AsidesBrooklyn

Restoring bus service through MetroTech and a change at Jay St.

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 25, 2010

Here’s an intriguing announcement that came out of today’s MTA Board committee meetings: Transit is restoring bus service through the MetroTech complex in Downtown Brooklyn for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001. The agency press release notes that “due to security measures adopted by the New York City Police Department following 9/11,” Transit had to reroute the B54 around the MetroTech Center, but now that the tenant that “required these security measures” is vacating the area, the B54 will resume service through the center.

The new routing will remove the B54 from the Flatbush Ave. extension and Tillary St. and send the bus down MetroTech Walk instead. The MTA believes this change will “improve reliability and provide a more direct route” for those traveling to the subway. The stops along Jay St. at Tillary St. and Mrytle Ave. will be discontinued, and the B54 will stop at MetroTech walk and Lawrence St.

Speaking of the subway, The Brooklyn Paper speaks with Transit officials this week about the upcoming renaming of the Jay St./Borough Hall subway stop. When the extensive renovations are finished within the next few months and the Lawrence St. R stop connects with the A/C/F station at Jay St., the complex will be renamed Jay Street-MetroTech. “The Jay Street station is much closer to MetroTech than it is to Borough Hall,” Deirdre Parker, Transit spokesperson, said to the paper. “So the entire complex, including Lawrence Street, will be called Jay Street-MetroTech when the project is finished.”

10 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MetroCard

MetroCard inventor passes away a few years before his creation

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 25, 2010

The MTA is currently engaged in a far-reaching plan to replace the MetroCard with something more futuristic, but this weekend, the fare payment world paused as Raymond deKozan, the man credited with inventing the familiar gold-and-blue card, passed away at age 74. deKozan died at his home in San Diego after a brief illness.

Crain’s New York offers up a biography:

An electrical engineer by training, deKozan founded what eventually became Cubic Transportation Systems in 1972. The San Diego-based company is a subsidiary of the Cubic Corp., a major defense contractor. The company provides automatic fare collection systems for cities around the world. But its best-known product, at least to New Yorkers, is the MetroCard, that piece of yellow plastic with the magnetic stripe that has become an indispensable tool of city life…

deKozan was born in Richmond, Va., on Feb. 21, 1936. He obtained his degree in electrical engineering at the University of Virginia, and was first employed by the Glenn L. Martin Co. in Baltimore in 1957 as the space race heated up. The Soviet Union had just launched Sputnik, and deKozan was hired to help the company and the country develop its first satellite systems. deKozan moved to Cape Canaveral but was soon recruited by Ryan Aeronautical in San Diego, where he eventually was hired by Cubic.

While San Diego became deKozan’s home, he often moved with his family to the cities where the company had major projects. He lived with his family in New York in the early 1990s while pursuing the MetroCard contract with the MTA. He was also a longtime Yankees fan.

deKozan’s creation has become an icon of New York life, but it too is not long for this world. This MTA is engaged in a trial with both MasterCard and VISA that will eventually see the MetroCard replaced with a contactless payment system. Ideally, this new system would be an international one, and although the MTA once said it is trying to bring a replacement online by 2014, the real timeline is anybody’s guess. Today, though, we send our thoughts out to the deKozan family and mourn the creator of a technology that revolutionized New York City transit.

6 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway History

Underneath 42nd St., a conveyor belt that wasn’t

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 25, 2010

City and Board of Transportation officials gather around a working model of the conveyor belt proposed to replace the 42nd St. shuttle. (Edward Haunser/The New York Times)

The 42nd St. shuttle was always supposed to be a temporary train route. It is funny then, that 92 years after it first entered service, the shuttle is one of the most necessary and crowded routes as it ferries commuters in between Grand Central and Times Square. Imagine, if you will, a similar route but filled with open-air cars on a conveyor part as was once proposed and prepared for the underground stretch of track in between the East and the West Sides.

On September 28, 1918, the Interborough Rapid Transit company opened service on its so-called H routing. With the 7th Ave. line south of 42nd St. serving customers and the Lexington Ave. line north of 42nd St. playing host to trains, the original east/west routing that connecting the southern half of the IRT on the East Side with the northern half on the West Side was to become a shuttle, ferrying passengers from Grand Central Terminal to Times Square. From the start, the service was an engineering disaster. “We called the H system for more reason than one,” William Jerome Daly, the Board of Transportation secretary, said with a wink and a smile in 1949.

