Second Ave. Sagas
  • About
  • Contact Me
  • 2nd Ave. Subway History
  • Search
  • About
  • Contact Me
  • 2nd Ave. Subway History
  • Search
Second Ave. Sagas

News and Views on New York City Transportation

Abandoned StationsBrooklyn

With boost from local pols and ADA upgrades on the way, MTA to re-open Bedford Ave. entrances to the IND’s Nostrand Ave. station

by Benjamin Kabak February 7, 2020
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 7, 2020

This vast mezzanine, a hallmark of the IND stations, will reopen as part of the work to restore entrances to the Nostrand Ave. A/C train at Bedford Ave. (Photo via Dan Rivoli on Twitter)

After years of requests from neighborhood activists and transit advocates alike, the MTA will finally reopen a pair of shuttered Bedford Ave. entrances to the Nostrand Ave. express stop along the A and C lines, the agency and a pair of local politicians announced on Thursday. The move reverses a late-1980s or early-1990s decision to close a giant mezzanine and staircase to Bedford Ave. and will help provide a shorter connection to the B44-SBS and better disperse passengers at the 77th busiest subway stop in the city.

For riders who live west of Nostrand Ave., reopening the entrances at Fulton St. and Bedford Ave. is a huge boon. The long-closed staircases are approximately 1000 feet away from the station’s remaining entrance and could shorten commute times by as much as four minutes each way. The work to reopen this entrance and a massive IND mezzanine will also restore a long-lost free in-station transfer between Nostrand’s northbound and southbound platforms.

The work involves rebuilding street-level staircases and station entrances, which were decked over as emergency exits decades ago, cleaning up corridors and staircases that haven’t seen passengers in over twenty years, and installing turnstiles and other elements of a modern fare control area. The MTA expects to reopen the entrances by the end of the year at a cost of approximately $2 million, $500,000 of which is being provided by Assembly Member Tremaine Wright and $250,000 of which comes from retiring State Senator Velmanette Montgomery. The MTA will pony up the rest as an operating expense.

“I am delighted to stand with the MTA, Senator Montgomery and our community partners to announce the much-anticipated re-opening of the second exit at the Nostrand Avenue A/C train station,” Assembly Representative Tremaine S. Wright said in a statement. “Every day, more than 36,000 people pass through this station and the re-opening of this passage way will alleviate much of the congestion. We are certain that this will improve the daily experience of subway users as well as enhance safety.”

Stenciled signage in areas of the station closed for decades recall a time when the C train provided service along the Concourse Line in the Bronx. (Photo via Dave Colon on Twitter)

In announcing the reopening, the MTA noted that these entrances were closed 30 years ago “during a period of concerns about crime,” and it’s certainly a testament to the safety of the system today that the agency has embarked on an effort to reopen numerous closed entrances around the city. It’s a topic I first explored in a post nearly a decade ago that highlighted the walkway connecting 7th and 8th Aves. underneath 14th St. and the Gimbels Passageway. Internally, the MTA had identified the Bedford Ave. entrances as prime candidates for reopening in a 2015 line review of the A/C trains [pdf]. Better five years later than never, I guess.

That said, the Bedford Ave. entrances at Nostrand have a tortured history. Although the IND Fulton St. Line originally opened in 1936, the entrances at Bedford will kept sealed until 1950 when the Bedford-Stuyvesant Neighborhood Council finally convinced the Board of Transportation to install turnstiles and open the exits. It’s not quite clear when the entrances were closed as the MTA’s own release puts the date around the 1980s, and available public newspaper articles suggests that the uptown/downtown crossover was shuttered in 1991 in the aftermath of a headline-grabbing rape in a deserted passageway connecting Herald Square to Bryant Park. In essence, then, since the IND’s Brooklyn debut in the mid-1930s, the Bedford Ave. entrances have likely been closed for longer than they’ve been opened.

Recently, the MTA has opened a number of old entrances, largely in conjunction with work on the L train, but they still have many more to go as attention has slowly shifted to these elements of the built environment that have been unused for most of the past three decades, if not longer. One Wikipedia contributor has built what many consider to be the master list of closed entrances, and recently, NYC Comptroller and a likely 2021 mayoral hopefully Scott Stringer penned a letter to the MTA asking for information about closed entrances. Stringer noted that as of a few years ago, the MTA had identified 298 staircases closed to the public at 119 different stations and requested the agency develop a five-year roadmap for opening these staircases.

“Millions of New Yorkers rely on the subway system every day to commute to work, attend classes, go to job interviews, see a doctor, and take their children to day care. At a time when system failures and overcrowding are already crippling commutes, especially for low-income New Yorkers, the abundance of shuttered subway station entrances across the five boroughs is problematic and unacceptable,” he said in his letter. “This is not just about reducing commute times, it’s about equity and fairness. We need a roadmap to improve mobility and accessibility for transit riders throughout the five boroughs.”

Well-preserved signs recall another era of NYC subway history. (Photo via Dave Colon on Twitter)

As the Bedford Ave. entrances ready for their reopening, I’m reminded of a story I once told regarding the opening of the giant mezzanine during the 7 line extension ribbon-cutting. I overheard an MTA official marvel at the open space as they said “I’ve spent my entire career closing these mezzanines.” For years, the MTA has hidden behind trumped-up concerns about safety to close off vast public spaces that make transit easier to reach and then relied on the argument that the ADA required them to include full accessibility upgrades if they were to reopen station entrances. As Nostrand Ave. is due for those upgrades as part of the 2020-2024 capital plan, the MTA feels that promise is sufficient to overcome legal challenges to reopening the entrance prior to (rather than concurrent with) any ADA work, and the entrances, it seems, are finally coming back to life.

As far as maximizing transit capacity and improving operations, reopening closed entrances is low-hanging fruit that can pay big dividends. For a minimal one-time spend, the agency has made an express station far more convenient for thousands, and by opening up the western end of the Nostrand Ave. station to passengers, the move should better disperse crowds along the platform, improving dwell times and crowd control. With an entrance to the express train now significantly closer for many, the move should also ease some crowding along the C train, and the 6-8 minutes in reduced walking time per passenger each day will add up quickly. This move makes transit more accessible and easier to reach for thousands and should be replicated as fast and as frequently as possible throughout the city.

February 7, 2020 20 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA PoliticsNew York City Transit

Thoughts and reactions following Andy Byford’s resignation

by Benjamin Kabak January 30, 2020
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 30, 2020

Andy Byford celebrated New Years Eve by thanking NYC Transit employees working to get everyone home safely. (Photo: Marc A. Hermann / MTA New York City Transit)

Over the summer, as he does from time to time, Gov. Andrew Cuomo sat down with the editorial board of The New York Post, and the conversation turned to the MTA. At the time, the Transformation Plan had recently been unveiled, and the governor had turned his attention to the signal system and complaints that the MTA had been addressing regarding slower train speeds. It was one of those moments when transit observers and advocates knew that the governor was stepping into a field Andy Byford had been mining, to great success, and concerns grew over fears that Cuomo and Byford would butt heads over a sensitive and important part of the MTA’s long road to recovery.

Over the weekend, Post reporter Nolan Hicks shared pieces of the transcript from that meeting, and it is a prime example of the relationship that had developed after nearly 20 months before Byford and Cuomo. The governor attempts to minimize Byford’s role in fixing the subways while promoting the Subway Action Plan and then he turns his attention to signal timers. The governor claimed that the union brought concerns with signal timers and the steep penalties for tripping red signals to him, and after months of a very public effort by Byford and his team to fix exactly these faulty signals and recalibrate timers, he was the one to fix the problem. Said Cuomo:

I met with the union, and I said, ‘How do we fix this issue where the trains are slower?’ And what we agreed to with the union is we would bring in an outside consultant, the unions would get on a train, the designers would get on a train, everyone would work together, come up with speed limits, fix the signals to calibrate to those new speed limits and the union would be comfortable with the speed limits, comfortable that the signals were actually calibrated. So if it said 20, it actually happened at 20 and that was the resolution.

If that sounds familiar, well, that’s because it is nearly exactly what Andy Byford’s speed unit and the Save Safe Seconds campaign was already doing, as Aaron Gordon subsequently pointed out, except, as Gordon said, “Cuomo wants to add an expensive consultant for reasons.” In a way, Cuomo already had his consultant in Byford. After all, that’s why the governor imported Andy from Toronto, but Cuomo and Byford could not co-exist. And the governor wanted to do things his way.

I chose to highlight this part of The Post’s transcript because the signals are reportedly one of the key issues that pushed Byford to resign for good this time. Even though the legislatively-mandated signals report, essentially demanded by Cuomo as part of the congestion pricing push, landed with a thud late in the day on New Year’s Eve, Cuomo recently sidelined Byford and his team from the discussions on recalibrating signals, and that was one of many last straws for New York City’s most prominent Plymouth Argyle FC fan. Now, Byford is out, and much to the chagrin of transit advocates around the city, Pete Tomlin, Byford’s signals man, is going with him.

The turf war over signals was but one issue among many that led Byford to leave, and I believe it’s accurate to consider him pushed out. After all, if your boss were to take your job and remove all of your responsibilities from it while indicating how unhappy he was with your public profile, how would you respond? And that’s exactly what happened with the MTA’s transformation effort, as Byford wrote in his resignation letter:

“The Alix Partners MTA Transformation plan called for the centralization of projects and an expanded HQ, leaving Agency Presidents to focus solely on the day-to-day of running service. I have built an excellent team and there are many capable individuals in Transit and others within the MTA family, who could perform this important, but reduced, service delivery role.”

Transformation was a clear-cut demotion, to a position beneath the stature and skills of Andy Byford, and he simply wasn’t going to take it any longer. Many at the MTA has said to me that the transformation plan seemed uniquely designed to minimize Byford and his role even as the New York City Transit President was enjoying success fixing the subways, and The Times also reported that Cuomo wanted Byford out. I have also been told that Byford (along with other internal MTA candidates) was not permitted to apply to the open COO role when Ronnie Hakim departed the MTA, and it was clear the writing was on the wall. The governor could not co-exist with someone of Byford’s popularity and success. As I think on this news, one week later, it all just seems so unnecessary.

I’ve struggled quite a bit with the reaction to Byford’s departure. There’s a lot to say about it, and none of it particularly optimistic. I’d like to think, as Eric Goldwyn argued for City & State, that Byford’s departure will accomplish exactly what we hope it will: that New Yorkers will wake up to the problems with a state-run transit agency and a state chief executive who won’t listen to anyone else and that local politicians will begin to support transit planning decisions rather than oppose them. But I am instead left pondering the question Nicole Gelinas asked: “Why would anyone take over after Andy Byford fled the MTA?” What qualified outsider will willing join a toxic work environment that Byford, a very competent and qualified and well-respected man within the industry, left so quickly? Who will save us from ourselves and the electoral decisions we have made? Railway Age took this one step further and unleashed a loud and angry takedown of the man who ousted Byford and his decisions.

Over the past week, as the dust from Byford’s resignation has settled, I’ve noticed the reticence with which politicians have approached this move and the rhetoric behind their statements. City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who is very likely to run for mayor on a platform that calls for city control over its transit system, started a #BringBackByford campaign but transitioned that to a pledge to re-hire Byford if he can wrest control of the buses and subways from Albany. Countless other local pols chimed in with similar sentiments, and the mayor outright embarrassed himself all week calling on Byford to reconsider. “Why don’t we try and convince him to stay?” the mayor asked Brian Lehrer’s audience last Friday. This was a deeply surreal back-and-forth, ignorant of the larger political dynamics at play, and one that warrants a closer look:

Mayor: So, I think the State of New York should get to it to try and convince Andy Byford to stay. Look, Andy Byford has done an amazing job and he put forward a plan that really was transformative. I think his presence was a big part of why we were able, last April, to pass the first plan in memory to actually fully fund the MTA and fix it. And I think, you know, we need him, going forward, and why not try and keep him?

Lehrer: Have you launched some kind of effort to try and keep him? Have you appealed to him?

Mayor: No it’s just the first – I am talking about it now for the first time because it dawned on me this morning that when I thought about history a bit, there have been people who were getting ready to leave and changed their mind or were persuaded to come back. And I think this is a case where he’s a singular talent and he’s obviously getting a great outpouring of support from New Yorkers. Why don’t we try and convince him to stay?

Lehrer: This seemed to happen once already. He was going to resign in October and Governor Cuomo convinced him to stay, right?

Mayor: Well that seems to be the case. I wasn’t in those backroom discussions, but look, I think New Yorkers want him to say, I want him to say for sure. I think the City Council wants him to stay. My appeal to the State of New York is, get in a room with him, try and get him to stay, see what it’ll take to get them to stay. Maybe there are some changes that would be possible that would convince him he could continue on in a productive, positive manner. I don’t think guys like Andy Byford grow on trees. I think he’s a pretty special talent and he’s proven he can handle New York City. Let’s try and keep him.

Lehrer: When you say the State of New York should get in a room with them, you mean Governor Cuomo?

Mayor: Yeah, and whoever else from his team that has been working with Byford. I don’t know who are the people most active in dealing with the MTA, but unquestionably if he needs persuasion that a lot can be achieved – I mean, look again, anybody looking at the outpouring of support in the last 24 hours, he doesn’t have to wonder whether he has popular support or the support of the elected officials of New York City. We all want him to stay. So I think it comes down to the State trying to figure out what’s it going to take to get him to change his mind. I don’t think it’s an impossible equation. I’ve seen harder things done.

Besides laying bare the reality that the mayor has no idea what’s happening within the MTA, the transit system used by millions of his constituents on a daily basis, and that Brian Lehrer seems to have a far rosier view of the Byford-Cuomo dynamic that reality dictates, the mayor’s words and everyone else’s seem to willfully ignore the reality here. Andy Byford is leaving because Andrew Cuomo wanted him out of the way. Only Jumaane Williams and Council Member Antonio Reynoso directly named the governor, and everyone other politician tried to tip-toe around the powerful head of New York or pretend the problem was something else, as de Blasio did. Does this bode well for the future?

All hope shouldn’t be lost though. As a variety of transit activists told Curbed New York’s Amy Plitt, Byford laid a very strong foundation for future success, and while many within the MTA are rightly feeling discouraged right now, the agency should be able to continue to build on Byford’s successes if the right people are given the right support and the right opportunities. There is no way to sugarcoat Andy Byford’s departure. It was far too premature and represents a big blow to New York City. But the governor is allowed to make these decisions. It’s #CuomosMTA, after all, and if everyone is going to push him to take charge, that means accepted the good with the bad for as long as we can. Right now, New York City is worse off for it, but if this becomes a catalyst for increased attention on the politics of transit, perhaps Cuomo will have won a pyrrhic victory.

Ultimately, your commute won’t get worse tomorrow or next week or next month, but will it get as better as Byford had promised? That tantalizing reality now remains out of reach, and it didn’t have to be like this.

January 30, 2020 12 comments
3 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City Transit

Andy Byford to depart NYC Transit, for good this time

by Benjamin Kabak January 23, 2020
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 23, 2020

Andy Byford has announced his resignation from New York City Transit.

After rescinding a resignation letter in October and nearly walking away from New York City Transit over a tense relationship with Governor Andrew Cuomo, Andy Byford has officially resigned as the President of New York City Transit after a little over two years on the job, the MTA announced today. In comments following Thursday’s MTA Board meetings, agency Chair and CEO Pat Foye cited “personal reasons” as driving Byford’s departure. But Byford had felt sidelined by the recent MTA Transformation process, especially as his roles changed, and he clashed frequently with the governor. Byford, in his resignation letter, cited transformation as a concern and said his last day will be February 21. The MTA has not yet named an interim president to replace the popular Byford.

Byford’s resignation letter hit the Internet this afternoon, and he clearly pointed to the MTA’s ongoing reorganization as a driving factor. “The Alix Partners MTA Transformation plan called for the centralization of projects and an expanded HQ, leaving Agency Presidents to focus solely on the day-to-day of running service. I have built an excellent team and there are many capable individuals in Transit and others within the MTA family, who could perform this important, but reduced, service delivery role,” Byford wrote to new MTA COO Mario Peloquin.

According to senior MTA officials, Byford felt as though the rug had been pulled out from under him as he was brought to New York City to lead the supposed renaissance of the subways and buses but was instead being siphoned into a service delivery role for which he was overqualified. It will be interesting to see how this impacts potential recruiting for Byford’s replacement as the NYC Transit President role doesn’t carry nearly the same cachet as it used to. I’ve embedded the resignation letter below.

Andy Byford’s letter of resignation.

The news first broke in the middle of the monthly board meeting when Dana Rubinstein published her bombshell report at Politico New York, and the MTA quickly sent out a brief press release acknowledging the news with the following statements from Foye and Byford.

“Andy Byford will be departing New York City Transit after a successful two years of service and we thank him for his work,” Foye said. “Andy was instrumental in moving the system forward, enacting the successful Subway Action Plan and securing record capital funding with the Governor and the Legislature, and we wish him well in his next chapter.”

“I’m very proud of what we have achieved as a team over the past two years and I believe New York City Transit is well-placed to continue its forward progress now that the MTA has a record breaking $51.5 billion Capital Program in place,” Byford said. “I’m very grateful to Governor Cuomo, Chairman Foye and members of the Board for giving me the opportunity to serve New York and to head up North America’s largest transit system.”

Reactions have flown in fast and furious with local city officials bemoaning the loss of Byford, and the impact it’ll have on the city, its transit network and potential for the future. “DEVASTATED,” City Council Speaker Corey Johnson said via Twitter (though he later stopped short of blaming the governor). I’ll round up more of these comments and reactions from transit advocates later.

While local politicials did not specifically blame the tense relationship between Cuomo and Byford as the main driver of his departure, recent reporting from Emma Fitzsimmons at The Times did just that. She writes:

Mr. Byford had considered quitting since last spring and struggled to get along with Mr. Cuomo, who controls the subway and the flow of money to the system.

Mr. Cuomo was angry after Mr. Byford tried to resign in October, according to officials familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The governor signaled to state officials that the tense relationship had reached its end point and that he expected Mr. Byford to be gone by the first quarter of 2020, the officials said.

By December, Mr. Byford made up his mind that he would leave after completing his second year, those officials said. Another likely departure, officials say, is Pete Tomlin, who was brought in by Mr. Byford to run a multibillion dollar overhaul of the signal system.

When asked at a separate appearance on Thursday touting a legislative compromise on legalizing e-bikes if Cuomo was happy with Byford’s departure, the governor said, “No, I thought he was a good man.” The governor had previously praised Byford during the same appearance. “He’s a good man and I wish him well and I think he did great work,” Cuomo said, before launching into a critique of Byford’s plan to re-signal the subways, a cornerstone of Fast Forward and the five-year capital plan, on the grounds that it would have taken too long. (MTA insiders believe Pete Tomlin, the signals guru Byford brought in to oversee CBTC installation will depart at some point in the near future as well.)

Asked about Byford being frustrated with Cuomo's interference in MTA details, Cuomo says Byford's re-signaling plan was going to take too long and given its importance and cost, it is his job to care and question it.

— Ben Max (@TweetBenMax) January 23, 2020

Byford too stressed that his departure was his own decision. “This was 100 percent my decision. There was no external pressure for me to go. This is something I’ve given careful thought to,” he said to Fitzsimmons.

Still, by all accounts, that Byford and Cuomo clashed behind the scenes and personality-wise did not help smooth over any problems with their relationship, despite their public comments. And for now, yet again, New York City Transit is looking for yet another head, leaving New Yorkers to ponder what comes next for the subways and their improvements after the so-called Train Daddy departs.

Check back for updates as I’ll have more on this breaking story.

January 23, 2020 19 comments
6 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Triboro RX

MTA launches Triboro RX feasibility study, 24 years after the initial RPA proposal

by Benjamin Kabak January 22, 2020
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 22, 2020

The MTA has launched a study into restoring passenger service on the Bay Ridge Branch.

Nearly two and a half decades after the Regional Plan Association first proposed a circumferential subway route, the Triboro RX moved one small step closer to reality this week as the MTA announced the start of a feasibility study for part of the proposed line. The $1.3 million study will be run by AECOM and WSP and will examine passenger service on the Bay Ridge Branch, which currently serves as a freight corridor through Brooklyn and Queens.

“This project is hugely exciting,” MTA Chief Development Officer Janno Lieber said in a statement on Wednesday, “partly because it is based on the concept of squeezing more out of our already existing infrastructure so we don’t always have to build new subway lines from scratch. Putting mass transit on the Bay Ridge Branch could allow the MTA to serve more neighborhoods and provide better connections to thousands of people throughout Brooklyn and Queens – all while also creating opportunities for increasing environmentally-friendly freight rail in years to come.”

The study, which Dan Rivoli first reported on for NY1 back in October, has a broad mandate. Per the MTA’s release, it will not be limited to only a subway route but will “evaluate the potential for subway, commuter rail, light rail or bus service that would operate in conjunction with existing and planned freight rail service.” The MTA wants to develop a service that would not cost as much as, say, another phase of the Second Ave. Subway and can help connect job separates in growing neighborhoods while facilitating potential reverse commuting as well. As the MTA notes, the Bay Ridge Branch could provide passenger connections to 19 subway lines and the LIRR.

The Bay Ridge Branch is a current freight route that opened for passenger service in 1876 and last served riders in 1924. It is the Long Island Rail Road’s longest freight-only route and has been the subject of constant future plans since the RPA released its Third Regional Plan in 1996. That document [pdf] first proposed creation of a line running perpendicular to the city’s radial subway and connection to the Bronx via the “lightly-used Hell Gate Bridge.” The Triboro RX trains in that proposal would have served Yankee Stadium and could have helped modernize some of the city’s oldest elevateds around.

The current study omits the Bronx connection, reserving it for future examination and will have to account for the reality that CSX Transportation, a notoriously fickle freight operator, owns the northern half. As the MTA wants to maintain and expand freight capabilities, one potential solution could involve timesharing, and we need to look only to New Jersey Transit’s River Line for a freight/passenger time-sharing model. That, along with many other options, is bound to come up in the AECOM/WSP study.

That the MTA is conducting this study, meanwhile, is notable. The Triboro RX Line has been on the MTA’s radar at least since 2008 when then-MTA Executive Director Lee Sander talked up the circumferential line as part of the agency’s 40-year needs. I wrote up his speech and the plans in a 2008 post. During the 2013 mayoral primary, Christine Quinn wanted to implement a Triboro RX SBS route instead of rail. I wasn’t too keen on the idea then, but it too will get its fair shakedown under the current study.

Over the years, though, the RPA has persisted. Drawing parallels to the London Overground, the RPA has made The Triboro a centerpiece of its Fourth Regional Plan, complete with flashy website and reasonable price estimate. The RPA has maintained that 100,000 riders would use the route initially, and their price tag would put the line within the realm of the possible. “The major capital investments needed to build the line would include signals, new track, rail cars and stations, and possibly power substations,” the RPA has stated. “Initial estimates of costs range between $1 billion and $2 billion.”

Interestingly, this new study comes without a clear political champion, a rarity for the MTA and one that indicates a certain level of internal agency curiosity regarding this plan. The recently-released Rockaway Beach Branch Study, which I thought was designed to put the kibosh on talk of that project, had a political champion, but this one does not. Assembly rep Latrice Walker introduced a bill to mandate a study both this year and last, but that bill hasn’t passed the legislature yet. It appears that the MTA is doing this on its own, and the RPA is quite pleased.

“Regional Plan Association is thrilled that the MTA is moving forward on this study, which is the crucial first step to realize our Triboro vision,” RPA CEO Thomas Wright said. “Transit service on the Bay Ridge Line would not only provide better transit service between the outer boroughs but also cut construction and acquisition costs since the rail tracks are already there. This study will build on our initial concept, and evaluate cost, feasibility, among other issues, to help push the project forward. We are excited to keep working with the MTA and all other partners on this.”

For those of us who love to draw on subway maps with crayons, this study is a tantalizing glimpse into a potential future. Where it goes from here is anyone’s guess.

January 22, 2020 34 comments
5 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway Security

New York Attorney General to lead inquiry into subway policing practices

by Benjamin Kabak January 20, 2020
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 20, 2020

After a year of debate about cops in the subway, NY Attorney General Letitia James is investigating NYPD fare evasion enforcement.

Following a year of increased attention focused on the way the NYPD and MTA police patrol the subways, New York State Attorney General Leticia James announced an investigation into those policing practices last week. James said her office will examine whether the NYPD had been specifically targeting New York City’s “communities of color through its enforcement of the ‘theft of services’ law and the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (MTA) ‘fare evasion’ regulations,” according to a release her office sent out.

“We’ve all read the stories and seen the disturbing videos of men, women, and children being harassed, dragged away, and arrested by officers in our city’s subway system, which is why we are launching an investigation into this deeply troublesome conduct,” James said in a statement. “If groups of New Yorkers have been unfairly targeted because of the color of their skin, my office will not hesitate to take legal action. While we are hopeful that the NYPD will cooperate thoroughly with this investigation, we will not hesitate to use every investigative tool at our disposal to protect subway riders and the people of this city.”

James’ investigation caps off a year of an increased focus on the role of policing in the subway systems as the MTA Board grappled with a call by politicians to add 500 more cops to the subways and buses. Last fall, I examined the shifting rationale and tense debate, and in late December, the MTA Board approved the budget that included funding for the additional police. These officers will fall under the MTA umbrella, and not the NYPD, but this is a distinction lost on all but the most attuned New Yorkers. Thus, while MTA sources tell me they feel MTA officers will be more accountable and better managed by the transit agency, community activists fear that state (rather than city) oversight and a lack of body cameras on the officers will lead to different kinds of abuses.

With this discussion looming large, James’ office’s involvement also grew out of a recent New York Times article that explored how NYPD claimed in sworn affidavits that they had been pressured to target minority groups for low-level violations in the subway. Although NYPD officers claim they stopped this practice, James alleges otherwise. “Newly-published data indicates that this alleged policy may still continue today,” her office noted. “Between October 2017 and June 2019, black and Hispanic New Yorkers received almost 70-percent of all civil summonses for fare evasion, even though they only account for slightly more than half of the city’s population. During that same period, they made up nearly 90-percent of arrests for fare evasion.”

In announcing the investigation, James also released a letter she sent to the new police commissioner Dermot Shea asking for data the NYPD was supposed to make public [pdf]. Among other things, the letter requests accounting for all officers assigned to the subway, records and agreements with the MTA on fare evasion enforcement and detailed demographics break downs on fare evasion summonses and arrests. This is information the MTA Board has long requested of the NYPD and information the NYPD has been reluctant to release. James expects all documents by February 10.

The Attorney General’s press release contains a veritable who’s-who of New York politicians angling for higher office expressing support for the investigation. Scott Stringer, Corey Johnson and Eric Adams, all potential contenders in the 2021 mayoral race, lent their voices to the release, as did Public Advocate Jumaane Williams and State Senators Alessandra Biaggi and Julie Salazar. (Adams, though, seems to want to have his cake and eat it too as the former cop-turned-Brooklyn Borough President recently endorsed the decision to add 500 additional officers to the 2500 who already patrol the subways.)

Sources within the MTA have told me they welcome James’ intervention and that it does not undercut the argument for hiring more officers. The MTA has, as I mentioned, long pressed the NYPD to provide more detailed accounting of their fare enforcement activities, but as with many city-state divides, the local cops have resisted these requests. As the 500 new cops will be MTA officers, MTA sources feel they can better manage deployment practices and enforcement without being beholden to NYPD practices. As focus has shifted from fare evasion to misdemeanor numbers, some MTA officials are hoping the new officers will focus on stations and trains rather than simply congregating en masse at fare control. Whether this type of cultural shift can happen effectively will be something to watch as hiring increases over the next few weeks and months.

January 20, 2020 10 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
PANYNJ

Guest Post: Dispatches from the FAA’s LaGuardia AirTrain public information sessions

by Benjamin Kabak January 16, 2020
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 16, 2020

Late in the process, the LGA AirTrain has suddenly attracted a lot of attention. Can opposition push through a better transit proposal?

Hell froze over this week when The New York Post’s editorial board agreed with AOC. The topic, of course, was the suddenly-controversial LaGuardia AirTrain. The latest chapters in this saga began when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes penned a letter to the FAA earlier this week asking to understand why some common-sense transit options, including dedicate bus infrastructure, a subway from Astoria and an AirTrain from Jackson Heights. The Post’s editorial board followed suit, calling the Port Authority’s plan a “worthless white elephant” while The Daily News also spoke out against the plan. Whether it’s too late in the process as too many powerful state interests have lined up behind the Willets Point plan remains to be seen, but these are welcome voices in the fight for a better, more useful transit connection to LaGuardia Airport.

Meanwhile, the FAA is moving forward with the process and hosted two public information sessions at the LaGuardia Marriott, a hotel that’s one of the least transit-accessible in the city. It’s nearly two miles from the nearest subway stop and across the street from the airport. You could be forgiven for thinking the session was planned to minimize comments from those who need and want a more holistic transit option. Yet, some intrepid New Yorkers made the trek, and one of those was Rich Mintz.

Rich posted a very comprehensive Twitter thread from the first meeting on Tuesday night, and I asked him to turn his experiences into a guest post. You’ll find some similarities between Rich’s experience and my post on the Port Authority Alternatives Analysis report, but one key difference involves the host. The FAA has yet to release its own Alternatives Analysis report, and the agency told me this week that they “intend to release the alternatives report documenting the alternatives evaluation process shortly after the public information sessions.” Mintz gives us a glimpse at the process, and it’s just as flawed as the Port Authority’s. I’ll let him take over from here.

Rich Mintz trekked out to the LGA Marriott and offers his overview of the FAA’s public information session.

The Federal Aviation Administration, stewards of the LGA Access Improvement Project on behalf of the Port Authority, is steering the outcome toward Governor Andrew Cuomo’s desired conclusion: the $2 billion dollar AirTrain to Willets Point with a $7.75 fare and a trip in the wrong direction away from Manhattan. While those trying to reach the eastern of the 7 train or LIRR’s infrequent Port Washington Branch are in luck, this route does next to nothing for people bound elsewhere. This week, in two public information sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings at a hotel next to the Grand Central Parkway, the FAA tried to defend this plan. I attended to see how the case was being made.

I think the Willets Point AirTrain is the wrong solution, and I’m not the only one. But it seemingly doesn’t matter what I or anyone else thinks as the FAA made clear no other solution was taken seriously in their “study,” which was designed to ensure every other plan was to fall out of consideration during the two stages of evaluation.

Ben Kabak’s review of the Port Authority’s own alternatives analysis, published last week, makes this point; and it was validated by the materials the FAA (or more precisely its contractor, Ricondo) presented this week.

Getting to the public information session was harder than it sounds, given that you can see LaGuardia’s Terminal C out the window of the hotel. M60-SBS and Q70-SBS buses are in plain view, but they don’t stop here. I had to take the Q33 from 74 St/Roosevelt Avenue, which dropped me half a mile from the venue; other buses run closer, but they also run less frequently or approach from the wrong direction. To get to the meeting from Manhattan’s East 30s took me almost 90 minutes. Ideally, a meeting about building transit to an airport would be held in a transit-accessible venue, but the FAA and the Port Authority are looking to influence people who care more about validated parking (which was freely offered) than transit. It’s possible I was the only person in the room who arrived by transit from more than a mile away.

Inside, the FAA used a series of posters to present their study, describing the 47 other ideas they considered and rejected in favor of the Willets Point AirTrain. You can read more about the approaches and the selection criteria in the scoping materials at the FAA’s project website. Generally, the FAA argued as follows:

  • Given the goal of improving access to the airport, the consultants examined alternatives in nine categories, ranging from buzzwordy nonsense like “reducing air traffic at LGA” (not happening) and “use autonomous vehicles” (nothing to do with the problem at hand) to bus, subway, rail, and fixed-guideway (or AirTrain) infrastructure.
  • As a first test, the FAA (borrowing from the Port Authority) determined that any solution would have to create “time-certain” trips to the airport, create a new mode of access to the airport, reduce vehicle trips into the airport without creating congestion, and create 175,000 square feet of employee parking (an entirely separate issue).
  • Any solution that made it through the first test would then have to clear a second test by establishing that it would be “reasonable” to construct and operate. This second test, of course, depends on how “reasonable” is defined, and as it happens, it was defined to exclude virtually anything that might have impact on any existing infrastructure or services.

Based on the posters presented (and summarized in a November presentation [pdf]), here are how these tests played out in practice:

  1. All alternatives not involving new infrastructure were rejected, mostly based on the first test: they wouldn’t solve the problem.
  2. Addressing the problem via bus priority was rejected out of hand because buses wouldn’t produce “time-certain” travel to the airport. Why is that? Well, because the FAA claims they can’t control what happens after a bus reaches the entrance to the airport. The Port Authority can, of course; after all, they own all the roads near the terminals and have the power to control how lanes are used. But the consultants assumed they won’t bother, and in this circular manner, buses were rejected without even being considered. Additionally, the FAA further claimed buses would “cause congestion” in the airport, and according to the criteria, any solution that impacts the experience of people who use private cars to get to the airport is rejected out of hand, never mind that a fundamental aim of this initiative is to dissuade people from driving to the airport.
  3. All the conventional rail options were rejected, based on the second test. Rail to Sunnyside Yard doesn’t solve the connectivity problem, and a new East River rail tunnel would cost three or four times as much as an AirTrain (despite, one could argue, far more utility).
  4. Subway extension options were rejected based on the second test: Construction would require temporary closing of traffic lanes in Astoria, relocating underground utilities, interrupting LIRR or Amtrak service, or making physical improvements to the Hell Gate Bridge. Apparently any plan that requires any disruption to any existing service is disqualified, and God forbid we temporarily put construction equipment in a traffic lane in order to build a major item of public infrastructure.
  5. That leaves more than a dozen fixed-guideway options, including various routes connecting to subway and rail in Jamaica, Willets Point, Woodside, Jackson Heights, and Astoria. All were rejected for similar reasons: water and sewer lines can’t be affected; the BQE, GCP, and Van Wyck can’t be affected, existing LIRR and Amtrak services can’t be affected; the Hell Gate Bridge can’t be affected.

Posters at the FAA’s information session offered preliminary designs for the AirTrain terminal atop the Willets Point subway and LIRR stops. (Photo by Rich Mintz)

It is, of course, nonsense to claim that we can build infrastructure with no disruptions to anything or anyone and equally nonsense to claim that a Willets Point AirTrain wouldn’t also do that. Given its route adjacent to Flushing Bay, it’s also objectively more environmentally impactful than many of the other choices. But when you game the process, you get the outcome you want, and in the end, of 49 alternatives, only two survived both the first and the second test: Cuomo’s Willets Point AirTrain, and the “do nothing” option, which is required by law to be considered.

All in all, the experience of attending this meeting was bleak. I’m not a stranger to the public engagement process; As a Community Board member, I’ve been to dozens of public meetings. But it was hard not to come away from the FAA’s defense of the Willets Point AirTrain without feeling like I was being railroaded. If we’re going to spend $2 billion dollars on airport mobility, there are many more useful ways to do it than a big piece of infrastructure that connects to an overcrowded subway line and a second-string LIRR platform for a fare of $7.75.
===
Rich Mintz is a safe streets and transportation activist and member of Manhattan Community Board 6. He’s the author of Hey! We’re Walking Here, a resource website for people concerned about pedestrian safety and street design in the five boroughs.

January 16, 2020 10 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Rolling Stock

The R179 Saga: Transit yanks Bombardier’s lemons over door safety concerns

by Benjamin Kabak January 10, 2020
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 10, 2020

The R179, seen here at Ozone Park, has been plagued with problems from the start. (Via DJ_Hammers76)

In a nearly unprecedented move, the New York City Transit Authority pulled all of their new R179 cars out of service on Wednesday morning amidst safety concerns related to the new subway cars’ doors. Transit President Andy Byford revealed on Thursday that a door on a C train popped open mid-route and that Bombardier, the trouble-plagued manufacturer, found the incident to be “representative of a more systemic problem,” as Byford said. For Bombardier and the R179s, this move is the culmination of years of problems across the manufacture, testing and performance of these cars, and the $600 million, 318-car R179 order, awarded in 2012 and delivered three years behind schedule, looks more and more like a set of lemons with each passing problem.

The news first broke via a Subchat thread shortly after midnight on Wednesday, and as rush hour dawned, the R42s, which had been retired just last month, were back in service. The MTA had to increase headways on the J/Z on Wednesday by about two minutes but was able to run a full rush hour service Thursday using older rolling stock. Meanwhile, the finger-pointing began in earnest nearly immediately.

“Bombardier Transportation alerted the MTA [on Tuesday] that its analysis of two recent incidents, in which all passengers were safe, raised questions about the reliable operation of a door mechanism on their newly-delivered R179 cars. Out of an abundance of caution, NYCT removed all R179 train cars from service overnight for thorough inspection and re-deployed other spare cars to continue service for this morning’s rush and ensure minimal impacts to customers,” Byford said in an initial statement. “NYCT has brought on expert LTK Engineering Services for an independent third-party review of inspections of the cars…As documented, the MTA has identified repeated issues with Bombardier’s performance and finds this latest development unacceptable. We intend to hold the company fully accountable.

Bombardier put out its own statement a few hours later, blaming one of its own suppliers for the issues. “Recently, two doors on cars in the R179 fleet at New York City Transit failed to function as intended. Our investigation shows that the doors were not properly calibrated by Kangni, the door operator supplier. We are now inspecting all of the R179 cars and, where necessary, making adjustments to ensure the safe and reliable performance of the doors for the entire fleet,” Maryanne Roberts, a spokesperson for Bombardier Transportation, said.

On Thursday, in lengthy comments to the press, Byford expanded on the problems. One occurred on December 24 when a door indicator issue brought the train to a halt. That was the incident in which a door popped open while the train was en route. A January 3rd incident caused Bombardier to identify the “more systemic problem” with the reliability of the doors (among other things). “Upon learning this,” Byford said, “we took immediate careful, but immediate, action to ground the fleet. And as I said earlier, that action was consistent our overriding priority and philosophy, namely that our customers’ safety is the number one priority and always will be.” On Friday, The City’s Jose Martinez reported that the R179s had been flagged with 16 incidents between December 1 and the day they were pulled out of the service.

With the fleet on the shelf, Bombardier and the MTA, along with Kangni and LTK, are all inspecting each car. Byford explained the process:

Bombardier originally informed us that they believed the complete full inspections of every 179 car, all 298 of them, could be completed within a matter of days. At this point, LTK, Bombardier and Kangni have been inspecting the cars since Tuesday evening and they have performed initial inspections on 3 trains for a total of 24 cars. So clearly this is taking longer, much longer in fact than Bombardier initially expected and to be frank, that NYC Transit would like. We have directed Bombardier to dedicate all possible resources to these inspections and we still want to see more from them. But, and this is a key point, we will not rush any cars back into service until we are wholly satisfied that it is safe to do so. So it will take as long as it safely takes because we want to ensure this process is completed as quickly and safely as possible. But we are also looking at the systemic and procedural issues revealed in this process and Bombardier has agreed on our direction to a software upgrade to provide an additional level of assurance to the door condition on all R-179s. So that’s additional work, and that explains why the process is taking longer than we initially thought it would.

For Byford and the MTA, this grounding sounds like it will be the last straw in a problem-plagued relationship. Bombardier has not yet been subject to the MTA’s new (and draconian) debarment rules, though the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA called for just that outcome on Thursday. Meanwhile, the agency is going to try to wrest something out of the rail car manufacturer. “The MTA finds Bombardier’s latest and repeated failures with these cars to be wholly unacceptable. We intend to hold Bombardier fully accountable for this issue, and for the other issues we have experienced over the course of this contract,” Byford said, later adding, “We are evaluating all legal options against Bombardier, including the best way to recover costs incurred as a result of this matter.”

Scott Stringer’s R179 Report: A Preview of Problems to Come

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer’s December audit of the problem-plagued R179s portended the fleet’s grounding.

Byford’s promise must be music to Scott Stringer’s ears as the New York City Comptroller recently published a scathing report about the MTA’s experiences with Bombardier and the R179 order. I didn’t have an opportunity to write up Stringer’s report before the R179s were yanked from service, but the potential 2021 mayoral hopeful had recently issued a scathing indictment of both Bombardier’s performance and the MTA’s lax oversight with regards to the R179 order. You can read his report right here as a PDF.

The gist of the report was unsurprising to rail fans and MTA watchdogs, and Stringer summarized at a high level:

The audit found that throughout the seven-year extended contract term Bombardier consistently failed to timely meet project milestones, comply with technical requirements, produce acceptable work, and promptly correct serious defects in critical structural components of the subway cars. In addition, the Comptroller’s audit shows that the MTA failed to adequately oversee Bombardier’s contract performance and timeliness and failed to complete required annual contractual evaluations to hold Bombardier accountable.

According to Stringer’s analysis, Bombardier missed 19 milestones (or essentially all of them), including well-documented problems relating to welding and failure to meet testing obligations. Since delivery, the cars have constantly broken down at higher rates than any other new MTA rolling stock, and Stringer did not spare the agency either. Stringer felt the agency should have explored terminating the contract and must institute harsher penalties for late and sub-par performance in the future. In that regard, we’ll see what legal options the MTA pursues over the next few weeks and months.

Stringer took both the MTA and Bombardier to task this week. “The New York City subway riders who foot the bill for the MTA’s $600 million contract with Bombardier were promised new, state-of-the-art train cars to help modernize our ailing transit system. Now, all the cars that were delivered so far have been pulled from service due to critical defects. It is completely unacceptable,” he said, citing his December audit. “Bombardier sold us lemons. Straphangers need the MTA to manage these contracts from the beginning — before the trains go off the rails.”

What Comes Next

The MTA and Bombardier are going to work to get these new cars in order, and eventually, the two parties will head toward some sort of dispute resolution process. With so much attention on the faulty nature of these cars, Bombardier will be under public pressure to provide some compensation. Interestingly, working out a compromise will fall to a familiar face as one-time MTA Executive Director Lee Sander was tabbed to head up Bombardier Transportation’s floundering Americas operation in late 2018. He’s been in charge of dealing with delivery and performance issues in Toronto, and he’ll have to clean up this mess in New York as well.

During comments this week, the MTA has repeatedly stressed the “preliminary” nature of all the publicly available information, and as internal investigations continue, the agency almost seems to be expecting more problems to surface. For now, the old Budd-built cars will roll for a few more miles as the MTA and Bombardier try to make lemonade out of the R179 lemons.

January 10, 2020 19 comments
5 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
PANYNJ

How the Port Authority rigged its Alternative Analysis in favor of Cuomo’s AirTrain

by Benjamin Kabak January 8, 2020
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 8, 2020

After years of lingering in limbo as costs increased fourfold, the Willets Point-based Laguardia Airtrain is rushing toward approval while community groups, transit activists and good governance watchdogs cry foul over a process heavily weighted to favor only Cuomo’s favored proposal even as evidence strongly supports better and more comprehensive transit solutions. Can this plan, a brainchild of Gov. Andrew Cuomo I have not-so-affectionately dubbed the Backwards Airtrain, be stopped?

We’ll find out soon if anything can be done to take full advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime chance to improve transit access to Laguardia, but the process Cuomo wants is rushing along. Next week, the FAA and Port Authority are hosting a pair of public information sessions, and while they claim they haven’t selected a preferred alternative yet, the only option to which the government has given support is conveniently Cuomo’s. As Queens residents and transit activists alike realize chances to stop this $2 billion boondoggle are running out, the opposition has called on Cuomo to put the brakes on the AirTrain and plan it properly. For Streetsblog last week, I penned an op-ed questioning the transit value of this route and making the transit case for a better option.

That piece and the neighborhood opposition seemed to have struck a nerve with someone in Albany or at the Port Authority, and the PA’s Executive Director responded with his own defense of the Cuomo AirTrain on Monday. I wanted to respond in depth to Cotton’s claims, but I also want to take a step back and conduct a deeper dive into the state of the Laguardia Airtrain than I was able to for the Streetsblog piece. So let’s go for a journey.

The promised 30-minute travel time seems guaranteed only for those near a Manhattan LIRR hub.

Previously on “Backwards AirTrain”…

To recap how we’ve gotten here, the governor proposed the idea out of nowhere in 2015. As transit experts delved into his plan, a consensus emerged that the Willets Point route would save very few people any time at all, and with an initial price tag of $450 million, the no-build option appeared to be the best. After all, why sink half a billion dollars from a limited pot of transit funds into a line with no real benefits?

Cuomo’s plan spurred on dreams of a revival of a true subway extension to the airport instead, but nothing really happened. After a 2016 release on the redevelopment of Laguardia including just one mention of the airtrain, I thought the plan transit vaporware on life support. By 2017, costs had more than doubled to $1 billion, but it kept chugging along. Cuomo wanted the train despite the cost and utility, and he was going to get his train.

This past summer, costs doubled again, as the Port Authority budgeted over $2 billion for the Laguardia AirTrain before any alternatives analysis had been published. I called for the governor to cancel the project then, and I repeated that call in the Streetsblog piece last week. It is, of course, falling on deaf ears as the Port Authority and the FAA are pushing forward with the Willets Point proposal.

Inside the LGA AirTrain Alternatives Screening

Behind the scenes, the Port Authority has been hard at work attempting to justify Cuomo’s proposal while giving short shrift to options that improve transit through neighborhoods in Queens and to the airport. At some point since October of 2018, the Port Authority quietly released a series of comprehensive planning reports all available midway down their AirTrain page. I want to focus on key parts of the alternatives analysis, conducted in 2018 and available as a PDF. The FAA has recently adopted this analysis for a community presentation, and it appears to have definitively eliminated any other option other than the Backwards AirTrain despite what I believe is a flawed analysis.

For the Alternatives Analysis, the Port Authority considered ferry service, improving bus service, extending the subway from Astoria or implementing an airtrain from Woodside in addition to Cuomo’s proposal. They assessed each along eight criteria, but I want to focus on two — Criteria 4 (Reduce the use of on-road vehicles to move passengers to, from, and within the Airport) and Criteria 8 (Design and construct a project that avoids substantial disruption to the neighborhoods where it is located). These were the two criteria used to bounce better bus service and subway or other airtrain routings preferred by transit experts.

When it come to buses, the Port Authority essentially gave up. Noting that buses are subject to variable and unpredictable surface traffic conditions and relying on data from the current SBS Q70 implementation, the Port Authority determined that buses wouldn’t fulfill criteria 4. Other bus improvements and busways got the kibosh too:

The conversion of general-purpose traffic lanes to restricted bus lanes would substantially reduce vehicular volume along this corridor and eliminate parking, which would negatively affect businesses and likely be opposed by local businesses and residents. Dedicated bus infrastructure on the BQE, GCP, or RFK Bridge would substantially reduce these roadways’ capacities for general traffic, exacerbating delays on these already congested roadways. It is also unlikely that dedicated lanes could be implemented on these highways without capital enhancements to manage traffic flow and safety. The other types of bus enhancements, such as signal priority, have limited utility without dedicated bus lanes.

Considering all we know about improving bus service and getting people out of cars and into buses, the claim that buses wouldn’t fulfill Criteria 4 because the Port Authority doesn’t want to upset a few people doesn’t pass muster. The analysis seemed to be a convenient excuse to hand-wave away a low-cost solution to Laguardia traffic woes that could be implemented tomorrow and wouldn’t preclude building other high-capacity transit connections to the airport. But buses weren’t what Cuomo and the PA leadership wanted to accomplish.

The Port Authority claims subway construction would be too disruptive, a claim not usually used to evaluate transit construction.

Moving to rail, the report relied upon the MTA’s 1998 LaGuardia Airport Subway Access (LASA) Study, which determined that only three potential subway routes to the airport were feasible: an elevated branch line from the Astoria Boulevard station via the Grand Central Parkway; an elevated extension from Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard via 19th Avenue; and an extension from Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard via a tunnel beneath 19th Avenue.

Here, Criteria 8 comes into play, and even without delving into the extensive analysis in the Port Authority’s document, you can see where this is going. The PA talks about “extensive, complex construction on the Astoria Line and within and directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood and the GCP.” It mentions that “heavy construction would occur over a long period of time, with activities such as pile driving, jack hammering, the placement of beams and ties, and welding.” And it discussions “large new ventilation structures (in many cases taller than the nearby development)” required for the tunneling option. None of these are new to the fabric of infrastructure in New York City, but each are cited as reasons to avoid pursuing a subway extension. In each case, the Port Authority determined the subway options did not meet Criteria 8, concluding “construction of this alternative would require extensive and lengthy disruption directly within and near a densely developed residential neighborhood.”

A similar analysis bounced potential airtrains from Astoria and Woodside as well, with the Port Authority also bemoaning the need to purchase around 40 total residential and commercial properties for either option. Despite bringing most riders toward their destination (as opposed to away) and still providing connections to the subway and an LIRR station on the Main Line, the Port Authority against used claims of disruption to eliminate the Woodside AirTrain, a proposal that deserves far more consideration. Criteria 8 struck again, and it was a key part in the argument Rick Cotton made in his Streetsblog piece earlier this week. I don’t buy it (as a I explained in a Streetsblog rebuttal).

‘Avoiding disruption’ should not preclude a better transit outcome

But why did the Port Authority decide that one of its goals was to “design and construct a project that avoids substantial disruption to the neighborhoods where it is located”? This isn’t a goal of any other transit project in the region. After all, the Second Ave. Subway tore up the Upper East Side, a neighborhood far denser than any between the subway and LaGuardia in Queens, and the Port Authority’s own World Trade Center site still fences off the Lower Manhattan neighborhood and street grid while disrupting over the years two states’ subway systems. Gov. Cuomo’s plan to use eminent domain to acquire properties to build Penn Station South won’t be disruption-free either, and the concern that eminent domain takings will “substantially alter the character of adjacent blocks” seems to apply only to LaGuardia options but not to a Penn Station expansion.

Usually these are issues an agency mitigates when picking the highest and best transit option, when it came to the airport, avoiding disruption was suddenly grounds to follow a different path away from people, neighborhoods or thorny choices that strong leaders can make. Again, I ask why?

And so let me answer my own question: Why? Because that way, the Port Authority could credibly (or incredibly) eliminate every other option that provides a better connection to existing transit and better transit for under-served neighborhoods while bolstering Cuomo’s proposal. From the day Cuomo announce the Willets Point AirTrain in 2015, it has always seemed as though the fix was in, and sources have long told me Cuomo presented this routing and essentially ordered the PA and MTA to make it work. The Alternatives Analysis and its prickly criteria bear that out.

The Woodside AirTrain is a better proposal than Willets Point service, but the Port Authority claims construction would be too disruptive.

Now that the FAA has essentially endorsed the PA’s work in its own Alternatives Analysis summary (pdf) while also adding gondolas and helicopters to the mix ahead of bus improvements, the Backwards AirTrain is on the precipice of reality. People will use it it and when it’s built (though the PA’s projections [pdf] of Year 1 ridership in excess of the JFK AirTrain’s current annual total defies belief).

I’m not advocating for no transit to LaGuardia, but I’m advocating for doing it right. We’re making a mistake if we spend $2 billion on AirTrain that’s out of the way and projected to increase travel times for most airport-bound riders. Instead, the governor should use his considerable political capital to urge communities to prepare the disruption of construction of a true transit network that decreases travel times and adds ancillary benefits in the form of new subway stops through subway deserts. An extension of the N would be best, but a connection from Woodside would be a fine reality too. If only the governor saw it this way as well.

January 8, 2020 30 comments
5 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

The Official Second Ave. Sagas Non-Comprehensive Review of Transit and Transportation in the 2010s

by Benjamin Kabak December 29, 2019
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 29, 2019

The end of a decade comes around only once every ten years, and despite what some folks on the Internet would have you believe, the 2010s are drawing to a close this week. No one considered 1920 part of any decade other than The Twenties, but I digress. Despite a lot of frustration surrounding the state of transit investment and expansion efforts in NYC as the 2010s end, the past ten years have seen a plethora of transit and transportation happenings and some real progress. It hasn’t always been smooth sailing, and city leadership over the past six years has been sorely lacking. But it hasn’t been a quiet decade.

So as 2019 and the Twenty Teens wraps up, I thought I would run down the biggest stories of the decade and a sneak peek at what’s on tap for the early 2020s. Some stories were good; some were bad; and some have yet to draw to a conclusion. So without further ado, it’s the official Second Ave. Sagas non-comprehensive review of transit and transportation in the 2010s.

Most Anticipated Subway Opening: The Second Ave. Subway

Gov. Andrew Cuomo and then-MTA Chair Tom Prendergast celebrate the December 2016 opening of the Second Ave. Subway.

On December 31, 2016, Gov. Andrew Cuomo opened the Second Ave. Subway after over 85 years of anticipation. Cuomo stepped in late in the game to push forward on an opening, and his streamrolling the opening showed what an engaged state executive could accomplish. Little did we realize how Cuomo’s MTA involvement would evolve over the subsequent three years, but after decades of stops and starts, New York City had its first three stations along Second Ave. A transit tourist attraction from Day One, it was and remains the most expensive subway construction project in the world. Phase 2, the northern extension connecting to 125th St. and Lexington Ave., is scheduled to open before 2030, but the $6 billion cost remains a key concern. (Fire code excuses, anyone?)

A Decade of Ribbon-Cutting: Fulton Street and the 7 Line Extension

The 7 line extension to Hudson Yards opened in September of 2015. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

The Second Ave. Subway wasn’t the only high-profile opening of the 2010s. In 2014, the Fulton St. Transit Center, a post-9-/11 recovery project, finally opened, and in 2015, the city-funded 7 line opened with a celebratory ribbon cutting. The city though still yearns for a station at 41st St. and 10th Avenue.

Worst of the Decade: Superstorm Sandy

A 2010 blizzard stranded some A train passengers overnight as snow built up in the subway’s open trenches, but that was nothing compared to the underground devastation wrought by 2012’s Superstorm Sandy. The storm surge flooded eight subway tunnels and destroyed the recently-opened South Ferry station. Billions of dollars and seven years later, repair work is still ongoing (and the L train’s not-a-shutdown shutdown is the latest in recovery work), and it’s not clear if all of the preventative work is sufficient to avoid another catastrophic flood. Water, after all, seeks the lowest ground, and the subways, with thousands of access points in low-lying areas, are New York City’s lowest ground.

Most Effective Use of Gov. Cuomo’s Lapels: The L Train Shutdown That Wasn’t

Gov. Cuomo tours the L train’s Canarsie Tunnel before torpedoing years of planning in a few weeks.

No one really knows why Governor Cuomo took an interest in the L train shutdown a few weeks before it was scheduled to begin. He has claimed multiple times that someone — he won’t say who — approached him on the street, grabbed him by the lapels, and begged the governor to find a better way. This mysterious lapel-grabbing New Yorker has never been identified nor, as far as we know, has Cuomo dismissed members of his security detail who failed to protect the governor from some guy threatening him with physical harm. But Cuomo took a coterie of academics into the L train tunnel three weeks before a shutdown that was years in the works was set to begin, and he just canceled the dang thing. The MTA’s careful planning and mitigation coordination with NYC DOT were thrown out in the window in a crisis of confidence. Instead, the L train kept running while the scope of work was scaled back and new technologies and approaches to construction attempted.

It’s hard to call this good, and it’s hard to call this bad. We won’t know for decades if encasing a collapsing concrete benchwall in polymers is a better solution than just rebuilding the thing, but the governor forced the MTA to try something new. So far it’s worked, and New York can thank or scorn the apocryphal lapel-grabbing constituent whoever he is.

Worst of the Decade: Mayoral Disengagement

A few other entries on this list focus on Bill de Blasio’s lack of vision on transit, but he has truly been MIA since 2014. He doesn’t ride the subways or buses or understand what they mean for the people of New York City. Thus, despite his Vision Zero rhetoric, progress on limiting private vehicle use on busy city streets has stalled, and measures designed to promote a more livable city for people have stalled. He hasn’t been a forceful advocate for his constituents on matters relating to the MTA and has been played like a fiddle by the governor. His signature transit initiative is a low-capacity ferry system, and he hasn’t used his powers to help speed up buses or improve surface transit. The next mayor will be able to set a different agenda for the 2020s.

Best 1990s Technology Installed In The 2010s: Subway Countdown Clocks

It’s a long wait for this A train, but the longer wait for countdown clocks ended this decade. (Photo by Joe Cutrufo)

Though the rollout started with a trial along the 6 train in late 2009, countdown clocks were a child of the 2010s as the MTA finally caught up to its peers. The numbered lines of the A Division came first, and it seemed as though the lettered lines would never get their countdown clocks. But after some prodding by the governor, the last of the B Division countdown clocks went online in very early 2018, thus providing real-time train information (or something close to it) across the entire subway system. Sure, the B Division clocks relying on Bluetooth beacons aren’t as accurate as we’d all hope, and some clocks are notoriously blocked by other signs. But gone are the days of peering into dark tunnels hoping for a glimpse of an arriving train, and the app-based offerings mean New Yorkers have access to city-wide train arrival information at the tap of a button, something we could not say ten years ago.

Honorable Mention: BusTime. Though the city’s bus stations do not have real-time arrival displays, the MTA’s in-house app-based BusTime service allows bus riders to glimpse the location of every bus on the road at any time. Taking the mystery out of waiting for the bus removes a huge source of rider frustration.

Best 2010s Technology Installed In, Well, The 2010s (And Beyond): OMNY

After a decade of talking about replacing the MetroCard, the MTA finally committed to an open payments, tap-based system called OMNY or One Metro New York. You can pay with your phone; you can pay with your credit card; you can pay with a proprietary MTA card. The OMNY rollout started in 2019, but it won’t be until the early part of the next decade when we see how and if OMNY unites fare payment across subways and buses and the commuter rails; how all-door bus boarding succeeds in NYC; and if fare-capping and other benefits are introduced. For more on OMNY, check out my podcast interview with Al Putre, the very New York personality pushing forward on OMNY.

Best Sign NYC Can Exist With Less Space For Cars: Times Square Pedestrian Plazas

Though installed in 2009 as well, the Times Square pedestrian plazas were made permanent in the 2010s, and it’s now hard to imagine the crossroads of New York without them. The Times Square sidewalks were always too flooded with people, and the plazas showed that the city wouldn’t grind to a halt if a few lanes of traffic were repurposed for people. The plazas proved spectacularly popular, and though a few more have opened in isolated spots around the borough, a city leader with a true vision for people in NYC should be able to bring a rapid expansion of the program to all five boroughs.

Best New Advocacy Group of the Decade: Riders Alliance

As Gene Russianoff, the godfather of transit activism in NYC, has dealt with increasingly serious health concerns over the past few years, the Riders Alliance has filled the void. Overseen by former Daniel Squadron staffer John Raskin, the group uses grassroots organizing to pressure politicians to support transit and has been instrumental in pushing for the governor’s support for transit, congestion pricing, and Fare Fairs. Raskin is leaving the organization soon, but the Riders Alliance will be a loud voice for better transit throughout the next decade as well. Disclaimer: I am a board member of the organization and have consulted with John Raskin since before the group’s founding.

Best British Import of the Decade: Andy Byford

NYC Transit President Andy Byford greets passengers at the reopened 168th St. station in December. (Photos: MTA NYC Transit / Marc A. Hermann)

It’s been nearly two years since Andy Byford arrived in NYC with a mandate to fix the subways after a steep decline, and he remains the best thing brought to the U.S. from Britain this year. His tenure has a rocky one politically as he’s faced meddling by a governor who can’t share the stage (or credit) with anyone, and he did threaten to resign at least once. But under his leadership, the subways are getting better. If Cuomo and Byford can co-exist into the next decade, and if Byford is allowed to see the job through, the hiring of Andy Byford will be viewed as a seminal transit moment of the 2010s.

Best Political Victory The Mayor Barely Acknowledges: Fair Fares

After a decade of constant fare hikes, anti-poverty advocates in NYC secured the passage of Fair Fares, a subsidized subway rate for city residents below the poverty line. The program launched in early 2019, but despite his rhetoric regarding the two New Yorks, the mayor never really embraced the campaign. It’s part of his larger disinterest in transit, but Fair Fares should be treated as an unqualified success for the Community Service Society of New York and City Council Speaker Corey Johnson. In early 2020, the program will expand so that a total of approximately 700,000 will be eligible for the discounted rate.

Best Sign That NYC Is In Fact Amsterdam: Citi Bike

More daily users than the ferry gets in a month, and neighborhoods are clamoring for docks. Now if only the e-bikes would return.

The Lawsuits We Won Along The Way: Prospect Park West bike lane; 14th Street Busway

It’s fitting that the decade was book-ended by two of the more impactful lawsuits regarding street space allocation in recent NYC history. In 2011, Prospect Park West bike lane opponents lost in court, and in 2019, Arthur Schwartz and his motley band of obstructionist NIMBYs saw their efforts at stopping the 14th St. busway thrown out. (I wrote about 14th Street and its impact in a piece for Curbed New York this past summer.) While the city still spends too much time and effort placating NIMBYs who will never be placated, these lawsuits paved the way for a reimagining of city streets that prioritizes pedestrians, bus riders, bikers and safety above the demands of private car owners.

Biggest Waste of Taxpayer Money on Water: NYC Ferry

Mayor de Blasio’s boats are one of the bigger stories of the 2010s, but I haven’t been a fan. Despite the mayor’s myriad boat-based press conferences, the low-capacity ferries are not, as I wrote for Curbed New York last year, a true transit option for NYC, and with ridership on par with the 55th busiest bus route in the city but a subsidy of $10 per rider, they’re a heavily-subsidized giveaway to New Yorkers wealthier than average. While the boats have their fans, the city should stop subsidizing the fares so heavily during the next decades.

Biggest Waste of Taxpayer Money on Land: The Santiago Calatrava-designed WTC Transportation Hub

The $4 billion mall with a subway stop in its basement was a lesson in infrastructure failure. Costs ballooned from a starting price tag of $1.4 billion, and a devastatingly brutal New York Magazine deep-dive was just one of many articles highlighting the inept process and poor Port Authority oversight. In fact, when all was said and done, the Port Authority didn’t even bother with an opening ceremony when the PATH station/mall opened in 2016.

Best Vaporware of the Decade:The BQX

In early 2016, the mayor announced a waterfront streetcar connecting Red Hook to Astoria, and since then, nothing has happened. Sure, we’ve all burned a lot of pixels debating the relative merits of a project that won’t be self-funded as initially proposed and provides dubious transit benefits, but it doesn’t actually exist and likely never will. In its current form, the BQX won’t be ready for passengers until 2028, and the next mayor is likely to pull the plug on a project that remains on life support. Whether the mayor even remembers its part of his city transportation platform is an open question, and as of my writing of this post, BQX.nyc, the website for Friends of the BQX, the only group fighting for the project, was offline*. While the city needs a way to control its transit destiny and a surface light-rail network is long overdue, the BQX’s legacy will be simply as this past decade’s transit vaporware.

*The Friends’ website was available approximately 20 hours after I published this post. A spokesperson told me the site was offline “temporarily…for maintenance.”

(Hopefully) The Best of the 2020s:Congestion pricing, busways, free parking and a streets master plan

A handful of stories began their sagas during the waning years of the 2010s, but we won’t know how these tales play out until well into the 2020s. Chief among these is congestion pricing which finally passed in 2019 but won’t be implemented until early 2021. Advocates are worried about the lack of transparent planning as the clock ticks closer to implementation…The 14th St. Busway has been an unqualified success, and politicians throughout the city are clamoring for more. Hopefully, in ten years, I’ll write about how the 2020s were the decade of busways as the the city finally got serious about combatting declining bus ridership and slow travel speeds. For now, though, the mayor hasn’t committed to more busways…I wrote an ode to Corey Johnson’s Streets Master Plan for Curbed New York this fall. The next mayor, whether Johnson or one of his competitors, should take this plan and run with it, turning NYC into a city that prioritizes people over cars…And finally, will NYC start to eliminate free on-street parking during the 2020s? I sure hope so.

Dishonorable Mention: The fares kept going up and up and up

The fare on January 1, 2010 was $2.25 with a pay-per-ride discount of 15%, and a 30-day card cost $89. New Yorkers could buy a one-day unlimited ride “fun” pass. Today, the one-day card is a relic of history, and the pay-per-ride discount are gone too. The per-swipe fare is $2.75, and a 30-day card costs a whopping $127. The biennial increases from the past decade have helped the MTA close an inflation-based fare gap left over from the mid-1990s, but the hikes throughout the 2010s outpaced inflation.

Dishonorable Mention: Who’s The Boss?

Turnover atop the MTA lead to an unsteady course. Jay Walder, Joe Lhota, Tom Prendergast, Jay Lhota (again) and Pat Foye all served as MTA Chair over the course of the decade, and a hiring freeze has led to a talent drain within the MTA. The constant turnover is a symptom of the tenuous relationship between the MTA Chair and Andrew Cuomo, and the leadership churn creates continuity problems that make true MTA reform nearly impossible.

Dishonorable Mention: The MTA’s construction cost crisis

When The Times ran a big expose on the MTA’s cost problems in late 2017, I had hoped politically-motivated reform would follow. Instead, Albany has largely steered clear of an examination of the MTA’s capital cost crisis, and no one from, say, the state DA or the DOJ has looked into possible corruption. Although the agency claims to be working on reducing costs, the next phase of the Second Ave. Subway will, as I mentioned, cost $6 billion, a figure so far out of line with international standards that it nearly defies belief. Janno Lieber recently pointed to the fire code as one driver of costs, but no one really bought that excuse.

Dishonorable Mention: Where have all the bus riders gone?

In early 2010, around 2.45 million New Yorkers rode local buses on a daily basis. Today, that figure has fallen all the way to around 1.95 million per day. This 25 percent decline in ridership should be spurring on some serious soul-searching, but neither the MTA nor the city appears to be in a rush to stem this tide. With Uber and Lyft flooding the streets with cars, bus speeds are slow and service unreliable, leading to a death spiral of cuts and worsening service. Hopefully, congestion pricing and more busways can return New Yorkers to the bus and the bus to New Yorkers.

Dishonorable Mention: The Churro Lady goes viral

The debate over increased police presence in the subway came to a head when a video of a Churro Lady getting arrested went viral. The arrest spurred a mass protest and increase resentment aimed at the MTA and its attitude toward adding cops in the subway. It wasn’t, as I wrote, only about the Churro Lady, and this is one debate that will not end any time soon.

Dishonorable Mention: The Governor absolutely controls the MTA

Transit activists and commentators had to spend far too much time in the mid-2010s reminding Gov. Andrew Cuomo that he was in charge of the MTA. He still tries to hide this fact behind obfuscations, half-truths and lies, manipulating the political structure of the MTA to suit his whims. But Gov. Cuomo is very much in charge, and as MTA transformation takes off, the agency carries his fingerprints from top to bottom.

I’m sure I forgot a few things along the way, but what a ride it’s been.

December 29, 2019 10 comments
3 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
PodcastSubway Maps

Second Ave. Sagas Podcast, Episode 9: Subway maps with Kickmap’s Eddie Jabbour

by Benjamin Kabak December 26, 2019
written by Benjamin Kabak on December 26, 2019

As 2019 draws to end, I wanted to release one more podcast episode, and this week, you get to spend a half an hour with me and Kickmap creator Eddie Jabbour as we talk about subway map design. Jabbour’s appearance on the show grew out of an interactive feature on the current NYC subway map The Times published in early December. Ostensibly timed with the 40th anniversary of the map designed by Michael Hertz and Associates that replaced the controversial Vignelli diagram, the Times feature dove into some of the design quirks of the map. But it held back on both the praises that have made the Hertz map a four-decade success story and criticisms that have followed over the decades. That’s where the podcast comes in.

Jabbour’s Kickmap has been around for the better part of two decades, and it began as a passion project. Jabbour, a brand designer who runs Kick Design in his professional life, is a Bay Ridge native and lifelong lover of trains. He combined his eye for design with his love for subways and built the Kickmap as a reimagined map for New York City. The advent of iPhones allowed him to convert it into a digital dynamic map more flexible than the current MTA offerings (and some might say, more visually appealing as well). In this podcast episode, we talk all things maps, both good and bad, and delve into Jabbour’s dream for an international design standard for subway maps.

Now, don’t get me wrong — the episode isn’t only just criticism of the current MTA map. After all, the Hertz map and its current progeny have served as the longest-running subway map in NYC transit history so it must be doing something right. But Jabbour has plenty to say about about subway wayfinding and the way design could be better. Join us for a wide-ranging conversation on the elements of subway map design, what the MTA’s current map gets right and what it gets wrong, and which international city is the Holy Grail for designers looking to create great subway maps. (Hint: It’s in Japan.)

You can find my conversation with Jabbour at all the popular podcast spots — iTunes, Google Play, Spotify or Pocket Casts, to name a few. Or you can listen by clicking the “play” button below. If you like what you hear and have been enjoying the podcasts, please consider leaving a review on your iTunes.

As always, thank you for listening and thank you as well to Joe Jakubowski for sound engineering. I’ve been enjoying producing these podcasts but they take a lot of time and effort. I can keep doing them only through the generous contributions of my listeners so please consider joining the Second Ave. Sagas Patreon. Since this site runs entirely on Patreon contributions, your help keeps the proverbial engine going. And be sure to check out the Kickmap both at its own website or in a digital App Store near you.

As a postscript, Hertz wrote a series of pieces I published in 2010 and 2011 about his subway map. You can read parts One, Two, Three and Four for more on that history.

December 26, 2019 4 comments
3 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts

About The Author

Name: Benjamin Kabak
E-mail: Contact Me

Become a Patron!
Follow @2AvSagas

Upcoming Events
TBD

RSS? Yes, Please: SAS' RSS Feed
SAS In Your Inbox: Subscribe to SAS by E-mail

Instagram



Disclaimer: Subway Map © Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Used with permission. MTA is not associated with nor does it endorse this website or its content.

Categories

  • 14th Street Busway (1)
  • 7 Line Extension (118)
  • Abandoned Stations (31)
  • ARC Tunnel (52)
  • Arts for Transit (19)
  • Asides (1,244)
  • Bronx (13)
  • Brooklyn (126)
  • Brooklyn-Queens Connector (13)
  • Buses (291)
  • Capital Program 2010-2014 (27)
  • Capital Program 2015-2019 (56)
  • Capital Program 2020-2024 (3)
  • Congestion Fee (71)
  • East Side Access Project (37)
  • F Express Plan (22)
  • Fare Hikes (173)
  • Fulton Street (57)
  • Gateway Tunnel (29)
  • High-Speed Rail (9)
  • Hudson Yards (18)
  • Interborough Express (1)
  • International Subways (26)
  • L Train Shutdown (20)
  • LIRR (65)
  • Manhattan (73)
  • Metro-North (99)
  • MetroCard (124)
  • Moynihan Station (16)
  • MTA (98)
  • MTA Absurdity (233)
  • MTA Bridges and Tunnels (27)
  • MTA Construction (128)
  • MTA Economics (522)
    • Doomsday Budget (74)
    • Ravitch Commission (23)
  • MTA Politics (330)
  • MTA Technology (195)
  • New Jersey Transit (53)
  • New York City Transit (220)
  • OMNY (3)
  • PANYNJ (113)
  • Paratransit (10)
  • Penn Station (18)
  • Penn Station Access (10)
  • Podcast (30)
  • Public Transit Policy (164)
  • Queens (129)
  • Rider Report Cards (31)
  • Rolling Stock (40)
  • Second Avenue Subway (262)
  • Self Promotion (77)
  • Service Advisories (612)
  • Service Cuts (118)
  • Sponsored Post (1)
  • Staten Island (52)
  • Straphangers Campaign (40)
  • Subway Advertising (45)
  • Subway Cell Service (34)
  • Subway History (81)
  • Subway Maps (83)
  • Subway Movies (14)
  • Subway Romance (13)
  • Subway Security (104)
  • Superstorm Sandy (35)
  • Taxis (43)
  • Transit Labor (151)
    • ATU (4)
    • TWU (100)
    • UTU (8)
  • Triboro RX (4)
  • U.S. Transit Systems (53)
    • BART (1)
    • Capital Metro (1)
    • CTA (7)
    • MBTA (11)
    • SEPTA (5)
    • WMATA (28)
  • View from Underground (447)

Archives

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram

@2019 - All Right Reserved.


Back To Top