View from Underground

A guerrilla art attack targeting subway etiquette

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

Riding the subway is the most social of personal actions in the city. We try to pretend that millions of other people aren’t doing the same thing every day, and yet, packed subway cars and station platforms teeming with other straphangers are a testament to the fact that, while we want to spend our commutes alone, we simply cannot underground.

With so many other people around to provide a social check on behavior, I’m often astounded at how flat-out rude other subway riders are. People hog seats, block doors, stand in front of turnstiles and don’t give way to fast walkers on staircases. Those with iPods play music at volumes loud enough to hear from 20 feet away. Others use video game consoles without lowering the volume. Some people use the subways as their personal garbage cans. It can be tiring.

Over the last few months, I’ve tackled subway ethics and the way we ride on more than one occasion. In addition to my story about a father’s attempts to kick his daughter’s discarded chicken fingers and fries under her seat, I’ve looked at those who abuse emergency exits, those who do not give up seats to the aged, infirm or pregnant, those who grope others. The subways are fraught with people too unaware of their surroundings to be courteous toward their fellow passengers.

Yesterday, a guerrilla artist started to take matters into his own hands. Jayshells printed 40 silk screen editions of 10 mock service advisories and labeled them as products of the Metropolitan Etiquette Authority. He will spend the week hanging them in subway cars and stations through the city as reminders of how we should behave underground. Animal New York caught up with the artist and has a slideshow of each of the posters. He spoke about the creative process:

I surveyed 100 people on their top pet-peeves (not service related) while riding the Subway. I narrowed the results down to the top ten most occurring issues and rewrote them as a sort of list of rules. I designed posters in the style of the Service Changes posters we see everyday and silkscreened about 40 of each (400 total) and am currently putting them up on trains throughout the city, throughout this week. I encourage people to look out for them, and to take them before the MTA does.

New York Magazine’s Daily Intel blog also had a chat with Jayshells, real name Jason Shellowitz, who spoke about the illegal nature of his act. “I like to think that the positive nature of the messages will keep me out of trouble,” he said. “Also, I am using removable two-way tape, so they are not permanent, and leave no residue or marks behind.”

Vandalism is vandalism is vandalism, and I’d have to guess that Transit won’t be too thrilled to see these signs pop up. I think, however, that Shellowitz is on to something. The MTA has tried to push PSAs for illegal or blatantly boorish behavior. They urge riders to report sexual untoward actions and ask people to give up seats. But their anti-littering PSAs are laden with ten-cent words and phrases such as “trash receptacles.” There’s a disconnect between the message and its medium. Shellowitz takes the familiar service advisory signs and repackages them into a simple plea for positive and polite interactions amongst straphangers.

Whether his guerrilla act/exhortations will get the message across remains to be seen, but at least it makes people think for a second or two about how they act on the subway. “I’m not sure how much of a difference these will make,” he said to New York Magazine, “but so far, people seem to be enjoying them.”

Photos of the faux-Service Advisories by Jason Shellowitz via Animal New York.

31 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Second Avenue Subway

The TBM Main Beam arrives at Second Ave.

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

Last night, at approximately 9 p.m., the Main Beam of the tunnel boring machine arrived at the Second Ave. Subway launch box. Ben Heckscher from The Launch Box was on hand to snap some photos. He captured the above shot at 10:33 p.m as the beam — the part of the TBM that sits behind the cutterhead — was lowered underground. Rumor has it that the cutterhead itself will be arriving later this week, and I’ll try to get some pictures of it. For more photos and information about last night’s Main Beam drop, check out the latest from The Launch Box.

To accommodate delivery and installation of the TBM, Second Ave. will be largely closed to traffic. Up to three lanes will be shuttered at various times over night between now and the end of the month, and for more on those closures, check out Dan Rivoli’s coverage in Our Town.

10 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Public Transit Policy

Paving New York and putting up a parking lot

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

Without the subway, traffic, seen here along Houston St., would be crippling to New York City. (Photo by flickr user vauvau)

One of my more prominent themes here on Second Ave. Sagas over the last few years has focused around the role the New York City subways play in driving the city’s — and the region’s — economy. Although cars are the focus of politicians hellbent on keeping bridges unnecessarily free and congestion pricing away from the streets of Manhattan, without a subway system that takes seven million New Yorkers to and from work, school and play every day, the city would simply cease to function on the scale that it does today.

Those of us who fight for better transportation solutions and more public transit investment are well aware of the importance of the subway system, but for reasons relating to interest group politics, wealth and access, our representatives prioritize auto drivers to the detriment of the rest of us. Maybe a new report issued by the city can start to turn that tide.

The study is called New York City’s Green Dividend, and the Daily News offers up a short preview. The report, writes Pete Donohue, “says there would be 4.5 million more cars on the road if New Yorkers racked up the same average mileage as residents of other big metropolitan areas. Parking that many cars would require a lot about the size of Manhattan.”

He continues:

The city-commissioned study argues that improved transit and pedestrian-friendly changes to the city’s landscape benefit not just the environment but the economy. The findings

  • The average number of miles driven per person daily in New York City is 9, while the average per person in other large metropolitan areas is 25 miles a day.
  • Residents of the five boroughs save $19 billion a year because they buy fewer cars and avoid many auto-related expenses such as gasoline and car insurance…
  • Nearly 57% of New York City workers commute by mass transit; 32% drive or take cabs; 10% walk, and 1.2% take their bicycles or use some other mode.

As previous studies have shown, the numbers of those commuting into the Manhattan Central Business District by mass transit are even greater, and auto trips plummet accordingly. As presented by Donohue, the study doesn’t appear to quantify how New Yorkers ride to school, but when it’s officially released, I’ll try to update these figures.

I’m not surprised by these findings at all. Without a cheap, reliable and relatively efficient subway system, people wouldn’t be able to live in Flatbush and work in Midtown. They wouldn’t be able to go from the north Bronx to Lower Manhattan for the cost of a subway swipe. On the other hand, a worse transit system — say one crippled by service cuts — would lead to more cars, more pollution, more time spent in traffic, more frustrating attempts at finding parking spots that just don’t exist. The city cannot afford that future.

Although I began this post hoping that politicians who control the purse strings would respond positively to this survey, the truth is that they probably won’t. New York’s elected representatives seem blind to the fact that public transit plays such a vital role in the region. Only when transit fails will they be forced to act. In the meantime, we’ll continue to argue that more investment transit and not more giveaways to drivers is the way to economic health and growth in New York City.

57 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Second Avenue Subway

SAS Planning Snapshot: The RPA’s MetroLink

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

The MetroLink plan put for by the RPA in 1999 was far more extensive than the MTA's SAS proposal.

In the recent history of the Second Ave. Subway, 1999 was a pivotal year for the long-aborning subway line. With New York’s economy on the upswing and subway ridership along Lexington Ave. creating cattle car-like conditions, New York politicians and transit activists were pressuring the authority to include a funding request for the Second Ave. line as it got ready to propose the 2000-2004 capital plan. How ambitious the MTA would be in its plans for Second Ave. though was an open question.

As the debate over Second Avenue’s subway future wore on that summer, three contending proposal emerged. The first was a very modest one put forward by their MTA that featured four potential solutions to the Lexington Ave. subway crunch. The first was a no-build plan that would look to improve current service through signal upgrades and increases in train capacity. The second focused on creating priority bus lanes on First and Second Aves. from 96th St. to Houston St. The third involved building a subway line from 125th St. to 63rd St. with a connection to the Broadway line via the unused tunnel at 63rd St. — also known today as Phases 1 and 2 of the SAS. The fourth involved that new subway line but with a streetcar that go from 14th St. and Union Square to Broad St. via the Lower East Side.

Reaction to these proposals was intense and immediate: No one liked them. ”The M.T.A. has proposed mere tokens,” then-Public Advocate Mark Green, head of a group of politicians pushing a full Second Ave. line, said. This group later called upon the MTA to ask for funding for the full line. ”We expect the M.T.A. to offer bold solutions to big problems,” they said.

The Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA echoed those politicians. ”We do support the north subway, but only as a step toward a full-length subway,” Michael T. Doyle, the committee’s transportation planner, said. ”It’s a good first step but they can’t just stop with that.”

As city politicians spent the summer urging the MTA to plan for a full-length Second Ave. Subway, a third proposal from the Regional Plan Association remained on the table. Released in early January 1999, this call for transit expansion on a grander scale — 19 miles of new subway tunnel, 31 new stations and five new subway lines with the Second Ave. subway as the trunk line. The plan had a price tag of $13 billion, a figure we scoff at today, but RPA analysts defended their work 11 years ago. ”This plan makes it possible for almost everyone in the city to benefit,” the association’s Jeffrey Zupan said. ”Despite the price tag, people will say it’s worth it, if it does enough for enough people.”

As for the details, the plan — still available here on the RPA’s website — would have been the most extensive subway expansion project since the IND Second System, and it all relied on the Second Ave. Subway. The blue line on the map above would have served Co-Op City and Lower Manhattan. The green route would run as a super-express from Grand Central Terminal to Water Street and then onto Kennedy Airport via a new line over the Van Wyck. The brown line would have traveled from Grand Central to the Financial District and into Brooklyn via Second Ave. and the Nassau St. line. The black route would run via Second Ave. to Jamaica. The red line would go from Laurelton to Gravesend via LIRR tracks, head down Second Ave. and spur off at 14th St. to Ave. C as original SAS planners had hoped. This line would then enter Brooklyn on the F and run express via the IND Culver line to Ave. X.

Over a decade later, we still argue for these transit expansions, but MetroLink never came to be. One day, we hope for F express service in Brooklyn and a high-speed rail link from Lower Manhattan to JFK Airport. We want to see the Second Ave. Subway extended into the Bronx and to Co-Op City, and Alphabet City too yearns for closer subway access. The planners who don’t have to write the checks can afford to dream big.

Meanwhile, we know how the story ended. The MTA earned approval for a four-phase plan to build the Second Ave. Subway from 125th St. to Hanover Square, and I can’t shake the feeling that the authority’s original goal to build a subway only from 125th St. to 63rd St. may be all that we get. The agency has money for Phase 1, and Phase 2 relies on a good portion of preexisting track. Beyond that, Phases 3 and 4 await money, a political ally and time. The politicians may have won on paper in 1999, but an Upper East Side Second Ave. subway stub remains a very distinct possibility. It’s better than nothing even as the RPA’s MetroLink remains alluring and oh-so-far out of reach.

22 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesService CutsSubway Maps

Changing the signs in advance of service cuts

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

On June 27, the MTA will implement a sweeping array of service cuts that will change the way New Yorkers travel around the city, and The Post today explores the numbers and changes to signage that must go into effect prior to that day. Says Tom Namako, Transit will be eliminating 611 bus stops throughout the five boroughs, and the agency will have to replace 8600 Guide-A-Ride maps at the remaining bus stops.

Underground, as the Q heads to Astoria, the V and W meet their makers, the M travels along Queens Boulevard, and the G gets scaled back – the last being a permanent change that happens tonight – Transit will have to change approximately 2750 signs at 154 stations. The subway map, too, will change with the callout boxes highlighting new bus routes and the M’s turning 6th Ave. orange. While the signage will begin to change three weeks before the cuts arrive, Transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges assured me that the new map will be in stations on that fateful Monday in June. As numerous bus stops will soon sit unused, I wonder if the MTA will ever be able or willing to restore these cut services when their fiscal picture improves.

27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Bridges and TunnelsStaten Island

Verrazano’s idle toll booths face the wrecking ball

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

MTA suits pose for a photo op in front of the long-defunct Brooklyn-bound toll booths on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. (Photo by Patrick Cashin, Metropolitan Transportation Authority)

In 1986, the United States Congress effectively eliminated two-way tolling on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, and since then, the toll booths on the Brooklyn-bound side of the bridge have sat empty and in the way.

Yesterday, though, a new day dawned for car-dependent Staten Islanders traveling across the Verrazano as the MTA kicked off a year-long $2.5-million toll-booth removal project that will help eliminate congestion and bottlenecks at the east-bound entrance to the bridge. “The removal of these toll booths is the most significant change in the physical design of the bridge since the lower level was opened to traffic in 1969,” James Ferrara, acting president of Bridges and Tunnels Acting, said.

The history of one-way tolling along the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge is an interesting one. In 1986, House representative Guy V. Molinari, a Republican from Staten Island, inserted a provision into the U.S. Department of Transportation’s appropriations bill that would have striped New York of one percent of its federal transportation aid if the toll booths were not eliminated. He did so, he said, because of increased pollution and traffic on the Staten Island side of the bridge. ”The last three or four months have been the worst we have ever seen, with traffic backed up across the island to the Jersey bridges,” Molinari said to The Times in early March 1986.

In exchange for eliminating the Brooklyn-bound tolling, the MTA hiked the cost of a bridge crossing by 100 percent. Instead of a $1.75 charge each way, the one-way toll would cost $3.50. The authority, after all, had to maintain what was then a Verrazano-Narrows Bridge surplus of over $250 million. Today, the one-way cash toll on the bridge is a cool $11.

The toll booths, though, have survived the years. In 1995, the National Highway System Designation Act permanently mandated one-way tolling, and Staten Island residents have long clamored for the destruction of the empy toll booths. Even though cars aren’t charged for crossing, drivers must still slow down to pass through the booths, and bottlenecks form as cars merge onto the bridge.

To address this problem, the MTA is going to eliminate the 11 toll booths on the Staten Island side of the bridge. When that work is complete, the authority will then realign the plaza roadway to allow for higher speeds leading onto the bridge. By 2014, the various on-ramps will be redesigned as well.

With 188,000 crossing in both directions each day, the Verrazano Bridge is the most heavily trafficked of the MTA’s bridges and tunnels. These renovations are a welcome change but do little to address the lack of transit integration from which Staten Island has long suffered. We can only hope that the MTA can be as forward thinking with the North Shore rail line as they are with the bridge. Hopefully, that project won’t take 25 years to get off the planning table as this toll-booth elimination proposal has.

29 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Should the City have greater MTA control?

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

As the MTA has spent the last few years careening from one financial crisis to another, it has become abundantly clear that Albany isn’t going to help the New York Metropolitan Area’s transit network stay solvent. As our state representatives have refused to acknowledge the vital role public transportation plays in the region’s — and indeed the state’s — economy, our legislatures have offered half-hearted measures with faulty economic bases while ignoring comprehensive solutions with economic, environmental and social rationales. It has been an utter derogation of responsibility.

In one sense, then, state officials are simply fulfilling the prophecy of the MTA. Politicians originally created the state authority and the New York City Transit Authority, its city-based precursor, to avoid direct voter ire over transit authority problems and, in particular, fare hikes. Prior to the founding of the NYCTA, the mayor and the city’s Board of Estimate had to propose and vote on all matters relating to transit funding, and when it become fiscally necessary but politically infeasible to issue a fare hike, a political stalemate set in.

The authorities were supposed to insulte transit from politics and allow the policy and financial experts to run the show. Arguably, the opposite has happened. Although experts of varying degrees have found themselves in positions of power and influence at the MTA, the politicians can now use the authority as a whipping boy and scapegoat for their own lack of leadership on issues of transit funding. It is one giant mess.

Now and then, political commentators propose to restore more control over the New York City-centric transportation network to the powers-that-be in the Big Apple. Why should a state-established authority have so much power over the subways and buses when those are vital parts of an inherently local transit network? To that end, Chris Smith in this week’s New York magazine makes the case for more city control over the MTA:

As long as the state is divesting, the mayor should make a bold play for the transit system. Bloomberg proposed a city takeover in his first campaign, only to become the latest in a long line of mayors who complain about their powerlessness to improve subway and bus service. Here’s a real chance to do something more than politically convenient carping. Certainly the city could never handle the $8 billion transit budget on its own. Yet Bloomberg should find a creative way to leverage the state’s weakness into a bigger city presence in MTA decision-making.

In exchange for increasing the city’s contribution to MTA funding, Bloomberg could get more seats on its board, or a say in naming the MTA’s chief; then the city could help shape the long-term financial plan the MTA badly needs. That might not be the most monumental of mayoral legacies. But it comes down to what he’s always staked his career on: competence. And this city is going nowhere if we depend on Albany to keep the trains running on time.

On its surface, Smith’s proposal seems sound enough, but if we delve a little deeper, it runs into two substantial problems. The first involves the nature of the MTA and what it would mean for the various subagencies if the city were to exert more control. Because of the need to find a funding mechanism for both intracity transportation and commute rail in the late 1960s, the MTA includes the subway and bus system that operates solely within the five boroughs and also an extensive commuter rail network that brings riders to and from points north and east of the city to work. Allowing the city more control over the MTA as a whole would create regional conflict between New York City and those districts that rely on the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North because the city would obviously look to shore up the subways and buses over commuter rail.

On the other hand, giving more of a preference to the five boroughs might not be that bad from a practical stand point. As it is now, more than 90 percent of all non-Bridge and Tunnel MTA rides originate and terminate within the five boroughs on a bus or subway, and Metro-North and LIRR ridership accounts for just three percent each of the remainder. The funding, as the MTA presents it, isn’t nearly as equally distributed with commuter rail earning more than their fare share of the dollars based on a per rider basis. Maybe the city should have more control to better reflect the division of ridership and the relative importance of each subagency.

The second problem is one of dollars. As New York State has no money, the city doesn’t either. It can’t just issue a blank check to the MTA and expect board seats and more power in return because the money to back that check isn’t there right now. The city could, as it tried to do two years ago, institute a congestion pricing scheme or bridge toll plan that would funnel dedicated revenue to the MTA, but without home rule authorization from Albany, that money — and that MTA funding plan — won’t materialize no matter who has the control over the transportation authority.

My arguments here are a rather simplified version of a paper I’m currently writing for a class, and the debate over control of the MTA seems to be evergreen in the annals of New York State and City politics. In all likelihood, the mayor should have more control over the authority, but wouldn’t that just open the door for Albany to further abrogate their MTA funding responsibilities? A possible solution may involve slicing and dicing the MTA to restore the New York City Transit Authority as a stand-alone entity, but even that isn’t a perfect solution as the state could easily take away any funding whatsoever for an agency that operates only within the borders of New York City. The Doomsday Clock, meanwhile, continues to tick.

31 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fulton StreetService Advisories

A glimpse at Fulton St. and weekend service advisories

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

Friend-of-SAS Peter of Ink Lake blog fame sent us another photo of the ongoing construction at the site of the future Fulton St. Transit Hub. As we can see, the building is slowly starting to take shape, and the oculus will one day arise from this steel frame. Meanwhile, many of this weekend’s service advisories are based around the work at Fulton St. Let’s get to them.

As always, these come to me from the MTA and are subject to change. Listen to on-board announcements and check the signs as you travel this weekend. Subway Weekender has your map.


From 11 p.m. Friday, April 16 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, 2/3 trains run local between Times Square-42nd Street and 96th Street due to a track dig out at 50th Street and a concrete pour at 79th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, April 17 and Sunday, April 18, and from 12:01 a.m. to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, 3 service is extended to/from 34th Street-Penn Station due to a track dig out at 50th Street and a concrete pour at 79th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, downtown 46 trains run express from 14th Street to Brooklyn Bridge due to gap filler replacement at 14th Street and work on the Broadway-Lafayette to Bleecker Street transfer.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, April 16 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, there are no 5 trains between Dyre Avenue and 149th Street-Grand Concourse due to rail work at East 180th Street and a cable pull on the Dyre Avenue line. Free shuttle buses and 2 trains provide alternate service.


From 10:30 p.m. Friday, April 16 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, free shuttle buses replace A trains between Far Rockaway and Beach 90th Street due to station rehabilitation at Beach 36th Street and Beach 60th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, 207th Street-bound A trains run on the F line from Jay Street to West 4th Street, then local to 59th Street due to work on the Chambers Street Signal Modernization Project.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, A trains run local between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Euclid Avenue due to work on the Chambers Street Signal Modernization Project.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, A trains skip Broadway-Nassau Street in both directions due to construction at the Fulton Street Transit Center complex.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, C trains run on the F line between West 4th Street and 2nd Avenue. This change is due to work on the Chambers Street Signal Modernization Project. Customers to Manhattan may take a downtown A or E at West 4th Street. For Brooklyn, customers may take the A or F instead.


From 11 p.m. Friday, April 16 to 6 a.m. Saturday, April 17, from 11 p.m. Saturday, April 17 to 7 a.m. Sunday, April 18, from 11 p.m. Sunday, April 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, Manhattan-bound D trains skip 175th-175th and 170th Streets due to a track chip out north of 170th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, Manhattan-bound D trains run on the N line from Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue to 36th Street, then express to Pacific Street, bypassing DeKalb Avenue and continuing on its regular route. This change is due to renewal of a track switch north of 9th Avenue.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, Jamaica-bound E trains run on the F line from West 4th Street to Roosevelt Avenue due to work on the 5th Avenue Interlocking Signal System Modernization.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, the Jamaica-bound platforms at 5th Avenue, Lexington Avenue-53rd Street and 23rd Street-Ely Avenue are closed due to work on the 5th Avenue Interlocking Signal System Modernization. Customers should take the R6 or shuttle bus instead. Note: Free shuttle buses connect the Court Aquare-23rd Street-Ely Avenue, Queens Plaza and 21st Street-Queensbridge stations.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, Manhattan-bound E trains run express from Forest Hills-71st Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue due to track cable work.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, F trains replace the C between Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets and Euclid Avenue due to Jay Street station rehabilitation and construction of the underground connector to Lawrence Street station. Note: During daytime hours trains run express; during the late night hours, trains run local.


From 8:30 a.m. Friday, April 16 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, there is no G train service between Forest Hills-71st Avenue and Court Square due to Jay Street station rehabilitation and construction of the underground connector to Lawrence Street station. Customers should take the E or R instead. Note: R trains run local with exceptions.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, G trains replace the F between Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. and Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue due to Jay Street station rehabilitation and construction of the underground connector to Lawrence Street station.


From 3:30 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 10 p.m. Sunday, April 18, there are no J trains between Crescent Street and Jamaica Center due to track panel installation north of Woodhaven Boulevard. E trains and free shuttle buses provide alternate service.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, Manhattan-bound N trains run express from 36th Street to Pacific Street due to repair of pump room equipment near DeKalb Avenue.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, April 17 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, N trains are rerouted over the Manhattan Bridge between Canal Street and DeKalb Avenue due to station rehabilitation and construction of the underground connector at the Lawrence Street station. Note: Manhattan-bound N trains skip DeKalb Avenue.


From 11 p.m. Friday, April 16 to 7 a.m. Saturday, April 17, from 11 p.m. Saturday, April 17 to 8 a.m. Sunday, April 18 and from 11 p.m. Sunday, April 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, uptown Q trains run local from Times Square-42nd Street to 57th Street-7th Avenue due to a track dig out north of Times Square.


From 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday, April 17 and Sunday, April 18, Q trains run in two sections due to rail repairs:

  • Between 57th Street-7th Avenue and Brighton Beach and
  • Between Brighton Beach and Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue


From 12:01 a.m. to 6:30 a.m., Saturday, April 17 and Sunday, April 18, and from 12:01 a.m. to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, there are no R shuttle trains between 59th Street and 36th Street (Brooklyn) due to repair of pump room equipment near DeKalb Avenue. Customers should take the N instead.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, April 17 and Sunday, April 18, Manhattan-bound R trains run express from 36th Street to Pacific Street due to repair of pump room equipment near DeKalb Avenue.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, April 17 and Sunday, April 18, Manhattan-bound R trains run express from Forest Hills-71st Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue due to track cable work.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, April 17 and Sunday, April 18, R trains are rerouted over the Manhattan Bridge between Canal Street and DeKalb Avenue due to Jay Street rehabilitation and construction of the underground connector to the Lawrence Street station. Note: Manhattan-bound R trains skip DeKalb Avenue.


From 10:30 p.m. Friday, April 16 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 19, A trains replace Rockaway Park Shuttle S train between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park due to station rehabilitation at Beach 36th and Beach 60th Streets.


At all times until April 19, 2010, the Broad Channel-bound S platform at Beach 98th Street is closed for rehabilitation.

18 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesSelf Promotion

Another Friday, another podcast appearance

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 16, 2010

As the weekend approaches, I’ll be making another appearance on the NYC Tracks podcast. You can listen live at this link starting right now at 5 p.m., and the show will run for approximately 30 minutes. Heather Haddon and I will again be on with our hosts Colby and Chris. This week, we’ll be taking about MTA safety, a topic I discussed on Monday. Check it out.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Politics

Assembly rep issues call for one MTA hearing per day

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 16, 2010

Every now and then, the MTA manages to raise the legislative ire of the people in Albany who refuse to fund the authority or take responsibility for the transit agency’s woes. Earlier this week, Michael Grynbuam, at the bottom of his Off The Rails column, reported on just one of those times. Representatives in Albany are apparently unhappy that they didn’t have enough opportunities to grandstand in front of the MTA Board speak out against the service cuts at multiple public hearings. Because the authority double-booked hearings for the same day and the same time, Board members had to choose between boroughs, and New Yorkers and their representatives could speak to only some – and not all – of the board.

To fix this problem, Assembly representative Linda B. Rosenthal has introduced a bill that would require the MTA to hold one hearing per day and to hold a hearing in every county that has a vote on the MTA Board. As Grynbaum notes, Rosenthal discovered that the MTA holds these hearings as a courtesy and isn’t required by law to receive public input, but she is undeterred in her quest. “The public was being deprived of the focused attention of every board member,” she said. “A crucial part of democracy is that your point of view is heard and is allowed to be aired.”

The MTA, meanwhile, maintains that one hearing per day will simply lead to the same people protesting at each hearing every day, a valid point based on my past experiences at the hearings. There is no word on whether the state will be willing to cover the costs of hosting 12 hearings on 12 different days, and yet again, our representatives in Albany are chasing MTA ghosts for faux-populist political points while the authority’s real economic problems continue.

6 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts