DOCSLIB.ORG

State of the Subways Report Card 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of the Subways Report Card 2016 LmZm^h_ma^Ln[pZrl K^ihkm<ZkY] GRIBK@LmkZiaZg`^kl<ZfiZb`g Pbgm^k+)*/ A NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign Report STATE OF THE SUBWAYS REPORT CARD December 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Findings 41 Table One: Straphangers Campaign Line Ratings 44 Table Two: How Does Your Subway Line Rate? 45 Table Three: Best to Worst Subway Lines by Indicator 46 Table Four: Best and Worst MetroCard Ratings, 1997-2016 47 II. Summary of Methodology 48 III. Why a Report Card on the State of the Subways? 11 IV. Profiles of 20 Subway Lines 12 Appendix I: Detailed Methodology 33 Appendix II: Credits 41 I. Findings What do subway riders want? They want short waits, trains that arrive regularly, a little elbow room, a clean car, and understandable announcements that tell them what they need to know. That's what MTA New York City Transit's own polling of rider satisfaction shows.1 This "State of the Subways" Report Card tells riders how their lines do on these key aspects of service. We looked at six measures of subway performance for the city's 20 major subway lines using recent data from New York City Transit. Most of the measures are for all or the last half of 2016.2 We also made minor technical changes in one of the measures. Our Report Card has three parts: First, a comparison of service on 20 lines is detailed in the attached tables. Second, we give an overall "MetroCard Rating"3 to the 20 major lines.4 Third, the report contains one-page profiles of the 20 lines. These provide riders, officials and communities with a simple summary of how their line performs compared to others. This is the 18th Subway Report Card released by the Straphangers Campaign since 1997.5 Our findings show the following picture of how New York City's subways are doing: 1. There was an unprecedented three-way tie for best subway line, with the 1, 7, and L each garnering a MetroCard Rating of $2.05. In a year there was no one big standout, the three lines came out on top because: 1 New York City Residents' Perceptions of New York City Transit Service, 1999 Citywide Survey, prepared for MTA New York City Transit. 2 The measures are: frequency of scheduled service; how regularly trains arrive, delays due to car mechanical problems; crowding at morning peak period; car cleanliness; and in-car announcements. Regularity of service is reported in an indicator called wait assessment, a measure of gaps in service or bunching together of trains. 3 We derived the MetroCard Ratings with the help of independent transportation experts. Descriptions of the methodology can be found in Section II and Appendix I. The rating was developed in two steps. First, we decided how much weight to give each of the six measures of transit service. Then we placed each line on a scale that permits fair comparisons. Under a formula we derived, a line whose performance fell exactly at the 50th percentile in this baseline would receive a MetroCard Rating of $1.75 in this report. Any line at the 90th percentile of this range would receive a rating of $2.75, the current base fare. 4 We were unable to give an overall MetroCard Rating to the system's three permanent shuttle lines – the Franklin Avenue Shuttle, the Rockaway Park Shuttle, and the Times Square Shuttle – because data is not available. 5 No Report Card was issued in 2013 given concerns about the impact of Superstore Sandy on the subway system. That was also the case in 2002 following the attack on the World Trade Center. As a result, the Straphangers Campaign has issued subway Report Cards eighteen times in twenty years. 1 a. Tops in service: The 1, 7, and L (along with the 6) provided the most generous amounts of morning and evening rush hour service; b. Individually, these lines performed well on some features: i. The 1 is less crowded and cleaner than the average subway line. ii. The 7 had less frequent subway car breakdowns than the average subway line and the greatest percentage of clean subway car interiors. iii. The L had a nearly perfect score for accurate and understandable subway car announcements. 2. The 5 and A tied as the worst performers in the subway system, with a MetroCard Rating of $1.50 each. a. Bottoms in regularity: The 5 and A are two of the system’s most irregular lines. b. Individually, these lines performed below average on several features: i. The 5 was the second most crowded line in the system. ii. The A provided less frequent midday service than the average subway line and its subway cars experienced breakdowns at an above-average rate. 3. Systemwide, for 20 lines, we found the following on four of the six measures we can compare over time: car breakdowns, service regularity, car cleanliness and in-car announcements. a. The car breakdown rate worsened from an average mechanical failure every 141,202 miles to every 131,325 miles, comparing the 12-month period ending December 2014 to December 2015 – a loss of 7%. b. Subway regularity decreased since our last report. Lines meeting the “wait assessment” standard—which measures the regularity versus gaps and/or bunching in service—decreased 1.8%, from 78.8% regular in our last report, to 77.4% regular in the period ending December 2015. We found that only four lines improved (2, 3, F, and G), while sixteen worsened (1, 4, 5, 6, 7, A, B, C, D, E, J/Z, L, M, N, Q, and R). c. Subway cars rated clean improved slightly, from 92% in our 2015 report to 93% in our 2016 report. We found that eleven lines improved (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, F, G, L, N, and R) and nine declined (4, A, B, C, D, E, J/Z, M, and Q). d. Accurate and understandable subway car announcements remained the same— 91% understandable and accurate—since our last report. We found five lines improved (7, C, D, F, and M), ten declined (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, A, G, J/Z, and R) and five did not change (B, E, L, N, and Q). 2 4. There are large disparities in how subway lines perform. a. Breakdowns: The Q had the best record on delays caused by car mechanical failures: once every 489,956 miles. Cars on the C were worst, with a breakdown rate almost eight times higher: once every 61,544 miles. b. Cleanliness: The 7 line had nearly a perfect score at 99%. The dirtiest line – the Q – had 15% of its cars rated moderately or heavily dirty. c. Degree of crowding: The 4 was the most crowded line, at 112% of the crowding guidelines at the AM rush peak load point. The R was the least crowded, at 72%.6 d. Amount of scheduled service: The 6 and 7 lines had the most scheduled service, with two-and-a-half minute intervals between trains during the morning rush hour. The C line ranked much lower, with nine-minute-plus headways during the same time period. e. Regularity of service: The G had the greatest regularity of service, arriving within 25% of its scheduled interval 81% of the time. The most irregular line was the 5, which performed with regularity less than two-thirds of the time. f. Announcements: Three lines – the E, M, and N lines – had perfect performance for accurate and understandable announcements made in subway cars, missing no announcements and reflecting the automation of announcements. The 1 and B lines were worst, missing or garbling announcements 23% of the time. 6 In previous reports, the Straphangers Campaign calculated crowding conditions using New York City Transit’s annual Cordon Count. In the 2016 report, we cite a new data set—Sixty-minute Weekday AM Rush Peak Load Point Summary—recently made available by New York City Transit. 3 Table One BEST to WORST:2016 STRAPHANGERS CAMPAIGN METROCARD RATINGS $2.05 $2.05 $2.05 $1.95 $1.90 $1.85 $1.80 $1.80 $1.80 $1.75 $1.75 $1.70 $1.65 $1.65 $1.65 $1.60 $1.55 $1.50 $1.50 Table Two HOW DOES YOUR SUBWAY LINE RATE? Straphanger Scheduled Frequency Regularity of Breakdown Crowding Cleanliness Announcemen s Campaign Service s ts MetroCard Rating Scheduled minutes Scheduled Scheduled minutes How often trains arrive Number of miles Percentage of Percentage of subway Percentage of in-car between trains minutes between trains during without bunching or gaps traveled between max load cars with clean seats announcements which during morning between trains evening rush in service car breakdowns guideline, peak and floors are accurate and rush at noon point/direction, understandable AM rush every 121,977 3:30 6:00 4:00 79% 78% 97% 77% $2.05 miles $1.65 5:30 8:00 6:30 72% 160,252 109% 94% 99% $1.70 6:15 8:00 6:30 78% 193,227 104% 96% 82% $1.55 4:30 8:00 4:30 71% 86,538 112% 87% 99% $1.50 5:00 8:00 6:00 66% 177,221 110% 93% 99% $1.75 2:30 4:00 3:00 67% 64,511 94% 95% 88% $2.05 2:30 5:00 2:30 75% 157,296 101% 99% 91% $1.50 5:30 10:00 5:30 67% 107,716 87% 92% 85% $1.65 7:30 10:00 8:15 78% 124,576 74% 91% 77% $1.60 9:15 10:00 10:00 78% 61,544 79% 92% 90% $1.65 8:00 10:00 7:30 78% 175,391 82% 90% 81% $1.95 4:15 7:30 4:00 74% 409,440 105% 92% 100% $1.90 4:15 7:30 4:45 72% 329,862 95% 93% 97% $1.80 7:00 10:00 8:00 81% 69,889 77% 97% 80% $1.85 5:00 10:00 5:00 77% 65,068 78% 91% 91% $2.05 3:00 5:00 4:00 78% 73,007 100% 95% 99% $1.80 7:00 10:00 9:00 77% 375,658 86% 88% 100% $1.80 7:30 10:00 7:45 78% 331,667 99% 93% 100% $1.80 7:15 10:00 8:00 79% 489,956 101% 85% 99% $1.75 6:30 10:00 7:00 74% 108,881 72% 95% 84% 94% System Average 5:35 8:21 6:05 77% 131,325 93% 91% (median) Table Three BEST to WORST SUBWAY LINES by SERVICE/PERFORMANCE MEASURE Rank Amount of Regularity of Breakdown Crowding (from Interior In-Car (from Best Scheduled Service Rate least to most) Cleanliness Announcements to Worst) Service 1 6 100.00 C 100.00 E #### R Q 100.00 C 100.00 5 100.00 2 7 100.00 G 93.00 N #### 7 F 92.08 J 100.00 E 100.00
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brooklyn Transit Primary Source Packet
    BROOKLYN TRANSIT PRIMARY SOURCE PACKET Student Name 1 2 INTRODUCTORY READING "New York City Transit - History and Chronology." Mta.info. Metropolitan Transit Authority. Web. 28 Dec. 2015. Adaptation In the early stages of the development of public transportation systems in New York City, all operations were run by private companies. Abraham Brower established New York City's first public transportation route in 1827, a 12-seat stagecoach that ran along Broadway in Manhattan from the Battery to Bleecker Street. By 1831, Brower had added the omnibus to his fleet. The next year, John Mason organized the New York and Harlem Railroad, a street railway that used horse-drawn cars with metal wheels and ran on a metal track. By 1855, 593 omnibuses traveled on 27 Manhattan routes and horse-drawn cars ran on street railways on Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Avenues. Toward the end of the 19th century, electricity allowed for the development of electric trolley cars, which soon replaced horses. Trolley bus lines, also called trackless trolley coaches, used overhead lines for power. Staten Island was the first borough outside Manhattan to receive these electric trolley cars in the 1920s, and then finally Brooklyn joined the fun in 1930. By 1960, however, motor buses completely replaced New York City public transit trolley cars and trolley buses. The city's first regular elevated railway (el) service began on February 14, 1870. The El ran along Greenwich Street and Ninth Avenue in Manhattan. Elevated train service dominated rapid transit for the next few decades. On September 24, 1883, a Brooklyn Bridge cable-powered railway opened between Park Row in Manhattan and Sands Street in Brooklyn, carrying passengers over the bridge and back.
    [Show full text]
  • Stuck at the Turnstile: Failed Swipes Slow Down Subway Riders
    STUCK AT THE TURNSTILE: FAILED SWIPES SLOW DOWN SUBWAY RIDERS A REPORT BY PUBLIC ADVOCATE BETSY GOTBAUM JUNE 2005 Visit us on the web at www.pubadvocate.nyc.gov or call us at 212-669-7200. Office of the New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum Public Advocate for the City of New York PREPARED BY: Jill E. Sheppard Director of Policy and Research Yana Chernobilsky Jesse Mintz-Roth Policy Research Associates 2 Introduction Every seasoned New York City subway rider has swiped his or her MetroCard at the turnstile only to be greeted with error messages such as “Swipe Again,” “Too Fast,” “Swipe Again at this Turnstile,” or most annoying, “Just Used.” These messages stall the entrance line, slow riders down, and sometimes cause them to miss their train. When frustrated riders encounter problems at the turnstile, they often turn for assistance to the token booth attendant who can buzz them through the turnstile or the adjacent gate; however, this service will soon be a luxury of the past. One hundred and sixty-four booths will be closed over the next few months and their attendants will be instructed to roam around the whole station. A user of an unlimited MetroCard informed that her card was “Just Used” will have to decide between trying to enter again after waiting 18 minutes, the minimum time permitted by the MTA between card uses, or spending more money to buy another card. Currently when riders’ MetroCards fail, they seek out a station agent to buzz them on to the platform. Once booths close, these passengers will be forced to find the station’s attendant.