On opening day, The Times said that service started smoothly, but the article and subsequent tales from underground described a scene that was anything but. Straphangers complained of the long walk from the Lexington Ave. IRT line to the shuttle station. They complained of the crowds and of the way the lighted signs announcing the next train did not give ample warning as customers had to run to catch the next train. The complained of cramped spaces and generally poor engineering as support beams at the West Side interfered with movement. “Shuttle service faulty,” said one 1942 letter to The Times.

By the time 1949 rolled around, the temporary shuttle — called such because the Board of Transportation had never funded upgrades to the Times Square end — still drew the ire of the city’s straphangers, and it was with great fanfare that the Board of Estimates announced an overhaul. For the princely sum of $3.5 million, the Board planned to build double platforms at Times Square to ease the crowd and allow for boarding on one side and detraining on another. The Grand Central terminal would be extended 200 feet east to cut walking distance from the shuttle to the IRT station. Still, these upgrades were “pretty far down” on the list of overall subway improvements, and it took a while to get the ball rolling.

After a few years of fits and starts, the Board of Transportation hit upon another idea: Instead of upgrading the shuttle, the city would instead replace it with a people-moving conveyor belt. As Time Magazine described in a 1954 article, “The jammed, jolting old subway shuttle train between Grand Central Station and Times Square, half a mile crosstown, will be replaced by a gigantic conveyor belt carrying an endless chain of lightweight passenger cars. Riders will step onto a belt moving at 1½ m.p.h., and from there into cars which will then speed up to 15 m.p.h. for the two-minute trip to Times Square and slow down again to let them off.”

A 1951 rendering of the 42nd Street conveyor belt in action.

The project was to cost $5 million — $3.8 million for the conveyor belt system, $1.2 million for necessary tunnel updates — and The Times loved it. Proclaiming the novelty factor, the editorial staff opined, “The conveyor belt has proved itself on many jobs. We have faith that the engineers of today can make this new shuttle idea a working reality…Admitting that it is something of an adventure into experiment, we hope city officials have enough of the pioneering spirit to try it in curing an old ill at a busy crossroads of the city.”

Unfortunately, City Comptroller Lawrence E. Gerosa wasn’t feeling that pioneering spirit. In an August 1955 report condemning the plans, Gerosa warned of “high maintenance charges and risk of injury to passengers.” Noting that this system would be both more expensive than anticipated and the first of its kind anywhere, he issued a warning: “New York City cannot afford to be the guinea pig for such a costly and complex investment particularly in one of the most congested areas in our subway system.”

Two months later, the conveyor belt plan died an ignoble death. Instead of a new investment, the Transit Authority promised to reengineer the Grand Central bottleneck and invest in rolling stock upgrades for the much-maligned shuttle. Thus ended one of the great thought experiments in New York City transit history.

Today, the shuttle suffers from some of the problems described in those missives from the 1950s. The Grand Central IRT stop is still a long walk away from the shuttle, and commuters still have to sprint to catch the train at Times Square when the “next train” sign lights up. The shuttle is a microcosm for improvement plans that were never funded yesterday and aren’t on the table for the future.

From the start of the 1950s onward, The Times repeated a call for a river-to-river shuttle that would service the Hudson River ports, the Port Authority Bus Terminal, Times Square, Grand Central and the UN area on the East Side, and it still doesn’t extend that far 60 years later. An island-wide route would have revolutionized crosstown access and would have been a true international subway. Instead, the TA and the Board of Estimates settled for a patched-up shuttle, and New York’s transit riders are still today hoping for river-to-river rail along the avenue I’m taking you to, 42nd Street.

17 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

The Times heads underground

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 24, 2010

For those subway buffs among us who still read the newsprint-and-paper edition of The New York Times, today’s Sunday edition had a special treat: As part of the celebration of the subway’s 106th anniversary, the Metropolitan Section featured a Subway Issue. The Times’ Metro Desk went all out in covering the trains, and as many of the articles touch upon topics which I’ve covered lately, it’s a fun read.

The centerpiece of the section is an interview with Jay Walder that reflects upon the MTA Chair and CEO’s first year in office. He talks about his battles with labor, his drive to get technology underground and his efforts at reforming the MTA in the wake of its gaping budget hole. As we know, Walder wants to serve his full term as MTA head, and he reiterates that desire again in the paper today.

The co-centerpiece, if you will, is a photo essay from The Times’ archives. The print edition does this multimedia piece no justice, but the online version is a sight to behold. The pictures range from 1917 to 2010 and feature some true historical gems.

In the regular Metropolitan Section columns, we’ve got extensive coverage of the quirks of the subway. Ariel Kaminer looks at the new scooter-equipped subway cops while Corey Kilgannon profiles the secret library at 50th St. and Lexington. Elissa Gootman profiles Gene Russianoff in her Sunday Routine column. In the piece, the Straphangers Campaign head takes a shot at weekend service changes. “Taking the train on the weekend,“is like Russian roulette,” he said, but I’ve found it you read the service advisory posters, weekend travel is slow but not impossible to figure out.

Friend-of-SAS Jowy Romano who writes the Subway Art Blog gets a New York Online profile and spoke with J. David Goodman about the inspiration behind his site. “It’s so important to document this subway art,” Romano said, “because it’s probably going to be whited-out or blotted out within an hour.” Eric Molinsky talks about his iPhone art and the subways.

Dvora Myers writes an amusing piece about the quest for a subway seat. She spills the secrets that everyone has and tries to answer a key question: At what stop along your commute do you know you can get a seat? For me, it’s usually De Kalb Ave. as the crowds empty out of the B train to head to Downtown Brooklyn, Long Island University or the nearby hospital. James Estrin gets the low-down on subway preachers.

And then of course, we end with the complaints. I’ve burned many a pixel writing about subway etiquette over the years, and The Times picks up that vein today. Ron Lieber calls out door-blockers in his Complaint Box piece while readers offer their views on the typical subway faux pas. The best part of the section, though, has to be the Complaint Box Cards. Print out the cards and deliver them, if you dare, to those door-blockers, pole-huggers and seat hogs as you seem during your daily travels.

Most Straphangers could use some underground etiquette lessons. (Click to enlarge)

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
East Side Access Project

A photo tour of the East Side Access Project

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 23, 2010

While the ARC Tunnel has dominated the headlines lately and the Second Ave. Subway is the sexy New York City Transit project, the East Side Access project will deliver benefits for the city’s commuters, and it too continues apace. Reader Marc G. had a chance to take a trip through the tunnel in progress earlier this year, and he offered up these photos for our weekend enjoyment. The images are arrayed below in gallery form. Click on them to enlarge.

7 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
LIRRService Advisories

LIRR, Transit experiencing systemwide weekend changes

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 22, 2010

When the Long Island Rail Road’s Hall signal tower suffered a crippling fire in August, the great irony of the story was one we know well. The MTA was supposed to bring a modernized switching system online three years ago, and the replacement project was 167 percent over budget. Had the project been on time, the fire wouldn’t have knocked out most LIRR service for a week.

This weekend, the authority is beginning the switchover to the modernized system, and LIRR service is severely limited because of it. In essence, this project is replacing 1910’s-era electro-mechanical Model 14 Interlocking Machines at the three towers with a modern microprocessor based system. As the MTA says in a press release, “The new more reliable system will increase operational flexibility for the large volume of trains that pass through this area, helping to reduce customer delays. The new system also will provide redundant signal control systems and will allow for quicker recovery time in the event of a power surge, or lightning storm or fire-related service disruption like the one experienced in August 2010 when high voltage power entered the signal system and damaged the wiring to the signal control board in Jamaica’s Hall Tower.”

For Saturday and Sunday, though, and again in November, bringing the new system online means severely reduced service. Only three trains per hour are operating between Jamaica and Penn Station, and the MTA is urging customers to allow for up 70 minutes of added travel time. For the line-by-line breakdown of the service changes, check out the Jamaica Cutover Modernization site. The video above explains the new system.

Meanwhile, New York City Transit has a full slate of changes in store for us as well. All lines except the 5 and L are suffering through weekend changes. As always, these come to me via Transit and are subject to change without notice. Check out the signs in your local station and listen to on-board announcements. Subway Weekender has the map.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, October 23 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, uptown 1 trains run express from 72nd Street to 96th Street due to track work at 72nd Street.


From 11:30 p.m. Saturday, October 23 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, 1 service is suspended between 242nd Street and 168th Street due to rehab work between 242nd Street and Dyckman Street stations. The A trains, free shuttle buses and the M3 bus provide alternate service. Free shuttle buses run in two sections:

  • On Broadway between 242nd Street and 215th Street stations, then connecting to the 207th Street A station.
  • On St. Nicholas Avenue between 191st and 168th Street stations.

1 trains run local between 168th Street and 34th Street then express between 34th Street and 14th Street where it terminates. (2 and 3 trains run local between 96th Street and Chambers Street.)


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, October 22 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, there is no 1 service between 14th Street and South Ferry due to Port Authority work at the WTC site. The 2, 3, and free shuttle buses provide alternate service. During the daytime hours, 1 train service runs express between 34th Street and 14th Street where it terminates. The 2 and 3 trains replace the 1 between 34th Street and Chambers Street. Free shuttle buses replace the 1 between Chambers Street and South Ferry. Note: During the overnight hours, downtown 1 trains will run local between 34th Street and 14th Street. The 3 trains run express between 148th Street and 42nd Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, October 23 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, Manhattan-bound 2 and 4 trains skip Eastern Parkway, Grand Army Plaza and Bergen Street due to tunnel ceiling inspection.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, October 23 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, downtown 2 trains run local from 96th Street to Chambers Street and uptown 2 trains run local from Chambers Street to 72nd Street, then express to 96th Street. These changes are due to Port Authority work at the WTC site and track work at 72nd Street.


From 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday, October 23, Bronx-bound 2 trains skip 219th, 225th, 233rd, and Nereid Avenue due to the painting of the elevated steel structure.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, October 23 and Sunday, October 24, downtown 3 trains run local from 96th Street to Chambers Street and uptown 3 trains run local from Chambers Street to 72nd Street, then express to 96th Street. These changes are due to Port Authority work at the WTC site and track work at 72nd Street.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, October 23 and Sunday, October 24, Manhattan-bound 3 trains skip Eastern Parkway, Grand Army Plaza and Bergen Street due to tunnel ceiling inspections.


From 11 p.m. Friday, October 22 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, downtown 4 and 6 trains skip 33rd, 28th, and 23rd Streets, Astor Place, Bleecker, Spring and Canal Streets due to track work south of 33rd Street and work on the Broadway-Lafayette to Bleecker Street transfer.


From 4 a.m. Saturday, October 23 to 10 p.m. Sunday, October 24, the last stop for some Bronx-bound 6 trains is 3rd Avenue due to track panel installation between Middletown Road and Westchester Square.


From 4 a.m. Saturday, October 23 to 11 p.m. Sunday, October 24, Flushing-bound 7 trains skip 82nd, 90th, 103rd, and 111th Streets due to switch renewal work at 111th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, October 23 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, Manhattan-bound A trains run on the F line from Jay Street to West 4th Street, then local to 59th Street/Columbus Circle due to work on the Fulton Street Transit Center.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, October 23 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, there is no A train service at Broadway-Nassau/Fulton Street in either direction due to work on the Fulton Street Transit Center.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, October 23 and Sunday, October 24, Manhattan-bound C trains run on the F line from Jay Street to West 4th Street due to work on the Fulton Street Transit Center.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, October 23 and Sunday, October 24, there is no C train service at Broadway-Nassau/Fulton Street in either direction due to work on the Fulton Street Transit Center.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, October 22 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, free shuttle buses replace D service in Brooklyn between 36th Street and Coney Island/Stillwell Avenue due to structural repair and station rehabilitation from 71st Street to Bay 50th Street and ADA work at Bay Parkway. (Note: D trains run on the N line between 36th Street and Coney Island/Stillwell Avenue.)


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, October 23 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, Queens-bound E trains skip Spring Street and 23rd Street due to work on the Fulton Street Transit Center.


From 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday, October 23, Coney Island-bound F trains skip Avenue U due to signal maintenance.


From 6 a.m. to 12 noon, Sunday, October 24, free shuttle buses replace F trains between Church Avenue and Kings Highway due to switch replacement south of Ditmas Avenue.


From 10:30 p.m. Friday, October 22 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, free shuttle buses replace G trains between Court Square and Bedford-Nostrand Avs. due to track work north of Metropolitan Avenue.


From 6 a.m. Saturday, October 23 to 6 p.m. Sunday, October 24, Manhattan-bound J trains skip Flushing Avenue, Lorimer Street and Hewes Street due to switch work north of Myrtle Avenue.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, October 22 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, free shuttle buses between Metropolitan Avenue and Myrtle Avenue-Broadway replace M service due to platform edge rehabilitation.


From 11 p.m. Friday, October 22 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 25, uptown N trains skip Prince, 8th, 23rd, and 28th Streets due to track work north of Prince Street.


On Monday, October 25, the Manhattan-bound platforms at Neck Road and Avenue U will reopen following closure due to station rehabilitation.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, October 23 and Sunday, October 24, uptown R trains skip Prince, 8th, 23rd, and 28th Streets due to track work north of Prince Street.

3 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ARC Tunnel

LaHood: ARC overruns range from $1-$4 billion

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 22, 2010

The deep cavern in Manhattan is one of Governor Christie's gripes with the ARC Tunnel. (Via ARCTunnel.com)

It might yet be the ARC Tunnel’s day of reckoning. According to unsourced reports out of New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie will at least take the weekend to ponder the fate of this vital rail project.

Meanwhile, although I reported this morning that the feds’ estimates featured cost overruns of just $1 billion, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has broken his silence to explain the government’s cost projections for the tunnel. In his statement, he explains the upper and lower bounds of the FTA projects. He said:

In response to press reports, I want to clarify the range of numbers regarding the ARC tunnel project.

The Department of Transportation has estimated the low-range cost of the project at $9.775 billion. The mid-range estimate is $10.909 billion and the high-end range is $12.708 billion. For complex projects, we do a range of estimates in the interests of accuracy. However, DOT is committed to working together through the life of the project to keep costs down to the lowest estimate.

In addition, we’ve been discussing with New Jersey officials the simultaneous construction of the $775 million South span of the Portal Bridge project.

We are committed to continuing the constructive dialogue we have had for the last two weeks with New Jersey officials to find a way to move forward on the ARC tunnel project, which will double commuter train capacity between New Jersey and New York.

This statement by LaHood reminds me of the FTA’s approach to the Second Ave. Subway. Last year, the feds released their own cost estimates for Phase 1 of the SAS, and they include a completion date as late as 2018 and a budget as high as $5.7 billion. (See this chart for more.) The MTA has maintained that the project will wrap on time in late 2016 or early 2017 and will cost under $5 billion. It’s important to remember that the federal are just that. They’re trying to keep the costs low, and the final price could range from $9.7-$12.7 billion.

It’s clear that Christie is facing a budget crisis of sorts with this project, but it’s too important to scrap now. We’ll find out next week if he and LaHood can reach an agreement to keep the ARC Tunnel on track.

21 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Economics

Tales from the economics of transit

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 22, 2010

The fallout from the MTA’s June service cuts has continued into the fall, and today, I have two stories that highlight both the politics and economics behind the service cuts. The first came from last week’s issue of The Brooklyn Paper, and it involves the dollar vans that have replaced some eliminated local bus routes. Sulaiman Haqq, the businessman running the van service along the defunct B71 route, has found that he is bleeding money as few people ride the service. During the first two weeks of service, he averaged 1-4 passengers during his 16-hour shift and certainly isn’t covering even his costs. “This is the reason why public transportation is subsidized,” he said. “It is not profitable.”

The second story comes from yesterday’s Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Sen. Marty Golden, Councilman Vincent Gentile and Assemblywoman Janele Hyer-Spencer led yet another protest against the elimination of two express buses in advance of a lawsuit alleging that the MTA’s cuts violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. I’ve profiled Hyer-Specner and Golden in the past, and these two are offering up nothing new. “Let’s return the X37 and the X38 back on the FDR Drive, exiting at 23rd Street. That is the best way to transport people quickly and efficiently from my district to uptown Manhattan,” Golden said yesterday. Neither he nor Hyer-Spencer have done anything to help return the $143 million Albany took from the MTA late last year. With that money and a little help from the right people in Albany, the MTA could theoretically look to restore service along these two highly unprofitable express bus routes.

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Cuomo’s transit platitudes and a congestion pricing rejection

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 22, 2010

Andrew Cuomo will be New York’s next governor. Barring some sort of catastrophic revelation over the last two weeks of the campaign, the current Attorney General should cakewalk to Albany as he trounces Carl Paladino and a field of lesser candidates. He’ll inherit a state fraught with financial problems and an MTA suffering from malign neglect in Albany. Yet, in light of what he’s said, I fear that Cuomo, a New York City guy through and through, will not be a forward-looking governor when it comes to transportation.

Since he started campaigning, Cuomo has been mostly silent on matters relating to the MTA. His copious campaign materials — including a new 273-page urban agenda — make scant mention to issues of public transit, and his comments have been dismaying to say the least. During Monday’s debates, he fell back on that spurious claim that the MTA has two sets of books and has repeatedly spoken of “reexamining” the payroll tax that provides the MTA with $1.5 billion annually. He hasn’t offered up any alternative funding sources and, in fact, seems intent on shutting the door on realistic — and necessary — alternatives.

In introducing this new urban agenda, one that focuses more on poverty, jobs and housing than on urban sustainability, Cuomo faced the transit music as reporters started peppering him with questions on all matters MTA. Andrea Bernstein from Transportation Nation has more:

But all the journalists there, pretty much, wanted to talk transit. In fact, I didn’t raise the subject. A Daily News reporter did. “There’s going to be a need for more efficiency,” Cuomo said of the MTA. “More effectiveness, better management. You can’t have over $500 million in overtime. You can’t have thousands of people making over $100,000 a year . I believe the Governor should be accountable for the MTA.”

My turn. But what about funding for the MTA? Does he support congestion pricing? [As Mayor Bloomberg does?] Bridge tolls? [As Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch does?] “Congestion pricing was proposed,” Cuomo parried. “It was discussed. It was basically rejected by the legislature. I don’t know that there’s been any change in opinion. I think it’s moot. I understand the concept. I understand that it was rejected. I don’t think it would pass if it came up again, unless something changed.”

Without offering specifics, he added. “There’s going to be a number of revenue raisers. The instinct is going to be to say ‘more money more money more money.’ I understand that. Part of the discipline I want to bring is a fiscal discipline to the state and the MTA. The answer can’t always be more money.”

Already, the problem is obvious: Cuomo doesn’t appear to have a plan, and he’s already closed the door on revenue-generating initiatives that for a variety of reasons — social, environmental, economic — should happen. New York City residents overwhelmingly support congestion pricing if the revenue is earmarked for transit improvements, but Cuomo, without even trying to work with the legislature, claims congestion pricing is a non-starter.

He also doesn’t understand that while overtime abuse is a problem, overtime is going to be necessary for a 24-hour transit system such as the one in New York City. The goal shouldn’t be to eliminate all overtime; it should be to eliminate unnecessary overtime. Before even getting elected, Cuomo seems to be giving up.

The reporters though didn’t let up:

But then Melissa Russo of WNBC Channel 4 asked (I’m paraphrasing): how could he say, if it didn’t happen, it won’t happen? What about all the other things he wants to happen — like government reform? Isn’t the problem that the legislature hasn’t made them happen? Cuomo said: “Melissa, there is no doubt just because it didn’t happen in the past, it can’t be the precedent that it won’t happen in the future, otherwise we would get nothing done. My point is I don’t want to go to revenue raisers first.”

Then Marcia Kramer of Channel 2 chimed in (paraphrase, again). So what’s his plan to raise capital funds for a 21st century transit system (she actually said, “21st century transit system.” “Marcia, I –there is no doubt that the MTA requires large sums of money to operate. There’ no doubt that the capital projects have to be funded. But my response is the same. Fiscal discipline, look at the word discipline. What I’m trying to say about state government and the authorities is the first instinct has to be how do we do more with less?”

“Once you thoroughly exhaust that process, if you get to the point when you say, we looked at the budget with a fine-tooth comb, we did everything we could and we have not determined we need additional revenue then you have the conversation at that time.”

Fiscal discipline. That sounds good to me, and for once, Cuomo seems to be speaking in realistic platitudes instead of in diatribes divorced from that reality. Fiscal discipline in a time of tight funds is, of course, the right goal, but it’s worth noting that the MTA has been on a path of fiscal discipline for much of the last year. MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder doesn’t just walk around saying “Make every dollar count”; he’s actually realized this goal by trimming $730 million in annual expenses from the authority’s operating budget.

The problem though is one of fixed costs and future obligations. At a certain point, the MTA has to maintain a large workforce to sustain operations across hundreds of miles, three different rail ways, extensive bus routes and a bridge and tunnel network. It has to fulfill its pension obligations; it has to make its debt payments; it has to continue to invest in capital projects. And that’s where Cuomo seemingly fails. He doesn’t have a plan for generating revenue and wants to drill down on a source — the payroll tax — the MTA can’t afford to lose. For a guy from Queens, I expected much more from our future governor.

16 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ARC Tunnel

A day of reckoning for the ARC Tunnel

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 22, 2010

Time flies when you’re trying to save a tunnel.

Six weeks ago, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced plans to halt work on the ARC Tunnel to assess its costs. He claimed, without providing much evidence, that cost overruns could be as great as $5 billion and that the State of New Jersey could not continue with the project under those budgetary assumptions. Two weeks ago, he canceled the project due to this same claim after state officials conducted a bare-bones analysis of this project. When Ray Lahood, President Obama’s Secretary of Transportation, stepped in, Christie agreed to conduct a two-week review, but just a few days ago, it sounded as though the tunnel would be scraped for good this week.

Now that the day of reckoning for the ARC Tunnel has arrived, the drama is far from over. New Jersey politicians are parrying with the governor over his fuzzy math, and FTA sources have seemingly leaked their strategy to the media. Both the state and federal officials claim that Christie’s claims of $5 billion in cost overruns are simply a figment of his imagination.

Item #1: NJ State Assembly Transportation Chair John Wisniewski requested a series of documents from the Governor and found no evidence of current cost overruns. “The documents provided by the governor’s own administration fail to provide any justification for the governor’s claim of billions in cost overruns on the tunnel project,” Wisniewski said in a statement yesterday. “That claim seems as though it was simply pulled out of thin air by the governor. The governor is risking New Jersey’s economic future with numbers that, at least according to these documents, have no basis in reality.”

Item #2: The federal estimates that Christie claims project a $5 billion increase in the cost of the ARC Tunnel actually show only a $1 billion increase, and the feds are willing to work with Christie to reach a compromise on the funding. The Star-Ledger elaborated:

Among the added incentives LaHood may offer to keep the nation’s largest public works project alive are federal high-speed rail grants and cost-sharing with Amtrak to expand rail capacity, said those close to the project. They asked not to be named because they are not at liberty to discuss the talks publicly…

Those close to the project said it was during the meeting two weeks ago that LaHood told the governor the low estimate for the project was $9.7 billion. Part of the reason for the differing numbers is that Christie’s figures include $800 million to build two tracks along a new bridge over the Hackensack River just south of the existing Portal Bridge between Kearny and Secaucus. The 100-year-old bridge is in disrepair and is so low it is often opened to allow commercial boats underneath, leading to delays.

Federal officials have counted the tunnel and Portal Bridge projects as separate entities, while Christie has maintained they are joined at the hip and should be counted in the same cost estimate. Including the Portal Bridge, the estimate LaHood gave Christie was $10.6 billion to $13.5 billion, said a third person familiar with the talks. The governor has continued to use the higher cost projections in his public criticism of the project.

Although federal transportation officials have seethed over Christie’s use of the higher projections even after his meeting with LaHood, they had kept the $9.7 billion figure a closely guarded secret because of the transportation secretary’s belief he could conciliate with Christie.

It’s clear by now that Christie simply wants to kill the project so he can beef up the state’s depleted Transportation Trust Fund. What the numbers actually say is of little concern to the New Jersey governor.

In reality, Christie could point to the ARC Tunnel’s cost projections. Take a look:

Originally, the conceptual-level construction cost estimate came in at $4.3 billion, but that number, state officials said a few weeks ago, should be discarded. It doesn’t include real estate costs, escalation of contingency planning. In 2007, though, the project was pegged at $7.4 billion, but by January 2009, at the urging of the FTA, the ARC Tunnel’s price tag rose to $8.7 billion. It has, despite the right-most column in this chart, remained there for the last two years, and even if the feds believe it could cost $9.7 billion, that increase is a modest one compared Christie’s claims of a $5 billion overrun.

Unfortunately, these revelations, clearly leaked on purpose by the FTA on the eve of its meeting with Christie, are a last-gasp effort to shame the governor into reversing his decision. It’s a risky political gambit, and one that won’t work. As he’s shown time and again, Christie will stick to his guns, for better or worse, once he makes a decision, and he doesn’t appear willing to move forward with ARC.

So if this is the end, what next? The project itself suffered from some design flaws, but there is little doubt that this new Hudson River rail crossing is a must for economic, transportation and sustainability purposes. It’s taken 20 years of planning to get to the point where contracts have been awarded and work begun, and Christie could wipe out that progress with one word tomorrow. The region will come to regret it.

25 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts