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

PANYNJ

Port Authority unveils $1.5 billion PATH-EWR plans

by Benjamin Kabak February 4, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 4, 2014

For $1.5 billion, I’d expect more.

Every time someone — the Port Authority, a media leak, anyone — discusses plans to extend the PATH train from Newark Penn Station to the airport a few miles away, the price goes up. When the plan first surfaced in September of 2012, the agency anticipated spending $600 million on design and construction. This past fall, Crain’s pegged the cost of the extension at $1 billion, and despite a report a few weeks ago that pegged the final price at $2-$4 billion, officially, the Port Authority predicts the PATH airport extension will cost $1.5 billion. It was officially unveiled today in a presentation to the Port Authority board, and if all goes according to plan, it will be open by 2024.

Before we start to ask questions surrounding the purpose and need for this project, let’s figure out what we can get for $1.5 billion. For some reason, Gov. Chris Christie has promised this extension to United Airlines in exchange for service to Atlantic City. It’s unclear why the airlines would be so keen on a PATH extension to the airport; it’s not likely to cause a significant increase in travelers flying out of the Jersey airport. But here we are.

So for $1.5 billion, the Port Authority expects to extend PATH from Newark along a pre-existing right-of-way to the Newark Airport station. This isn’t, you’ll note, a pure one-seat ride to the airport, but more on that soon. As part of the work, the PA will construct new platforms and bolster “associated station passenger infrastructure” to improve connections to the AirTrain. The agency will have to replace the rail storage yard near the airport — a significant driver of costs. They’ll have to make modifications to Newark for bidirectional PATH train flow, and they may look to find private dollars for a garage for non-airport travelers near the new station. An interim stop between Newark and the airport is not currently in the works.

What we don’t know is the cost breakdown of this project. There’s no explanation of how Port Authority got to $1.5 billion, and we have no idea if an agency that hasn’t been able to control costs and has built the world’s most expensive train station, hallway and office building can actually deliver something on budget. We also don’t know why this project is on the table. What are ridership projections? How much will PATH have to spend on rolling stock to maintain its current headways? What are the increased operating costs of sending trains a few more miles away from its busiest stations? Those are questions that won’t be answered today.

Furthermore, there seem to be some popular misconceptions about the plan. In its press materials, the Port Authority itself called this a one-seat ride to the airport, but it’s no more a one-seat ride than the A train to JFK. This is a one-seat ride through Lower Manhattan, Jersey City, Harrison and Newark to the AirTrain. Riders will then transfer to the AirTrain before reaching the terminal. That’s a two-seat ride, and it’s worth noting that both New Jersey Transit and Amtrak service, albeit imperfectly, the airport in a similar way. Is this the best use of at least $1.5 billion in an effort to improve airport access?

On the other hand, this project isn’t completely without merit. It will provide a direct rail link to Lower Manhattan via Jersey City. Both of those markets are growing, and both are without particularly convenient access to the airport. Plus, PATH offers a cheaper ride than New Jersey Transit and, potentially, more frequent service.

That said, I keep coming back to cost. Why does this cost $1.5 billion? What else can we do with that money to improve real transit issues? On my list of priorities, rail access to Newark ranks pretty low, and the Port Authority would be better off spending this $1.5 billion elsewhere. For the right price, this airport extension would be worth it, but anything beyond the mid-nine figure range is just too much. Too many questions, too few answers.

February 4, 2014 135 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Self Promotion

Reminder: ‘Problem Solvers’ at the Transit Museum Wednesday night

by Benjamin Kabak February 4, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 4, 2014

A final reminder and weather not withstanding: Curious about how the MTA models ridership? Ever wondered just what I mean when I talk about the MTA’s load guidelines? And who designed those turnstiles anyway? These questions and more are on tap tomorrow evening when “Problem Solvers,” the Q-and-A series I host at the Transit Museum, makes its 2014 debut.

