ARC TunnelAsides

Amtrak, NJ Transit talks over ARC tunnel dead

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 12, 2010

This is not a surprising twist, but a disappointing one nonetheless: New Jersey Transit and Amtrak officials failed to come to terms on a tunnel deal that could have saved part or all of the ARC Tunnel. According to the brief statement issued by Amtrak, the hang-up was one of the project’s overall purpose. “We are no longer interested in this project,” Vernae Graham, Amtrak spokeswoman, said. “There were exploratory talks going on with NJ Transit. The talks have stopped. … That was commuter rail, and we are interested in intercity rail projects.”

As recently as Wednesday afternoon, New Jersey officials were optimistic that Amtrak would save the project as the national rail carrier had expressed interest in the NJ Transit plans. The state had been willing to assume its portion of the costs were Amtrak to pick some of the funding, but the demands of intercity high-speed rail and New Jersey Transit’s commuter rail network were at odds. This lost opportunity remains as such.

8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Pondering another MTA political attack

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 12, 2010

As Andrew Cuomo prepares to take over the Governor’s Mansion in Albany, he’s going to have to deal with the MTA sooner or later. Despite his non-statements on transit during the campaign, Cuomo’s team will have to identify funding sources for the MTA’s operating budget and address a gap in the authority’s capital budget as well. Early indications are that another MTA raid may happen soon and that Cuomo’s proposed spending cap could unnecessarily hinder transit investments.

In addition to these problems of funding, Cuomo also needs to restore public confidence in the MTA. Despite the fact that the authority has cut 3500 jobs and removed $500 million from its budget this year and over $700 million going forward, politicians just aren’t listening. Take, for instance, a letter from Mike Long, the chairman of the state’s small Conservative Party. While Long obviously has an agenda, his letter is another anti-MTA screed that ignores reality. He writes:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is notorious for increasing fees instead of looking for ways to cut expenses and frankly, New York’s citizens are unable to absorb the latest increase set to begin on December 30, 2010.

On behalf of all New Yorkers, I am asking you to do all in your power to prevent the MTA from collecting the tolls and fees set to increase at the end of next month. If the officials of the MTA fail to follow your request, I would encourage you to include as one of your very first priorities, as Governor of the State of New York, the rollback of the increased fees and tolls on our bridges and tunnels. If the MTA Board Members continue to deny your request, I would encourage you to demand an audit to expose how the MTA mismanages its funds, has not reduced its workforce, will not streamline bus and subway routes and schedules, and its dependence on the outrageous tolls paid by the driving public to subsidize losses due to poor management. The present toll on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge of $11.00 is outrageous; to increase it to $13.00 is unconscionable.

On the one hand, Long is playing fast and loose with the facts. The Verrazano toll will be $13 only for the very small percentage of people who pay cash only. The E-ZPass rate will keep the toll under $10, and Staten Island residents who use an E-ZPass will pay $5.76. That’s hardly unconscionable. He also lays claim to the believe that “instead of looking for ways to cut expenses,” the MTA is raising fares and tolls when in reality, they’re raising fares and tolls after they both cut expenses and had money stolen by the state.

On the other hand though, Long’s statements, while factually questionable, highlight a deeper problem: The MTA is suffering from a credibility gap. So even if the authority says it will cut hundreds of millions of dollars and then does so, politicians will not examine the books to verify the claims. They’ll simply dismiss them out of hand.

At this point, Andrew Cuomo has to figure out a way to restore some level of public confidence in the qualified people atop the MTA. Perhaps he should order Thomas DiNapoli, the state comptroller who just won reelection, to complete a forensic audit on the MTA. If — or when — this audit finds that the authority has indeed streamlined operations and trimmed costs, who will the politicians finger then? They certainly won’t blame themselves even when they should.

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
LIRRMetro-North

Metro-North now more popular than LIRR

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 12, 2010

Ridership is down since 2008, but Metro-North is finally more popular than the LIRR. (Source: Wall Street Journal)

In the unofficial war for commuter rail dominance, Metro-North in September won a decisive battle for the first time in its history under the MTA. As the Wall Street Journal’s Andrew Grossman reports, ridership on the Grand Central-bound Metro-North lines was higher than that of the Long Island Rail Road, and Metro-North, long the leader in on-time performance, can now lay claim to being the most popular commuter rail line in the country. According to the September figures — available in the latest MTA board books — the LIRR saw 6.83 million passengers pass through its doors in September while Metro-North serviced 6.9 million.

Overall, though, ridership on the commuter rail lines is still significantly off the record-setting pace set in early 2008. Before the economy plunged, the LIRR served over nine million riders per month while approximately 8.6 million took Metro-North. Still, the MTA expects the LIRR’s popularity to grow again. “Economic recovery is occurring at different rates in different parts of our region and both railroads will continue to pursue ways to show that public transportation is still the best way to travel. As the economy picks up, we expect the LIRR ridership will rebound,” an agency spokesman said to the Journal.

Interestingly, Grossman pegs two drivers behind Metro-North’s four percent increase in ridership. He attributes it to “growth in the city’s northern suburbs and an increase in people commuting out of the city to jobs in big employment centers like White Plains and Stamford.” But what of the declining LIRR figures? Ridership sunk one percent over the same time period from a year ago, and while officials look at the economy, two other factors leap out at me. First, due to the threat of bad weather, the LIRR suspended service to the East End over Labor Day, and second, service cuts have eroded the frequency of trains and their popularity.

It’s worth commenting too on a statement by Maureen Michaels, chair of the LIRR Commuter Council. In fact, she fingers the service cuts as a main driver behind the LIRR’s second-place finish, but she claims that less frequent service means that the commuter railroad is no longer “cost effective” for commuters. It’s certainly true that fewer trains and higher fares lead to inconvenienced and disgruntled passengers, but the LIRR remains far more “cost effective” than the alternative — which is driving into Manhattan from Long Island. The fares would have to jump by a magnitude of around four or five for the trains to become less cost effective, and statements such as Michaels’ should not go unquestioned.

20 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
CTA

Chicago turns to naming rights deals for revenue

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 12, 2010

As transit economics and funding go, we are not living in a golden age. State and city contributions to their public transit systems are on the decline, and as both operating costs and pension obligations climb, transit agencies have left no stone unturned in their quest for revenue. From service cuts to fare hikes to internal reorganization, if the move saves dollars, it’s on the table.

For many transit agencies, advertising remains one of the last great untapped resources. In New York, the MTA draws in over $125 million annually, up from just $36 million in 1997, and yet, the ads we see in subway cars and on buses are often poor in quality. Considering the captive audience, I have to believe transit agencies could be doing a better job of selling space to companies willing to pay a pretty penny for the eyeballs.

Outside of traditional in-car display advertisements, train car wraps and station treatments, naming rights remain a potential, if controversial, source of revenue, and over the past few years, we’ve seen American transit agencies awkwardly and tentatively embrace station naming deals. The MTA faltered in its first attempts when Citi Bank refused to pony up the dollars to name the 7 stop at Willets Point after Citi Field, but it secured a 20-year, $4-million commitment from Barclays to append the name of the Nets’ new arean to the Atlantic Ave./Pacific St. hub. Other than that one failure and one success, all has been quiet on the naming rights front.

Outside of New York, transit officials have engaged in stop-and-go efforts to secure naming rights. In Philadelphia, the Pattison Ave. station at Broad St. has been renamed the AT&T stop. By removing the geographic identifiers from the station name, SEPTA has made it harder for those unfamiliar with the system to reach their destination, and I have long believed the Philly approach is the wrong one to take for station naming deals.

In Chicago, something new and different is emerging. A few weeks ago, the Chicago Transit Authority reopened the renovated North/Clybourn station, and the ceremony was significant because Apple, the computer giant which was opening a store nearby, had paid for the station renovations. The deal Apple signed with the CTA allowed them right of first refusal for the station name if the authority were to sell the naming rights, and now it appears as though the CTA is prepared to do just that.

As Mary Wisniewski of The Chicago Sun-Times reported yesterday, the CTA board has begun to explore corporate naming rights deals. She writes:

On Wednesday, the CTA board asked for bids from firms that would help seek corporate sponsorships to bring in revenues beyond what the CTA already gets from ads on buses, trains and stations.

The deals could involve naming rights or other ideas, such as sponsorship of the CTA’s planned bus rapid-transit route on the Jeffery corridor or the New Year’s Eve “penny-a-ride” program. “I’m not looking for your traditional commitment to just advertise more on the system,” CTA President Richard Rodriguez said. “I’m looking for creative ideas.”

Rodriguez said he was in London on a speaking engagement earlier in the year and realized that across Europe, transit systems are looking into sponsorship ideas. “I can’t even imagine what the opportunities might be,” Rodriguez said. The firm would be paid a portion of the revenues it generated.

For U.S.-based transit, Chicago’s bidding results could be a harbinger of things to come. If companies are willing to pay money to secure these naming rights, there is absolutely nothing stopping other transit agencies from jumping onto this fiscal bandwagon. Rodriguez, the CTA’s head, doesn’t know what to expect, but at least some prominent companies will bid for high-traffic stations or prominent events.

As transit agencies, then, head into uncharted territories, how best should they structure these naming rights deals? Sports stadiums, for instance, have embraced corporate names but have sacrificed any local identity. Would a casual fan know that the Cincinnati Reds play in Great American Ballpark? Where is the Wells Fargo Center and which teams play there? Few people outside of Philadelphia could answer that question.

So the right approach involves appending instead of replacing. Renaming Times Square, originally a corporate name in its own right, to the Walt Disney Station does no one any favors, but calling it Times Square/Walt Disney, while painful to see, doesn’t remove the key geographical signifier. Since a transit system is in the business of getting people from Point A to Point B, it must ensure that people know where Point B is.

Other than that, all bets are off. Whether any substantial amount of money can be generated from these potential deals though remains to be seen.

12 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway History

When It Was a Train: The 63rd St. Shuttle

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 11, 2010

I found myself yesterday alighting down the stairs to the Brooklyn-bound platform at the south end of the 6th Ave IND stop at 34th St. station when I stopped to do a double-take. Instead of telling me that I could catch the B and the D on the express tracks or the F and the M on the local side, the sign that greeted me told me to expect the F or the orange S on the local tracks. The orange S? What is this mysterious shuttle?

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen an orange S pop up along 6th Ave. Last year, an astute reader sent me a photo of the S on a B train, and I delved into the history of the Grand St. shuttle. That train operated on the express tracks between W. 4th St. and Grand St. This other orange S was a local, and it helped alleviate the pressures of Manhattan Bridge construction as well.

This shuttle began service in May of 1997 and ran only late at night. It operated from Queensbridge to Second Ave. as a local route as the MTA readied the 63rd St. Connector. This shuttle again ran during 2001 while the northern tracks of the Manhattan Bridge were closed. It operated from 21st St.-Queensbridge to Broadway/Lafayette via the 63rd St. tunnel. It went into service on July 22, 2001 and ran only until December 16, 2001. On that day, the MTA finally realized its dream of connecting the 63rd St. tunnel with the rest of the Queens Boulevard line. The V train was born as the F took over the shuttle’s route through the 63rd St. tunnel. (For more on the V train and its controversial origins, check out my requiem for the lost line.)

I have to believe that the reappearance of the orange S bullet is a direct result of the sign change that eliminating the V train precipitated. My guess is that someone at 34th St. pulled off the new orange M sticker and left exposed the original metallic sign with its orange S. For now, until Transit crews cover it up, a forgotten part of the Manhattan Bridge reroutings is on full display for confused tourists and stunned natives alike to see.

4 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Abandoned StationsAsides

Underbelly Project seekers winding up in jail

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 11, 2010

Intrepid urban adventurers who set off in search of the South 4th Street subway station and the Underbelly Project art gallery are finding themselves greeted by a not-so-pleasant surprise. As Michael Grynbaum reports, around 20 people have been arrested for trespassing as they’ve set off in search of the hidden art project. The abandoned station sits directly underneath Brooklyn’s 90th Precinct station house, and as the MTA is trying to discourage illicit trespassing, a team of cops, including some of the plain-clothes variety, have been staking out the joint. So far, most of those caught have been charged with criminal trespassing while two received transit summonses. “This is not an art gallery; this is completely illegal,” one police officer said to The Times.

While the Underbelly Project curators claimed they destroyed the entrance point to the South 4th Street station, that claim is far from the truth. It is still physically possible to get up there, and those who have eluded the police found that the locals have tagged the art. For its part, the MTA reiterated its stance it will not be erasing anything on the walls, and the authority has already sealed off one of the site’s easier access points.

Amusingly enough, the authority also refused to confirm the location of the gallery to Grynbaum and The Times. “There are some bloggers who can pinpoint these places because they eat and sleep transit lore, but officially, no, we’re not confirming anything,” authority spokesperson Deirdre Parker said. It’s up there though behind chain-linked fences and well within the arm of the law.

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
7 Line ExtensionAsides

Without a TIGER grant, 7 line supporters look to ARC funds

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 11, 2010

In a last-gasp effort to save the 7 line extension’s 41st St. and 10th Ave. station, the city in June applied for a $3 million TIGER II grant. With that money, the MTA would have studied the feasibility of building a non-island shell station, but the federal government has denied that request. Once again, the absolutely necessary part of this expensive project is in jeopardy.

Today, the Real Estate Board of New York, which had pledged $250,000 in matching funds to qualify for the TIGER II grant, has issued another call for funds for this station. As Crain’s New York reports, REBNY will now work to secure some of the money from the ARC Tunnel to fund the 10th Ave. station. “That money should be deployed in New York,” Mary Ann Tighe, REBNY’s chair, said of the stop that she believes would serve 100,000 commuters a day. On Monday, I issued a similar call, and it’s worth noting that because of the late date and the ongoing work, any station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. would now have to be constructed after the 7 line extension opens. Still, it isn’t too late, and the ARC money would do wonders for this flawed project.

Yet, I can’t help but think, as I did in June, that REBNY is trying to shut the barn door after the horse has escaped. The planned 7 line stop at 10th Ave. and 41st St. needed their considerable support before the city and the MTA had to kill. Three years later, it’s a scramble for money that even the real estate lobby might not be able to win.

12 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Taxis

Peering into the future of the NYC taxi

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 11, 2010

Could this be the taxi of tomorrow? (Via Human Condition/ToT)

Once upon a time, the Ford Crown Victoria, painted yellow, dominated the streets of New York City. These gas-guzzling behemoths were the darling of the Taxi & Limousine Commission. With spacious trunks and ample space in the back, the Crown Vic proved popular with drivers and passengers alike, and even today, the familiar body, largely unchanged since 1979, still rolls around the city.

In the mid-2000s, though, the character of the taxi fleet began to change. As part of an effort to reduce carbon emissions while modernizing the fleet, the Taxi & Limousine Commission began urging and then requiring the adoption of hybrid taxis. For model year 2006, for instance, the TLC approved the Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner, the Honda Accord, the Honda Civic, the Lexus RX400H, the Toyota Highlander and the Toyota Prius for use among cabbies, and since then, the number of different taxicab makes and models has grown to 16.

The hybrid push was part of a larger effort by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to bring PlaNYC to fruition, but the judiciary had other ideas. On a preemption basis, a judge blocked the hybrid cab requirement, and an appeals court has upheld the decision as well. Instead, the request to move to a hybrid remains voluntary. Still, the city is trying to improve the efficiency of its taxi fleet.

Enter the Taxi of Tomorrow. In late 2009, the TLC pulled out a request for proposal for the next-gen taxicab. As London has done with their iconic cars, so too will New York try to unify its fleet. The main requirements are eight fold:

  • Highest safety standards
  • Superior passenger experience
  • Superior driver comfort and amenities
  • Appropriate purchase price and on-going maintenance and repair costs
  • Sustainability (minimized environmental impact throughout the vehicle’s life cycle)
  • Minimal physical footprint (with more useable interior room)
  • Universal accessibility for all users with a goal of meeting ADA guidelines (wheelchair accessible)
  • Iconic design that will identify the new taxi with New York City

From an environmental standpoint, sustainability is the key requirement. The TLC should be able to make an endrun around the court’s preemption argument by unifying the fleet and special-ordering a new car. The finalists in the RFP competition will be announced early next year, and the new cars should hit the road by 2014 as part of a three-to-five year replacement effort.

Earlier this week at the Museum of the City of New York, the taxi industry presented some preliminary designs and discussed the impetus behind the project. I couldn’t attend this session, but WNYC’s Kathleen Horan did. She reports on the divergent opinions on the one-car project:

The President of the Metropolitan Taxi Cab Board of Trade, Ron Sherman, also worries that malfunctions could cause headaches if there isn’t more variety. “We feel that there should be at least 2 or 3 choices — that stakes are too high to rely on just one provider to accomplish this.”

Taxi and Limousine Commissioner David Yassky says the benefits of working with a single automaker are worth the risks. “Only the city government can act on behalf of the entire industry in getting the best deal possible from the manufacturers. I think that’s worth it.”

He says that no other city has ever tried this, but that the only way to meet all the goals is by being pro-active and not picking from what is already on the market.

Reinventing the wheel certainly carries with it substantial risk, and Sherman’s points are a valid one. If the TLC opts for a custom-made car, it’s going to need to ensure that New York mechanics have the expertise necessary to repair these cars when they inevitably break down. These cars will have to be affordable for the city and taxi medallion owners and will have to be both handicapped-accessible and environmentally friendly. How the city resolves this design debate will have an impact well into the next decade.

18 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesBuses

MTA appoints Darryl Irick as interim bus head

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 10, 2010

Following Joseph Smith’s late-October announcement that he would be retiring as the head of the MTA’s bus division, the authority revealed today that 24-year Transit veteran Darryl Irick will take over as the acting head of the MTA’s three bus divisions at the end of the year. Irick started his MTA career in 1986 as a bus operator out of the Kingsbridge Deport and has worked in management, operations planning and depot and road operations over the past few years. He’ll be overseeing a 18,500 employees at 40 facilities and a combined bus fleet of nearly 6000 vehicles that service 2.8 million daily customers over a 900-square-mile territory.

“Throughout his career, Darryl has distinguished himself with his ability to enter any operating environment and significantly improve performance,” MTA Chairman and CEO Jay Walder said today in a statement. “I’m confident that he will rise to the challenge of continuing to improve our bus service even as we deal with historic budget constraints.”

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New Jersey Transit

In Year 2, Meadowlands train ridership up 50%

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on November 10, 2010

The New Jersey Transit station at the Meadowlands has proven to be popular. (Rendering from 2007)

Now that football fans have had a year to get used to the idea of taking the train to the Meadowlands and New Jersey Transit has had a year to improve service, ridership is on the rise. As The Record reported this week, NJ Transit says ridership has increased by 50 percent for the NFL season. Reports John Brennan:

The Jets — with a boost from two “Monday Night Football” games — have 70 percent more fans riding the rails than in 2009, NJ Transit spokeswoman Courtney Carroll said. On Jets game days, there have been about 21,000 trips made this year — the equivalent of 10,500 fans making a round trip — compared with 6,000 such fans last year.

Giants fans are making about 26 percent more trips — about 16,000, or the equivalent of 8,000 round trips. That means that more than 10 percent of fans overall at New Meadowlands Stadium football games are taking the train.

“The schedule is about the same as last year, but we are doing things differently on the operations side to improve the flow,” Carroll said. “We’ve had a year to learn and grow with the service, to see what works.”

Anything to ease the flow of cars into and out of the Meadowlands is a welcome change, but I’m curious to hear more about how NJ Transit has improved their planning.

Last year, for a Bruce Springsteen concert, I took the train to the Meadowlands, and although the trip to the show was smooth, the trip home was anything but. People bumrushed the train station, and after the initial trains left, we had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for the next to leave. Unlike the subway after, say, a game at Yankee Stadium, Transit doesn’t have a steady flow of trains from the Meadowlands to Secaucus Junction.

Right now, the trains are running only around 20 times a year for football games and concerts. Originally, the new Meadowlands stop was supposed to service the Xanadu shopping and entertainment complex, but the mall, slated for a 2011 completion date, may not open until 2014 or beyond.

Anyway, it’s hard to believe that even 10 percent of fans heading to the New Meadowlands Stadium take the train as that complex had become so identified with automobile traffic. That the ridership is growing is proof that, if you build it, they will ride.

8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts