DOCSLIB.ORG

Bank 2019-Bnk24

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PRESALE REPORT BANK 2019-BNK24 DECEMBER 2019 STRUCTURED FINANCE: CMBS Table of Contents Capital Structure 3 Transaction Summary 4 Rating Considerations 5 DBRS Morningstar Credit Characteristics 7 Largest Loan Summary 8 DBRS Morningstar Sample 9 Transaction Concentrations 11 Loan Structural Features 12 55 Hudson Yards 16 Jackson Park 21 1412 Broadway 26 Bronx Multifamily Portfolio II 32 DoubleTree New Orleans 37 The Parklawn Building 42 Austin Marriott Portfolio 47 Galleria 57 53 Park Tower at Transbay 58 West LA Multifamily Portfolio 63 Hampton Inn & Suites – John Wayne Airport 68 Giant Anchored Portfolio 73 Baytown Portfolio 79 Hualapai Commons 85 ILPT Industrial Portfolio 90 Transaction Structural Features 96 Methodologies 98 Surveillance 98 Glossary 99 Definitions 99 Jake Noeldner Dan Kastilahn Senior Financial Analyst Vice President +1 312 332-9576 +1 312 332-9444 [email protected] [email protected] Kevin Mammoser Erin Stafford Managing Director Managing Director +1 312 332-0136 +1 312 332-3291 [email protected] [email protected] Presale Report | BANK 2019-BNK24 Capital Structure Description Rating Action Balance ($) Subordination (%) DBRS Morningstar Trend Rating Class A-1 New Rating - Provisional 16,763,000 30.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class A-SB New Rating - Provisional 26,123,000 30.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class A-2 New Rating - Provisional TBD 30.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class A-3 New Rating - Provisional TBD 30.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class X-A New Rating - Provisional 815,237,000 -- AAA (sf) Stable Class A-S New Rating - Provisional 125,197,000 19.250 AAA (sf) Stable Class B New Rating - Provisional 49,496,000 15.000 AAA (sf) Stable Class X-B New Rating - Provisional 221,278,000 -- AA (sf) Stable Class C New Rating - Provisional 46,585,000 11.000 AA (low) (sf) Stable Class D New Rating - Provisional 30,572,000 8.375 A (low) (sf) Stable Class X-D New Rating - Provisional 53,864,000 -- A (low) (sf) Stable Class E New Rating - Provisional 23,292,000 6.375 BBB (high) (sf) Stable Class X-F New Rating - Provisional 24,749,000 -- BBB (low) (sf) Stable Class F New Rating - Provisional 24,749,000 4.250 BB (high) (sf) Stable Class X-G New Rating - Provisional 11,646,000 -- BB (sf) Stable Class G New Rating - Provisional 11,646,000 3.250 BB (low) (sf) Stable Class X-H NR 37,850,589 -- NR n/a Class H NR 37,850,589 0.000 NR n/a RR Interest NR 61,296,031 -- NR n/a Notes: 1. NR = Not Rated. 2. Classes X-D, X-F, X-G, X-H, D, E, F, G, H, and RR will be privately placed. 3. The exact initial certificate balances of the Class A-2 and A-3 certificates will be determined based on the final pricing of those classes of certificates. The aggregate initial certif icate balance of the Class A-2 and A-3 certificates is expected to be approximately $772,351,000, subject to a variance of plus or minus 5%. 4. The Class X-A, X-B, X-D, X-F, X-G, and X-H certificates are notional amount certificates and will not be entitled to distributions of principal. The notional amount of the Class X-A certificates will be equal to the aggregate certificate balance of the Class A 1, A-SB, A-2, and A-3 certificates. The notional amount of the Class X-B certificates will be equal to the aggregate certificate balance of the Class A-S, B, and C certificates. The notional amount of the Class X-D certificates will be equal to the aggregate certificate balance of the Class D and E certificates. The notional amount of each class of the Class X-F, X-G, and X-H certificates will be equal to the certificate balance of the class of principal balance certificates that, with the addition of “X-“ has the same alphabetical designation as the subject class of Class X certificates. 5. The Class X-A, X-B, X-D, X-F, X-G, and X-H balances are interest-only (IO) certificates that reference a single rated tranche or multiple rated tranches. The IO rating mirrors the lowest-rated reference tranche adjusted upward by one notch if senior in the waterfall. December 2019 3 Presale Report | BANK 2019-BNK24 Transaction Summary POOL CHARACTERISTICS Trust Amount ($) 1,225,920,621 Wtd. Avg. Interest Rate (%) 3.538 Number of Loans 71 Wtd. Avg. Remaining Term (Months) 119 Number of Properties 104 Wtd. Avg. Remaining Amortization (Months) 368 Average Loan Size ($) 17,266,488 Total DBRS Morningstar Expected 4.0 Amortization (%) DBRS Morningstar Issuance LTV1 (%) 53.1/62.8 DBRS Morningstar Balloon LTV1 (%) 51.2/60.4 Appraised Issuance LTV1 (%) 52.3/61.6 Appraised Balloon LTV1 (%) 50.4/59.2 Wtd. Avg. DBRS Morningstar DSCR1 (X) 3.23 Wtd. Avg. Issuer Term DSCR1 (X) 3.23 Top 10 Loan Concentration (%) 59.3 Avg. DBRS Morningstar NCF Variance (%) -10.2 1. Excludes shadow-rated and co-op loans. PARTICIPANTS Depositor Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage, Inc. Mortgage Loan Sellers Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC (16 loans, 25.4%) Bank of America, National Association (11 loans, 30.0%) National Cooperative Bank, N.A. (32 loans, 8.9%) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (10 loan, 19.4%) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC (1 loan, 8.2%) Bank of America, National Association; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (1 loan, 8.2%) Trustee Wilmington Trust, National Association Master Servicers Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and National Cooperative Bank, N.A. Special Servicers Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association and National Cooperative Bank, N.A. Certificate Administrator and Custodian Wells Fargo Bank, National Association Operating Advisor Park Bridge Lender Services LLC December 2019 4 Presale Report | BANK 2019-BNK24 Rating Considerations The collateral consists of 71 fixed-rate loans secured by 104 commercial and multifamily properties. The transaction is a sequential-pay pass-through structure. DBRS Morningstar analyzed the conduit pool to determine the provisional ratings, reflecting the long-term probability of loan default within the term and its liquidity at maturity. Four loans, representing 22.4% of the pool, are shadow-rated investment grade by DBRS Morningstar. When DBRS Morningstar measured the cut-off loan balances against the DBRS Morningstar Stabilized NCF and their respective actual constants, the initial DBRS Morningstar WA DSCR for the pool was 2.94x. The WA DSCR is elevated because 22.4% of the pool is shadow- rated investment grade and the concentration of low-leverage residential co-operative loans represent 8.9% of the pool. Residential co-operative loans have very low loan-level credit enhancement at the AAA level and near-zero loan-level credit enhancement at the BBB (low) level. Only one loan, Totowa Shoppes, had a DBRS Morningstar Term DSCR below 1.30x, a threshold indicative of a higher likelihood of mid-term default. The WA LTV of the pool at issuance was 53.1%, and the pool is scheduled to amortize down to a WA LTV of 51.2% at maturity. The pool includes 17 loans, representing 24.6% of the pool by allocated loan balance, with issuance LTVs equal to or higher than 65.0%, a threshold historically indicative of above-average default frequency. Fifty-four loans, representing 65.4% of the pool balance, were originated in connection with the borrower’s refinancing of an existing mortgage loan. Fourteen loans, representing 29.9% of the pool, were originated in connection with the borrower’s acquisition of the related mortgage property. The remaining pool was originated in connection with the recapitalization of the related property. STRENGTHS – The transaction includes four loans, representing 22.4% of the total pool balance, that are shadow-rated investment grade by DBRS Morningstar, including 55 Hudson Yards, Jackson Park, Park Tower at Transbay, and ILPT Industrial Portfolio. Park Tower at Transbay exhibits credit characteristics consistent with a AAA shadow rating, Jackson Park exhibits credit characteristics consistent with a AA (high) shadow rating, ILPT Industrial Portfolio exhibits credit characteristics consistent with a AA (low) shadow rating, and 55 Hudson Yards exhibits credit characteristics consistent with a BBB shadow rating. For more information on Park Tower at Transbay, Jackson Park, ILPT Industrial Portfolio, and 55 Hudson Yards, please see pages 57, 21, 89, and 16, respectively. – Thirty-two loans in the pool, representing 8.9% of the transaction, are backed by residential co-operative loans. Residential co-operatives tend to have minimal risk, given their low leverage and low risk to residents if the co-operative associations default on their mortgages. The WA LTV for these loans is 12.5%. – Twenty-seven loans, representing an extremely high 42.4% of the aggregate pool balance, are in highly dense urbanized areas (e.g., New York City or San Francisco) with DBRS Morningstar Market Ranks of 7 and 8. These markets benefit from increased liquidity driven by consistently strong investor demand; therefore, these markets tend to benefit from lower default frequencies than less-dense suburban, tertiary, and rural markets. – Fifty loans, representing 69.7% of the pool, have collateral located in MSA Group 3, which represents the best-performing group in terms of historical CMBS default rates among the top 25 MSAs. The MSA Group 3 has a historical default rate of 17.25%, which is 50.00% lower than the overall CMBS historical default rate of approximately 28.00%. – Three of the top 10 loans, representing 20.4% of the pool, have Strong sponsorship. In contrast, just four loans, representing 9.1% of the pool, have sponsorship and/or loan collateral associated with a voluntary bankruptcy filing, a prior DPO, a loan default, limited net worth and/or liquidity, a historical negative credit event, and/or inadequate commercial real estate experience.
Recommended publications
  • Appendix D.3 Scoping Report

    Appendix D.3 Scoping Report

    PUBLIC COMMENTS PC00001 LGA Comments <[email protected]> LaGuardia Airport Access Improvement Project Denise Crockett <[email protected]> Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:44 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Dear Mr Andrew Brooks: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the LaGuardia Airport Access Improvement Project. As a long term resident of Jamaica, NY, residing along the Grand Central Parkway, I do believe that there is a great need for these proposed improvements. Connecting the LaGuardia Airport to the LIRR and NYCT No. 7 Line is a great idea, but it does not go far enough! Both of these proposed connections are Manhattan centric, that is supporting more ridership between the Airport and the City. This does absolutely nothing to relieve or ease local traffic congestion we experience in Queens on the Long Island Expressway and the Grand Central Parkway with inbound and outbound Long Island traffic. It also does not reduce heavy traffic congestion on the Van Wyck Expressway between JKF and LaGuardia. It would be helpful if the proposed plan included plans to extend the Airtrain light rail service Train which ends at the Jamaica LIRR Station to LaGuardia Airport with a stop at the NYCT No 7 Line. Having lived here for over 40 years and having travelled extensively on business out of both airports, I believe that extending the Airtrain from the Jamaica Station to LaGuardia Airport would be a tremendous improvement and provide many more benefits for the greater NYC area. People traveling from Long Island
  • • the Activation of OMNY Readers at the Queensboro Plaza Station in Queens Marks the Completion of the Line and the Halfway Po

    • the Activation of OMNY Readers at the Queensboro Plaza Station in Queens Marks the Completion of the Line and the Halfway Po

    The activation of OMNY readers at the Queensboro Plaza station in Queens marks the completion of the line and the halfway point in the MTA's effort to activate OMNY at all 472 subway stations in the system. OMNY installation remains set to be completed by the end of the year at all subway stations and on all MTA-operated buses. A list of all subway stations and bus routes where OMNY is currently in use is at this link: https://omny.info/system-rollout In March, the MTA announced OMNY had surpassed 10 million taps. In 2021, the MTA will introduce an OMNY card at retail locations throughout the New York region. Also in 2021, the MTA will begin to install new vending machines at locations throughout the system. OMNY readers accept contactless cards from companies such as Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover, as well as digital wallets such as Apple Pay, Google Pay, Samsung Pay, and Fitbit Pay. Following the completion of OMNY installation at all subway turnstiles and on buses, the MTA will introduce all remaining fare options, including unlimited ride passes, reduced fares, student fares, and more. Only after OMNY is fully available everywhere MetroCard is today, expected in 2023, will the MTA say goodbye to the MetroCard. The MetroCard was first tested in the system in 1993, debuting to the larger public in January 1994. All turnstiles were MetroCard-enabled by May 1997 and all buses began accepting it by the end of 1995. Tokens were sold until April 2003 and acceptance was discontinued that May in subway stations and that December on buses.
  • March 2019 from Astoria to Lower Manhattan and Back

    March 2019 from Astoria to Lower Manhattan and Back

    100Days and 100Nights From Astoria to Lower Manhattan and Back March 2019 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT RIDERS COUNCIL 1 2 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT RIDERS COUNCIL Acknowledgments PCAC report producers Ellyn Shannon, Associate Director Bradley Brashears, Planning Manager Sheila Binesh, Transportation Planner Shaun Wong, Data Intern Uday Schultz, Field Intern Special thanks to Lisa Daglian, Executive Director William Henderson, Executive Director Emeritus Andrew Albert, NYCTRC Chair Angela Bellisio Kyle Wong Candy Chan NYC Transit staff NYCTRC Council Members: Burton M. Strauss Jr., Stuart Goldstein, Christopher Greif, William K. Guild, Marisol Halpern, Sharon King Hoge, Trudy L. Mason, Scott R. Nicolls, and Edith M. Prentiss 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 3 AM/PM PEAK FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 7 AM RIDER EXPERIENCE..................................................................................................... 8 AM RIDER EXPERIENCE: REAL-TIME DATA.......................................................................... 19 PM RIDER EXPERIENCE....................................................................................................
  • C.1.V. Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists

    C.1.V. Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists

    Final Environmental Impact Statement Section II.C C.1.v. Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists within the project area are limited to at-grade streets and sidewalks within the industrial areas of Brooklyn and Queens on both sides of Newtown Creek and the Brooklyn residential neighborhoods of Greenpoint and East Williamsburg. Based on review of the New York City Bicycle Map, 56th Road and Review Avenue are the only designated routes in the vicinity of the bridge and are recommended as areas where sufficient street width for bicyclists is available and where vehicular traffic is light. Pedestrian and bicycle access across the bridge is not provided, and therefore persons crossing Newtown Creek must use the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge located approximately 1.2 km (0.75 mi) northwest of the Kosciuszko Bridge or the Grand Avenue Bridge located approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi) southeast of the Kosciuszko Bridge. In Brooklyn, Meeker Avenue, Thomas Street, Cherry Street and Anthony Street provide at- grade pedestrian access via sidewalks parallel to the bridge. Access beneath the bridge is provided at Kingsland Avenue, Morgan Avenue, Vandervoort Avenue, Varick Avenue, Stewart Avenue, Gardner Avenue and Scott Avenue. Sidewalk pedestrian ramps are only found at the Meeker Avenue/Varick Avenue intersection and the Meeker Avenue/Stewart Avenue intersection. However, due to poor sidewalk conditions and/or lack of sidewalks at certain locations, handicapped accessibility is very limited parallel to and underneath the bridge. In Queens, 43rd Street and Laurel Hill Boulevard provide at-grade pedestrian access via sidewalks parallel to the bridge between the LIE and 56th Road.
  • Timeline Based on OEM Emergency Notifications

    Timeline Based on OEM Emergency Notifications

    timeline Based on OEM Emergency Notifications Record ID Date and Time NotificationType 103 10/24/2009 12:00:00 AM Transportation 104 10/24/2009 12:00:00 AM Utility 105 10/26/2009 12:00:00 AM zINACTIMass Transit Disruption 106 10/26/2009 12:00:00 AM Transportation 107 10/26/2009 12:00:00 AM Utility 108 10/28/2009 12:00:00 AM zINACTIVE *Fire 109 10/28/2009 12:00:00 AM Emergency Activity 110 10/29/2009 05:00:00 PM zINACTIVE * Aerial (Fly-Over) 111 10/31/2009 12:00:00 AM zINACTIVE *Fire 112 11/01/2009 12:00:00 AM Emergency Activity 113 11/02/2009 12:00:00 AM zINACTIVE *Structural 114 11/03/2009 12:00:00 AM Transportation 115 11/03/2009 12:00:00 AM Utility Page 1 of 1419 10/02/2021 timeline Based on OEM Emergency Notifications Notification Title [blank] [blank] [blank] [blank] Major Gas Explosion 32-25 Leavitt St. [blank] [blank] [blank] [blank] [blank] [blank] [blank] [blank] Page 2 of 1419 10/02/2021 timeline Based on OEM Emergency Notifications Email Body Notification 1 issued on 10/24/09 at 11:15 AM. Emergency personnel are on the scene of a motor vehicle accident involving FDNY apparatus on Ashford Street and Hegeman Avenue in Brooklyn. Ashford St is closed between New Lots Ave and Linden Blvd. Hegeman Ave is closed from Warwick St to Cleveland St. Notification 1 issued 10/24/2009 at 6:30 AM. Emergency personnel are on scene at a water main break in the Fresh Meadows section of Queens.
  • THE PLAZA PARK Bringing Long Island City to New Heights

    THE PLAZA PARK Bringing Long Island City to New Heights

    THE PLAZA PARK Bringing Long Island City To New Heights BRIXTON MANOR CONFIDENTIAL OFFERING MEMORANDUM This Offering Memorandum has been prepared by Brixton Manor use by a limited number of parties and has been obtained from sources believed reliable. While we do not doubt its accuracy, we have not verified it, and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is your responsibility to confirm, independently, its accuracy and completeness. All projections have been developed by Brixton Manor, Owner and designated sources, are based upon assumptions relating to the general economy, competition, and other factors beyond the control of Owner, and therefore are subject to variation. No representation is made by Brixton Manor or Owner as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein, and nothing contained herein is or shall be relied on as a promise or representation as to the future performance of the property. Although the information contained herein is believed to be correct, Owner and its employees disclaim any responsibility for inaccuracies and expect prospective purchasers to exercise independent due diligence in verifying all such information. Further, Brixton Manor, Owner and its employees disclaim any and all liability for representations and warranties, expressed and implied, contained in, or for omissions from, the Offering Memorandum or any other written or oral communication transmitted or made available to the recipient. The Offering Memorandum does not constitute a representation that there has been no change in the business or affairs of the property or Owner since the date of preparation of the Offering Memorandum. Analysis and verification of the information contained in the Offering Memorandum is solely the responsibility of the prospective purchaser.
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority Requests to Reallocate FTA

    Metropolitan Transportation Authority Requests to Reallocate FTA

    Metropolitan Transportation Authority Requests to Reallocate FTA Section 5324 Resiliency Funding to MTA Repair Projects September 30, 2016 NY MTA Request for Reallocation of Resiliency Funds INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is pleased to submit the enclosed request to reallocate Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5324 Competitive Resiliency (CR) and locally- prioritized resiliency (LPR) grant funds to support the recovery/repair of New York City Transit (NYCT) and Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) assets damaged during Hurricane Sandy. Requested Competitive Resiliency Reallocation With today’s request, the MTA is requesting to reallocate $324.9 million in CR grant funds to our recovery program. This will reduce the federal share of MTA’s CR projects to $1.3 billion, as shown in the table below. Table 1 Summary of Competitive Resiliency Funds Requested for Reallocation CR Application Federal Share Local Match Budget (Award) Current MTA CR Award $2,131,956,139 $1,598,967,104 $532,989,035 Requested Reallocation to Repair ($433,212,030) ($324,909,023) ($108,303,007) Remaining MTA CR Award $1,698,744,109 $1,274,058,081 $424,686,027 Table 1a – Detail: MTA NYCT Competitive Resiliency Reallocation Requests MTA CR Project Budget Federal Share Local Match Agency NYCT ROW Equipment Hardening in Flood Prone $61,443,249 $46,082,437 $15,360,812 Areas NYCT Protection of Street Level Openings in $141,895,903 $106,421,927 $35,473,976 Flood Prone Areas NYCT Flood Mitigation in Yards $152,170,003 $114,127,503 $38,042,501
  • Existing Conditions March 28, 2016

    Existing Conditions March 28, 2016

    Long Island City Comprehensive Plan: Phase 1 Existing Conditions March 28, 2016 Prepared by: BJH Advisors for the Long Island City Partnership Long Island City Comprehensive Plan: Phase 1 Existing Conditions Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 4 Introduction and Purpose ......................................................................................... 4 Study Area Characteristics ................................................................................ 5 Neighborhood Sub-Areas ......................................................................................... 5 Transportation Infrastructure and Usage ......................................................... 9 Public Transportation ............................................................................................... 9 Pedestrian Bridges and Connections ..................................................................... 10 Highway, Bridge and Tunnel Infrastructure ............................................................ 15 Bicycles.................................................................................................................. 18 Commuting Patterns .............................................................................................. 19 Parking Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 20 Broadband Internet Infrastructure..........................................................................
  • February 2007 Bulletin.Pub

    February 2007 Bulletin.Pub

    TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - FEBRUARY, 2007 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 50, No. 2 February, 2007 The Bulletin 90 YEARS OF SUBWAY SERVICE TO ASTORIA Published by the New York Division, Electric The first Astoria train was a special train The Commission adopted a resolution direct- Railroaders’ Association, that departed from Grand Central at 2 PM ing the preparation of plans and form of con- Incorporated, PO Box February 1, 1917. On board were city offi- tract for the Astoria Line and the Corona Line 3001, New York, New cials, borough officials, members of the Pub- on June 14, 1912. The form of contract was York 10008-3001. lic Service Commission, and Interborough adopted on December 17, 1912 and a public Rapid Transit Company officials. There were hearing was scheduled for January 4, 1913. For general inquiries, special celebrations near the new line. The Municipal Art Commission approved the contact us at nydiv@ Houses and commercial buildings were type of structure on December 27, 1912. Bids electricrailroaders.org draped with flags and whistles were blown. were received on January 28, 1913 and the or by phone at (212) 986-4482 (voice mail When the train arrived at Ditmars Boulevard, contract was awarded to the Cooper and Ev- available). ERA’s the passengers alighted, and the train and ans Company for $860,743.50. The contract w e b s i t e i s guests were photographed. Members of the for station finish was let to Charles Mead and www.electricrailroaders. Steinway Civic Association took the guests in Company at a cost of $268,102.50.
  • Page 1 Scale of Miles E 177Th St E 163Rd St 3Rd Ave 3Rd Ave 3Rd a Ve

    Page 1 Scale of Miles E 177Th St E 163Rd St 3Rd Ave 3Rd Ave 3Rd a Ve

    New York City Subway: IND Second System Track Map Service Guide 1: 2nd Avenue Subway (1929-Present) 10: IND Fulton St Line Extensions (1920s-1960s) 8th Av, Fulton St Exp. 6th Av Local, Rockaway, Staten Island Lcl. 2 Av Lcl, Broadway Exp, Brighton Beach Locl. 7th Av Local. The 2nd Ave Subway has been at the heart of every expansion proposal since the IND Second The IND Fulton St Subway was a major trunk line built to replace the elevated BMT Fulton St-Liberty Ave 207 St to Jamaica-168 St, Bay Ridge-86 St to Jacob Riis-Beach 149 St. 2 Av-96 St to Stillwell Av-Coney Island. Van Cortlandt Park-242 St to South Ferry. System was first announced. The line has been redesigned countless times, from a 6-track trunk line. The subway was largely built directly below the elevated structure it replaced. It was initially A Queens Village-Sprigfield Blvd. H Q 1 line to the simple 2-track branch we have today. The map depicts the line as proposed in 1931 designed as a major through route to southern Queens. Famously, the Nostrand Ave station was with 6 tracks from 125th St to 23rd St, a 2-track branch through Alphabet City into Williamsburg, 4 originally designed to only be local to speed up travel for riders coming from Queens; it was converted to 8th Av, Fulton St Exp. Brooklyn-Queens Crosstown Local. 2 Av Lcl, Broadway Exp, Brighton Beach Locl. 7th Av Exp. tracks from 23rd St to Canal St, a 2-track branch to South Williamsburg, and 2 tracks through the an express station when ambitions cooled.
  • Staff Summary I Metropolitan Transportation Authority

    Staff Summary I Metropolitan Transportation Authority

    OS14088_15MTA_board_action :MTA Board Action covers 10/29/14 12:36 PM Page 3 March 2015 MTA Board Action Items MTA Board Meeting 2 Broadway, 20th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 Wednesday, 3/25/2015 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM ET 1. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MTA Regular Board Minutes, February 25, 2015 MTAHQ Minutes - February 25, 2015 - Page 5 NYCT/MaBSTOA/SIR/Bus Company Regular Board Minutes, February 25, 2015 NYCTA Minutes - February 25, 2015 - Page 10 MTA Metro-North Railroad Regular Board Minutes, February 25, 2015 Metro-North Minutes - February 25, 2015 - Page 13 MTA Long Island Rail Road Regular Board Minutes, February 25, 2015 LIRR Minutes - February 25, 2015 - Page 18 Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority Regular Board Minutes, February 25, 2015 TBTA Minutes - February 25, 2015 - Page 23 MTA Capital Construction Regular Board Minutes, February 25, 2015 MTACC Minutes - February 25 2015 - Page 32 3. COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Action Item i. 2014 Annual Procurement Report (report distributed separately) Annual Procurement Report (Full report can be found in Director's Desk Document Center) - Page 35 Information Item i. MTA Prompt Payment Annual Report 2014 MTA Prompt Payment Annual Report - Page 36 Procurements MTAHQ Procurement Report - Page 47 i. Non-Competitive MTAHQ Non-Competitive Procurement - Page 49 ii. Competitive MTAHQ Competitive Procurements - Page 50 iii. Ratifications (no items) Real Estate Items i. Real Estate Agenda and Staff Summaries Agenda and Staff Summaries - Page 55 4. COMMITTEE ON NYCT & BUS Action Item i. MTACC Agreement for Professional Architectural and Engineering Services MTACC Agreement for Professional Architectural and Engineering Services - Page 70 Procurements March Procurement Staff Summary and Resolution - Page 72 i.
  • 51-02 Roosevelt Avenue Sunnyside

    51-02 Roosevelt Avenue Sunnyside

    51-02 ROOSEVELT AVENUE SUNNYSIDE ~125K BSF DEVELOPMENT SITE ALONG THE 7 TRAIN 51-02 ROOSEVELT AVE Corner Development Site with 300’+ of Frontage PROPERTY OVERVIEW INQUIRE FOR PRICING GUIDANCE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Cushman & Wakefield has been exclusively retained to arrange for the sale of 51-02 Roosevelt Avenue, Woodside. The property is a ~125,000 BSF development site along “The Healthiest and Most Stable Retail Corridor in NYC”, according to the Department of City Planning’s 2019 report. 51-02 Roosevelt Avenue features a 26,000 SF lot with over 300’ of frontage and is located one block from the intersection of Roosevelt and Queens Boulevard, with an average daily traffic count of 50,000+ vehicles. Furthermore, the 52nd Street-Lincoln Avenue Entrance/Exit is located directly in front of the property. 51-02 Roosevelt Avenue is accessible via the B32, Q60, and Q104 bus lines and is in direct proximity to Broadway, Northern Boulevard, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and Long Island Expressway. This is a rare opportunity to acquire one of the last large corner development sites in a neighborhood with the statistically strongest retail that still has untapped potential. For further information, please contact the Exclusive Brokers. Cushman & Wakefield Copyright 2019-2020. No warranty or representation, express or implied, is made to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein, and the same is submitted suject to errors, omissions, change of price, rental or other conditions, withdrawal without notice, and to any special listing conditions imposed by the property owner(s). As applicable, we make no representation as to the condition of the property (or properties) in question.