AsidesMTA Technology

Transit marks 100th IRT station with countdown clocks

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 21, 2010

When New York City Transit announced plans to install countdown clocks at 75 stations along the IRT numbered routes this year, most MTA watchers scoffed at the lofty goal. The MTA has long had problems bringing technology innovation to its 105-year-old system, and other subway systems had been enjoying the benefits of countdown clocks for decades. Well, today, the authority announced that it has exceed this goal by 25. When the countdown clock at Houston St. on the 1 went live this week, it was the 100th installed in 2010.

No longer will riders impatiently tap their feet while seeking out the dim glow of an advancing train piercing through the darkness of a tunnel. “For years, transit riders in other cities around the world have been looking at digital signs to know when the next bus or train is coming,” MTA Chairman and CEO Jay H. Walder said. “But in New York, we were left peering down a subway platform looking for headlights. We’re changing that and improving our customers’ experience one station at a time.”

The MTA anticipates that the full rollout along the numbered lines will be completed by mid-2011. At that point, the authority will assess ways to bring this technology to the B Division lettered lines. “This is all about providing information to our customers who may see similar systems in other locations and ask, ‘Why not here?’ Well, we asked ourselves the same thing and we are now moving briskly ahead with this project,” NYC Transit President Thomas Prendergast said in a statement. Even as the MTA faces precarious financial times, it’s good to see forward progress.

29 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Economics

Memo to Cuomo: Hands off transit money

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 21, 2010

As New York State prepares to welcome its new governor with a massive budget crisis, Transit advocates are ramping up their efforts to secure supposedly dedicated funding. After watching state tax revenue fall $500 million short of projections and yelling loudly from the sidelines while the legislature reappropriated — or is this misappropriated? — $143 million in transit funding last year, a group of transit advocates, good-government organizations and labor unions sent a letter yesterday to Andrew Cuomo urging him to protect transit dollars.

“What could be more basic to good governance than keeping the promise to taxpayers and transit riders that dedicated transit funds be spent for the sole purpose for which they were enacted?” the letter asks. “One quarter of the state’s workforce relies on mass transit to get to work.”

The organizations pushed the impact the cuts have on riders. “Twice in the last year, the Paterson Administration has raided funds dedicated solely to transit and taken a total of $160 million for other purposes,” it reads. “The diversion of dedicated transit funds in the fall of 2009 directly triggered the worst transit service cuts in memory. These included axing 36 bus routes; eliminating 570 bus stops; killing all or parts of three subway lines; and burdening millions of city and suburban riders with greater waits, more crowding, extra transfers and longer trips.” These crippling service cuts come on top of the third fare hike in as many years.”

Essentially, this letter lays the blame on the feet of, well, everyone. Gov. Paterson in fact proposed taking the transit dollars while state tax assessors woefully overestimated revenue figures. In fact, for 2011 already, the MTA expects $292 million less than originally anticipated.

Now, it’s time to renew calls for a transit lockbox in New York City. There’s no reason why dedicated funds can’t remain as such, and as long the state has the option to take the money, transit funding will always be at risk. “These taxes were enacted for a specific reason: to help pay for subway, bus and commuter operations and transit capital projects,” the letter says. “As a matter of principle and practice, the dedicated funds should continue to serve those purposes.”

I’ve long beaten the drum for a transit lockbox, and in the coming months, I should have more on the MTA’s financial relationship with New York State. Protection and support for transit is long overdue, and as this letter with its 30 signatories shows, support is growing. When will the state act?

After the jump, a full copy of the letter.

Continue Reading
2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Does the MTA have a liability problem?

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 21, 2010

The 1991 derailment north of Union Square led to justify lawsuits but not all accidents are as cut-and-dry as that one.

Every now and then, accidents involving the MTA make their ways into the news. Last week, we heard the horrific tale of a man crushed by the platform extenders at Union Square, and over the weekend, a disabled man lost control of his wheelchair and ended up in the tracks. Earlier this year, the MTA lost a $7 million judgment in a case in which the jury found a bus driver at fault in an collision with another vehicle. Eventually, the legal bills mount up.

In his column in the Daily News yesterday, Pete Donohue highlights the MTA’s liability gap. He found that, in many cases, the authority is losing to plaintiffs who were at fault. The piece leads with the story of one Dustin Dibble who fell onto the tracks while “drunk as a skunk,” lost his leg to a train car and won a $2.3 million judgment against the MTA. While plaintiff’s attorneys who are willing to take on these cases may carry some of the blame, Donohue highlights how open-ended liability costs the cash-strapped authority. He writes:

There’s no shortage of culprits behind the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s constant cash crisis, which translates into fare hikes, service cuts and dirtier stations for riders. And somewhere on that list are boneheads who have no one but themselves to blame for being in the path of a subway train – as well as their opportunistic lawyers.

The state Legislature also deserves mention. The MTA has asked for a law clearly stating the obvious: Someone on the tracks because of their own recklessness shouldn’t be able to sue when a motorman doesn’t manage to stop a 400-ton train in time. The Legislature has failed to act. So, the lawsuits keep coming.

In one recent case, a 30-year-old man riding a bicycle on a subway platform crashed into a column and careened to the tracks, where he was struck. In another, a vandal filed a lawsuit after getting hit in a tunnel; he was trespassing to spray-paint graffiti. While the MTA wins a majority of such cases, it can take years of motions and appeals, all of which take money and effort better spent elsewhere. When it loses, the payouts are big – millions of dollars because of the severe nature of injuries.

Donohue sums up the morality behind Dibble’s case. The now-26-year-old deserves “sympathy – but not a seven-figure payday at riders’ expense,” and it sounds as though the state courts agree. The Appellate Division tossed out the $2.3 million award earlier this summer, calling it “utterly irrational.” The law firm of Smiley and Smiley plans to appeal, and the MTA’s legal bills will mount.

But how big of a problem is it? Earlier this year, the MTA released some statistics concerning its legal cases. In 2009, those injured filed 2720 claims against Transit, and only 216 of those went to trial. The agency won 65 percent of those trials, and since 2005, the agency has a similar percentage of the 870 cases to go to trial. Still, NYC Transit paid out $244.8 million in injury claims from 2005-2009 or close to $50 million annually. The bills mount up.

Tort law and personal injury law certainly has its place underground, and riders need protection from the MTA’s potential negligence. But at some point, straphangers have to take personal responsibility. While a jury may find a graffiti artists who wandered into the tracks to tag an abandoned tunnel contributorily negligent, the MTA can’t operate efficiently if it expects to find people illegally in its tunnels. The state should indeed grant the authority this protection. After all, more riders would benefit from the cost savings generated by looser liability standards than would suffer the consequences of their careless acts.

22 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway Maps

From the Express Tracks: Massimo’s Metro Maps Milanaise

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 20, 2010

The New York City Subway map, it seems, is always controversial. At a talk two weeks ago at the Museum of the City of New York, designers past and present offered up their critiques, and I’ve burned many a pixel discussing elements of the current map.

Absent from the museum discussion though was Michael Hertz, the designer of the current subway map. Hertz, who says he never received an invite to the event and was not asked to speak, contacted me to offer up his defense of his subway map and his views on the controversial history of the map. What follows are his words and views (not mine). Part One of his piece ran on Friday, and Part Two follows. Hopefully, his explanations will help illuminate the thinking behind the current subway map.

Massimo Vignelli's diagrammatic map still inspires discussion nearly forty years after its debut.

Afflicted with a confirmed case of chronic Europhilia and after seeing Milan’s subway graphics, MTA Chairman Dr. William Ronan was duly impressed with the Vignelli/Noorda team. Surely, this was the impetus for their being hired.

Massimo’s 1972 map, still the all-time Number One in classiness and esthetics — and its recent 2008 update — embody the same problems which prompted MTA to go for a new look back in 1975 (in our 1979-2010 map and updates). Unfortunately, Massimo was a victim of the zeitgeist that hovered over New York City in the early 70s. Crime, graffiti and filth were a great disincentive for traveling around the city by subway, and when riders did venture forth, they wanted to be as close as possible to their above-ground destination, since everyone has an above-ground destination.

Vignelli’s map so distorted the positioning and spacing between stations, streets and landmarks that the uninitiated rider could not trust it to assure that he was where he wanted to be. Everyone instinctively knows that no city could ever be constructed with a 45-, 90-, and 135 degree-only street grid, and this created a mistrust and public objection. Also, because Vignelli had to deal with an already existing color coding used in the Unimark signage program a few years before, he had no choice but to use 17 different colored lines running down the avenues of spindly little Manhattan Island. This instantly forced the geography into an unreality with which visitors and inexperienced riders apparently felt uncomfortable.

Another impediment to working out a really viable system was the lack of state and federal funding for transit related programs, which eliminated the possibility of implementing another part of Massimo’s plan: the development of station-mounted local Neighborhood Maps to orient the rider to his actual street destination. We were much luckier in the eighties when with adequate funding and an MTA administration that favored good passenger relations, we were able to develop 83 large maps of New York City neighborhoods, replete with points of interest, landmarks, parks and more.

Of course this still would not have aided Massimo’s map in the planning of a trip from home or other non-subway venues. I used his map for seven years with no problem and had a little pleasure every time I opened it and studied it until it was so tattered that I had to pick up a fresh one. I had another advantage by seeing the map really close-up due to the fact that I worked on updating this map in one of its latter iterations. The absence of actual mechanicals to effect the revisions gave me the opportunity to work on the actual films and get an understanding about its construction.

I think the Unimark Signage System was exemplary, white-on-black or black-on-white, with Standard or Helvetica. None of this mattered too much because they had developed a true, unified system, not present in earlier subway signage. I appreciated it all the more when I was contracted to create a new sign manual, using the new ‘trunk-line’ color coding. Noorda and Vignelli’s previous work gave me a great starting point.

We had another advantage in that some of us were thinking ahead to possible issues regarding signage color problems when budgets were in place to do a new signage program and we discovered one significant one: Pantone ink colors v. colored glass ‘beads’ melted onto porcelain enamel panels. The red violet we chose for the 7 line could not be matched satisfactorily to the colors available in porcelain. We opted for Pantone Purple, a better choice for this situation with a close equivalent in porcelain.

These neighborhood maps were originally part of Massimo Vignelli's unified system design. Hertz was able to implement them in the 1980s. (Click to enlarge)

Another advantage was the availability of funds for this massive system-wide signage changeover as well as MTA’s initiation of the series of 83 wall-mounted Neighborhood Maps encompassing every station, still there and updated periodically. This is one of Massimo’s regrets about the implementation of his own program.

Still another advantage comes to mind: We were retained to draft the full-sized shop drawings of station signage for all stations being renovated by the TA in-house. We also supervised the shop drawings of station signage done by architects retained by outside engineering firms that had station renovation contracts. Were we luckier than Massimo in having our signs placed correctly? Yeah, right! The installation crews seemed to hunt down the worst places for signs per some corollary to Murphy’s Law.

An example is the entry and exit signs over the turnstiles in one of the 7 line stations, where within a week after being carefully placed and installed, another crew came in and covered them up with Off-Hour Waiting Area signs, being installed by a different crew under another contract.

But back to Vignelli: Together with his wife and partner, Lella, the Vignellis have secured their rightful place in the Pantheon of greatness in American Design. His map will surely live on as the best example of this mapping methodology, surpassing Beck and London and all the other cities around the world where Beck’s offspring have emerged. Perhaps with circumstances going a little differently, Massimo’s map might still be improving the look of our subway system today.

Next: The 1974-1979 MTA maps

Michael Hertz is the designer of many transit maps, illustrated airport directory maps and other wayfinding devices around the U.S. He designed the 1979 NY City Subway Map and has handled all of the revisions since. In 1976 he was awarded this design contract after creating five borough bus maps, and a Westchester bus map that were praised by the press and the public.

4 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesFare Hikes

New MetroCard math on the fly

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 20, 2010

Once upon a time, when the subway fares were $2 per swipe and the MetroCard pay-per-ride bonus a convenient 20 percent, calculating the number of rides to buy was a piece of cake. Twenty rides would get you 24, and it all cost just $40. Today, though, good luck with that math. Rides now cost $2.25 with a 15 percent bonus on purchases of $8 or more, and for the uneven amount of $15.65, straphangers get eight rides — or $18 — on their cards. It’s only going to get more confusing in ten days.

When the MTA raises the fares on December 30, the math remains obtuse. The base fare will be $2.25 with a seven percent bonus on purchases above $10, and as amNew York details this morning, it’s tough for riders on the fly to figure out that a purchase of $35.75 will lead to a total of $38.25 or 17 rides or that $39.95 will get you $42.75, the equivalent of 19 rides. “It’s was hard before to come up with an even number when using the bonus, and it’s harder now,” Gene Russianoff said to the free daily.

The solutions are simple. First, folks planning ahead can always use the MetroCard Bonus Calculator already updated with the new fare info. But for those who arrive at a MetroCard Vending Machine without a number in mind, the MTA should provide a cheat sheet. The MVMs offer an option to purchase even dollar amounts, but I’d rather buy an even amount of rides with the appropriate bonus. That would be a step in the right direction for customer service relations.

8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Absurdity

At renamed stations, a confusion of old and new

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 20, 2010

In-station signs, but not a change to the map, announce the new name at the former Broadway/Nassau station.

When the MTA renamed the system’s 32nd most popular stop and combined it with the 286th to create the new Jay St./MetroTech station, they hosted a ceremonial ribbon-cutting replete with reporters, video cameras and local politicians. When the authority renamed a platform at the system’s tenth most busiest station, they hung up a sign. Today, as maps and announcements remain a jumble of old and new, confusion rules the day for straphangers bound for both Fulton St. in Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn.

The confusion, says Theresa Juva of amNew York, came about because the MTA “stealthily renamed” the Fulton St. station. “If you are tourist and you are looking on your map for Broadway-Nassau after Chambers Street and you don’t see it — you’re going to Brooklyn,” Andrew Albert, head of the NYC Transit Riders Council and non-voting MTA Board member, said to her.

Juva attended the Riders Council meeting last week during which members bemoaned the change, and she spoke with council members and MTA officials who explained the confusion:

Riders council members fumed at a meeting Thursday that the MTA changed the station name without public notice and hasn’t changed subway maps. Council member Trudy Mason complained that the maps should have been changed before the holidays. “Tourism is one of the biggest industries in New York, and people are traveling and they don’t know where they are going,” she said…

An MTA spokesman said the agency changing the name to Fulton Street to help riders having the same name for all sections of the hub, which includes six lines. The change was made as part of the $1.4 billion Fulton Street Transit Center project, spokesman Kevin Ortiz said. “Having a single, common station name for all platforms in the complex would simplify passenger way finding and travel directions and reduce passenger confusion,” he said.

He added that new maps are being printed and conductors are clarifying for passengers.

The current map still features old station names.

The problem is one I’ve harped on quite a bit this year: It’s a customer service issue, and it’s easy to see how people could be confused. First, the map on hand in stations doesn’t have a mention of the new station names, and while conductors have been told to announce the changes, the FIND displays haven’t been updated yet. Meanwhile, the online subway map hasn’t been updated while route maps for the A, C, F and R have been changed.

If you’re trying to find your way around, the problem is just as bad. The MTA’s own Trip Planner has been updated, but a user inserting directions into the widget on the authority’s home page will be redirected to Google Maps where the station names haven’t yet been updated. Someone unfamiliar with the system looking for Nassau St. could end up on the G train at Nassau Ave. or on the A until they realize their mistake.

Ultimately, this confusion strikes at the heart of the purpose of a station name. I know where to go and what new station names are, as do most readers of Second Ave. Sagas. But for those who are in town for the first time and relying on the subway, a switch-over can be challenging. If anything, the MTA should have printed new maps before the name changes went into effect so that the maps were ready for users last week. For now, it’s a confusion of tourists.

Of course, some New Yorkers couldn’t care less what the stations are actually called. As Jason Kutch said to amNew York, “I still call it Broadway-Nassau. I was born and raised here. I know where I’m going.” Not everyone does though, and that’s the problem.

28 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Absurdity

To lock or unlock? That is the question.

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 19, 2010

I’ll let you decide if this one belongs in the “New York politicians will complain about anything” category, but listen: Even though it’s illegal to move between subway cars, one New York City Council member is calling upon the MTA to unlock the end doors on all subway cars. After fielding complaints from constituents supposedly trapped in subway cars as fights between teenagers broke out, Letitia James has put forth a resolution demanding the MTA unlock the doors on all 75-foot train cars. “They had nowhere to escape,” James said of her fearful constituents. “Riders need a place to run to safety, and right now there’s no way to do that.”

James’ legislation, numbered Res 0582-2010, has the support of five other council members and reads without much force behind it and seems to rely on circular logic. It reads, in part:

Whereas, The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) enacted a rule in 2005, which states that “No person may use the end doors of a subway car to pass from one subway car to another except in an emergency or when directed to do so by an Authority conductor or a New York City police officer;” and
Whereas, This rule was enacted in order to ensure the safety of subway riders, especially during a time when the threat of terrorism has significantly heightened; and

Whereas, The MTA also claims that these doors are locked to prevent passenger injuries or fatalities as a result of falling between subway cars, however, passenger injuries or fatalities are extremely rare according to the New York Times; and

Whereas, The MTA New York City Transit website states that most subway accidents result from slips, trips, and falls on stairways when someone is in a rush; and

Whereas, Although the MTA made the decision to lock the end doors of a subway car for the purpose of protecting the public, locking these doors might serve as a detriment to public safety because passengers would not be able to escape in the event of an emergency or any other potentially dangerous situation in which one’s safety might be threatened, especially during non-rush hours; and

Whereas, Passengers, particularly women, fear being trapped in a locked car with a suspicious individual that may pose a threat to them; and

Whereas, When passengers believe that they are left with no option other than to ride a train and wait for it arrive at the next station stop before they can exit a car in which they feel vulnerable, the policy of locking the end doors of a subway car should be reconsidered.

Ultimately, the City Council, if it approves this bill, would “call upon” the MTA to unlock the doors because they find it “imperative” for the authority to do so in the name of safety.

In a short statement to The Post, Transit spokesman Charles Seaton defended locking the doors. “When these trains negotiate curves or travel over switches, large gaps are created between the cars’ end, creating an extremely hazardous situation,” he said. It is, essentially, safety on one end vs. safety on the other, and it strikes me here that James is overreacting to one concern without heeding the other.

36 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ARC Tunnel

As the ARC turns: money for nothing

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 18, 2010

New Jersey and New York will have to address cross-Hudson rail capacity sooner rather than later. (Image via Infrastructurist.

When last we heard from the various parties involved in a dispute over the ARC Tunnel funding, the federal government had leaked word that Gov. Chris Christie knew he would have to return the federal money, and Christie was still going forward with plans to challenge the refund request. In an effort to reach an amicable solution with the great state of New Jersey, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has promised to give New Jersey back around half of the $271 million it owes as long as it returns the money first.

There’s a catch though: Sen. Frank Lautenberg arranged this offer with the FTA, and Lautenberg and Christie are, on no uncertain terms, bitter enemies. Thus, while LaHood has extended the offer only to the state’s Senators so far, Christie hadn’t committed to it until he personally has his offer in hand. By the weekend, he had changed his tune. “The offer was a nice start,” he said.

The letter, obtained by NorthJersey.com and available here as a PDF, explains why the feds need the money back. Essentially, the Early Systems Work Agreement is a contract, and the money can go toward only the project under consideration. The state will have to return the money to the feds, and the feds will grant it back to the state under less onerous terms.

In his letter, LaHood dispelled many of Christie’s claims concerning the enforcement of the contractual ESWA refund provisions. He wrote:

In the history of the FTA’s New Starts program, there have only been five Early Systems Work Agreements (ESWAs) executed for projects like ARC. The New Jersey Transit ARC project is the first, and only one, of those five projects in which the sponsor abandoned the project after receiving an ESWA. All projects under the earlier ESWAs have been completed or are well along in construction. Specifically, the Seattle “LINK” light rail, the New Orleans Canal streetcar, and the Salt Lake City-Weber commuter rail project are in operation. The New York City Second Avenue Subway, Phase One, is now under construction.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is required by Federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 5309(g)(3)(B)(iv), to obtain repayment of Federal financial assistance expended under the ARC ESWA. Governor Christie was informed by the U.S. Department of Transportation officials that if the state of New Jersey failed to live up to its final commitments to the ARC project, as spelled out n the ESWA, New Jersey would have to repay the Federal funds awarded under the ESWA.

The FTA is being fair and equitable in its treatment of New Jersey (NJ) Transit. The FTA is not seeking repayment from NJ Transit of funds expended for Alternative Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, and environmental analysis totaling more than $22 million. The FTA is seeking repayment only of the funds expended under the ESWA.

However, should NJ Tranist fulfill its obligations under the law and repay the $271 million, DOT will transfer $128 million back into the State of New Jersey’s Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) account to replenish the CMAQ funds originally expended in this project for future use for other eligible projects.

And so the stage is set. The federal government has made it clear what Christie’s and New Jersey’s obligations are under the governing law, and the FTA has made a more than generous offer to a state that is effectively trying to hold it hostage. Christie should accept the grant, and the state should begin new efforts to identify a solution to its trans-Hudson rail travel woes.

5 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

On the brink of winter, weekend service changes

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 17, 2010

This snow thrower is just itching for some action. (Photo via MTA New York City Transit)

It’s not supposed to snow in the New York area until next weekend at the earliest, but New York City Transit gearing up for winter. Last year, they had to do battle with snow-related service changes 10 times, and their plans include diverting trains and ending some above-ground services early on. The thing up there atop this post is an industrial strength snow thrower that can clear tracks in short order.

Meanwhile, we’ve got service changes but not too many of them. These come to me via the MTA and are subject to change without notice. Check out the local signs and listent on-board announcements for the latest and greatest. Subway Weekender has the map.


From 4 a.m. Saturday, December 18 to 10 p.m. Sunday, December 19, uptown 2 trains operate express from East 180th Street to Gun Hill Road, skipping Bronx Park East, Pelham Parkway, Allerton Avenue and Burke Avenue stations due to track panel and tie installation north of Pelham Parkway. For service to these stations, customers may take the uptown 2 to Gun Hill Road and transfer to a downtown 2.


From 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, December 18 and Sunday, December 19, uptown 4 trains skip 176th Street, Mt. Eden Avenue, 170th, 167th and 161st Streets due to rail replacement at 161st Street-Yankee Stadium.


From 10:30 p.m. Friday, December 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, December 20, free shuttle buses replace A trains between Far Rockaway and Beach 98th Street due to station rehabilitations. A trains replace the S (Rockaway Park Shuttle) between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park.


From 11 p.m. Friday, December 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, December 20, D trains run on the R line between DeKalb Avenue and 36th Street, Brooklyn due to switch renewal north of Pacific Street and track work south of DeKalb Avenue.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, December 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, December 20, M trains are replaced by free shuttle buses between Metropolitan Avenue and Myrtle Avenue due to platform edge rehabilitation.


From 11 p.m. Friday, December 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, December 20, N trains run on the R line between DeKalb Avenue and 59th Street, Brooklyn due to switch renewal north of Pacific Street and track work south of DeKalb Avenue.


From 12:01 a.m. to 5 a.m. on Saturday, December 18, Sunday, December 19 and Monday, December 20, Manhattan-bound N trains are rerouted over the Manhattan Bridge from DeKalb Avenue to Canal Street due to Lawrence Street station rehabilitation. (No Manhattan-bound trains at Lawrence Street, Court Street, Whitehall Street, Rector Street, Cortlandt Street or City Hall. Customers may take the 4 train at nearby stations.)

(Rockaway Park Shuttle)
From 11 p.m. Friday, December 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, December 20, A trains replace the S (Rockaway Park Shuttle) between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park due to station rehabilitations.

1 comment
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesBrooklyn

FDNY, DOT shut down Atlantic Ave. tunnel tours

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 17, 2010

A simmering conflict between the FDNY, DOT and Robert Diamond, the main force behind the Brooklyn Historic Railway Association and the Atlantic Ave. tunnel tours boiled over this afternoon as DOT revoked Diamond’s permission to conduct tours. Citing fire safety concerns brought to light by recent FDNY investigations, DOT announced its decision in a letter to Diamond at 4:45 p.m. this afternoon.

The recent battle between the city and Diamond started around 10 days ago when the Fire Department forced him to cancel a movie screening inside the tunnel. Rooftop Films had planned to air a few films inside the tunnel as they had done in August, and National Geographic was set to film inside the tunnel. Due to concerns over ventilation and the space available for entrances and exits into and out of the tunnel, the FDNY sent a letter to DOT expressing its safety concerns, and today, DOT pulled the plug on the tours.

Diamond, who has been conducting tours inside the 165-year-old tunnel since the early 1980s, was apoplectic. FDNY has urged him to build a second entrance to the tunnel, but for years, DOT has dragged its feet on granting permission to open another entrance to a few feet further down Atlantic Ave. For now, then, the tours will stop at Diamond figures out his next move. He does not have kind words for the city.

“This entire debacle has occured because the City of New York for the past 30 years has failed to address the status of this historical treasure,” he said to me. “The City, especially DOT, has ignored my pleadings for the past 30 years to come together and formulate a policy for the preservation and utilization of this remarkable historical resource. Now that the Bloomberg Administration’s ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude towards historic treasures has been exposed for all to see, I hope the next city administration, which is only around the corner, will have more common sense than to destroy a proven tourist attaction and historical resource.”

3 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts