the world.” The MTA and Apple, however, are still not confirming this report, and where in the terminal any potential store will go is anyone’s guess.

As Kahney notes, 2011 is the tenth anniversary of Apple’s first retail store, and the computer giant wants to “make a big splash.” To do so, it’s looking to develop over 16,000 square feet of Grand Central, but two questions remain: Where? And how? The largest retail store in the terminal is a Rite Aid tucked into the walkway near the Shuttle, and it’s only 10,000 square feet. Initial reports in The Observer said that Apple would build “right in the terminal,” and Kahney’s source said Apple “may be taking walls down” in the landmarked building.

Despite the sure tone of these reports, neither the MTA nor Apple is commenting, and I’m intrigued but still somewhat skeptical. Landing Apple would be a huge get for Grand Central, and Apple would certainly draw headlines if they can find over 16,000 square feet in the terminal. I’ll keep my eye on this story over the next few months.

February 17, 2011 15 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Lead, follow and get out of the way

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

I found myself on Monday afternoon at around 1:15 p.m. confronted with a daunting task. I had to walk from 50th St. between 6th and 7th Aves. to the corner of 44th St. and Broadway. I could skirt pedestrian traffic until 48th St. by using some of the midtown mid-block cut-throughs, but that still left me with three blocks on Broadway before the glorious pedestrian plaza began.

And so I readied myself for a mash of gawking tourists, slow-moving folks ambling through Times Square and workers on their lunch breaks scurrying to and fro. It was a mostly beautiful, disorganized, urban mess of pedestrians, and all was going well until those slow-moving folk became too much. At a certain point, I could have either shoved some people out of the way or come to a dead spot until the congestion cleared. It was then that the sidewalk rage set in.

The concept is a simple one, as Shirley Wang of the Wall Street Journal explored earlier this week. Behavioral scientists have discovered that pedestrians can suffer from the walking version of road rage. She writes:

Researchers say the concept of “sidewalk rage” is real. One scientist has even developed a Pedestrian Aggressiveness Syndrome Scale to map out how people express their fury. At its most extreme, sidewalk rage can signal a psychiatric condition known as “intermittent explosive disorder,” researchers say. On Facebook, there’s a group called “I Secretly Want to Punch Slow Walking People in the Back of the Head” that boasts nearly 15,000 members.

Some researchers are even studying the dynamics that trigger such rage and why some people remain calm in hopes of improving anger-management treatments and gaining insights into how emotions influence decision making, attention and self control…

Signs of a sidewalk rager include muttering or bumping into others; uncaringly hogging a walking lane; and acting in a hostile manner by staring, giving a “mean face” or approaching others too closely, says Leon James, a psychology professor at the University of Hawaii who studies pedestrian and driver aggression.

For the cool-headed, sidewalk rage may seem incomprehensible. After all, it seems simple enough to just go around the slow individual. Why then are some people, even those who greet other obstacles with equanimity, so infuriated by unhurried fellow pedestrians?

The article delves into the psychology of sidewalk strollers. The people who want to go faster get unnecessarily annoyed at those walking too slow, and while Wang and the scientists she spoke with seem to want to graft anger management issues on to everyone annoyed with someone moving slowly, I’ve always thought it’s a matter of human nature and selfishness.

We want to get where we’re going at our pace, and we expect walking to be orderly. Fast people on the left; slow people on the right. Don’t walk four across; don’t stop suddenly. It’s common decency. Yet, we don’t see aboveground, and we don’t see it underground.

Although Wang’s story focuses on the city’s streets, the findings in her piece are equally applicable underground. While walking from the lower level platforms at West 4th to the exit every day, I see disorder on the staircases. People who can barely mount the 16 steps hover on the left while other slow walkers climb up the right. Those wishing to leave with haste can fend for themselves in the middle or huff in the back. The drama plays out at every staircase and even on the climb to street level. Slower walkers do not adhere to the rule of the right.

It would be easy to generalize this behavior. Perhaps the selfishness of speed is why straphangers blast music out of leaky headphones, why they take up too many seats and why they litter throughout the subway. The researchers Wang speaks to suggest looking up and staying calm. That’s always good advice for a frustrating walk through the subway system too.

February 17, 2011 45 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesQueens

Court House Square transfer completion delayed until March

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

Update (11:47 a.m. Thursday): The long-awaited transfer between the 7 at Court House Square and the G at Court Square in Long Island City is one of those MTA projects that just can’t finish up on time or, seemingly, at all. Initially due for an early 2010 completion, the MTA’s own board materials released in November said the project would open in January of this year while a New York 1 report in December promised a February opening. As February goes zooming past, though, the entrance has shown no signs of opening any time soon, and straphangers are growing antsy.

Today, a source who has been in contact with the line manager of the 7 train informs me that the MTA is now anticipating a “mid-March” opening date. John Hoban, the line manager, says the the work at Court House Square is under the auspicies of a contractor working for Citibank, and the work has yet to be completed. While many who are waiting for the transfer have noted that the staircase appears ready, the MTA and Citibank apparently cannot, due to ADA requirements, open the stairway until the elevators and escalators are ready for service.

The MTA tells me that “quirks” with the testing of the escalators is the primary motivation behind this delay, and they anticipate adhering to the mid-March opening. In the meantime, Queens commuters will just keep waiting for a convenient transfer that never wants to be ready for use.

February 16, 2011 9 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

A little bit of Mexico musically in the subways

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

A group of norteno musicians serenade the 7 train. (Photo by flickr user ChrisGoldNY)

For many subway riders, the appearance of a Mexican band during a commute home may often be an unwelcome one. The music is loud; the panhandling aggressive. It’s a disruption to the privacy of a subway ride. Still, it’s easy to forget that these musicians are oftentimes poor immigrants looking to make a few bucks and exploit their skills.

Over the weekend, The Times ran an excellent profile of these musicians — properly known as norteños for the type of music they play — and I found the piece a fascinating glimpse into a world often unknown by most of us. Kirk Semple spoke with a variety of these norteños to draw up a picture of the bands. He writes:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s rules of conduct include an array of regulations that could, and often do, snag the bands, including a prohibition on playing musical instruments on subway trains. Fines, often $75 each, are a regular part of the job, several musicians said. So is detention, often involving an overnight stay in jail and sometimes a punishment of community service, if rarely anything more severe than that. For those in the United States illegally, civil violations like those are usually not enough to prompt a check of immigration status.

But even though $75 is a good day’s earnings on the subway, the musicians seem to regard these penalties as tolerable occupational hazards. “Our babies have to eat something; we have to eat something,” Mr. Tigre, 41, who is divorced and has three American-born children, said with a shrug. “If I had a steady job, I wouldn’t play in the train.”

The groups’ growth has paralleled the rising number of Mexicans in New York and the surging popularity of norteño music. A decade ago, the musicians say, there were only a few norteño bands plying the subway system. By the estimates of several players, there are now at least 15, though nobody is sure of the exact number because the groups are continually forming, changing members and dissolving. Their paths usually cross only underground, in quick, joking encounters that allow them to swap gossip and information about police sightings.

The article delves into the ins and outs of navigating the system as well. Some bands play only on certain segments. One, for instance, avoids police by sticking to the B or D trains north of 125th Sts., and most musicians say they try to avoid the mid-afternoon when school kids “heckle and yell, push and shove.” Some adults too grow hostile and abusive toward the musicians.

It might be annoying to find these musicians in a subway car, and it might be illegal as well. But it’s annoying and illegal with a little bit of character. I’d take the norteños over a crazy preacher any day of the week.

February 16, 2011 26 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA

Despite cuts, 2010 ridership sees an increase

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

When the MTA readied its service cuts in late June of 2010, the media coverage focused on those who were going to eschew the subway for surface transit. An amNew York article found a few commuters who said they were going to bike while other stories featured interviews with people claiming they would begin to drive instead. Shockingly, that has not come to pass.

In its Transit Committee books for this week’s upcoming meeting (pdf), the MTA has released its year-end data for 2010, and the numbers show growth across the board that persisted past the date of the fare hikes. Subway ridership hit 1.6 billion in 2010, the second-highest total since 1950, and the MTA drew in over $3.3 billion in fare box revenue. Although the authority’s final ridership totals were 0.1 percent below expectations, the number represents a 0.2 percent increase over 2009.

Breaking it down, we see subways that are getting more crowded as buses grow emptier. Weekday subway ridership hit 5.2 million per day, the second highest total since 1950 and a 1.4 percent increase over 2009, while weekend ridership, despite myriad service changes and generally poor service, reached a two-day total average of 5.36 million. Saturday ridership climbed above 3 million while Sunday hit 2.3 million. That is, says the MTA, the highest weekend total in over 40 years.

Buses, meanwhile, have not been as lucky. Ridership in 2010 decreased by 2.8 percent to 696.9 million. Perhaps New Yorkers are growing fed up with bus service. When it’s routinely faster to walk over significant distances, only those physically unable to do so will hit the pavement. Pre-board fare payment systems can’t come soon enough.

The MTA attributes the increased ridership to the economy, and in doing so, they present the below graph. It clearly shows how ridership — the dashed line — tracks with changes in the city’s job figures. If ridership is going up, so too must be the city’s key employment numbers.

Subway ridership aligns closely with the state of employment in New York City.

In the fare department, the MTA saw the average cost it charges per ride go up. In 2009, the MTA drew in $1.485 per swipe while in 2010, that climbed to $1.562. That increase is directly attributable to the full-year effect of the June 28, 2009 fare increases. Interestingly, now over 33 percent of riders use the 30-day unlimited ride card. That is, I believe, a high-water mark, and I’ll be curious to see what the new triple-digit price tag does to that figure over the next few months.

Meanwhile, despite the added revenue, the fare still remains well below 1996 levels. That year, prior to the introduction of discounted MetroCards, the MTA drew in $1.38 per swipe. In numbers adjusted for inflation, they’re earning just $1.03 per swipe in 1996 dollars. As much as we bemoan the fare hikes, the subway is still a very good deal.

So what then can we see from all of us? First, it appears as though the service cuts had a negligible impact on ridership. While the pre-cut numbers in May showed ridership on the rise, so too did the months after the service cuts. In fact, the 12-month rolling averages have been increasing since July. Apparently, cutting service doesn’t impact transit usage as much as many feared. That is, however, a dangerous lesson to learn. While it highlights the inelasticity of transit demand, at some point, there will be a breaking point, and cuts will begin to impact transit usage.

Second, the city’s buses suffered a far worse fate than the subways in the cuts. While bus ridership has been declining nearly steadily since December 2008, the cuts have not stopped the bleeding. While bus ridership figures have nearly leveled out, the cuts — along with the inherent problems with bus service I mentioned above — ensured that those numbers would not increase at all this year.

Politically and economically, 2010 was a terrible year for the MTA, but New Yorkers need their transit. People are waiting longer for trains, but they’re still coming out in droves. When will our city and state politicians realize that?

February 16, 2011 1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Photo of the Day: The trash that sits

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

Photo courtesy of Jeffrey Omura

Take a look at this pile of trash. SAS reader Jeffrey Omura spotted it on at the 157th Street station on the 1 train a few weeks ago, and he noticed that it never went anywhere. For approximately a week, this pile of garbage remained at the end of the platform, neglected by all but a pack of rats that settled in for the long haul. By the time it vanished, the scene had turned disgusting.

Perhaps, then, as we have explored who is to blame for subway rat infestations and as one politician has tried to ban food in the subways, we should also keep an eye on the MTA’s garbage-collection policies. I often see workers dragged ripped and leaking bags of trash across station platforms, and I’ve noticed garbage cans overflowing with refuse. Keeping stations clean should be everyone’s responsibility, and right now, no one is picking up the slack.

February 15, 2011 14 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesManhattan

At 181st St., still waiting for permanent repairs

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

Eighteen months ago, in August of 2009, a large chunk of the ceiling at the 1 train’s 181st St. station came tumbling down. The station was shuttered for two weeks as MTA crews worked to clear the tracks and temporarily shore up the ceiling. As the authority dealt with the aftermath of the accident, news developments were alarming, to say the least. Initial reports noted how the MTA had a plan to fix the ceiling in 2007 but had to postpone them due to budgetary concerns while a subsequent investigation found that the MTA had known about the ceiling since 1999.

So today, has the ceiling been repaired? Of course not. As DNAInfo’s Carla Zanoni reports today, the MTA is still trying to formulate plans to repair the ceiling. The authority, which has also found ceiling weaknesses at the 168th St. station, says, according to Zanoni, that the age and initial construction of the landmarked stations is proving a stumbling block. “It seems the original architects relied on physics to keep up the archways,” the MTA’s Marcus Book said.

Right now, the authority expects to begin repair work in 2012, and the work at 181st St. alone could cost $17.5 million. Still, it will likely be three years between the initial accident and permanent repairs. A temporary solution keeps subway riders safe for now, but we can’t put band aids on long-term problems and expect everything to be fine. The system needs its economic support, and this ceiling problem is simply indicative of institutional issues at every level.

February 15, 2011 17 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Absurdity

Pondering Crespo’s crazy slowdown idea

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

Marcos Crespo has some zany ideas for subway safety.

By and large, the subways are a rather efficient and relatively quick means of transportation around New York City. A 24-stop ride from Forest Hills to Canal St. on the R takes 47 minutes; a 19-stop trip on the Q from Coney Island to DeKalb takes around 33 minutes; and a 27-stop jaunt from Wakefield/241st St. to Times Square runs around 50 minutes.

What would happen, though, to New Yorkers, to the city’s productivity, to their patience with the subway if the MTA were forced to add another minute per station to everyone’s commute? Suddenly, it would take almost an hour and 20 minutes to go from the Bronx to Midtown, and an end-to-end run on the 2, a 61-stop trip that normally takes 90-100 minutes, would run for over two and a half hours. It would take over 70 minutes to go from Forest Hills to Chinatown, and a trip within the same borough from Downtown Brooklyn to Coney Island would last nearly 50 minutes.

That is the worst-case scenario that could come to pass if Marcos Crespo gets his way. As I reported yesterday morning, Crespo has submitted a bill to the State Assembly that would over-legislate a non-existent safety issue. Since 0.000006 percent of subway riders are struck by train cars, Crespo would like the other 1.6 billion riders to pay the price. His bill would mandate that trains stop completely outside the station so the driver can inspect the tracks to make sure no one is in them. Then, the trains would creep into the station at 5 miles per hour before coming to a complete stop.

In expressing my incredulity at this dumb idea yesterday, I wondered if Crespo even knows what he’s talking about. After all, in the memo attached to the bill, Crespo claims the conductor would be the one to inspect the tracks, but the conductor sits in the middle of the train set. The Assembly rep should be calling for the driver to perform the visual inspection, and while I may be splitting hairs, a legislative mistake could lead to a bureaucratic nightmare. It’s just sloppy work.

Meanwhile, as commenters on this site noted, Crespo’s bill would do more than just slow down commutes to unbearable speeds. One comment highlighted how taking the rapid out of transit would reduce tunnel capacity. “The signal system is designed under the assumption that trains will generally be moving at speed, except when stopped at a station,” Andrew wrote. “Violating that assumption comes at an extreme cost to capacity – my guess is on the order of 10-15 tph. So not only will the trains be slower, but they will be much, much more crowded, since they won’t be able to run as frequently.” Brilliant!

Gothamist, in their coverage of the story, touched base with the Assemblyman, and he seemed both defensive and on the backpedal. He repeated his statistically insignificant claims of injury and defended his bill. “Over the last three years there have been an average of 60 deaths and hundreds of injuries because of trains,” he said. “I’ve taken the subway, I know how they operate. They come into stations full speed and I’m concerned about that.”

That an Assembly representative from the Bronx must state that he’s taken the subway speaks volumes of Albany. Still, as criticism rolled in, he attempted to distance himself from the idea. “This is a conversation starter,” he said. “If coming to a full stop is too much, I’m willing to address the issue.”

The problem with Crespo’s approach is that he’s picking on an issue that isn’t. If a manufacturer had a safety record akin to the MTA’s train-on-person numbers, they’d get a gold star from OSHA. If cars were anywhere close to that safe, the city would not be embroiled in a debate over how better to protect pedestrians. In fact, in 2009, there were over 75,000 car accidents in the five boroughs alone, and the accident rate was 1642 per 100,000 licensed drivers. Conversely, injuries caused by subway cars reached just 6 per 100 million straphangers. That certainly puts Crespo’s misguided legislation in perspective.

Ultimately, though, this move isn’t anything we don’t expect from Albany. We have legislators who rob from transit funds and others who never deign to ride the subway. Seeing another bad idea for the city’s public transportation network emerge from Albany is neither a surprise nor unexpected, and that is a sad commentary on the state of New York politics.

February 15, 2011 52 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