Passing For Knowledge

Which MTA Capital Construction Project Do We Need the Most?

Earlier this year, New York City saw the (delayed) opening of the new South Ferry Terminal, one of the MTA’s long-running Capital Construction projects. I finally got a chance to transfer from the R train to the 1 train last week, and amidst all the mosaics I found myself wondering about a not so far-fetched scenario: if we only had the funds for one of the Capital Construction projects, which one should it be?

Let’s take a look at the contenders:

Fulton Street Transit Center

What is it?

The Fulton Street Transit Center seeks to alleviate the transfer maze that is the Broadway (A/C/E)/Nassau Street (J/M/Z)/Fulton Street (4/5)/Fulton Street (2/3) transfer hub (which is currently a mess of stairwells, ramps, and U-turns) by creating a mall-like transfer hub with clear entrances and easy transferring, akin to Boston’s South Station.

Why do we need it?

At any given point, half the people on a platform are trying to find their way to a different platform, creating dangerous crowding and pushing. Because of all the construction going on outside the station for the transit hub, most people are tempted to just enter the first station entrance they see, which doesn’t help with the overarching problem of confusion. Keep in mind that this area is also one of the hottest tourist destinations after Midtown.

What if work on the project was abandoned?

The city would have to cover up all the construction areas and re-pave the streets. There would still be overcrowding on the platforms and confusion, but some of the work has already been done that will help mitigate this: new station entrances. Couple this with the lack of a permanent construction site, and it could be sustainable (enough) until another point in tine.

East Side Access

What is it?

East Side Access refers to the plan to create a connection from the LIRR Main Trunk (Penn to Jamaica) to Grand Central Terminal instead.

Why do we need it?

Penn Station is overwhelmingly crowded. But so is Grand Central. What’s the difference? While a lot of East Side workers who need to travel home to “The Island” will save themselves one or two transfers onto already-crowded trains, I think that this project has just as much to do with surface traffic as it does with underground traffic. Too many “suits” and other workers (who can so afford it) take cabs over to Penn from their East Side/Midtown offices. With a Grand Central LIRR station, this will be in some capacity alleviated, and will help combat the rush hour traffic nightmare.

What if work on the project was abandoned?

I might be biased against prioritizing commuter-rail projects (not without good reason), but I feel like dropping this plan would have the least repercussions.

The traffic flow would stay the same. If it is deemed necessary (which it is, but whether it is decided as such is a different story), to combat pollution caused by cabs/cars, the city could attempt one of many alternatives to incentivize away from cab traffic (various subway signal upgrades improving capacity handling and flow, bus rapid transit solutions, etc.).

Flushing Line Extension

What is it?

An extension of the Flushing Line (7 train) into Manhattan’s West Side, with stops along the way down to the Jacob Javits Center.

Why do we need it?

The areas to be hit by this subway expansion are relatively under-developed (by Manhattan standards). It’s a little absurd that New York’s most important convention center has no train going to it, forcing people onto buses or into a long walk.

What if work on the project was abandoned?

It seems like this might actually be a good idea, or at least not as bad as it sounds. Until there is a comprehensive plan for the Hudson Yards, I can’t see why there should be such a strong push for this extension. In the meantime, the city could implement a free shuttle from Port Authority to Javits, or a bus rapid transit/”Select Bus Service” option.

Second Avenue Subway

What is it?

The Second Avenue Subway (SAS) is New York City’s oldest uncompleted capital transportation project, originally planned in 1920. The proposed subway line would go from 125th Street and Lexington Avenue, down Second Avenue, and through the East Village to the South Ferry area.

Why do we need it?

When it was originally planned, it would have vitalized the slew of Second Avenue storefronts and alleviated congestion on the Lexington Avenue line, which serves the entire East Side, and always runs way above capacity. In 2009, Second Avenue is fully developed with residences as well as with both “corporate” and “mom and pop” shops – but the subway infrastructure never came to fruition to alleviate the congestion, which, naturally, only increased.

What if work on the project was abandoned?

Well, that actually already happened a slew of times throughout the SAS’s history of failure. Store owners are currently ambivalent about the SAS. Many seem to be happy with the idea of a subway line driving foot traffic to their stores, and so, are willing to deal with the current “growing pains” caused by preliminary construction along Second Avenue (mostly only slurry wall/support infrastructure work is being done at this time). But they might not all be aware that the project has spanned almost a century.

If the MTA abandoned the project and covered up all the construction sites with road, keeping Second Avenue as nothing more than another cab-heavy throughway, the results would be terrible. Of all the Capital Construction projects, this one is clearly the most vital — the traffic model as it stands now on the East Side is unsustainable.

Conclusion

If we continue with the assumption that the SAS is the most important Capital Construction project, possibly worth abandoning all other projects until its completion, we’re still faced with a problem. The scale of this project is massive, almost unheard of in such a heavily-developed area. This isn’t the 1920s or 1930s, when anyone with a couple of million dollars could throw up a subway line. Projects like this are billions of dollars, require immense environmental impact studies, and too easily falter when the funds reach a hiccup or cost-estimates skyrocket.

There has to be a better solution. That better solution comes in the form of a transportation alternative above the ground, rather than below it. I’m not a fan of the work done in the Manhattan East Side Alternatives (MESA) study. It seems to have involved quite a good deal of a priori modeling to draw the conclusion that a full subway line would have the best ridership benefits, ruling out all hybrid models.

But even if that aspect of the MESA study was valid, in terms of cost-effectiveness (short- and long-term), sustainability of the project if a funding gap were to be realized, and overall need for something to be built as soon as possible to alleviate the East Side nightmare, it seems juvenile to continue to hold a torch for the creation of the SAS. It’s time to seriously look at bus rapid transit (BRT) and light-rail solutions, not just on Second Avenue, but throughout NYC.