Joining me on Wednesday, February 5 at 6:30 p.m. will be Bill Amarosa, New York City Transit’s Manager of Service Data Analysis. Amarosa has been monitoring the city’s subway ridership and analyzing station usage for years. As an intern with Transit’s OMB, he compiled ridership data by station back to 1940 and later continued that research so OMB could publish a 1904-2004 ridership report for the subway’s 100th anniversary. He returned to Transit in 2008 as OMB’s Manager of Ridership and Revenue Analysis and in November 2013 moved to Operations Planning as Manager of Service Data Analysis. In 2006, Amarosa also broke the Guinness World Record for riding the entire NYC Subway in the shortest time, visiting all 468 stations on a single fare in 24 hours, 54 minutes, 3 seconds. (I covered that story way back in 2007.)

I’m sure we’ll talk about his record-setting ride, and I know Bill and I will discuss everything from turnstile design to experiencing an over-crowded G train station in Williamsburg and the ways the MTA tries to adapt service patterns to meet ridership. The event is free, but the Transit Museum asks you to kindly RSVP. It’ll be a good time for all.

February 4, 2014 6 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New Jersey Transit

Inside NJ Transit’s post-Super Bowl debacle

by Benjamin Kabak February 4, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 4, 2014

In all of the promotional materials leading up to the Super Bowl, mass transit played a key role. The build-up to the game, much to the chagrin of New Jersey politicians, focused around New York City, but the anti-climactic Super Bowl happened out in the swamps of Jersey. So for weeks on end, organizers urged patrons to take the train to the game as parking would be limited and traffic bad. Little did anyone realize that everyone who took the train to the game would also have to take the train home from the game.

For New Jersey Transit, Sunday night’s debacle in which hordes of football fans waited in close confines outside the Meadowlands train station for up to three hours after the game ended was just another in a long list of problems. This is, after all, the same agency that ignored weather forecasts and moved trains into low-lying, flood-prone areas ahead of the region’s worst hurricane in decades. No one has been held responsible for that mess, and the same people were in charge for last night’s mess.

So here’s what happened: The Super Bowl organizers offered a $51 bus from Met Life Stadium into the city, but those tickets did not sell as briskly as planned. Instead, people who didn’t want to pay for parking or suffer the hassles of driving to the stadium took the train. As per usual, the ride on the way out was crowded, especially at Secaucus Junction, but tolerable. After the game, all hell broke loose. Few fans who paid for the experience of seeing a Super Bowl left early, and so when 30,000 fans headed to the train shortly after the Seahawks won, it was a giant mess.

That crowds piled up long after the game ended isn’t a surprise to anyone who’s tried to take the train home from a concert. New Jersey Transit stresses the convenience of travel to the games, but in nearly five years, they haven’t been able to move crowds away from the stadium when events let out. My first experience came during a Springsteen show in 2009 when we had to wait nearly an hour just to get a train that would take us to Secaucus. Since transfers aren’t timed properly, we had to wait until 40 minutes before a Penn Station-bound train arrived. I haven’t taken NJ Transit to Met Life again.

In dissecting Sunday night’s problems in an interview with The Times, NJ Transit Executive Director James Weinstein issued some of the most inane comments you will hear from someone tasked to run a transit agency. Noting that nearly 20,000 more fans used the trains than expected, Weinstein seemed more keen to issue zingers than to take responsibility for the mess. Matt Flegenheimer reports:

The reasons, transit and National Football League officials said on Monday, were varied; even the weather, which had been the greatest concern of staging the Super Bowl in the Northeast, may have conspired against the rail system. James Weinstein, New Jersey Transit’s executive director, said in an interview that many fans seemed to have decided on train travel at the last minute, suggesting that a cooler day might have kept some at home. “If today’s weather was yesterday,” he said, referring to Monday’s slushy snowfall, “I think it’s legitimate speculation that the turnout for the Super Bowl would not have been as robust.”

…Still, despite riders’ frustrations — and an acknowledgment from an N.F.L. spokesman that organizers “fell short” of their transit goals — delays almost certainly could have been worse. New Jersey Transit suffered no major breakdowns or other complications. And the agency’s estimate on Sunday evening that about 12,000 fans could be moved per hour proved largely accurate. “It’s not Star Trek,” Mr. Weinstein said, noting the system’s constrained capacity. “You can’t beam people from one place to the other.”

When the agency realized how many people had taken trains, he added, extra buses were summoned to help ease the postgame crush, carrying about 1,800 passengers. “Can we figure out better ways to handle it? I’m sure we can,” he said. “What those are, I’m not sure at this point that I’m able to articulate them.” Mr. Weinstein was asked how he might prepare differently if the Super Bowl returned. “I’d shoot myself,” he said, waiting a beat. “I’m only kidding.”

Hours after the drama unfolded, New Jersey Transit’s Twitter account seemed oblivious to controversy, and it’s stunning to hear Weinstein say they don’t know what they’d do differently. The Meadowlands stop is a dead-end stub that sees service only during peak events and can’t seem to handle post-event loads. It cost over $200 million to build, and somehow, moving out 33,000 fans over the course of three hours is a victory. The decision to kill the ARC Tunnel wouldn’t have solved Sunday’s problems but could have addressed capacity issues on a line that can’t do what it’s designed to do. And somehow, New Jersey Transit thinks this is all one big victory. That’s pathetic.

Even picking on Weinstein, the teflon man behind the response to Sandy, may be a moot point soon. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie may soon remove Weinstein from his spot, and if the embattled governor doesn’t act on his own, other Garden State politicians and columnists are starting to make more noise that should lead to Weinstein’s ouster. Even the NFL, notorious for exercising tight control over every element of the Super Bowl, wants to conduct its own investigation.

This wasn’t the “world class transit experience” Weinstein promised fans a few months ago. This was instead business as usual for New Jersey Transit. Anyone who has to rely on that agency’s trains would have expected nothing more, and the New York/New Jersey region pays the price for this service on a regular basis.

February 4, 2014 85 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fare HikesTransit Labor

Labor battles and the spectre of a 12 percent fare hike

by Benjamin Kabak February 3, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 3, 2014

In order to keep up with inflation and to compensate for the fact that subway and bus fares, in adjusted dollars, are lower today than they were 18 years ago, the MTA has put forward a plan for fare increases every other year for the foreseeable future. The original plan involved increases designed to raise revenue by 7.5 percent each time, but last November, the MTA lowered the 2015 and 2017 hikes to around four percent each. It was a risky move, relying heavily on the concept of net-zero labor spending increases, and one I thought the MTA made too hastily. Left unanswered, until now, is the big question: What happens if net-zeroes are unattainable?

In comments last week, MTA Chairman and CEO Tom Prendergast put forward a clear answer. Without net-zeroes, fare increases could balloon to 12 percent, far higher than originally anticipated and nearly three times as much as the hike promised last November. The Daily News had more:

Feeling pressure from its many unions, the MTA raised the possibility of a $2.75 subway ride and a $125 monthly unlimited MetroCard come 2015. Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman Tom Prendergast warned at a hearing in Albany Thursday that the authority’s labor problems could result in riders getting socked with a 12% fare hike next year — triple the percentage increase the authority already has in store.

Speaking at a joint legislative budget hearing — and delaying returning home following the death of his father to do so — Prendergast predicted “dire consequences” if a settlement to the MTA’s labor woes resulted in all of its workers getting raises along the lines of those that an independent mediator recently suggested be paid to Long Island Railroad employees…

The only other option Prendergast mentioned in that case would be for the MTA to slash $6.5 billion from its capital construction and maintenance program. That would translate into a loss of about one-quarter of the funding now planned for purchasing new buses and trains, replacing rails, fixing signals and overhauling stations. And even with those cuts, a fare hike of 5.25% would be needed in 2015. “This would be a terrible choice for our riders and our region,” he said of the alternative.

The 12 percent increase is a worst-case scenario, and there is an element of, as union officials noted, pitting riders against employees here. But the union has never been on the riders’ side; it’s always been on its own side, for better or worse. Furthermore, Prendergast has ever reason to put forward the most dramatic number possible in an effort to draw sympathy and negotiate through the press. After years without any contract and bitter back-and-forths between management and labor, what does he have to lose?

We shouldn’t be surprised either about the power struggle. The MTA has seen its economic forecast improve with the increase in tax revenues a healthier economy has produced, and surpluses always generate power struggles. Should the union get the money? Should the riders through the form of deferred fare hikes and better service? Ultimately, the MTA and the riding public will need the union to agree to work rule reform and other concessions if they want higher salaries, and somehow, riders shouldn’t be the ones bilked out of dollars by this fight.

February 3, 2014 19 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New Jersey Transit

After the Super Bowl, a temporary delay

by Benjamin Kabak February 3, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on February 3, 2014

Much like New Jersey Transit apparently did after the Super Bowl, I’m taking tonight off due to hosting duties. I’ll be back in the morning with a post on the potential fare hikes that may await us in the event the MTA cannot realize its dreams of net-zero wage increase. It ain’t pretty.

Meanwhile, mull on the fact that at nearly 1 a.m., there are still football fans trying to get a New Jersey Transit train from the Meadowlands to Seacuacus. The last trains of the night to various areas are leaving soon, and the so-called mass transit Super Bowl has highlighted the limitations of the areas transit network. This is embarrassing and should be a wake-up call. It probably won’t be though.

February 3, 2014 79 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

A ‘Problem Solvers’ correction and weekend work on 9 subway lines

by Benjamin Kabak January 31, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 31, 2014

A brief correction before the service advisories: In announcing my upcoming Problem Solvers session at the Transit Museum, I noted that it was this Wednesday but inadvertently said it was February 2nd. A few eagle-eyed readers noted the discrepancy, and I’ve since corrected the mistake. To set the record straight, Problem Solvers is this upcoming Wednesday, February 5, at the Transit Museum in Brooklyn. You can get more info and RSVP right here. Now onto the light slate of service changes for Super Bowl weekend.


From 3:45 a.m. Saturday, February 1 to 10:00 p.m. Sunday, February 2, 2 service operates in two sections due to track panel installation work north of Nereid Av.

  • Between Flatbush Av and E 180 St, and via the 5 to/from Dyre Av.
  • Between E 180 St and 241 St. To continue your trip, transfer at E 180 St.


From 3:45 a.m. Saturday, February 1 to 10:00 p.m. Sunday, February 2, 2 trains run express from Wakefield 241 St to Gun Hill Rd due to track panel installation.


From 3:45 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Saturday, February 1 and from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Saturday, February 1, to Sunday, February 2, 5 shuttle trains are suspended between Eastchester-Dyre Av and E180 St due to track panel installation work north of Nereid Av. 5 Shuttle service is replaced by 2 trains between Eastchester-Dyre Av and E 180 St.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 31 to 4:00 a.m. Monday, February 3, Brooklyn Bridge-bound 6 trains run express from Pelham Bay Park to Parkchester due to station work and platform demolition work at Castle Hill Avenue and Middletown Road stations.


From 11:00 p.m. Friday, January 31 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, February 3, A trains are suspended between Broad Channel and Far Rockaway-Mott Av due to track panel installation Beach 67 St to Beach 60 St. A trains are rerouted to Rockaway Park, replacing Rockaway Park Shuttle service. Free shuttle buses provide alternate service between Far Rockaway-Mott Av and Beach 90 St, making all station stops. Transfer between A trains and free shuttle buses at Beach 90 St.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 31 to 5:00 a.m. Saturday, February 1, Brooklyn-bound D trains will not stop at 7 Av, 47-50 Sts, 42 St-Bryant Pk, and 34 St-Herald Sq. Brooklyn-bound D trains are rerouted via the C from 59 St to W 4 St due to switch work south of 42 St Bryant Pk. D service operates in two sections.

  • Between 205 St and the 2 Av F station.
  • Between W 4 St and Stillwell Av.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 31 to 5:00 a.m. and Monday, February 3, Coney Island-bound F trains skip 4 Av-9 St, 15 St-Prospect Park, and Fort Hamilton Pkwy due to signal work at Church Av. For service to these stations take a Coney Island-bound F train to 7 Av or Church Av and transfer to a Queens-bound F or G train. From these stations, take a Queens-bound F or G to 7 Av or Smith-9 Sts and transfer to a Coney Island-bound F.


From 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Saturday, February 1, and Sunday, February 2, G trains run every 20 minutes between Court Sq and Bedford-Nostrand Avs, due to Fix and Fortify Sandy Recovery Work in the Greenpoint Tube. The last stop for some trains headed towards Court Sq is Bedford-Nostrand Avs. To continue your trip, transfer at Bedford-Nostrand Avs to a Court Sq-bound G train.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, January 31 to 5:00 a.m. and Monday, February 3, Church Av-bound G trains skip 4 Av-9 St, 15 St-Prospect Park, and Fort Hamilton Pkwy due to signal work at Church Av.


From 6:45 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, February 1, and Sunday, February 2, Ditmars Blvd-bound N trains are rerouted on the D (express) from Stillwell Av to 36 St in Brooklyn due to design survey work near 20 Ave.

(Rockaway Park Shuttle)
From 11:00 p.m. Friday, January 31 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, February 3, Rockaway Park Shuttle service is suspended due to track panel installation Beach 67 St to Beach 60 St. Free shuttle buses provide alternate service between Far Rockaway-Mott Av and Beach 90 St, making all station stops. Transfer between A trains and free shuttle buses at Beach 90 St.

January 31, 2014 1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway Maps

A PSA on Vignelli’s Regional Transit Diagram

by Benjamin Kabak January 31, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 31, 2014

regional_transit_diagram

A few weeks ago, I wrote on the first-of-its-kind regional transit diagram that the Port Authority, MTA and NJ Transit had produced for Super Bowl visitors. While it doesn’t show frequencies, the map offers an overview of the region’s rail connections between New Jersey and Manhattan. As Sunday’s Big Game is part of the so-called Mass Transit Super Bowl, this map is designed to get people from one side of the Hudson to the other with few mishaps.

I’ve had a lot of inquiries concerning hard copies of this map. You can download a PDF, but for many, that’s not good enough. For the map-hunters among us, you can find small Z-fold maps at a variety of locations throughout Manhattan and New Jersey, including the Super Bowl Boulevard set up on Broadway, Penn Station and Grand Central. I’ve heard they’re also available at some PATH trains and Secaucus Junction. It’s small and with many folds, but one way or another, these things will wind up on eBay selling for obscene amounts in a few years. Grab one while you can.

January 31, 2014 10 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Public Transit Policy

‘I’m on a boat’: NYC’s love affair with ferries

by Benjamin Kabak January 31, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 31, 2014

Don’t forget your flippy-floppies.

Since the end of the ferry-centric mayoral campaign, I’ve tried hard to avoid the issue of tax-payer supported boats. It hasn’t been easy. The NYC Economic Development Corporation released two different studies on ferry service and city subsidies, but I just couldn’t again tackle the issue. Now, though, it’s come back, and I’d like to revisit it.

The latest comes to us from Ydanis Rodriguez, the new chair of the City Council’s transportation committee. Rodriguez is, by most accounts, a great choice for the position. He understands the city’s bus and subway systems, isn’t focused on the primacy of the automobile and has embraced plans to drastically reduce, if not outright eliminate, pedestrian deaths. He has one Achilles’ heel: ferries.

In a wide-ranging interview with Politicker’s Ross Barkan and in a subsequent exchange on Twitter, Rodriguez’s desire to do something with ferries — even for neighborhoods where ferry service isn’t practical — came through. Politicker paraphrased: “Mr. Rodriguez further hopes to boost transportation options for his own Washington Heights and Inwood-based Manhattan district and in the outer boroughs, where options are often scarce. He’s already planning a push to bring ferry service to Upper Manhattan near Dyckman Street that would whisk Inwood residents downtown.”

Now, the biggest problem with Washington Heights is self-evident from, well, the neighborhood’s name. It’s in the heights! That’s not just the name of a Broadway show, folks; that’s an accurate geographic description of the neighborhood. It’s high up there; it’s not near the water. Even the marina at Dyckman St. is further away from the subway for nearly every single resident of the area, and the ferry service itself is impractical. Where does a boat from Dyckman St. go? To 39th St. and the West Side Highway? To the World Financial Center, itself a 13-stop express train ride from Dyckman Street? What’s next — a call for better ferry service for Ditmas Park?

Now, to be fair to Rodriguez, he later told me that he would more than willing to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. I urged him instead to take whatever city money he would want to use for this ferry service and invest it in the bus network or the subway. If he feels transit options from his district aren’t sufficient enough, money for increased service along the high-capacity transit routes that would be a far better use of the same taxpayer dollars. For buses, in particular, a $9 million investment — similar to the city’s contribution to the East River ferries — could go a very long way toward improving reliability and frequency of service.

But let’s indulge in a rough cost-benefit analysis. I’ve touched on this before in examining ferries vs. Citi Bikes, and I cast a similarly leery eye toward ferry subsidies in both August and October. The problem is that the best ferry routes — those areas with high demand, people willing to pay higher prices and easy waterfront access — are tapped out. As Jeff Zupan from the RPA said last year, “Ferry service is a niche, and as a niche there are places where it might work well but they’re few and far between. Most of them that have succeeded are in place.”

The city, through its EDC documents, says that it subsidizes ferries to the tune of over $2.25 a ride. This is far more than the city’s contributions to New York City Transit, and the ferry fares are still steeper. Meanwhile, the successful East River ferries carry a hair over 3000 passengers per weekday. The M15, a very successful Select Bus Servicer out, carries nearly 20 times as many riders. Two peak-hour A trains can carry more riders than the ferries do all day.

Outside of the ridership and economics, there are questions of resources as well. Should the City Council be devoting the same time to ferries as it does to, say, considering the proper way to roll out bus lanes? Should DOT or the MTA? Should NYCEDC? While New York is a city dependent upon and at the mercy of its waterways, most New Yorkers don’t live near the water and don’t work near the water. Furthermore, we have a vibrant subway system that provides a relatively high-speed, high-capacity route through disparate neighborhoods that needs more attention. Ferries ultimately are simply a distraction from real issues. Let’s leave them at that.

January 31, 2014 57 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesSubway Cell Service

Transit Wireless officially launches underground Verizon service

by Benjamin Kabak January 30, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 30, 2014

Astute straphangers with Verizon cell service may have noticed an underground signal in around 35 stations over the past few months. I first noticed the bars popping up in Times Square two or three months ago after Transit Wireless announced an August agreement with Verizon. This week, the service became officially official as Transit Wireless announced Verizon service in 35 underground subway stations throughout Manhattan.

Verizon’s voice and 3G and 4G LTE service are available at the 40 Phase 1 stations announced last April, and Transit Wireless has brought Verizon service to five stations that will be part of the upcoming Phase 2 rollout as well. These five stations — which are really three station complexes — include all of Herald Square, both the IND and IRT platforms at Bryant Park, and 28th St. on the 6.

A Transit Wireless spokesman should be issuing additional news within the next few weeks, and based upon their CEO’s statement this week, I can only assume it’ll focus on Phase 2 of the multi-tiered rollout of underground cell service. “The build-out of the Transit Wireless network continues to progress on schedule, as we add additional carriers like Verizon Wireless and begin work on Phase Two of the project to bring service to 40 additional stations, including Grand Central Station in Manhattan, as well as all underground stations throughout Queens,” William A. Bayne Jr., CEO of Transit Wireless said. “Our network not only provides an important security improvement to riders, but also serves as the backbone for future innovations throughout the subway system.”

January 30, 2014 3 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway History

Musings on subway past and the BMT Nassau Line

by Benjamin Kabak January 30, 2014
written by Benjamin Kabak on January 30, 2014

In a rather absurd ranking of the New York City subway lines on Buzzfeed last week, the Z train didn’t score too well. It landed at 17 on the list, and the author was skeptical of its existence. Considering how little time the train spends in Manhattan and the path it takes as it winds through Brooklyn and Queens, many lifelong New Yorkers rarely find themselves riding the Z or even its more frequent brother the J. It’s such an odd little quirk of the subway system.

My first trip on the BMT Nassau St. line came years, and perhaps even decades, after my first subway ride as a baby. While growing up in New York through the 1980s and 1990s, not only were there few reasons to take the J, Z or M trains over the Williamsburg Bridge, but it also simply wasn’t a safe line. It went through bad neighborhoods and didn’t go anywhere a kid from the Upper West Side needed to go. When we would take family trips to the dearly departed Ratner’s, we switch at 14th St. to the F, and upon exiting at Delancey St., I’d catch staircases leading up to the mysterious J train. What was it? Where did it go?

I had no idea then of the train’s odd history and the way it mirrors the ups and downs of the city’s subway system. It began as a noble plan to link up various neighborhoods in Brooklyn via a series of loops through Lower Manhattan and has stumbled to its current iteration with a series of decrepit and little-used Manhattan stations, the oldest section of elevated track in the system and the sorry stations underneath Archer Ave. that aren’t nearly as old as they look. In between, it cuts through neighborhoods rapidly gentrifying that look nothing as they did 15 or 20 years ago.

When work began and planning started for the section of subway that became the BMT Nassau St. line, transit developers wanted to, for reasons not immediately obvious to us in 2014, create a series of Brooklyn loops, and those loops not only arrived but survived well into the second half of the 20th century. Before the tracks from Chambers St. to Canal St. were disconnected to the Manhattan Bridge, the line we know as the J train could have run through the Montague St. tunnel from 4th Ave. in Brooklyn, under City Hall and over the Manhattan Bridge and back to the 4th Ave. line. It also could have continued north over the Williamsburg Bridge and out to Queens. It skirted the edges of Manhattan, running close to more reliable and more useful subway lines.

After some time, these loops became less useful. After all, the service was highly redundant; no one needed to go from Court St. to De Kalb Ave. via Lower Manhattan and the Manhattan Bridge, and the BMT found that direct service over the Williamsburg Bridge was far more in demand. Snip went the loops, and gone, these days, is the service via the Montague St. tunnel, a victim of the 2010 service cuts.

Today, the Manhattan stations along the Nassau St. line are in serious need of something. The Canal, Fulton and Broad St. stations are relatively fine. At Canal, at least, vestiges of the loops can be seen fleetingly from the platform as the decommissioned eastern set of tracks is visible. Chambers St. is an absolute ruin (but still with a provision for service over the Brooklyn Bridge), and the Bowery, one of Manhattan’s least used and most oft-forgotten stations, well, this photo of the area still in revenue service speaks for itself. Maybe one day, these stations will get their just dues.

To me, there’s something almost romantically nostalgic about the BMT Nassau St. line in all of its various iterations and conditions. It’s from a time when subway lines got built and when builders left in provisions for other connections to bigger systems and potential expansions. Maybe the BMT Nassau St. didn’t quite work; the best part of it today is a connection, established long after the fact in 1968, for the M up to Sixth Ave. But for many workers in Lower Manhattan, it’s opened up large areas in Brooklyn and Queens for an easy commute downtown. Its looks are deceiving; its ridership low; but it’s not the worst of anything. Somehow, it’s there, and that’s something we can’t take for granted.

January 30, 2014 56 comments
0 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