Worthy Transit Improvements [Archive]

Thomas

February 10th, 2003, 10:26 PM

List of transit projects that should get built.

New two track tunnel under the Hudson from NJ to Penn Station, with a connection to Grand Central for Amtrak, NJ Transit and Metro North's Harlem line.

Metro North access to Penn Station from their Hudson line via Amtrak's West Side connection with stops at 125th street and the West Side rail yard/ stadium/ Jacob Javits/ Olympic Village.

Access to Penn Station from Metro North's New Haven line via Hells Gate bridge with stops in the Bronx and Long Island City (Sunny Side).

New East River tunnel from LIRR's Flatbush line to Lower Manhattan with link to the PATH line, intergrate the service and run trains from Newark Airport-Downtown Newark-Jersey City-WTC-Fulton Street-FLatbush-Jamaica-JFK.

Second Ave Subway.

7 train extension to connect directly with PABT, Penn Station (Farley complex), West Side development area/stadium.

N train extension to Laguardia.

East Side Access for LIRR

West Side Light rail, utilizing part of the old Conrail viaduct from Battery park up the West Side.

Extension of the L train to 10th ave and across the Hudson to Hoboken, and possibly Allied Jct.

New cross Harbor freight tunnel connecting Brooklyn with either Staten Island or Jersey City.

Extension of the Hudson Bergen light rail across the Bayonne Bridge to Staten Island (could be done without removing lanes). With service either running along the North Shore to St.George or South to the College of Staten Island.

Moving Amtrak into the new Farley facility, moving MSG into a new stadium arena on the West Side. Improving the current Penn Station set up for LIRR and NJ Transit passengers by removing MSG and replacing with hotels or office buildings designed to incorporate an atrium over the main level of the current Penn Station that will allow light in and intergrate improved concession and retail areas into the new hotel or office buildings built on the former MSG site.

Thomas

February 10th, 2003, 10:47 PM

West Side light rail right of way near Trump World development.

http://www.geocities.com/sockanosset6/wslrt/

JerzDevl2000

February 11th, 2003, 01:18 AM

Welcome to the forum Thomas!

I dunno if this topic is going to get moved or not - since this has little to do with skyscrapers. It's interesting to see the Trump development and the covering up of the Amtrak tracks. I gotta add that to the list of places to check out the next time I walk around Manhattan on a nice day!

Your list of projects is pretty thorough. Crains NY weekly had an article on this a few weeks ago. It listed these, and a few others, that should be built so the region can stay economically competitive. The total came out to $60 billion, but spread out over several years, it's not so bad. The few projects I would add are direct rail access from Midtown/Penn/GCT and extenstions to the E,F,7,and (2/5 lines in Brooklyn). A few crosstown lines at 125th, 57th, 34th, and Canal wouldn't be bad either!

I hope Farley is done right - even old Penn Station being rebuilt. We could get some really great towers in on the West Side!

NYatKNIGHT

February 11th, 2003, 11:26 AM

You mentioned a light rail for Staten Island. As of now, the most likely corridor would run along the north shore.

February 11th, 2003, 09:10 PM

All of these projects are worthy and certainly should be built. *But this is NYC, which for a host of reasons has decided it can live on borrowed time: can anyone name significant projects that have been built in the last forty years? *Consider...

- *JFK is a horrific mess, more worthy of a third-world country than "capital of the world"
- *New York has *less* track line than it did in the forties. *It doesn't build; it simply removes (consider the trolleys and els that no longer exist)
- *The sewer known as Penn Station is entirely worthy of Vin Scully's quotation: "In the old Penn Station, one entered the city like a god; now one scurries in like a rat."

It's time for the city to start thinking big again.

ZippyTheChimp

February 11th, 2003, 09:58 PM

Water tunnel #3. Largest project in NYC history.

Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

North River sewage treatment plant. When completed in 80s, all NYC waste water was treated. The Newtown Creek plant, city's largest, is getting a $2 billion renovation.

The Air Train.

The removal of the els was a positive.

February 11th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Come now, Zippy.

Point taken about the the jumbo water tunnel and the investments made to treat sewage. *But you're pushing it when you name the Verrazano as a recent development -- it's about to turn forty years old. *The elevated trains were *not* removed for aesthetic reasons; they were taken down because it was expected that subways would replace them. *Does it make much sense that the entire East Side is served by a single subway line?

As for the Air Train: let's ignore that its main accomplishment to date has been to kill the driver on a test lap. *What sort of accomplishment is it to create a monorail from the airport to...JAMAICA? *That will be a real boon to travellers. *Picture the poor fellow from Singapore (or London, or Paris, or Hong Kong), accustomed to bullet trains from airport to downtown. *He arrives in New York and is told he can take a train to JAMAICA. *If this is your idea of progress, well, you may have it. *I guess I'll stuff myself into a cab, listen to Elmo tell me buckle up, and bounce my way up and down decayed highways to get to my destination. *

My point is simple and incontrovertible: New York is living off instrastructure investments that are now a century old. *Improvements that should be seen as essential are viewed as the equivalent of the moon landing: too big, too expensive, too risky. *The vaunted Penn Station proposal is now over a decade old and there hasn't been so much as bulldozer near the place.

New York is not keeping pace with other grand cities. *This is painful but true. *

ZippyTheChimp

February 11th, 2003, 10:29 PM

Read your own post. You said 40 years.

I didn't say that the els were removed for any reason. I just said that their removal was a postive...to the neighborhoods they passed through.

An inappropriate remark about the Air Train just to make a debating point.

February 11th, 2003, 10:50 PM

Fair enough: the Verrazano is thirty-nine years old; ergo, if you go by a forty-year marker, New York must be building bridges like crazy. *(Obvious corollary: by a *hundred-year measurement, the subway is not so old; in fact, it's only 99.)

If you asked the average East Sider -- *not* someone whose windows overlooked the tracks -- say, the average East Sider who is walking fifteen minutes to reach a dangerously overstuffed Lexington Ave subway, "Would you prefer to have the elevated trains back?" the answer would be a resounding "yes."

In what way is referring to the most unfortunate and unnecessary death of the Air Train's driver "inappropriate"? * You refuse to address the obvious point, which is indeed appropriate: why was a billion dollars funneled into a slow, teeny train designed to take passengers *away* from Manhattan? *How many travellers do you know who like to take slow, indirect routes to their destination? *

Mr. Chimp, do you really think New York is keeping up to speed with other major cities? *

Thomas

February 11th, 2003, 10:56 PM

The JFK Airtrain is not a Monorail (EWR is), it's a Light Rail that is compatible with the LIRR's third rail power.

The planning going on right now envisions the Airtrain making a direct connection to the LIRR's tracks at Jamaica station. However this is about 10 years away, to facilitate the direct one seat ride to Manhattan they need to...

Build the East Side Access project (which just received support from the President to receive Federal transit money when the program is re-funded either this fiscal year or next). This is separate from the $5 Billion dollar Lower Manhattan transit program currently under development with FEMA, the Port Authority and the MTA.

The East Side Access project will connect the LIRR to Grand Central terminal thus freeing some slots at Penn for the Airtrain to operate directly into Penn Station. Mayor Bloomberg also included a new East river tunnel in his plan for Lower Manhattan which would connect with the LIRR's Atlantic Ave/Fltabush line and provide another direct connection for the Airtrain.

Next the MTA and Port Authority have to develop and new Airtrain car that can ride on the rails with both HEAVY LIRR trains and lighter Airtrains around JFK's terminals. Crash standards are the main factor.

The Airtrain line is powered by a compatible power source as the LIRR, meaning once a hybrid vehicle is designed to survive a crash with a LIRR train the only thing preventing running the same train from JFK over the Airtrain's Van Wyck guideway and onto the LIRR's tracks are the actual connection of the tracks.

The NY State Economic development corp is actively seeking a contractor to build the new vehicles and connect the Airtrain and LIRR tracks, again they have to wait until slots are available when the East Side Access project diverts some LIRR trains from PENN to Grand Central.

http://www.nylovesbiz.com/Press/2000/oneseat2.htm

Thomas

February 11th, 2003, 11:02 PM

More about the East Side Access project,

http://www.parsons.com/about/press_rm/potm/08-2001/index.html

http://nypost.com/seven/02072003/news/regionalnews/54163.htm

February 11th, 2003, 11:03 PM

I appreciate all this information, Thomas, and it's heartening to know that perhaps in a decade someone can arrive at JFK and actually take a train into Manhattan.

But...and this is a big but...why must it be this complicated? *How did English engineers, with a monstrous airport that is almost as confusing and unruly as JFK, manage to connect Heathrow and London with a lightning-fast train five years ago? *

ZippyTheChimp

February 11th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Mr Elmo, or whatever that avatar thingy is:

You asked a question, and I answered it. Then you forgot what you posted. You have made another error in your last post. The last subway was built in the 30s, not 99 years ago. If you don't understand why that remark was inappropriate, that's your problem.

I don't intend to debate you on the problems of the lower East Side. The 2nd ave subway is in planning, and should alleviate some of the congestion. If you think that an el would be welcomed, go to City Hall and run it by Mike Bloomberg. Let us know what he says.

There are several projects being studied now, many of which have been discussed in this forum. By the way, in recent studies, NYC ranks quite high in moving people around.

I suspect you've had a bad day; i hope you have a pleasant evening.

February 11th, 2003, 11:13 PM

The errors are all mine, Zippy. *I am entirely in the wrong in everything I have written. *

You have a pleasant evening yourself.

NYatKNIGHT

February 12th, 2003, 11:34 AM

Of course JD is right. While other cities have made great strides, there hasn't been almost any significant infrastructure constructed in the past few decades. Zippy named a few, but come on, for what the city needs it's clearly not enough. That list of projects is daunting.

But there are plenty of things that have improved over time despite the decay of the infrastructure. The parks look as good as ever, and new ones are under construction. There is far less litter and pollution since the industrial revolution began - look at any old photo. The water is cleaner, the air is clearer, the streets are (generally) less littered. The crime rate is down, the mafia doesn't control the city, and the subways are safe for all. Skyscrapers are still rising as is the population. So the City has been paying attention to other necessities and letting the infrastructure take a back seat.

ZippyTheChimp

February 12th, 2003, 11:59 AM

My reply was sarcasm to the original post. The JFK remark was a little over the top.

diVinci

February 12th, 2003, 01:25 PM

I agree w/ JD. *New York must step up to the plate and invest MAJORILY in its transportation infrastructure for the 21st century i.e., upgrade & expand all three NYC metro airports, subways, intracity/intrastate rail & its Manhatten hubs, high-speed rail from the airports to Manhatten, or loose out to the other cities in the world *(Hong Kong, Shanghai, London) who are making major infrastructure improvements and who want to replace NYC as the capital of the world!!

What's nice is...I think Bloomberg & the LMDC realize how critical this is to NYC's future. *However, with the current Bush Admin., there is no emphasis on funding high speed rail or any rail projects for any city...even New York. *So...shortsighted.

The Europeans are worlds ahead of us here. *Look at the Germans, French and English. *They all are expanding their high-speed trains and terminals. *The Germans are building the first Mag-Lev train from Shanghai's airport to their Fin. Center. *Hong Kong continues to build new airports, bridges, subways, convention centers, etc. . *London the same with its high-speed rail projects...

Our mentality is like a 3rd world country. *It MUST change. *It slowly is...yet with NYC competing for the 2012 Games, infrastucture improvements will have to be approved to win the bid!!!

(Edited by diVinci at 1:35 pm on Feb. 12, 2003)

(Edited by diVinci at 1:37 pm on Feb. 12, 2003)

Thomas

February 12th, 2003, 07:04 PM

The main thing to keep in mind about NYC transportation projects is that Manhattan is AN ISLAND!.

It's not as simple as just laying tracks from the airport to Manhattan, you need to build large tunnels.

Tunneling is not cheap, add onto that the enviromental impact studies and NIMBY appeasement and projects can get expensive.

I will almost gurantee that within 10 years you will be able to board a PATH train from either the WTC, or along the 33rd street line and take that directly to EWR.

And that most likely you will be able to do the same with the JFK Airtrain from Penn Station (at the least), best case scenario would be that the Airtrain would connect to Grand Central (via the East side Access project), Penn (Farley) and very possibly Lower Manhattan.

As for NJ Transit and Amtrak to Newark Airport, if/when they build the new Hudson river tunnel there would enough room to run dedicated trains from EWR's terminals directly to Manhattan very much like SEPTA's airport line. However the fact is that you would get more bang for the buck to continue with the current Airtrain-NJ Transit/Amtrak link at the EWR rail link station because it might not be wise to dedicate 4 train slots an hour to a three car airport train when you could fill a 10 car train from Trenton and Princeton with the same slot.

So I think even with a new Hudson river tunnel the current NJ Transit/ Amtrak set up at EWR will continue (just with more trains added), however it is very likely that the PATH will connect directly to the terminal's themselves.

Kris

November 26th, 2003, 07:43 AM

November 26, 2003

Weighing Transit Possibilities, New Study Follows the Money

By MICHAEL LUO

The wish list of mass transit projects that local, state and federal politicians have drawn up for the city is long and ambitious: the Second Avenue subway, Long Island Rail Road service to the East Side, the No. 7 subway extension, a relocated Pennsylvania Station, a transit hub for Lower Manhattan, and the list goes on.

More important, the projects are expensive, with the potential of costing more than $50 billion. Although everyone has a favorite, money is limited, and some will probably lose out. So how to choose?

One of the city's leading business groups, the Partnership for New York City, has weighed in on the question with a study that evaluates seven of the proposals on whether they pay off economically.

Among the report's conclusions, already generating controversy: the price tag for the Second Avenue subway exceeds its economic development benefits by nearly $2.7 billion, largely because it would take 17 years to build.

The report, conducted for the partnership by the Boston Consulting Group and the Urban Transportation Research Center at the City University of New York, assesses economic development by incorporating real estate development, the increase in property values, jobs and income and sales and tourism. The subway project would produce $12.6 billion in benefits, but it would cost $15.3 billion, it says.

A proposed passenger rail tunnel under the Hudson, connecting New Jersey and Midtown, and an extension of the PATH system to Newark Liberty International Airport would also yield little economic benefit for the city, according to the report, although it does not consider the benefits for New Jersey.

Some of the study's clear winners include the transit hub for Lower Manhattan, the extension of the No. 7 subway line and the relocation of Penn Station.

Both Gov. George E. Pataki and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have been emphasizing the Second Avenue subway and the East Side Access project, which would connect the Long Island Rail Road to Grand Central Terminal.

"The M.T.A.'s committed to a full build of the Second Avenue subway," William Wheeler, director of special project development and planning for the authority, said yesterday.

He pointed out that the project, along with the East Side Access proposal, had won support under the criteria set up by the Federal Transit Administration. The criteria include the number of customers benefited and the reduction in crowding.

The Second Avenue subway also has a powerful advocate in the speaker of the State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, who represents the Lower East Side. The report fails to fully recognize the project's economic benefits, Mr. Silver said. This includes its impact on Lower Manhattan, sparing commuters from an overcrowded Lexington Avenue line.

Decisions about transportation infrastructure, however, are too often politically based, said Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the partnership.

"It's not thinking about how investment should be designed to grow the economy and to open up the next generation of economic activity," she said.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

normaldude

November 26th, 2003, 10:15 AM

N train extension to Laguardia.

It's completely outrageous that 2 blocks of Astoria NIMBYs can keep blocking this project. Being able to link all three major airports (Newark/JFK/LaGuardia) to NYC Subway/PATH trains would make life easier for the whole region, reduce road traffic from buses/cars/taxis, and make it easier for tourists/visitors to get to/from the airports. It even satisfies Bloomberg's vision of a one-seat ride to the WTC.

The money has been allocated, but NIMBYs have kept the project in limbo indefinitely.
http://mta.info/mta/capital/cap-network.htm#lag

The N train is agonizingly close to LaGuardia. It needs to be extended the remaining distance, and finally link NYC with LGA. If there was ever a need for government to exercise eminent domain, and buy out those 2 blocks in Astoria, this is it.

billyblancoNYC

November 26th, 2003, 03:09 PM

Damn right. It's a shame a few loud mouths seem to ruin it for millions of people.

Clarknt67

December 2nd, 2003, 04:55 PM

TonyO

December 2nd, 2003, 05:18 PM

Clarknt67

December 2nd, 2003, 05:58 PM

The reason that people clamor for a rail link to the airports is because it is obvious. Obvious that it will improve the time to get there, improve the cost they individually pay, improve tourists lives - and in turn ours with more $$.

Go to most European cities. They do this right and understand the need for a mass-transit infrastructure that improves access, speed and is reliable.

But you didn't address the issues I mentioned.

I see what you're saying, all the other major cities in the world have great airport access. But ours is OK, definately not great, but OK.

But, if we spend 100s of millions of dollars for this rail, where is the return on the investment going to come from?

Will tourism pick up? I doubt it.

Will our City attract more business? I doubt it.

Just keeping up with the joneses is not sound basis for economic investment.

Ever been late for a flight in a cab and had to pray that traffic wasn't bad to JFK? Ever wish it didn't cost $60 to take a cab to Newark (thus negating most discounts you pay to fly there)?

Yes, and that proves my point: that the major beneficiaries will be local, leisure travelers. And we're not going to be offering any return on that infrastructure investment.

ZippyTheChimp

December 2nd, 2003, 06:16 PM

Improved mass transit to airports is not only a benefit to airline passengers. While the occassional traveller may not mind the extra cost and time, the clogged roads are a constant. Trucks stuck in taffic on the Van Wyck increase the cost of doing business in the area.

normaldude

December 2nd, 2003, 11:39 PM

Or am I missing something?

1) Reduction of Traffic & Pollution. Linking mass transit to the airports reduces road traffic & pollution from buses, taxis, cars.

2) Cost. Not all tourists are staying at $200/night hotels. Many will be staying with friends/relatives. Many stay in $90/night hotels. Some stay in cheap youth hostels. So $80 ($35 + toll + tip each way) is a signifcant amount of money.

3) Time Budgeting. It's easier to budget your time with train service than guessing how bad road/bridge/tunnel traffic will be, or whether or not it will be easy to hail a cab (see #4 below). Rain/snow can snarl traffic even more.

4) If it's raining, or a busy time period, hailing a cab might take a while.. and taxi stands at the airport can be very long.

5) Efficiency. NYC already has an extensive network of subways/trains, and with frequent service. It makes sense to extend rails that last mile, and connect to the airports.

normaldude

December 2nd, 2003, 11:57 PM

But, if we spend 100s of millions of dollars for this rail, where is the return on the investment going to come from?

- Lower cost to New Yorkers traveling to/from airport. Airport employees, vacation travelers, and some business travelers. And it will be less of a hassle/expense to meet someone at the airport, or accompany someone to the airport.

- Less road traffic & pollution from getting taxis, buses, cars off the road. Traffic is a significant cost to the NYC economy as a whole. Every business is shipping and moving goods from location to location to warehouse to airport to trucks out of the city, etc.

- More transportation options, and lower costs, makes a NYC trip more attractive. Increased tourism, and more money spent in NYC. And instead of wasting $80 just to get to/from Manhattan, they can spend that money in the city. Another Broadway Show, a few more dinners, or more items bought from NYC stores.

Zoe

December 3rd, 2003, 09:25 AM

And it will improve the quality of life, something that you cannot quantify. I fly out of the NYC airports every week, and I would like to have more options available to me depending on what time of day I am leaving and from where. As was mentioned before, there is nothing like being stuck in traffic to the airport, not sure if you will make your flight or not, and thinking of the repercussions to missing your important 10am meeting wherever it is you are going.
I would also support anything that will reduce the pollution in our area without costing people jobs. This not only does this, but provides jobs.

BrooklynRider

December 3rd, 2003, 10:44 AM

I recently took a plane and got to thinking, "What is all this drama about needing better rail access between the airports & the City?" I really don't see it as such a pressing need. I mean, if you're coming here for vacation 2 $30 trips via cab from the airports is the least of your budgetary worries. (When was the last time you changed or canceled a trip because the local transportation was inconvient?)

Therefore, I don't see our current situation as a deterrent to tourism.

And if you're coming or going from new york for business, even the cheapest employers I've ever worked for wouldn't balk at springing for a cab. My god, if you send an employee to NYC on business, you're already spending at least $200 a night on a hotel, in addition to airfare, and meals. What's a car service?

So, I don't see our current access as a deterrent to business.

I'm not rolling in dough but when I travel for leisure, I occassionally spring for the cab fare, arrange the extra 2 hours it takes to take the MTA options or split the difference with a $10 shuttle bus from midtown.

It seems that the only people who would really benefit from better rail to airport service would be airline employees living in the city and frequent leisure travelers. And why make a major capital investment for either of them? I mean when one compares to the long-term big picture benefit for projects like the West side highway options, 7 & L train extensions & the Second ave. Subway.

Or am I missing something?

There are a number of legitimate and continually building issues that direct rail links to airports address:

1) Traffic - With a couple million visitors each year, those $30 cab rides equate to congestion.

2) Predictable ETA - Rail Links offer ways to get to the airports in a timely manner. Being able to accurately judge the time to get to an airport gives people more time at the destination. Less time sitting in traffic or arriving all tense from a nightmare ride.

3) Rail linksfrom LIRR (Jamaica) allow Long Islanders to arrive via rail rather than driving on their extremely congested main arteries.

4) A more welcoming environment for visitors - Generally speaking, people are not flying into New York area airports to visit Newark or Queens. They are coming to Manhattan. Give them easy, direct ways to get OUT of Queens and Newark.

5) Mass transit in general should be embraced. In this city, especially, there is justno defendable reason for not have rail links.

tmg

December 3rd, 2003, 11:10 AM

TonyO

December 3rd, 2003, 11:14 AM

What is the most efficient place for a business headquarters? Sixty years ago, the answer was New York. Despite its high costs, it brought people together it a way that no other location could match. But now, why shouldn't a business locate in Atlanta or Houston? Or Shanghai or London?

What advantage does New York have?

Well, it has many of course, but the difficulty of access to its airports makes it an undesirable destination for business travelers. Cities looking to become competitive, like San Francisco and Shanghai, have invested in modern airport access, and New York needs to as well to retain its competitive edge.

That said, the Newark and JFK Airtrain projects are important steps forward. I think the jury is still out on whether the more ambitious proposals that have been floated make sense.

This is a great point and hits it on the head. It just makes long-term sense to have these connections in a world class city like NY.

The "return on investment" argument is a short-sighted one. If you look at the ROI for 20 or 40 years then this type of project would pay for itself many times over.

Why would Boston spend the billions they have on the big dig? Long range planning.

Kris

December 20th, 2003, 08:06 AM

December 20, 2003

New Report Advocates Subway Line for East Side

By PAUL von ZIELBAUER

An influential regional planning group issued a study yesterday that focused on the economic benefits of building a Second Avenue subway line while criticizing another study, released last month, that played down the relative worth of building it.

Standing in front of City Hall yesterday morning, several prominent city, state and Congressional Democrats made it clear that they trusted the new study, by the Regional Plan Association, more than last month's more critical report by the Partnership for New York City, a group representing some of the city's largest employers.

"The partnership is a partnership with the wrong people if they're not with us," said Representative Charles B. Rangel of Harlem, long an advocate for a subway line that would connect part of his district with Chinatown. "I can't wait to have them at the next press conference to explain this misunderstanding."

Beside Representative Rangel were Sheldon Silver, the State Assembly speaker; Gifford Miller, the City Council speaker; and Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, whose district includes the Upper East Side.

In its November study, the partnership said a Second Avenue subway would take 17 years to build and cost nearly $2.7 billion more than the economic development benefits it would create. The study, completed for the partnership by independent consultants, advocated focusing on other large projects, like building a transit hub in Lower Manhattan, extending the No. 7 subway line or relocating Pennsylvania Station.

The Regional Plan Association's study disputed those findings. It said the subway project could be completed in 12 years, not 17, and would create 7 million square feet of commercial development, not the 3.5 million the partnership's study forecast. The association also calculated nearly $1.3 billion in saved time and productivity resulting from a less crowded Lexington Avenue subway line; the partnership estimated a $971 million savings.

"No other project will bring more people to the Lower East Side than the Second Avenue subway," Mr. Silver said yesterday, referring to his own Assembly district. "It's time to get on with it."

Kathryn S. Wylde, the partnership's president, acknowledged in an interview that it might make economic sense to build a part of the proposed subway line, but that other projects would create more development and help more people.

"It's great to advocate for these improvements," she said. "Somebody's got to figure out how to pay for them."

Referring to Mr. Rangel, Mr. Silver and the other Democrats who are against her group's recommendations, Ms. Wylde added: "They're making a political case for the Second Avenue subway. We're looking at the ridership of the future, which doesn't have a voice to speak for it."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Kris

January 15th, 2004, 02:53 PM

How New Yorkers Get To Work (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/transportation/20040115/16/837)

TLOZ Link5

January 15th, 2004, 06:26 PM

Looking at a subway map, you can see how many parts of the city are underserved or not served at all. Hollis might benefit from an extension of the F Train, for instance; because aside from LIRR and buses there are no cheap or fast methods of transportation for that part of Queens.

Kris

March 17th, 2004, 11:15 AM

Long Commutes and Lost Opportunities for Planning (http://gothamgazette.com/article/landuse/20040317/12/916)

TonyO

June 13th, 2005, 12:39 PM

NY Newsday

LIRR expansion plan draws ire

BY JOIE TYRRELL
STAFF WRITER

June 13, 2005

As tens of thousands of commuters rush into Manhattan aboard Long Island Rail Road trains each morning, Anne Dorobis does just the opposite.

She travels east from her Manhattan home to her job as the director of training for human resources at Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola. Typically, the LIRR's schedule works for her, but sometimes she waits more than an hour when she has to be at work an hour earlier than usual.

"I would love it if the railroad would add another train in the morning during that gap," she said.

But as the railroad proposes building a third track on its main line from Bellerose to Hicksville that would add service for reverse commuters and also increase rush-hour capacity, opponents of the Main Line Corridor Improvement Project say adding another track is too costly, too disruptive and not necessary.

The railroad is hosting a series of meetings in Nassau County on Tuesday and Thursday as well as June 21 to gather input from commuters and residents on the project.

"It's not a case of saying 'Not in my backyard.' It is a case of saying, 'We have enough in our backyard,'" said Floral Park Mayor Phil Guarnieri, adding that four tracks already run through his community. Trains on the Hempstead and Main Line branches go through Floral Park.

In accordance with federal regulations, the Federal Transit Administration and the LIRR are preparing an environmental impact statement for the 111/2-mile project, which still requires funding approval in the MTA's 2005-09 capital plan now before a state review board.

Improvements include elimination of up to five grade crossings and station rehabilitation along the corridor. LIRR officials propose building the project in three stages, with construction of a third track to Mineola and elimination of three grade crossings in New Hyde Park in the first $202-million phase.

Guarnieri said he is not opposed to the grade crossing eliminations but, regarding the third track, he sees no benefit to the community.

"We don't see any upshot for the village," he said.

State Sen. Michael Balboni (R-East Williston) also said the railroad should focus solely on grade crossings. The MTA doesn't "have enough money to do both, and the grade crossings have to take priority," he said.

LIRR President James Dermody said it is imperative to construct the third track at the same time the grade crossings are eliminated. Railroad officials noted that with anticipated growth in ridership, gate-down time at New Hyde Park Road could be as bad as 49 minutes in the evening rush hour, leaving motorists waiting a long time to cross.

"By coupling it with the third track, you'd get it done," Dermody said. "Why would you build a house and not put electricity in the house? You want to do everything all at once."

The third track project is supported by area business and transportation groups and has been called the most important project on Long Island by the region's largest business group, The Long Island Association. Supporters say it would take traffic off the roads, enable trains to bypass breakdowns and add freight capacity. It would also complement East Side Access, the LIRR's proposed link to Grand Central Terminal.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), whose district covers the area, said in a statement that she has requested funding from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to finance the reconstruction of four at-grade crossings with overpasses in New Hyde Park, Westbury and New Cassel in conjunction with the MTA's third-track project.

But some question how many reverse commuters the project would draw. Now, according to the LIA, more than 120,000 people drive east in the morning.

"My time in actual commuting from door to door from where I live on the East Side is actually faster driving than it is for me to go to the West Side and use Penn Station," said Richard Elias, an architect with JRS Architect, P.C. in Mineola.
Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc.

Ninjahedge

June 13th, 2005, 01:17 PM

"It's not a case of saying 'Not in my backyard.' It is a case of saying, 'We have enough in our backyard,'"

Thanks for the clarification. :rolleyes:

NIMBYA (again).

TonyO

June 30th, 2005, 12:07 PM

NY Sun
6/30/05

Despite Mayor's Commitment, 7 Line Extension in Doubt

By JEREMY SMERD, Special to the Sun

The Bloomberg administration has touted its $2.4 billion commitment to transportation as the largest contribution to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority since the capital plan to rebuild the subways was introduced in 1982.

But the cornerstone of that commitment, a $2 billion plan to finance construction of a two-track, 7,000-foot extension of the no. 7 line from Times Square to Eleventh Avenue and 34th Street, appears far from certain.

For the five-year, $21.1 billion capital program of the MTA to go into effect, a state review board must vote to approve it by tomorrow. If the Capital Program Review Board, a four-person panel that includes representatives of Governor Pataki; Mayor Bloomberg; the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver; and the Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, does not approve the plan unanimously, they will send it back to the MTA for changes.

And just as Mr. Silver, along with Mr. Bruno, killed the mayor's dream of an Olympic stadium on the far West Side, his representative on the board, Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan, could deny approval of the no. 7 extension to that neighborhood.

Yesterday, Mr. Silver said the same problem he had with the stadium plagues the building of the no. 7: commercial development on the far West Side that he fears would compete with the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan.

For the city to pay for the $2 billion extension, the Bloomberg administration has created the Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corporation, which would float $3 billion worth of bonds to finance the extension and related upgrades. That debt would be paid off by development. Mr. Silver fears the debt will give the area the impetus to develop faster than Lower Manhattan. The no.7 extension "puts on pressure to provide the incentives to build that [area] as quickly as possible," Mr. Silver said, "and that's the nature of the objection." Until that development takes place, the city will pay $989 million over five years to cover the debt service - a plan the City Council has approved.

Yesterday, Mr. Silver said he would prefer a financing scheme that did not finance the extension through rapid development of the far West Side.

Mr. Silver's comments set up another showdown between the Assembly leader and the Bloomberg administration. Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff said the council-approved plan would not be changed. "There's no reason for a new plan," Mr. Doctoroff said.

Whether that puts the extension of the no. 7 in jeopardy will not be certain until the board votes on the capital plan. Though only a small fraction of the budget to be approved in Albany is earmarked for the no. 7, the MTA would be responsible if the cost of the extension exceeded $2 billion, a spokesman for the agency, Tom Kelly, said. Already the estimated price tag is $2.1 billion, making the project a financial matter for the Capital Program Review Board.

Without the $2 billion contribution to the no. 7 line, Mr. Bloomberg will run for re-election with a much-diminished record on mass transit.

Aside from the mayor's offer to build the no. 7, the city plans to contribute $400 million to the MTA's capital plan, of which $60 million has been earmarked for preliminary planning and design for the no. 7 in 2005, according to the Independent Budget Office.

That leaves an annual average of about $68 million in direct contributions to the MTA's five-year capital plan. That would be $25 million less than the annual average amount for the past four years, and significantly less than average contributions under previous administrations, according to the Independent Budget Office.

Inflation has likewise devalued the city's direct contribution to New York City Transit's operating budget, which Mayor Giuliani first froze in 1995 at $158 million annually - an amount Mr. Bloomberg would have to raise to $205 million to keep up with inflation, according the Fiscal Policy Institute.

"If the no. 7 doesn't happen, the mayor is missing in action when it comes to mass transit," an economist with the Fiscal Policy Institute, James Parrot, said. "Even with the no. 7 it's not an unprecedented level of commitment."

Critics of the mayor - including the rider-advocacy group the Straphangers Campaign and the Regional Plan Association - said that rather than pushing the no. 7 extension, Mr. Bloomberg's legacy would be better assured by committing that money to what they consider to be the subway system's more urgent needs.

"The bigger issue is the city's direct contribution to the maintenance and upkeep of the MTA, that needs to come first," a spokesman for the Regional Plan Association, Jeremy Soffin, said. "The only focus should not be the West Side. We'd like to see that sort of wholehearted support and energy put toward MTA priorities such as the Second Avenue subway and East Side Access."

The modern heyday for municipal investment in mass transit was between 1982 and 1995, when the city gave about $138 million a year to the MTA's capital program to be used by New York City Transit, the subsidiary in charge of the subways and buses. Money appropriated from other sources, including federal funding, swelled that to an average of $231 million annually, according to the city's Independent Budget Office.

Beginning in 1996,under the Giuliani administration those contributions began to fall precipitously. For the 2000-04 Capital Plan, the city contributed around $93 million a year - a figure that does not include money received by the MTA but funneled through the city from the sale of the New York Coliseum for $345 million to Related Properties in 1999. That site is now occupied by the Time Warner Center.

The chairman of the state Assembly's Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, Richard Brodsky, bemoaned the diminution of city financing, although the state has the legal authority to force the city to increase its share.

"Legally we can ask city to pay more, we have the constitutionality to mandate this stuff," the Westchester Democrat said. "But we try not to do it."

BrooklynRider

June 30th, 2005, 02:10 PM

I still think the 2nd Ave Line and one-stop to JFK are more worthy.

NewYorkYankee

June 30th, 2005, 07:36 PM

I could see a one stop ride to Midtown from JFK, but not to downtown.

bkmonkey

July 1st, 2005, 03:16 AM

I think a full modern second avenue line, with super fast trains (or an express service) with lines in the other boroughs would be best. The second avenue line is needed desperatly, and so is a line going down flatbush avenue to Kings Plaza, and so is another express line in the Bronx. Sounds ambishous? This is the kinda thing that New York always use to do... believe me we can get it done. Maybe sometime in the future someone will ponder the impossible.... building a subway line to Staten Island.... GASP......Dream Big again New York:)

pianoman11686

July 1st, 2005, 11:38 PM

Averted: Two Infrastructure Disasters Waiting to Happen

By SEWELL CHAN

Published: July 2, 2005

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is working to fix two significant defects in its sprawling infrastructure: an unstable utility vault beneath the Grand Hyatt New York in Midtown and a concrete retaining wall along the N subway line in Brooklyn that was close to collapse.

A view of the retaining wall along the N line in Brooklyn that was found to be in danger of collapsing. Steel beams provide a temporary remedy.
The authority disclosed the problems this week when its board approved contracts for temporary repairs until permanent ones could be made.

If the problems had not been found, the results could have been catastrophic, according to authority documents, which stated that the wall's condition "could present a danger to life, safety and property" and that the 20-ton vault would "cause major damage to the surrounding facilities" if it collapsed.

The vulnerability of the city's transportation systems has become apparent this year. In January, a fire destroyed a signal relay room in Lower Manhattan, crippling subway service for several weeks. In May, a 75-foot-tall retaining wall collapsed onto the Henry Hudson Parkway in Upper Manhattan, disrupting traffic for days.

Fortunately, the new problems were found during routine work.

The more significant seems to be the retaining wall in Brooklyn, which is 18 feet high and dates to 1914. Early last year, workers found that a 350-foot section of the wall, between 63rd and 64th Streets along the northbound track east of the New Utrecht Avenue station, had moved several inches toward the track.

The wall had major horizontal and vertical cracks, and deteriorated concrete had broken off. The authority took temporary measures promptly, but the wall continued to shift.

Over the last two weekends, workers installed braces against the wall. Under a $539,000 contract approved on Wednesday, Judlau Contracting of College Point, Queens, will install 60-foot struts across the tracks, pressing against the walls on either side.

The agency will eventually award a $10 million contract to stabilize walls along the line, said Mike Kyriacou, a design manager in the department of capital program management at New York City Transit. He said the agency regularly inspected its walls and had not found serious problems elsewhere.

The poor condition of the wall did not surprise its neighbors. "The wall's falling down, no two ways about it," said Paul Sagar, 59, a construction worker whose backyard faces the tracks.

The vault - a metal structure that holds an array of electrical conduits - is in a steam room beneath the Grand Hyatt at East 42nd Street and Lexington Avenue, but is part of the Grand Central Terminal complex, which is directly west of the hotel and is the terminus of the Metro-North Railroad.

In April, a contractor discovered that the 20-ton electrical utility vault had partly collapsed. The vault is suspended by steel supports, several of which had snapped. Two remaining supports and a steel catwalk handrail were keeping the vault from fully collapsing.

Wooden shoring was erected to support the vault, and the authority approved a $187,500 contract to install steel beams to further reinforce the vault, which will eventually have to be demolished and replaced.

Wires and cables run horizontally from the steam room into a utility area between the main concourse of the terminal and the track level, according to Marjorie S. Anders, a railroad spokeswoman.

The date of the partial collapse is unclear, but it occurred sometime after 1994, when major work was done in the steam room, she said.

Workers at the 1,311-room hotel were promptly told about the emergency repairs, said a hotel spokeswoman, Kira Kohrherr, who added that the repairs, to be finished by the fall, should not affect guests or workers.

Although the steam room is part of the terminal, the wires in the vault supply electricity to the hotel, and Ms. Kohrherr said that Hyatt would pay for the $187,500 repairs. The ultimate cost of replacing the vault, which the Hyatt will also pay, has not been determined.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/02/nyregion/02walls_lg.jpg
A view of the retaining wall along the N line in Brooklyn that was found to be in danger of collapsing. Steel beams provide a temporary remedy.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Gulcrapek

July 1st, 2005, 11:54 PM

Bk: many moons ago, there was a plan for a subway to Kings Plaza..

TonyO

July 2nd, 2005, 12:17 PM

NY Post

MTA FUNDING DERAILED AMID ALBANY POLITICS

By KENNETH LOVETT

July 2, 2005 -- ALBANY — Legislative leaders yesterday vetoed a $17.9 billion MTA capital plan — even as an aide to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said the No. 7 subway expansion to the West Side would not be a formal part of the plan.
The state Capital Plan Review Board, consisting of representatives of Gov. Pataki, the Assembly, Senate and Mayor Bloomberg, had until yesterday to act on the MTA plan, which details planned maintenance and major expansion projects.

A disappointed MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow said the action "further delays the important rebuilding projects and rolling-stock purchases that affect the daily lives of our millions of customers."

The sides couldn't reach agreement on separate funding for upstate roads and bridges and an Assembly push for contractors who don't use unionized employees to pay a prevailing wage, according to legislative aides.

No new maintenance or expansion projects can move forward without a capital plan in place.

"All parties are in agreement to continue working to get a resolution as quickly as possible," said Assembly spokesman Charles "Skip" Carrier.

Meanwhile, an aide close to Silver said the speaker was not pushing to include the No. 7 expansion in the plan, which would mean more state oversight.

Instead, the subway expansion plan would have been referenced, but not made a formal part of the MTA capital plan.

ablarc

July 2nd, 2005, 01:07 PM

NewYorkYankee

July 2nd, 2005, 02:11 PM

Im so over Silver, the guy is a dumb ass. To put it bluntly. It does not take a fool to see the downtown is no longer an office center. Geezzz

TonyO

July 14th, 2005, 06:48 PM

This is exciting news:

NY Post

MTA FINALLY GETS ALBANY'S OK FOR $21B TRANSIT FIX

By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent

July 14, 2005 -- ALBANY — State political leaders yesterday signed off on the largest capital program in MTA history, putting much-needed transit repairs and expansion projects like the Second Avenue subway back on track.

The $21.1 billion plan, approved by the four-member Capital Program Review Board, also includes $2.5 billion set aside for East Side Access, which would bring Long Island Rail Road trains into Grand Central Terminal, and create a rail link between Kennedy Airport and lower Manhattan.

The five-year plan includes $14.9 billion for transit repairs, including the purchase of new buses and subway cars, and another $495 million to beef-up security on the rails.

"The MTA will now be able to continue the progress it has made in revitalizing the region's transportation network," said the agency's chairman, Peter Kalikow.

The plan calls for the city to shell out $2 billion to extend the No. 7 line to the far West Side.

Another $1.45 billion earmarked in the plan hinges on passage of a $2.9 billion transportation bond act that will go before voters in November.

The capital program had been stalled for weeks over negotiations to require contractors using non-union workers on public-works projects to pay prevailing union wages.

NewYorkYankee

July 14th, 2005, 07:15 PM

Im suprised Silver didnt get the 7 exstension cut out. Any thoughts on when these projects could start?

Pottebaum

July 14th, 2005, 07:36 PM

Could Sivler still fight the 7 line extension--or is this the end of that debate?

NewYorkYankee

July 14th, 2005, 07:48 PM

I would assume its the end. Due to the fact he had to vote to approve the plan.

Pottebaum

July 14th, 2005, 08:06 PM

^Makes sense I guess. lol

But, if that one 2.9 billion dollar bond doesn't get approved by the voters, how would that affect the 2nd avenue subway, 7 line extension, and eastside access?

Read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/nyregion/14bond.html

"The board, the Capital Program Review Board, unanimously approved a large chunk of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's plan for $21.1 billion worth of construction and repair projects. And it allowed the Transportation Bond Act, which would pay for $2.9 billion worth of borrowing, to go before voters in November. Half of the bond act money would help pay for authority projects like the Second Avenue subway, a connection between the Long Island Rail Road and Grand Central Terminal, and a direct rail link from Lower Manhattan to Kennedy International Airport."

NewYorkYankee

July 14th, 2005, 08:12 PM

Accord Reached on Transportation Spending Plan

E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints

By AL BAKER
Published: July 14, 2005
ALBANY, July 13 - State leaders settled their differences over how to pay workers on state transportation projects on Wednesday, clearing the way for a state board to approve a five-year capital plan for billions of dollars worth of projects.

The board, the Capital Program Review Board, unanimously approved a large chunk of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's plan for $21.1 billion worth of construction and repair projects. And it allowed the Transportation Bond Act, which would pay for $2.9 billion worth of borrowing, to go before voters in November. Half of the bond act money would help pay for authority projects like the Second Avenue subway, a connection between the Long Island Rail Road and Grand Central Terminal, and a direct rail link from Lower Manhattan to Kennedy International Airport.

As is customary in Albany, officials from the Pataki administration and the Legislature also signed off on a similar five-year capital plan for the State Department of Transportation, said the acting commissioner, Thomas J. Madison Jr.

The action means that state elected officials, as well as union leaders who fought for union-rate wages for workers on transportation projects, can promote the bond act and begin campaigning for it in earnest, something Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has said is crucial considering how a previous transportation bond act was rejected by voters and criticized for being too nonspecific.

"It will be a shot in the arm for the state economy," said Mr. Spitzer, who had stressed the importance of adhering to the state's prevailing wage law when public money is used.

The standoff over transportation spending had stalled dozens of projects around the state, from a plan to rehabilitate the Tillary Street ramp onto the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway to replacing two bridges over creeks in Delaware County. And because many projects could not be officially awarded until the plan was approved, officials feared that some bidders would withdraw their bids and come back with higher costs.

Francis X. McArdle, the managing director of the General Contractors Association, said the delay had taken a toll. "Very simply put, a lot of people haven't gone to work," he said.

The deal came a day before Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester County Democrat, was to hold a public hearing to discuss what he said was the "enormous economic dislocation" caused by the delay. News of a deal prompted Mr. Brodsky to cancel his hearing.

Elliot Sander, the director of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University, said, "Several key transit and highway projects that were stalled can now proceed."

He said that the transportation authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, must now decide whether to award the first construction contracts for the East Side access project, to bring the Long Island Rail Road to Grand Central Station, and whether to proceed on the final design for the first segment of the Second Avenue subway. Mr. Sander said the authority would now go to Washington to try to "nail down" a commitment of several billion dollars in federal money for the big projects.

NewYorkYankee

July 14th, 2005, 08:13 PM

But, if that one 2.9 billion dollar bond doesn't get approved by the voters, how would that affect the 2nd avenue subway, 7 line extension, and eastside access?

I would assume that it will just take a bit longer for these projects to move forward.

pianoman11686

July 14th, 2005, 09:11 PM

Not necessarily. "A bit longer" sounds like an understatement. A few things still have to fall in place, one of them being federal support. Also, the vote is important to the timing, because as the NYTimes article points out, a previous transportation bond act was rejected which ended up causing delays. I also read that the money designated for the three main projects - 2nd Ave. Subway, LIRR link to GCT, and the rail link to JFK - amounted to only 2.5 billion. The 7 extension alone will cost 2 billion, so that gives you an idea of how far 2.5 billion will go. The MTA was hoping for 8 billion.

Pottebaum

July 14th, 2005, 10:58 PM

^I'm not sure, but I think the 2.5 billion was solely for the LIRR connection to Grand Central. The second avenue subway appears to be covered, and the plan calls for the city to shell out 2 billion for the 7 line extension--which they appear ready to do.

pianoman11686

July 14th, 2005, 11:06 PM

I never said the 7 extension wouldn't be covered. That expense is being taken on by the city, not the state, that's why it wasn't directly addressed in this capital program. I am pretty sure about the other three major projects getting only 2.5 billion. I'm gonna try to find some info to corroborate.

pianoman11686

July 14th, 2005, 11:08 PM

Here's an article:

MTA $21B plan clouds 2nd Ave. line

BY PETE DONOHUE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

A four-member Albany panel approved an MTA capital plan last night that leaves the timing of three major expansion projects, including the Second Ave. subway, in doubt.

The Capital Program Review Board - with representatives from the Pataki administration, the Legislature and the mayor's office - approved a $21.1 billion plan that envisions only $2.5 billion for the three main projects: the Second Ave. subway, a Long Island Rail Road connection to Grand Central Terminal and a Kennedy Airport rail link to downtown Manhattan. The MTA had sought nearly $8 billion.

The five-year plan hinges on major assumptions, including that voters will approve a bond act in November that would funnel $1.45 billion to theMetropolitan Transportation Authority.

MTA officials previously have said that unless the state and feds come up with more funding for the expansion, the hoped-for completion dates of the first leg of the Second Ave. line and the Grand Central extension - 2012 - will be pushed back.

The plan also includes $2 billion for the extension of the No. 7 line, to be funded by the city.

But MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow last night focused on the positive - $16 billion for the "core program," which involves critical maintenance and upgrades, and includes the purchase of new subway cars, buses and the total rehabilitation of 44 subway stations.

"All of New York benefits from a superior public transportation system, and this capital plan will allow the MTA to continue to offer New Yorkers the best service in the world," he said in a statement.

Copyright 2005 The New York Daily News

peterd

July 16th, 2005, 04:53 PM

There are millions of residents of Queens and Brooklyn (and Long Island) who find the current AirTrain arrangement far more convenient than a Manhattan-only ride would have been. Finally, the Outer Boroughs get some love!

And it's not like a direct-to-Manhattan train would be a "one seat" ride for most people anyway. I mean, it's not like the AirTrain just dumps you in Jamaica or Howard Beach with nowhere to go - you get on the subway to your final destination, just like you'd probably have to do if the AirTrain did go to Penn Station or Lower Manhattan. (If you're on the Upper East Side, is Lower Manhattan *really* more convenient than Jamaica? Not at all.)

pianoman11686

July 18th, 2005, 12:31 AM

Transportation Bond Proposal Will Be on November Ballot

By SEWELL CHAN

Published: July 18, 2005

While few voters may be aware of it, a $2.9 billion bond measure will be on the ballot across New York State in November, and officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority are already describing it as crucial to the future of the mass transit system.

Gov. George E. Pataki and the leaders of both houses of the Legislature cleared the way last week for a five-year, $35.8 billion capital plan that includes money for mass transit as well as for highways, bridges, canals and other elements of the transportation infrastructure.

Under the plan, state voters will be asked to vote on a borrowing measure, the Rebuild and Renew New York Transportation Bond Act, in the general election on Nov. 8.

Half of the money, $1.45 billion, would go to the transportation authority for a variety of building projects and new equipment, including new subway cars and buses as well as trains for the authority's two commuter railroads.

The authority's share of the bond proceeds would also provide $450 million each to two major projects - the first segment of a Second Avenue subway and a link between the Long Island Rail Road and Grand Central Terminal - and $100 million to continue planning a direct rail link between Lower Manhattan and Kennedy International Airport.

The other half of the money from the bonds would go to the State Department of Transportation for highway and bridge improvements, and also to finance projects like repairs to freight railroad lines and improvements to airport security.

Whether the bond measure will be approved, however, is far from certain.

Transportation advocates are still smarting from the defeat of a $3.8 billion transportation bond act in 2000. The measure received strong support from New York City voters, but was overwhelmingly rejected upstate.

Republicans who supported the 2000 measure were reluctant to promote it enthusiastically for fear that higher turnout in the New York City area would help Hillary Rodham Clinton in her Senate race .

The state's Conservative Party financed advertisements calling the 2000 measure a giveaway for the Second Avenue subway plan. The Citizens Budget Commission, a fiscal watchdog group, criticized the measure as irresponsible, because it would have increased state debt. Neither organization has taken a position yet on the new bond issue.

Supporters of the measure say they believe the political situation this year is different. They argue that the mayoral race could mean that the city's voters will be disproportionately represented as a share of all state voters, although several upstate cities, including Buffalo and Binghamton, also have mayoral contests.

Last week, Eliot Spitzer, the state attorney general and a Democratic candidate for governor in 2006, announced his support for the measure.

The defeat of the 2000 bond act forced the authority to borrow heavily itself to finance its capital program for 2000 to 2004. "People realize that much more is at stake this time," said a leading transportation advocate, Elliot G. Sander, the director of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University. "The financing for the last program was horrific and put the M.T.A. in bad financial straits."

A loose coalition of politicians, labor groups and associations of construction and engineering firms has begun a series of strategy meetings to organize a campaign for the measure, although the supporters concede that most voters will probably not start to focus on any ballot measures until Labor Day.

"We're not taking for granted anyone's vote," said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester County Democrat, who is chairman of the committee that oversees state authorities. "The lessons of the failure of 2000 have been learned."

State Senator Thomas W. Libous, a Broome County Republican, who is chairman of the Transportation Committee, said that supporters must make clear the projected benefits from transportation spending. "The average voter felt that more money was going, in 2000, to a subway project rather than roads and bridges in their area," he said.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

pianoman11686

July 18th, 2005, 01:25 AM

This better get approved. I'm getting sick and tired of the "equal treatment of upstate" attitude, which seems to be stalling a lot of progress in New York. Even if it does go through, however, the money being talked about is a mere pittance, relatively speaking. 450 million is less than a quarter of what either East Side Access or the Second Avenue Subway would cost. It's a start though. The 100 million for the JFK rail link is just laughable, although I feel as if the bulk of the money will be coming from the Feds. The underlying theme still continues - that is, that the MTA will never escape its debt and get the transit system running at an impressive level unless a drastic change is made in determining funding for these projects, big and small. I know this means some fare increases, but I'm also thinking of using some of the surpluses from real estate taxes to fund some of the more visionary, long-term projects. In any case, this bond proposal is a start.

On a different and somewhat off-topic note: Can someone please explain to me why Pataki's roaming around Iowa? If he's traveling anywhere out of state, it should be Washington, for crying out loud. Get us the money for our transit projects, and then worry about your bid for President.

Pottebaum

July 18th, 2005, 08:26 PM

Isn't part of the 2nd avenue subway and LIRR connection already covered by the capital plan approved last week?

lofter1

July 18th, 2005, 09:01 PM

Can someone please explain to me why Pataki's roaming around Iowa?

Because he's a whore (oops, I meant to say politician, but refrained from using that word in case it offends anyone).

He's got to raise some cash and Iowa is at the top of the pay-him-to-run list.

pianoman11686

July 18th, 2005, 10:56 PM

Isn't part of the 2nd avenue subway and LIRR connection already covered by the capital plan approved last week?

Okay, hopefully this clears a few things up, as I've noticed that some of the newspaper reports are a little confusing. I found this at the New York State Department of Transportation website. It comes directly from the governor's office (http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/year05/july13_2_05.htm):

Metropolitan Transportation Authority Program -- $17.9 billion

$17.9 billion for public transit systems of the MTA, including New York City Transit, the Long Island RailRoad, and Metro-North Railroad

The MTA Capital Program will invest $14.85 billion on core system improvements to enhance the reliability and quality of transportation systems through ongoing repairs, and the renewal and improvement of the MTA's existing infrastructure. The program also includes $2.5 billion to advance the design and construction of several major projects that will expand the transit network. Further, the program invests $495 million on security to allow the MTA to complete the protection of its assets, which was begun in its last capital campaign. The Bond Act provides $1.45 billion to support these program efforts.

If approved by voters in November, the Bond Act funding will be used for:

DOT Projects:

$1.13 billion for state highway and bridge projects;
$50 million for non-MTA lines;
$50 million for Canals;
$76 million for aviation; and
$135 million for rail and port improvements.
MTA Projects:

$450 million for East Side Access;
$450 million for the 2nd Avenue Subway;
$100 million for the JFK Rail Link; and
$450 million for Core Infrastructure Needs.

I don't know why there is such a big discrepancy between what the newspapers report and what is stated here. The capital program provides only 17.9 billion for the MTA, total. 14.85 billion of that is for maintenance. That leaves 3.05 billion leftover. 2.5 billion of that is for the new projects. 495 million is for security upgrades. 10 million is left over for some reason.
Enter the 2.9 billion Bond Act. Only half of that, 1.45 billion, goes towards the MTA. 450 million each goes toward East Side Access, 2nd Avenue Subway, and Core Infrastructure needs. 100 million goes towards the JFK Rail Link. The sum of these four is 1.45 billion. That's all there is to it. If the bond act is defeated, there is still the 2.5 billion in state funding set aside towards these four projects. The distribution of this 2.5 billion among the major projects has not been delineated. However, I am pretty sure that East Side Access alone would cost 2.5 billion to construct. That said, I am unaware of other funding separately agreed on for the 2nd Avenue Subway and East Side Access. I'll try to find that out. As of now, the MTA has 2.5 billion to play with for new projects. It may get another 1.45 billion. Still, 3.95 billion is not that much when you consider the massive scale of these projects.

pianoman11686

July 19th, 2005, 01:23 AM

Here's some more clarification from the NY Times, but no mention of the large projects:

Work Covered by Transportation Bond Act Is Listed

By SEWELL CHAN

Published: July 19, 2005

The Pataki administration has released the full list of 3,414 road, bridge and highway projects that would be partly financed by a $2.9 billion transportation bond act that will go before New York State voters in November.

Half of the money would go to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the other half to the State Department of Transportation. The last statewide transportation bond act, which would have raised $3.8 billion, was rejected by voters in 2000.

In New York City, the major projects include:

¶$286 million to replace the Willis Avenue Bridge between the Bronx and Manhattan.

¶$149.2 million to replace a bridge on the Bronx River Parkway that runs over East 180th Street and East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx.

¶$148.4 million to replace interchange ramps on the Alexander Hamilton and High Bridges between Manhattan and the Bronx.

¶$141.1 million to rehabilitate the deck of the Gowanus Expressway in Brooklyn from 24th Street to 52nd Street and from Prospect Avenue to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel.

¶$81.3 million, as part of $171 million in total financing, to improve the Kew Gardens interchange, which links the Van Wyck Expressway, the Jackie Robinson Parkway and the Grand Central Parkway in Queens.

For Long Island, the bond act would include $60.5 million to widen, and build an interchange on, Route 110 in Huntington; $57.2 million to reconstruct Route 112 in Brookhaven; and $50 million for improvements to the Nassau Expressway and the Southern State Parkway. The act also would provide $45.1 million toward a $110 million rail and highway freight terminal in Brentwood.

In Westchester, the projects include $91 million for reconstruction of Interstate 287 in Harrison and $60.6 million for safety improvements on that road from Greenburgh to White Plains.

Gov. George E. Pataki and leaders of the Legislature gave final approval to the bond proposal last week.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

pianoman11686

July 22nd, 2005, 01:41 AM

Hevesi Blocks Transportation Borrowing Plan

By AL BAKER and MICHAEL COOPER

Published: July 22, 2005

ALBANY, July 21 - State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi Thursday canceled the Pataki administration's plan to refinance $2.9 billion worth of transportation bonds. The move cast doubt on part of a multibillion-dollar plan for transportation projects across the state and signaled the comptroller's resolve to curb the state's expensive borrowing habits.

The comptroller's decision led the Pataki administration to stop awarding new transportation contracts throughout New York until the state's entire transportation plan could be reviewed, and state transportation officials called Mr. Hevesi's move "an 11th-hour power grab."

In canceling the scheduled pricing of the bonds on Wall Street, Mr. Hevesi, a Democrat, said the deal originally proposed by Gov. George E. Pataki, a Republican, would have broken a basic rule of prudent financing: it would have added huge costs in future years in exchange for limited savings today. His aides said it was akin to paying interest only on a house mortgage without paying down principal.

But officials in the Pataki administration questioned Mr. Hevesi's numbers and said he was overstepping his authority by wrongly trying to seize policy-making control from the governor and the Legislature, an accusation Mr. Hevesi disputed. The administration officials charged that the comptroller's move would prove "potentially devastating" to the state's vast transportation network.

The ensuing battle over the debt cast some doubt on the state's ambitious plans to spend $35.8 billion on transportation projects over the next five years, with half the money going to improvements to roads and bridges and other parts of the transportation system across New York, and half going to projects at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The Pataki administration wanted to refinance old transportation bonds and use the short-term savings - $1.3 billion over the next five years - to help pay for a $17.9 billion plan to improve roads and bridges across the state. But Mr. Hevesi warned that those upfront savings would come at a cost: large payments would come due beginning in 2011, burdening future taxpayers with an additional $460 million in debt service. So, after months of warning, he moved to block the plan.

Senior Pataki administration budget officials disputed his analysis and said that by their count, the refinancing would save $30 million.

On one side, aides to the governor said that without the money, the five-year plan would have to be rethought, at least regarding how it is paid for, even though it had just been completed after delicate and complicated talks among lawmakers with competing interests. The governor's budget director, John F. Cape, said in an interview that the comptroller's move could complicate a separate $2.9 billion transportation bond act that depends on voter approval in November, because some projects it would pay for are tied to the overall five-year plan.

On the other side, Mr. Hevesi and Assembly Democrats stressed that the $1.3 billion - spread over five years - was a relatively small portion of the overall transportation plan, and that the state has five years to make up the difference by spending the surplus it is projecting this year, spending reserve funds or refinancing the debt under better terms, among other options.

"Some people will be tempted, and I'm anticipating this, to go public and say there's a series of projects that will be killed as a result of the actions we're taking," Mr. Hevesi said. "If somebody tells you that, you can look them in the eye and say, 'It's not true.' "

His move to block the sale reverberated in Albany, while lawmakers were on vacation for the summer, and stirred an increasingly contentious feud between the governor, a three-term Republican who is nursing national presidential ambitions, and Mr. Hevesi, who is increasingly flexing his legal power over financial issues in the state and is politically aligned with the man who wants to replace the governor, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. (Mr. Pataki vetoed a bill Tuesday that would have given Mr. Hevesi greater flexibility in investing the state's pension funds.)

It is the first time that Mr. Hevesi, who has repeatedly given warnings about the state's debt load, has stepped in to stop a bond sale.

The state's acting transportation commissioner, Thomas J. Madison Jr., and the executive director of the State Thruway Authority, Michael R. Fleischer, issued a joint statement claiming that the comptroller's action would "jeopardize New York's ability to attract and retain businesses and jobs that are critical to our future."

Financial watchdogs praised Mr. Hevesi's move. Edmund J. McMahon Jr., director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, part of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative policy research group, said it would amount to "yanking the rug out from under" the state's overall transportation plan, which he said should go "back to the drawing board."

"In pragmatic terms, I think it will cast a pall over the bond act and the entire capital plan, and it should," Mr. McMahon said. "The reason the Legislature and the governor resorted to this questionable tactic is because the plan has got more in it than they can afford."

But Mr. Hevesi said he favors the bond act that goes before voters in November and repeatedly stressed that his action would not imperil it. But given the sensitivities involved - the insistence of upstate lawmakers that all money for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority be matched in spending on upstate projects - a change to any one part of the plan could ripple through the entire process.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

BrooklynRider

July 22nd, 2005, 10:39 AM

All of this debt got us to where we are with the MTA "fiscal crisis" today. I vote "NO" on every initiative.

pianoman11686

July 23rd, 2005, 12:44 AM

It's How You Do the Math, Analysts Say of Bond Issue

By AL BAKER

Published: July 23, 2005

ALBANY, July 22 - Behind the increasingly personal fight between Gov. George E. Pataki and State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi over a proposal to refinance $2.9 billion worth of transportation bonds is a question of math, although perhaps not a simple one.

It boils down to whether the refinancing would cost taxpayers an extra $460 million, as the comptroller says, or save them $30 million, as the governor says.

The comptroller, a Democrat, has called the plan proposed by the Republican governor a "fiscal gimmick." He said that the refinancing would mean $1.3 billion in upfront savings, which is earmarked to help build and improve bridges, roads, rail service, ports and related facilities, but that huge payments would come due in the future that would add up to a $460 million hit to taxpayers. So on Thursday the comptroller moved to block the deal, and no progress was reported on resolving the dispute on Friday.

The Pataki administration countered that Mr. Hevesi was "playing politics on this issue" in retribution for the governor's veto of a bill that would have given Mr. Hevesi more flexibility in investing state pension funds, which the comptroller denies. The administration said the comptroller's decision led it to stop awarding new transportation projects, but maintained that rather than costing extra money, the refinancing plan would save $30 million over the life of the loan.

So who is right? It depends on how you count.

On Friday, the comptroller's office stood behind its math and said the refinancing plan would save $1.312 billion in the first five years, mainly by deferring payments of principal for five years. But then, like a balloon, it would increase debt service costs by $1.772 billion from 2011 to 2025, the remaining 15 years. The burden to future taxpayers would be an additional $460 million in debt service. The office also said the average life of the bonds was being increased.

Aides to the governor disputed that analysis. They said that because inflation shrinks the value of today's dollars over time, the larger payments in the future would be worth less than the upfront savings, resulting in the $30 million in savings.

Citing the "time value of money," the governor's budget director, John F. Cape, said that any other way to do the calculations amounts to "simplistic math." He added, "You cannot just make up your own rules about how to measure it." The comptroller acknowledged that under the governor's theory, the $30 million figure could be correct, but he cautioned, "This savings could easily evaporate based on assumptions used and market conditions."

The fight cast doubt on a part of a multibillion-dollar plan for transportation projects across the state. Mr. Hevesi said the anticipated upfront savings of $1.3 billion could be made up easily over five years, taking money from what he said was an anticipated surplus of $600 million this year.

But Michael Marr, a spokesman for the State Division of the Budget, said the surplus estimated by the comptroller "is just plain wrong." He added, "It's shocking that he wants to raid the state's fiscal reserves to fund the fiscal hole that he himself has now created."

Jeffrey Gordon, a spokesman for Mr. Hevesi, said the $600 million figure came from the governor. "We don't make up numbers," he said. "It's his number."

Unions are intently watching the battle. Denis M. Hughes, the president of the New York State A.F.L.-C.I.O., said he hoped cooler heads would prevail. Francis X. McArdle, the managing director of the General Contractors Association of New York, said, "On the merits, the comptroller is right," since the refinancing plan would mean "less money for real work" in the future.

As lawmakers, their staffs and independent budget analysts surveyed the fallout and made calculations, several officials said it matters not so much who is right, but how the fight can be resolved so that construction on the transportation projects can begin.

"You can spin it any way you want," said a legislative official who insisted on anonymity for fear of scuttling the negotiations to solve the dispute. "They could both be right or they could both be wrong, but the thing is it is irrelevant at this point. What is real is that there is six billion dollars in projects that are in jeopardy if this does not go through."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

pianoman11686

July 24th, 2005, 12:44 AM

Smoother Rides for All New Yorkers

Published: July 24, 2005

Five years ago, state voters rejected a transportation bond issue mainly because upstate residents thought it was skewed to help New York City. State politicians now appear ready to do a better job of selling the needs of downstate transit by stressing the parallel needs of upstate transit. They will ask voters to approve a $2.9 billion bond package in November that would balance $1.45 billion for the New York City area with another $1.45 billion for the rest of the state.

It could be argued that a bond issue favoring the metropolitan rail and subway system would yield important benefits to New Yorkers elsewhere in the state, including its northernmost reaches. The city, after all, funnels considerable revenue into state coffers, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority moves the workers needed to keep the city's economic engine humming. But that argument does not sit well upstate, especially in communities where people work hard for the minimum wage and think a $2 cup of coffee is for spoiled city spendthrifts.

To bolster support outside the city, the state's transportation department has put out a five-year capital plan - a wish list that runs over 120 pages. The plan includes money for bike paths and pedestrian walkways from Buffalo to Nassau County and for bridge repairs over upstate streams. Upstate's vital arteries, its roads and highways, would also get a healthy share of the pot. Not all of this can be accomplished, even with $1.45 billion, but the bonds would certainly help.

At the same time, money from the bond issue would shore up the authority's capital plan with $900 million for the Second Avenue subway and another $900 million for the link between the Long Island Rail Road and Grand Central Terminal.

The one rub is that the plan would spend an additional $100 million on further study of what would be a very expensive rail link between Lower Manhattan and Kennedy International Airport. That study may well confirm what most people suspect: that downtowners should instead be able to take the PATH train swiftly and directly to Newark Liberty International Airport.

But none of this work will be done unless voters approve the bond issue in November. There is always concern that upstate voters will take one look at the request, even though it is way down on the ballot, and just vote no. To avoid that slippage, Gov. George E. Pataki and powerful upstate Republicans must campaign openly for this bond issue, not pretend, as they sometimes do, that it is not there.

The measure should of course be an easy call for the metropolitan area. The defeat of the bond issue five years ago contributed greatly to the authority's recent financial problems. And other proposals floating around that would use federal money to underwrite the authority's borrowing needs have the feel of a high-interest credit card that makes you pay for 10 sofas on top of the one you actually bought.

The bond issue, by contrast, is a prudent, straightforward and transparent strategy that should help move the authority to more solid financial ground.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

BrooklynRider

July 25th, 2005, 11:28 AM

...The plan includes money for bike paths and pedestrian walkways from Buffalo to Nassau County...

How many people are walking or biking from Buffalo to Nassau County?

billyblancoNYC

July 25th, 2005, 01:55 PM

How many people are walking or biking from Buffalo to Nassau County?

Well, if you're really bored in Buffalo...

TonyO

July 26th, 2005, 01:19 PM

NY Daily News
7/26/05

2nd Ave. line faces 2-year delay - MTA

A top MTA official conceded yesterday that the agency's two major expansion projects - the Second Ave. subway and the LIRR extension - will be delayed at least two to three years.
Mysore Nagaraja, president of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Capital Construction Co., said the projects' slower pace is the result of the state's decision to scale back the MTA's 2005-2009 capital program.

It will be at least November before construction begins on the first leg of the Second Ave. subway, or work resumes on the Long Island Rail Road extension to Grand Central Terminal, Nagaraja said.

And that time line assumes voters approve a bond act in November authorizing the state to raise $2.9 billion for transportation projects.

Half the money would go to the MTA, including about $1 billion for the two expansion projects.

The MTA was hoping to have the first section of thenew subway line and the LIRR extension completed in 2012.

TonyO

July 26th, 2005, 10:03 PM

NY Times
July 27, 2005

Damaged Cars Hinder New York's Order for New Subways

By SEWELL CHAN

A $1.1 billion contract to build 660 subway cars for New York City has run into significant problems, including damage to two car shells during shipment from Brazil and a failure to order parts that must be installed before safety and mechanical tests can begin. The problems were made known this week in an internal report commissioned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

According to the report, the problems revolve around Alstom, a French conglomerate that was hired in 2002 to build 400 of the cars. Kawasaki, a Japanese company, is to build the remaining 260 cars.

Alstom was supposed to deliver by Friday a 10-car test train, which the authority plans to run for 14 months to allow engineers to identify mechanical or operating problems before construction on the rest of the order can begin. Alstom recently told the authority that it would miss the deadline and was granted a seven-week extension, until Sept. 16. Now it says it will need until Oct. 3, the report said. The delay will probably affect the delivery of the cars, which are supposed to be in use by August 2006.

The new cars are intended to replace decades-old models, some of which have become unreliable. In addition, officials disclosed this week that the authority had rejected car shells made in a plant in Lapa, Brazil, near São Paulo, after discovering welding defects. "The quality down there was very, very poor," the president of New York City Transit, Lawrence G. Reuter, said on Monday. "We just refused to accept them."

The Alstom cars are in the prototype phase, and it appears that the problems with them are not nearly as severe as, for example, those of the Grumman Flxible buses, which were withdrawn from service in 1984 after cracks were found in their undercarriages and steering columns. That transaction is still remembered as one of the authority's biggest contracting fiascoes.

The current problems represent a setback for the authority as it tries to maintain the momentum of a modernization program that began in 1982 and as it looks to state voters to approve a $2.9 billion transportation bond act in November. The delays also demonstrate the challenges the authority faces as it tries to monitor work by the specialized manufacturers that make rail equipment.

Months after Alstom won the contract in October 2002 - the French company paid former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato to lobby for the contract, and other bidders also hired lobbyists - it signaled that it would go bankrupt without a government subsidy. The French government agreed to buy a stake in the industrial giant.

A spokesman for Alstom would not address any of the production problems described by the authority. The spokesman, Todd Harvey, did say yesterday that in June, the company accepted the resignation of Francis Jelensperger, a senior vice president for the United States, Canada and Mexico in Alstom's transport division.

The extent of the problems was described in a report last month by Carter & Burgess, an engineering consulting company that regularly reviews the progress of the authority's major building projects. The report, which was released on Monday, detailed problems in Alstom's performance over the past 18 months.

In early 2004, the company began making car shells at a new plant in Brazil, but welding problems were quickly discovered. Alstom, Kawasaki and New York City Transit sent experts to Brazil to "provide an analysis of the welding operation and make corrections to the process," the report said.

By the end of the year, most of the 10 car shells for the test train were complete and ready to be shipped to Alstom's 70,000-square-foot manufacturing plant in Hornell, N.Y., about 70 miles south of Rochester.

The shipments did not go smoothly. In December, one car shell was hit by a crane, and in February, a second shell was damaged during loading. Alstom, which agreed to pay to replace the damaged shells, requested and received the seven-week extension.

But more problems were soon discovered at the Hornell plant. Windowpanes, ceiling panels and brake resistors, used to slow down the train, did not fit properly. The window problems were discovered when the test cars were sprayed with water, which seeped in.

In addition, Alstom had delayed the creation of a purchasing unit to order specialized components. The Carter & Burgess report was particularly critical of this delay.

"This is disturbing, as many critical activities such as first-article inspections, testing and watertightness tests cannot be done, will soon stack up the schedule and are difficult to mitigate," the engineers wrote. "These component issues are not easily resolvable by adding production personnel or adding a second shift to production."

Mr. Reuter and his top deputy for subways, Michael A. Lombardi, spoke on Monday at a meeting of the capital program oversight committee of the authority's board.

Mr. Lombardi told the committee that Alstom had "underestimated the difficulty of producing these cars." Asked by a committee member if the transit agency would consider voiding the contract, he replied, "We're a little disappointed in Alstom, but not to the point where we're thinking of defaulting them."

The other construction company, Kawasaki, has met its contract requirements so far, according to the report. Tests were completed at the manufacturing site in Kobe, Japan, in May, and Kawasaki's 10-car prototype is expected to be delivered by Friday.

The new cars are supposed to last up to 40 years.

The 660-car contract with Alstom and Kawasaki includes two optional extensions, for a total of 912 cars, that could bring the size of the contract to $2.3 billion. Officials said it was too soon to know whether the authority would exercise those options.

pianoman11686

July 27th, 2005, 10:07 PM

M.T.A. Projects Surplus of $833 Million

By SEWELL CHAN

Published: July 27, 2005

Buoyed by a surge in tax revenue, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced today that it would have an unexpected surplus of $833 million this year and that it would consider using the money to create a giant platform over its West Side railyard in Manhattan on which a developer could build offices and apartment towers.

The authority would, in effect, enter the field of real estate development.

The surplus represents a remarkable reversal of fortunes for the authority, which in February had projected a tiny surplus for the year and large deficits starting next year. It now predicts that tax revenue and lower-than-expected costs in servicing its debt will add $493 million to the authority's coffers by December. The authority, however, did not revise its plans to increase fares and tolls in 2007 and 2009.

The authority conceded that an earlier plan to sell the railyard rights to the Jets to build a football stadium was, for all practical purposes, dead.

But its executive director, Katherine N. Lapp, said that with a platform over the train yard, control of the 13-acre site could be sold to a developer for several billion dollars, which would pay for the authority's construction and renovation projects.

A platform would create one of the biggest undeveloped parcels of land in Manhattan, and Ms. Lapp said it would allow a wide array of bidders to compete for the development rights.

"There are a confluence of circumstances that I would argue exist once in a lifetime," she said. "This is like Lincoln Center in the 50's or Rockefeller Center in the 20's. It's creative. It's bold."

Ms. Lapp also presented a more conservative alternative: Using $481 million to pay down part of the authority's $2.2 billion unfunded pension liability that accrued over decades. That plan would save the $38 million in annual pension plan contributions.

A small part of the surplus, $12 million, will be used for immediate improvements in service and security, in a reflection of recent concerns about subway delays and the possibility of a terrorist attack.

The authority announced it would spend $6.5 million a year on an "intensive cleaning initiative" for subway stations, tracks an equipment; $3 million to add morning and early afternoon service on the Long Island Rail Road and late-night service on the Metro-North Railroad, and $300,000 to improve rail and bus connections for Staten Island commuters.

The authority, responding to two attacks this month on London's transit system, also plans to add $10 million a year in security spending. The money will pay for police overtime, a public awareness campaign and additional platform conductors, who are trained to evacuate riders onto the tracks in an emergency.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

ZippyTheChimp

July 28th, 2005, 06:51 AM

July 28, 2005
Transit Surplus Announced, Along With Plan to Spend It

By SEWELL CHAN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=SEWELL CHAN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=SEWELL CHAN&inline=nyt-per) and CHARLES V. BAGLI (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=CHARLES V. BAGLI&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=CHARLES V. BAGLI&inline=nyt-per)

Buoyed by an unexpected surge in tax revenue, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced yesterday that it would have a surplus of $833 million this year and that it would consider using the money to create a giant platform over its West Side railyards, which it could then sell to developers for office and apartment towers.

Despite the surplus, the authority indicated that it still planned to raise fares and tolls in 2007 and 2009.

The windfall represents a remarkable - but probably short-lived - reversal of fortunes for the authority, which in February had projected a tiny surplus for the year and large deficits starting next year. It now predicts that a combination of soaring tax revenue and low interest rates will add $493 million, all of it not previously anticipated, to its coffers by December.

The authority also agreed to negotiate with the developer Forest City Ratner on its plans for a basketball arena and apartment buildings at another railyard it owns in Downtown Brooklyn. (Related Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/nyregion/28atlantic.html))

After months at the center of one of the city's most contentious land-use disputes in decades, the authority conceded yesterday that its earlier plan to sell the West Side railyard rights to the Jets to build a stadium was, for practical purposes, dead.

Now, instead of looking for a developer with the resources and confidence to invest an estimated $350 million and nearly three years to build the platform, the authority is looking to do the job itself. Doing so would attract more bidders for the property and, presumably, a higher price.

But that could be a controversial strategy in an election year. The City Council speaker, Gifford Miller, who is running for mayor, called on the authority to use the surplus to avert or reduce the projected fare increases. "The M.T.A. should put first things first: making the trains run on time, not building a new headquarters," he said.

The authority's executive director, Katherine N. Lapp, said that with a platform over the train yards, control of the 13-acre site could be sold to a developer for $1 billion or more. The money would finance construction and renovation projects in the authority's subway, bus and commuter railroad networks.

"There are a confluence of circumstances that I would argue exist once in a lifetime," Ms. Lapp said, comparing the proposal to the development of Rockefeller Center in the 1930's and Lincoln Center in the 1960's. "It's creative. It's bold."

Under the plan, the authority would also build a new headquarters building on the platform, allowing it to vacate and then sell its current headquarters in three buildings on Madison Avenue. The site, between 44th and 45th Streets, sits in the city's premier office district.

Ms. Lapp also presented a more fiscally conservative alternative to the real estate proposal: Using $481 million - the $493 million in unexpected surplus, minus $12 million for security and service improvements - to pay down part of a $2.2 billion unfunded pension liability that accrued over decades. That plan would save $38 million in annual pension-plan contributions.

The development proposal is riskier, but it could be a lucrative move, and it appears to be entirely within the authority's powers. Experts said it would not require legislative approval. Ms. Lapp said the authority would work closely with the city to determine the best uses for the site, which is in a neighborhood of brick warehouses, tenements and factories that was recently rezoned to allow for larger buildings.

Most of the $833 million projected surplus can be attributed to two sources. The authority expects to collect $365 million more than it predicted in February from taxes on mortgage recordings and on the transfer of commercial properties. It also has identified $128 million in unexpected savings on debt service, because interest rates have remained low. The rest of the surplus comes from a combination of new state revenues, restated financial results and other accounting adjustments.

Neither phenomenon is expected to last, and the authority projects that its revenue from taxes and subsidies will be largely flat through 2009. "These transactional taxes are extremely unstable," said the city's budget director, Mark Page, who sits on the board. "These things historically are always cyclical. It is extremely hard to predict when the cycle is going to turn down on you."

The authority expects a deficit of $194 million in 2007, rising steeply to $1.5 billion in 2009 without planned fare increases and budget cuts.

The city has committed $2 billion to extend the No. 7 subway line from Times Square to 11th Avenue and 34th Street, across the street from the railyards and at one end of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center. In building a new headquarters, the authority could use its power to override local zoning laws and avoid the city's lengthy review process.

News of the surplus and of the authority's proposals appeared to take city officials by surprise. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was circumspect about the windfall.

"Nobody is going to build anything on the West Side without the city being part of it," he said. "Nobody's sure yet what will go over there."

Another mayoral candidate, Fernando Ferrer, asked, "Why is the M.T.A. sitting on piles of money while New York City subways remain vulnerable to terrorist attack and in need of basic repair?"

In 2003, the authority raised the cost of a base ride to $2 from $1.50, and this year, it raised the price of unlimited-ride fare cards. Asked if any part of the surplus should be used to avoid future fare increases, the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, was noncommittal. "There are 25 things we're talking about, that possibly being one of them," he said, referring to the proposal. "The plan is just for information."

A longtime advocate for subway riders, Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group, seemed positive about the idea, saying it was "worth debating."

Robert D. Yaro, the president of the Regional Plan Association, a major civic organization, said he expected a vigorous debate on the proposals. "Whether or not the M.T.A. is going to become a quasi-developer is a very important issue," he said. "There is a visceral sense that we want their time and energy focused on running a transit system, not developing real property - but if that's the only way to maximize the value of their assets, it's something we should look at."

A small part of this year's surplus, $12 million, will be used for immediate improvements in service and security, in a reflection of recent concerns about subway delays and the possibility of a terrorist attack.

The authority announced that it would spend $2 million this year to begin an "intensive cleaning initiative" for subway stations, tracks and equipment; to add morning and early afternoon service on the Long Island Rail Road and late-night service on the Metro-North Railroad, and to improve rail and bus connections for Staten Island commuters.

The authority also plans to add $10 million this year in security spending. The money will pay for police overtime, a public awareness campaign and more platform conductors, who are trained to evacuate riders onto the tracks in an emergency.

Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

Stern

July 28th, 2005, 11:05 AM

This is a pipedream of mine but I would like to see cross-town connections at 125th street and 34th street, both are already established as two of the major thoroughfares in Manhattan and a subway line would not only solidify this but with have effects on the areas nearby these already established thoroughfares.

debris

July 28th, 2005, 12:09 PM

I've thought about this, too. Let's say East Side Access happens, someday. Then half of LIRR trains will be diverted to Grand Central, freeing up 50% of capacity from the LIRR East River tunnels to Penn Station. So you run a subway from Jamaica to Long Island City along the Montauk branch, through the East River tunnel, and along 33rd street to Penn Station. Then, potentially along the West Side tracks used by Amtrak's Empire Express, up to 59th and 11th avenue. Presto, a 33rd street crosstown subway. Amtrak and LIRR would continue to use the tunnel from the East River to Penn Station along 32nd street.

As for 125th, that's easy. The SAS is planned to turn west from 116th and 2nd avenue to 125th and Lex for its last stop. Its already headed in that direction, so just run it to 8th avenue, where it connects to the 8th avenue line. This would allow for creative possibilities as the A,B,C,D and SAS trains head uptown and to the Bronx.

I LOVE THE SOCCER

July 30th, 2005, 11:22 AM

Is it true that this year there will be a late night service on the Metro North Railroad?

TonyO

August 12th, 2005, 09:13 AM

NYNewsday

Cortlandt St. subway station to close for 6 months

BY JOSHUA ROBIN
STAFF WRITER

August 11, 2005, 6:15 PM EDT

The Cortlandt Street subway station in Lower Manhattan will close for six months beginning Aug. 20, NYC Transit announced yesterday.

The move is needed to construct an underpass to connect a new $785 million MTA Fulton Street transit center with a new PATH Station at the World Trade Center site, according to the agency, an arm of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The station serves the R and W lines and is located at the intersection of Trinity Place and Cortlandt Street. Trains will bypass the station until next February.

The 14,585 passengers who use the station each weekday will instead be forced to use the nearby Rector Street, City Hall, World Trade Center, Fulton Street or Broadway-Nassau Street stops.

The underpass, expected to measure 150 feet, will cross the existing track and platform. During the closure, crews are also expected to widen the platforms in the station.

The Fulton Street Center is expected to open in December 2008. The $2.2 billion PATH terminal at the World Trade Center, designed by architect Santiago Calatrava, is to open in December 2009.

The upcoming closure will not be the first time the MTA shuttered the site. For about a year following the Sept. 11 attacks, crews had to renovate the damaged station. The Cortlandt Street Station on the No. 1 train, just west of the R/W station, has remained closed since the attacks.

TonyO

August 15th, 2005, 09:14 AM

Crain's
Editorial

NY Harbor tunnel a drain on worthier transit projects

By Greg David
Published on August 15, 2005

Last year, a member of the city's congressional delegation was discussing his efforts to secure more federal funds for the many big infrastructure projects on the region's agenda. This congressman admitted that he saw no value in West Side Congressman Jerrold Nadler's dream to build a freight tunnel under New York Harbor.

"I am not going to tell Jerry that," he said. "If I did, Jerry would try to eliminate my projects.

The passage of the recent $286.4 billion highway and transit bill in Congress shows how deeply that attitude has taken hold in Washington. Rather than bringing more aid to New York, such political logrolling threatens the region's most important projects.

Take Mr. Nadler's tunnel, which would put freight arriving at the port in New Jersey onto railroad cars, send it under the harbor to be unloaded in Maspeth, Queens, and then dispatched by truck to Long Island and New England.

The original motivation for Mr. Nadler and one-time supporter Rudy Giuliani was nostalgia: an effort to recreate a Brooklyn based on manufacturing and longshoremen's jobs. Since even Mr. Nadler now realizes those days are long gone, he's turned his scheme into a national security measure. He's promoting the tunnel as a means to keep the economy moving if terrorists disable the George Washington Bridge, over which those goods move now.

The project has survived through his dogged determination and some quirks of timing. At one point, the Bloomberg administration was in a position to pull the plug, but decided to go along, hoping to win Mr. Nadler's support for the West Side stadium. When he wouldn't play ball, the administration withdrew its support. Both the city and Port Authority are now opposed to the plan, which means the project ultimately won't go anywhere. Yet the new highway bill provides $100 million in funds to continue the planning work.

It isn't just Mr. Nadler who has pet projects. Brooklyn congressman and mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner won $15 million in the bill for ferries to connect the Rockaways with Manhattan. Never mind that the three boats required will cost more than that sum and that studies have shown that such a service would require huge subsidies.

Both congressmen can claim they are bringing home the bacon, but in fact they are endangering the city's economic future. These futile projects are taking away money desperately needed to fund the four major mass transi