Meet New MTA Maps; Reflections on Moses-Era Mistakes

After Hurricane Sandy, the New York City transportation world has changed.

Here is how the Metropolitan Transit Authority in upper Manhattan and Bronx looks. Keep in mind the overriding principle, no subway trains south of 42nd Street or 34th Street.

Here is the new look of subway transit in Brooklyn. Remember, none of these trains make a connection from the eastern shore of the East River to Manhattan.

Considering all the flooding of subways, it appears that the Robert Moses-era "reforms" to replace elevated trains with subways was not such a smart idea.

Also, this disaster brings to mind the 1965 Northeast US blackout. The subways could not run. By contrast, the Boston transit system continued running because it ran on its own power system. With the blackout of 2003 added in, wouldn't you think that the MTA would start considering getting its own power generator system? And shouldn't the major Con Edison stations be moved away from Zone A and B areas?

MSNBC's Maddow takes us into the Second Avenue subway construction

Ah, the Second Avenue Subway, the line that has taken a lifetime to be built. There had been two elevated lines in the vicinity, at the start of the twentieth century, the Third Avenue Elevated and the First Avenue Elevated.
As Rachel Maddow reminds us, in the MSNBC clip at the right, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and its predecessor authorities have had fitful starts at constructing it, in the 1920s, the 1950s, the 1970s.
Finally, the MTA has started constructing the Second Avenue, beginning in 2007.
Click on the video at the right, for the video, of Maddow, taking us in a trip underground, to witness the construction of the subway.
Alas, it is projected that New Yorkers must wait until 2016 for the first leg of the subway, between 96th Street and 63rd Street. The subway will be an IND line, a northward continuation of the Q Line, that presently terminates at 57th Street.

Resolved question re M and V lines mash-up; update: revision found at NYU News

Open question posed to the Gothamist, David M. Quintana of "Lost in the Ozone" blog and other expert parties:

As one of its cost-saving moves the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority is merging the M and the V train lines.
The curious matter is the following: The M train rides on the J train route, and the V train rides on the F train route. (The lines cross at Essex Street station.) How will this connection take place?
Will a train connection (around Essex Station in Lower East Side) need to be created?

**UPDATE**
Some clues are to be found at an article by Anna Sanders New York University (NYU) News (nyunews.com) website has clues about the matter, with an outline of a map. The question is nearly resolved. The southern Brooklyn segments of the M train will be eliminated. Riders will have to take alternates, like the B train. A "mash-up" of the V and the M would serve hipsters well: a one seat ride from Broadway/Lafayette or Bowery to Williamsburg or Bushwick.
As to how the configuration would occur: the V train would diverge from the BDF lines east of Broadway/Lafayette Station and would divert south through an existing tunnel between Houston Street and the Manhattan Bridge, named the Chrystie Street Connection, then would join the J train and would veer east along its current trajectory from Essex/Delancy Street Station, toward Williamsburg and Bushwick, Brooklyn.

Flier for Friday Wall Street demo

Join community and labor activists

as they protest mammoth giveaways to banks amidst slashing of MTA farecards to students, MTA transit lines and bus routes.

Assemble at Wall and Broad Streets, at the New York Stock Exchange,
on Friday, January 15, 2010, from 3:30 to 6 PM

Petition to protest the MTA card cut-off of NYC students

Click here for an online petition against the MTA's cutoff of transit MetroCards for New York City school students.

Crains: MTA fare increase compromise now supported by exec office-holders, but not supported by legislators; Daily News on wealthy tax hike

The buzz in the last day or two has been that New York State government leaders have an MTA fare compromise that could spare transit riders a 25% fare increase.
Crain's headline to the latest major story is that Paterson, Bloomberg and Silver are on board with the now-famous (Richard) Ravitch plan compromise. (The crucial element of the Ravitch plan is the imposition of taxes on employees in the MTA service region and the imposition of tolls on the East River bridges, in exchange for temporing the looming fare increase.)
Unfortunately, state legislators are not cooperating --yet.
{{Scroll down for a link to NY Daily News article which lays out an Albany (New York State legislature) on tax hikes on the very-wealthy, with a mind to thwarting killer fare increases.}}

"Get on board with MTA fix: Without the Ravitch plan, many face unaffordable increases," March 28, 2009
The board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority last week did what it had to do in the face of Albany inaction—it raised fares by about 20% and made painful service cuts to balance its budget. This will harm the New York region's economy. Reversing it may depend on the actions of CEOs.

The causes of the MTA's problem are simple. The agency is broke because the recession is pummeling real estate transfer taxes, and it has no money to finance crucial capital improvements because the Pataki administration loaded up the MTA with debt that's now coming home to roost.

The solution, worked out by civic leader Richard Ravitch, is fair and equitable. It imposes relatively modest fare increases, a small regional payroll tax on all downstate employers and tolls on drivers crossing the East River bridges. Gov. David Paterson, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver agree the Ravitch plan makes sense. Yet Democrats can't marshal the votes to pass it in the Senate. Breaking that deadlock requires winning over Senate Republicans—and that's where the CEOs come in.

The business leaders who make up the Partnership for New York City have stood solidly behind Mr. Ravitch, despite the fact they would be paying a new tax when they could least afford to do so. They haven't been powerful enough to tip the balance in the Senate in part because the Albany-based Business Council of New York State has opposed the MTA compromise in line with its consistent no-new-taxes position. The attitude is shortsighted and anti-downstate. A change in the Business Council's thinking would help.

Also crucial may be the Real Estate Board of New York, which supports Mr. Ravitch but whose top priority in Albany right now is rent legislation. REBNY has long been one of the most reliable sources of campaign funds for Senate Republicans; it has the clout to pressure them to support the Ravitch plan.

Some suggest the answer lies in firing another CEO, the MTA's Lee Sander. He has become a target for those who believe the MTA is bloated and wasteful. In truth, Mr. Sander has wisely streamlined operations and cut costs in his two years in the post. He hasn't solved all of the MTA's problems. Who could in such a short time? And he hasn't been the most effective politician in selling what he has done. But is that really a fault? Shouldn't the job go to a seasoned transportation professional rather than a politician?

Without an MTA fix, countless New Yorkers face an unaffordable increase in one of their most basic necessities—and the MTA's capital plan will simply stop, putting the system on the track to ruin. There are many important issues to be decided in Albany in the coming days. None is more important than saving the MTA.

On Friday March 27, 2009 Kenneth Lovett and Glenn Blain in "The Daily News" reported on an Assembly (our lower house in the legislature) plan to increase taxes on three tiers of the people with income earnings over $300,000 per year. The Senate Democrats have a competing plan on people earning over $350,000 per year. Either of these plans would lessen the blow to subway riders, modest income taxpayers in the MTA service region, and drivers passing over the East River bridges.
Overall, propects are not looking encouraging for this plan's success, as our Democratic governor (David Paterson), Assembly leader (Sheldon Silver) and Senate leader (Malcolm Smith) are not in agreement on these plans. These leaders are evidently kowtowing to the ultra-rich, while the working and middle class New Yorkers are quaking with dread at the prospect for 25% fare increases in the midst of an economic crisis.

MTA closer to hike; Gov. Paterson playing chicken

Doomsday News: MTA Votes, Paterson Plays Chicken
by Brad Aaron on March 23, 2009

The MTA's doomsday scenario came closer to fruition today, as agency board members took a step toward implementing planned fare hikes and service reductions while state lawmakers appeared mired in stalemate. Here are a few tidbits.

Newsday filed this report on the MTA Finance Committee meeting (as live-blogged by Second Avenue Sagas), where members voted to recommend revenue-saving measures to the full board, now set to make its decision on Wednesday:

MTA board chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger urged the agency's finance committee to adopt the fare hikes and service cuts even though he called them "horrific."

"This represents as good a job as human beings can do to divide the pain as equally as we can," he said.

The Gothamist site reported late Monday on details of the increase:

A ride on the subway is fast becoming a luxury item: Today the MTA Finance Committee voted to approve a package of steep fare hikes that would increase the cost of a single subway or bus ride from $2 to $2.50. In addition to the base fare increase, the cost of a 30-day unlimited-ride MetroCard would go up to $103 (from $81), while a weekly unlimited-ride MetroCard would increase $6 to $31. The full MTA board will vote on the fare increases Wednesday, and the changes will likely go into effect in June unless legislators in Albany can come to terms on a bailout package for the MTA.
One alternative plan being batted around Albany would feature a smaller, 8 percent fare increase, tolls on the East River and Harlem River bridges, and a payroll tax on businesses in counties served by the MTA. Testifying before the committee, Gene Russianoff at the Straphangers Campaign called the fare hikes "ugly" and criticized the State Senate's bailout plan for "failing to address the transit system’s rebuilding needs."

The MTA Finance Committee vote took place as state lawmakers in Albany sought to reach a compromise on a bailout plan that would avoid the worst of the planned fare increases and service cuts.

At a news conference after the committee vote in Manhattan, Hemmerdinger was asked if he had any message for Albany. He said, "How about: 'Help!'"

In Albany, Governor Paterson engaged in what Liz Benjamin of The Daily Politics described as "a game of political chicken" when, flanked by a silent Malcolm Smith and Sheldon Silver, he urged the MTA to go ahead with higher fares and service cuts without waiting on assistance from the legislature.

"Delaying action, to me, would just ring too true to what's gone on in Albany too many times," Paterson said. "I'm not in favor of delaying any action that was scheduled."

Where does Working Families Party on transit hikes?

Monday, March 23, 2009
Where Does the Working Families Party Stand on MTA Rescue?
by Ben Fried

Millions of New York City bus riders are counting on an MTA rescue plan to maintain service and hold fares down.
Last week, some of the biggest unions in New York came out in favor of the Ravitch Commission's MTA rescue plan, including the bridge tolls that a handful of state senators refuse to support. So, what is the stance of the Working Families Party, which is closely aligned with labor? Founded in 1998, the WFP is a growing force in city and state politics. Its endorsement, and the ballot line that comes with it, has become a sought-after electoral commodity. In the current round of state budget talks, the party is widely credited for advancing higher taxes on wealthy New Yorkers, now viewed as all but inevitable.

A plan to save transit service and spare New Yorkers the burden of drastically higher fares would seem to match the Working Families Party agenda perfectly. The party has a public transportation plank, and has touted a halt the hike website in tandem with the Straphangers Campaign when higher fares loom. The car commuters who would pay bridge tolls earn far more, on average, than the transit riding majority. But on the question of the Ravitch Plan, the party has been mum in public.

"We haven’t taken a pro position on the Ravitch Plan itself," said WFP spokesman Dan Levitan. "We haven’t had the bandwidth to do a public campaign around this, since we've been fighting so hard on the general budget. We've been trying to defend the Silver/Paterson [transit funding] compromise in the Senate."

In the last election, three of the key players in the Senate hold-out were endorsed by the party: Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, Fare Hike Four member Hiram Monserrate (indicted on six counts today for assaulting his girlfriend), and Kevin Parker, a bridge toll opponent whose Brooklyn constituents face a slew of service cuts [PDF]. Will the Working Families Party ballot line still be available to these legislators if doomsday comes to pass?