DOCSLIB.ORG

Building Rail Transit Projects Better for Less a Report on the Costs of Delivering MTA Megaprojects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Building Rail Transit Projects Better for Less a Report on the Costs of Delivering MTA Megaprojects Building Rail Transit Projects Better for Less A Report on the Costs of Delivering MTA Megaprojects A Report of The Fourth Regional Plan and the Milstein Forums on New York’s Future February 2018 Acknowledgments This report highlights key recommendations from RPA’s Fourth Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan area. View the full plan at fourthplan.org The Fourth Regional Plan Regional Plan Association is especially has been made possible by grateful to the Howard and Abby Milstein Foundation for their generous support. Major support from The Ford Foundation Authored by The JPB Foundation Richard Barone, Vice President for Transportation The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Julia Vitullo-Martin, Senior Fellow The Rockefeller Foundation Alyssa Pichardo, Senior Planner, Transportation Grants and donations from Additional content and support was provided by Christopher Albert W. & Katharine E. Merck Charitable Fund Jones, Senior Vice-President and Chief Planner, Moses Gates, Anonymous Director of Community Planning and Design, Dani Simons, Vice Fairfield County Community Foundation President for Strategic Communications, and Allison Henry, Fund for the Environment and Urban Life/Oram Research Analyst, Transportation. Graphics and layout by Ben Foundation Oldenburg, Senior Graphic Designer, and David Young Shin, Howard and Abby Milstein Foundation Graphic Design Intern. JM Kaplan Fund Lincoln Institute of Land Policy RPA thanks the over 100 professionals whose interviews New York Community Trust informed the findings of this study. We would also like to Rauch Foundation thank the following transportation agencies for the data and Siemens technical assistance they provided The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority And additional support from Transport for London and Crossrail Ltd Rohit Aggarwala New York State Energy Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid Peter Bienstock Research and Development Metro de Santiago Brooklyn Greenway Initiative Authority (NYSERDA) Tokyo Metro Doris Duke Charitable Open Space Institute Los Angelos Metro Foundation PlaceWorks Toronto Transit Commission Emigrant Bank Ralph E. Ogden Foundation Société du Grand Paris Friends of Hudson River Park Robert Sterling Clark Fund for New Jersey Foundation Garfield Foundation Rutgers University The Milstein forums on New York’s future Greater Jamaica Shawangunk Valley Development Corporation Conservancy We are grateful for the intellectual input provided via the Town of Hackettstown Stavros Niarchos Foundation Milstein Forums on New York’s Future. Laurance S. Rockefeller Fund Suffolk County Rohit Aggarwala David Klinges Lynne Sagalyn Leen Foundation Two Trees Foundation David Armour Jay Kriegel Elliot Sander Lily Auchincloss Foundation Upper Manhattan Richard Bagger Tom Madison Rob Schiffer National Park Service Empowerment Zone Larry Belinsky Marvin Markus Samuel Schwartz New Jersey Board of Public Volvo Research and Anthony Borelli Howard Milstein Jim Simpson Utilities Education Foundations Tonio Burgos Angela Pinsky Jeffrey Stewart New Jersey Highlands World Bank Armando Seth Pinsky Marilyn Jordan Council Carbonell John Porcari Taylor New Jersey Institute of Anthony Coscia Richard Ravitch Bill Thompson Technology Andrew Farkas Scott Rechler Julia Vitullo- Michael Fascitelli Ed Rendell Martin Patrick Foye Lucius Riccio Thomas Wright We thank all our donors for their Jerry Gottesman Denise Richardson Bob Yaro generous support of our work. Gary Hack Marc Ricks Leo Hindery Stephen Ross Contents Executive Summary / 2 The Challenges of Expanding New York’s Public Transportation / 7 Three Case Studies: Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, and #7 Line Extension / 11 Second Avenue Subway, Phase One: 63rd Street to 96th Street / 12 East Side Access: LIRR to Grand Central Terminal / 18 #7 Line Subway Extension to the Far West Side / 26 Lessons: What Was Learned from the Case Studies / 32 Lessons from Other Cities: National and International Comparatives / 49 Crossrail (Tunneled Portion) – London, UK / 53 Purple Line Phase I Expansion: Western Avenue to La Cienega - Los Angeles, California, USA / 60 Line 14 Southern Expansion: Olympiades to Orly Airport - Paris, France / 62 Line 9 Extension: Herrera Oria to Paco de Lucia - Madrid, Spain / 66 Northern Line Extension Kennington to Battersea - London, United Kingdom / 69 Construction Standards and Best Practices From Other Places / 71 Capital Construction Recommendations: Reforms and Strategies / 73 Building Rail Transit Projects Better for Less | Regional Plan Association | February 2018 1 Executive Summary The extraordinarily high costs associated with building experts locally and abroad, undertook a comprehensive transit projects in New York are due to many factors, at literature review, and researched the best practices of other every stage, from decisions made by political leaders at the world cities.1 inception of the projects to the final stages of lengthy plan- ning, design, and construction processes. Long tolerated Each MTA megaproject has been so expensive, when com- as an accepted natural consequence of New York’s size and pared with peer cities, that some transportation advocates dominance, these costs threaten to strangle the region’s now argue against any further expansion — urging the future economic growth. Other global cities have outpaced MTA to put all resources into maintenance and repair. But New York in building modern infrastructure and attracting extending rail service into underserved neighborhoods is new business and residents as New York struggles to simply central to ensuring New York remains a region of upward keep up with basic maintenance. mobility. As things stand, trains have become increasingly crowded and roads more congested as riders choose cars Nowhere is the impact of high costs felt more keenly than over trains. The New York region risks losing businesses in transportation — the subways, commuter trains, tunnels, and jobs to other world cities that are building far more bridges, airports, ports, and roads that helped transform transit capacity and upgrading services much faster. an island city into an economic powerhouse. Of these, the city’s extensive subway system has been uniquely impor- While this report focuses on MTA megaprojects, many of tant not only as an efficient mover of people and goods, but its findings and recommendations are relevant to others as a channel of upward mobility, linking far-flung neighbor- agencies and types of infrastructure. hoods to centrally located jobs and businesses via a service used by New Yorkers of every ethnicity and socioeconomic level. New York is the world's Despite its fundamental importance to the region’s welfare, most expensive city the subway system has barely expanded since its peak in 1937. In fact, the commuter rail system's reach has actually in which to build. declined, as many lines were consolidated or decommis- sioned when private companies were merged into the MTA With a $43 billion construction boom combined with a 3.5 and New Jersey Transit. New York needs to reverse this percent cost increase over the previous year, New York trend and set itself back on the path of building wealth- overtook Zurich in 2016 as the most expensive city in the creating infrastructure. world in which to build private or public buildings, accord- ing to a survey by Turner and Townsend.2 This “New York The twin challenges the region faces are high costs and premium” has long been understood to be the price of the slow pace of project delivery. Public confidence in the building in the region, partly but not exclusively because of ability of the MTA and public agencies to deliver capi- its high density and older infrastructure. This cost pre- tal improvements erodes as budgets swell and deadlines mium holds true for new infrastructure as well, as other are repeatedly missed. Yet the public's understanding of similarly dense and far older regions build for far less. The the problems in building large capital projects is limited, Second Avenue Subway (SAS), for example, has the distinc- because the process is complex and opaque. tion of being the world’s most expensive subway extension at a cost of $807 million per track mile for construction This report examines the MTA’s three recent megaproj- costs alone. This is over 650% more per mile than Lon- ects (#7 Line Extension, Second Avenue Subway, and East don’s Northern Line extension to Battersea — estimated at Side Access), articulates the major causes of high costs and $124 million per track mile. Some observers argue SAS’s serious delays, and proposes a series of strategies to address 1 Milstein Forums on New York’s Future 2 Turner & Townsend. “International Construction Market Survey 2017: these issues. RPA conducted extensive interviews with Building Momentum.” 2017. http://www.turnerandtownsend.com/me- dia/2389/icms-survey-2017.pdf (accessed January 15, 2017). 2 Building Rail Transit Projects Better for Less | Regional Plan Association | February 2018 high cost is due to the complexity of its Upper East Side Local communities are engaged too late neighborhood, the densest residential neighborhood in in public review, regularly resulting in the United States. Yet the East Side Access (ESA) budget poor project design and litigation. ballooned from $6.3 billion to more than $10.2 billion over Agencies tend to rely on limited, tightly controlled hear- the past decade while having little surface impact on the ings and outreach that are part of environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FY 2022 EXECUTIVE BUDGET CITYWIDE SAVINGS PROGRAM—5 YEAR VALUE (City $ in 000’S)
    The City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2022 Bill de Blasio, Mayor Mayor's Office of Management and Budget Jacques Jiha, Ph.D., Director Message of the Mayor The City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2022 Bill de Blasio, Mayor Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget Jacques Jiha, Ph.D., Director April 26, 2021 Message of the Mayor Contents BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN SUMMARY Budget and Financial Plan Overview .......................................................................... 3 State and Federal Agenda ........................................................................................................... 4 Sandy Recovery .......................................................................................................................... 6 Contract Budget .......................................................................................................................... 9 Community Board Participation in the Budget Process ............................................................ 10 Economic Outlook .................................................................................................. 11 Tax Revenue .......................................................................................................... 27 Miscellaneous Receipts ............................................................................................ 52 Capital Budget ........................................................................................................ 58 Financing Program .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the “Platform” River 15 Hudson Yards 12Th Ave
    35 HUDSON BUILDING HUDSON YARDS HUDSON YARDS UNDERSTANDING THE “PLATFORM” RIVER 15 HUDSON YARDS 12TH AVE. To build the first half of Hudson Yards, a “PODIUM” WESTERN 10-acre “platform” was constructed over the 30 HUDSON STRUCTURE: PLATFORM YARDS Eastern Rail Yard of the Long Island Rail Road. 30 HUDSON YARDS A similar structure will be built over the UPPER TRUSSES Columns and other support 10 HUDSON YARDS Western Rail Yard. When completed, the two Tall trusses support hung structures land between the rail HUDSON platforms will support approximately three sections of this building, which lines—and were placed to avoid YARDS PODIUM quarters of the 28-acre primary development. connects 10 Hudson Yards and underground utilities—while 34TH ST. 11TH AVE. The foundations of the buildings that sit on 30 Hudson Yards. trusses supporting the tower’s 33RD ST. the Eastern Rail Yard platform extend through south face span the tracks. HIGH LINE EASTERN 30TH ST. and rise above it, while the platform itself is PLATFORM supported by 300 caissons of varying sizes 10TH AVE. drilled into bedrock between the tracks. GLOSSARY Caisson. A large-diameter pipe drilled into rock and filled with concrete. “PODIUM” BASE STRUCTURE OVER STRUCTURE Eastern Rail Yard Platform. A 10-acre deck THE YARDS The location and construction built above 30 LIRR tracks that supports of the columns supporting this Trusses bridge over this narrow more than five acres of open space, four building—which is home to a section of the rail yard, where towers, a cultural center and one million collection of shops and there was no room for caissons.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 COMBINED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FILINGS PURSUANT to SEC RULE 15C2-12 Relating to METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Dedic
    2019 COMBINED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FILINGS PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 15c2-12 relating to METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Dedicated Tax Fund Bonds Transportation Revenue Bonds State Service Contract Bonds Special Obligation Taxable Refunding Bonds Hudson Rail Yards Trust Obligations and TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY (MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS) General Revenue Bonds Subordinate Revenue Bonds Dated: April 30, 2019 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] INTRODUCTION This book contains the 2019 Combined Continuing Disclosure Filings prepared by Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (“TBTA”) pursuant to various written undertakings made to assist the underwriters in complying with their obligations in accordance with SEC Rule 15c2-12 in connection with the following credits: • MTA Transportation Revenue Bonds, • TBTA General Revenue Bonds, • TBTA Subordinate Revenue Bonds, • MTA Dedicated Tax Fund Bonds, • MTA State Service Contract Bonds, • MTA Special Obligation Taxable Refunding Bonds, and • MTA Hudson Rail Yards Trust Obligations. A roadmap to the continuing disclosure information that MTA or TBTA has contractually agreed to update, in accordance with the respective continuing disclosure agreements in official statements, describing where the materials required may be found in MTA’s Annual Disclosure Statement is set forth at the end of this Introduction. This Annual Information booklet contains the following information: PART I contains the MTA Annual Disclosure Statement (“ADS”). The ADS describes the Related Entities, and includes the information necessary to meet the requirements of the continuing disclosure agreements under MTA and TBTA official statements, offering circulars and remarketing circulars, as applicable, for all credits. PART II includes the following, which are also part of the Annual Continuing Disclosure Filings: • Tab 1 lists, by designation, the various issues of securities outstanding for all credits.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson Yards FGEIS
    96TH ST. 96TH ST. BROADWAY 86TH ST. 86TH ST. RIVERSIDE PARK 72ND ST. 72ND ST. WEST NEW YORK QUEENS CENTRAL PARK ROOSEVELT ISLAND AMSTERDAM AVE. CENTRAL PARK WEST QUEENSBORO BRIDGE 57TH ST. DEWITT CLINTON PARK FIFTH AVE. FIRST AVE. SIXTH AVE. THIRD AVE. TENTH AVE. EIGHTH AVE. SEVENTH AVE. WEEHAWKEN 49TH ST. 42ND ST. Area of Proposed ROUTE 9A PARK AVE. Action 34TH ST. HUDSON RIVER B R EAST RIVER O A D W A Y PARK AVE. SOUTH 23RD ST. UNION SQUARE 14TH ST. F O U R T H A V E . F D R D R I TOMPKINS V HOBOKEN SQUARE AVE. C E PARK WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK N ST. HOUSTO EAST RIDGE SBURG B B RIVER WILLIAM O PARK W V E A R R Y Y ST. I ANC C DEL K S T . ST. GRAND Y H C A U AN W AL D D ST. A S RO O B N ST A W S E T E . S T S T Y . A W W O Y R D CITY HALL K . A A R R A D W PARK O P R D R VE A B I R O T T R S S A E B E BATTERY PARK CITY W M A N H A FULTON ST. TT BRO AN OKL B WTC YN R BRI ID DGE G NEW JERSEY E WALL ST. BROOKLYN BATTERY 0 2000 4000 Feet PARK Legend Project Area Boundary Location of Proposed Action Figure 1-1 NO. 7 SUBWAY EXTENSION-HUDSON YARDS REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 92 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Roebling Chap. Newsletter, 14-4 December 2005
    Society for Industrial Archeology ROEBLING CHAPTER NEWSLETTER Decenber 2005 Vol. 14 No. 4 CHAPTER BUSINESS East to Madison. Drew University is on Route 124 (Madison Avenue) on your right. Annual Meeting Via Automobile #2 – From West New Jersey and Drew University Hall of Sciences Pennsylvania, via I-78: Take I-78 East to I-287 Sunday, January 29, 2005 – 2:00 to 5:00 P.M. North. Proceed to first Morristown exit (Exit n accordance with our bylaws, which require us to 35South Street/Route 124”. At end of exit ramp, turn Ihold a business meeting in January of each year, left. Proceed 100 yards ahead and take first right, fol- members are hereby notified that the meeting will take lowing signs to Route 124. At the stop sign, turn place at the time and location given above. right (Route 124 East) and proceed three miles on The business portion of the meeting will include Route 124 East to Madison. Drew University is on annual reports from the President, Secretary, and Route 124 (Madison Avenue) on your right. Treasurer, and election of officers. Plans for the Via Automobile #3 – From Southern New Jersey upcoming year will be discussed and proposals are via NJ Turnpike: Take NJTP North to Exit 10 and fol- invited. Fruit, cookies, coffee and sodas will be low I-287 North to first Morristown exit, Exit 35 available to all members who attend. (South Street, Route 124). At end of exit ramp, turn Four of the five members of the chapter’s board are to left. Proceed as above under #2.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Lincoln's Tunnel
    PDHonline Course C750 (4 PDH) Mr. Lincoln’s Tunnel Instructor: J.M. Syken 2014 PDH Online | PDH Center 5272 Meadow Estates Drive Fairfax, VA 22030-6658 Phone & Fax: 703-988-0088 www.PDHonline.org www.PDHcenter.com An Approved Continuing Education Provider Mr. Lincoln’s Tunnel 1 Table of Contents Slide/s Part Description 1 N/A Title 2 N/A Table of Contents 3~19 1 Midtown-Hudson Tunnel 20-50 2 Weehawken or Bust 51~89 3 The Road More Traveled 90~128 4 On the Jersey Side 129~162 5 Similar, But Different 163~178 6 Third Tube 179~200 7 Planning for the Future 2 Part 1 Midtown-Hudson Tunnel 3 Namesake 4 In 1912, there were very few good roads in the United States. The relatively few miles of improved road were around towns and cities (a road was “improved” if it was graded). That year, Carl Fisher (developer of Miami Beach and the Indianapolis Speedway, among other things) conceived a trans-continental highway. He called it the “Coast-to-Coast Rock Highway.” It would be finished in time for the 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition and would run from the exposition’s host city; San Francisco, to New York City. Two auto industry tycoons played major roles in the highway’s development: Frank Seiberling - president of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and Henry Joy - president of the Packard Motor Car Company. It was Henry Joy who came up with the idea of naming the highway after POTUS Abraham Lincoln. On July 1st 1913, the Lincoln Highway Association was officially incorporated.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson Yards FGEIS
    Appendix Y References Appleseed, Remodeling the Fashion District. February 2003, p. 14 Beranek, L.L. et al. 1988. Noise and Vibration Control. Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Bolt Beranek and Newman. 1973. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. NTIS PB- 222-703. Boreman, J. and H.M. Austin. 1985. Production and harvest of anadromous striped bass stocks along the Atlantic coast. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.114:3-7. Boss, Shira. “Westward Hoe!” Crain’s New York Business. December 9, 2002. Bram, Jason. “New York City’s Economy before and after September 11.” Current Issues in Economics and Finance: Second District Highlights. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. February 2003. Bram, Jason and Michael Anderson. “Declining Manufacturing Employment in the New York-New Jersey Region: 1969-99.” Current Issues in Economics and Finance: Second District Highlights. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. January 2001. Bram, Jason et al. “Has September 11 Affected New York City’s Growth Potential?” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review. November 2002. Cartwright, R.A. 2002. History and Hydrologic Effects of Ground-Water Use in Kings, Queens, and Western Nassau Counties, Long Island, New York, 1800’s through 1997. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4096. USGS, Coram, NY, in cooperation with New York City Department of Environmental Protection). City of New York, Rules of the City of New York, Traffic Rules and Regulations, Volume II, Chapter 4-13. Clinkenbeard et al., 2002. Lessons Learned from the California Geological Survey’s Recent Activity to Develop Guideline for Naturally Occurring Asbestos Investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 Subway Extension -- Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program 2004 Network Simulation Study
    No. 7 Secaucus Extension Feasibility Analysis Final Report April 2013 Prepared by: Prepared for: The City of New York The City of New York convened a bi-state, multi- agency group to study the feasibility of extending the No. 7 Subway to Secaucus, New Jersey. The study group included representatives of the Governor’s offices of New York and New Jersey, Mayor’s Office of the City of New York, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, NJ TRANSIT, Hudson Yards Development Corporation, the New York City Department of City Planning, the New York City Department of Transportation, and the New Jersey Department of Transportation. No. 7 Secaucus Extension Feasibility Analysis Final Report Table of Contents FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................................... I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. III PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES CONSISTENT WITH THE ARC PROJECT ........................................................................................ IV CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY STUDY ....................................................................................................................................... V 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 16: Transit and Pedestrians
    Chapter 16: Transit and Pedestrians A. INTRODUCTION The Proposed Actions would generate new trips that would use commuter rail services, subways, and buses as well as the sidewalks, corners, and crosswalks in the vicinity of the development parcels. This chapter assesses the potential impacts of these trips to determine whether the Proposed Actions would result in significant adverse impacts on transit and pedestrian facilities that would require mitigation. The Proposed Actions would result in significant adverse impacts on the PL9 stairway at Grand Central Station; on the M16/M34 and M42 bus routes; and at three pedestrian locations. The impacts to the PL9 stairway, the M42 bus route, and the three pedestrian locations were also identified with the development programs presented in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) completed in January 2004. However, the Proposed Actions’ impact on the M16/M34 bus routes was not previously identified. This impact occurs because there would be a substantial number of new trips from the Hudson Yards Development on this route in the future without the Proposed Actions (No Build condition). With the inclusion of the United Nations Development Corporations (UNDC) project in the future baseline condition, there would be an additional subway stairway impact at Grand Central Station and impacts at five additional pedestrian locations. The impacts on bus line-haul would be the same with or without UNDC as a background project. B. SUMMARY OF FGEIS FINDINGS The assessment of transit and pedestrian conditions in the FGEIS examined commuter rail, subway line-haul and station operations, bus line-haul, and pedestrian conditions for four development alternatives on the development parcels.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Facilities Serving the Area of Proposed Action Figure 20-1 NO
    12•03 50 W. 44TH ST. 27 27 7 W. 43RD ST. 42 104 104 42 W. 42ND ST. 4422 SStreettreet 11 PORT 42 Street 42 7S Street AUTHORITY Times Square W. 41ST ST. BROADWAY QUILL BUS TERMINAL 16 10 10 BUS DEPOT 11 W. 40TH ST. 6 79 42 FERRIES • Weehawken 34 W. 39TH ST. • Hoboken • Jersey City 78 7 • Battery Park City 16 W. 38TH ST. CONVENTION 7 CENTER 6 W. 36TH ST. 20 5 W. 35TH ST. 34 Street 34 Street Penn Station Penn Station 34 W. 34TH ST. ONE PENN PLAZA 34 Street W. 33RD ST. NJ TRANSIT / AMTRAK LIRR MADISON 4 FARLEY TWO 72 20 SQUARE BLDG PENN Q CAEMMERER CAEMMERER 11 11 GARDEN/ PLAZA 32 YARDS YARDS PENN STATION ROUTE 9A W. 31ST ST. A 1 2 C PATH W. 30TH ST. 3 USPS E W. 29TH ST. 9 CON USPS EDISON 28 Street W. 28TH ST. B CHELSEA PARK PENN STATION SOUTH D (ILGW HOUSES) W. 27TH ST. STARRETT F 66 LEHIGH W. 26TH ST. SIXTH AVE. EIGHTH AVE. SEVENTH AVE. NINTH AVE. TENTH AVE. V ELEVENTH AVE. ELLIOT HOUSES PENN STATION SOUTH W. 25TH ST. USPS PENN STATION PATH 64 W. 24TH ST. 23 LONDON TERRACE APTS SOUTH 23 Street 23 Street 23 W. 23RD ST. 23 Street Legend 0 200 1000 Feet Project Area Boundary Subway Line 1 Subway Route Subway Station Bus Route and Terminus 20 Bus Route Number Amtrak/LIRR/NJ Transit/PATH Route and Terminus Transit Facilities Serving the Area of Proposed Action Figure 20-1 NO. 7 SUBWAY EXTENSION-HUDSON YARDS REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM F1 92 4 6 7 W.51ST ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to DCP and MTA, Re: Comments and Recommendation on the No. 7 Subway Extension-Hudson
    CITY OF NEW YORK MANHATTAN COMMUNITY BOARD No. 4 330 West 42nd Street, 26th floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: 212-736-4536 Fax: 212-947-9512 www.ManhattanCB4.org WALTER MANKOFF Chair ANTHONY M. BORELLI District Manager October 4, 2004 Emil F. Dul, P.E. Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit 2 Broadway, 2nd floor New York, NY 10004 Robert Dobruskin, AICP City of New York City Planning Commission 22 Reade Street, 4-E New York, NY 10007 Re: Response the No. 7 Subway Extension – Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Dear Messrs. Dul and Dobruskin: The following resolution was approved by the Executive Committee of Manhattan Community Board No. 4 on September 27, 2004 and is subject to ratification by the full board at its meeting on October 6, 2004: Whereas, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the City of New York City Planning Commission have prepared and released for public comment a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for the No. 7 Subway Extension and the Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program (the Proposed Action); and Whereas, the DGEIS purports to analyze the potential effects of the Proposed Action on land use, neighborhood character, open space, traffic, air quality, noise, shadows, historic and archaeological resources and other areas of socioeconomic and environmental concern; and Whereas, the Board supports residential and commercial development in Hell’s Kitchen that balances the needs of the neighborhood, the city and the region, and agrees that parts of the neighborhood now zoned for low-density industrial use should be rezoned to allow for contextual expansion of residential and commercial uses in Hell’s Kitchen; and E.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2010 Bulletin.Pub
    TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - APRIL, 2010 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 53, No. 4 April, 2010 The Bulletin NYC TRANSIT’S HUGE BUDGET DEFICIT Published by the New We checked the Internet and we found that On weekends, service would be re- York Division, Electric NYC Transit is having difficulty balancing the duced on other lines because of con- Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box budget. struction work. At the present time, 3001, New York, New In December, 2009, MTA-wide revenue pro- trains often operate on a 12-minute York 10008-3001. jections from fares, tolls, government sub- headway. The new schedules would sidy, and dedicated taxes worsened appre- adjust scheduled headways to match ciably. This was caused by a reduction of those required by construction work. For general inquiries, contact us at nydiv@ $143 million in 2009 state subsidy, lower Service would be reduced from an 8– erausa.org or by phone revenue from dedicated state taxes, and a to a 10-minute headway on D, F, G, at (212) 986-4482 (voice cumulative 11.3 percent three-year wage in- J, M, N, Q, and R on Saturdays mail available). The crease to certain union-represented employ- and , , , , , , , and Division’s website is A D E F G N Q R www.erausa.org/ ees. Therefore, the budget deficit was ex- on Sundays. Headways on 1 would nydiv.html. pected to be $383 million in 2009-10 and be reduced from 6 to 8 minutes on Sat- $297 million in 2011. (This number has since urdays and Sundays.
    [Show full text]