    [Show full text]
  • A Retrospective of Preservation Practice and the New York City Subway System
    Under the Big Apple: a Retrospective of Preservation Practice and the New York City Subway System by Emma Marie Waterloo This thesis/dissertation document has been electronically approved by the following individuals: Tomlan,Michael Andrew (Chairperson) Chusid,Jeffrey M. (Minor Member) UNDER THE BIG APPLE: A RETROSPECTIVE OF PRESERVATION PRACTICE AND THE NEW YORK CITY SUBWAY SYSTEM A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Emma Marie Waterloo August 2010 © 2010 Emma Marie Waterloo ABSTRACT The New York City Subway system is one of the most iconic, most extensive, and most influential train networks in America. In operation for over 100 years, this engineering marvel dictated development patterns in upper Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. The interior station designs of the different lines chronicle the changing architectural fashion of the aboveground world from the turn of the century through the 1940s. Many prominent architects have designed the stations over the years, including the earliest stations by Heins and LaFarge. However, the conversation about preservation surrounding the historic resource has only begun in earnest in the past twenty years. It is the system’s very heritage that creates its preservation controversies. After World War II, the rapid transit system suffered from several decades of neglect and deferred maintenance as ridership fell and violent crime rose. At the height of the subway’s degradation in 1979, the decision to celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the opening of the subway with a local landmark designation was unusual.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 Ncac 58A .0104 Agency Agreements and Disclosure
    21 NCAC 58A .0104 AGENCY AGREEMENTS AND DISCLOSURE (a) Every agreement for brokerage services in a real estate transaction and every agreement for services connected with the management of a property owners association shall be in writing and signed by the parties thereto. Every agreement for brokerage services between a broker and an owner of the property to be the subject of a transaction shall be in writing and signed by the parties at the time of its formation. Every agreement for brokerage services between a broker and a buyer or tenant shall be express and shall be in writing and signed by the parties thereto not later than the time one of the parties makes an offer to purchase, sell, rent, lease, or exchange real estate to another. However, every agreement between a broker and a buyer or tenant that seeks to bind the buyer or tenant for a period of time or to restrict the buyer's or tenant's right to work with other agents or without an agent shall be in writing and signed by the parties thereto from its formation. A broker shall not continue to represent a buyer or tenant without a written, signed agreement when such agreement is required by this Rule. Every written agreement for brokerage services of any kind in a real estate transaction shall be for a definite period of time, shall include the broker's license number, and shall provide for its termination without prior notice at the expiration of that period, except that an agency agreement between a landlord and broker to procure tenants or receive rents for the landlord's property may allow for automatic renewal so long as the landlord may terminate with notice at the end of any contract period and any subsequent renewals.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Bus Service in New York a Thesis Presented to The
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Columbia University Academic Commons Improving Bus Service in New York A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Architecture and Planning COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment Of the requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Urban Planning By Charles Romanow May 2018 Abstract New York City’s transportation system is in a state of disarray. City street are clogged with taxi’s and for-hire vehicles, subway platforms are packed with straphangers waiting for delayed trains and buses barely travel faster than pedestrians. The bureaucracy of City and State government in the region causes piecemeal improvements which do not keep up with the state of disrepair. Bus service is particularly poor, moving at rates incomparable with the rest of the country. New York has recently made successful efforts at improving bus speeds, but only so much can be done amidst a city of gridlock. Bus systems around the world faced similar challenges and successfully implemented improvements. A toolbox of near-immediate and long- term options are at New York’s disposal dealing directly with bus service as well indirect causes of poor bus service. The failing subway system has prompted public discussion concerning bus service. A significant cause of poor service in New York is congestion. A number of measures are capable of improving congestion and consequently, bus service. Due to the city’s limited capacity at implementing short-term solutions, the most highly problematic routes should receive priority. Routes with slow speeds, high rates of bunching and high ridership are concentrated in Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn which also cater to the most subway riders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of the Second Avenue Subway Performing Organization: the City College of New York, CUNY
    front cover page.ai 1 8/20/2014 9:55:30 AM University Transportation Research Center - Region 2 Final Report The Politics of Large Infrastructure Investment Decision-Making: The Case of the Second Avenue Subway Performing Organization: The City College of New York, CUNY November 2013 Sponsor: University Transportation Research Center - Region 2 University Transportation Research Center - Region 2 UTRC-RF Project No: 49111-16-23 The Region 2 University Transportation Research Center (UTRC) is one of ten original University Transportation Centers established in 1987 by the U.S. Congress. These Centers were established Project Date: November 2013 with the recognition that transportation plays a key role in the nation's economy and the quality of life of its citizens. University faculty members provide a critical link in resolving our national and regional transportation problems while training the professionals who address our transpor- Project Title: The Politics of Large Infrastructure Invest- tation systems and their customers on a daily basis. ment Decision-Making: The Case of the Second Avenue Subway The UTRC was established in order to support research, education and the transfer of technology in the ield of transportation. The theme of the Center is "Planning and Managing Regional Project’s Website: Transportation Systems in a Changing World." Presently, under the direction of Dr. Camille Kamga, http://www.utrc2.org/research/projects/transportation- the UTRC represents USDOT Region II, including New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Functioning as a consortium of twelve major Universities throughout the region, mega-project-case-ny-2nd-ave-subway UTRC is located at the CUNY Institute for Transportation Systems at The City College of New York, the lead institution of the consortium.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City's MTA Exposed!
    New York City's MTA Exposed! Joseph Battaglia [email protected] http://www.sephail.net Originally appearing in 2600 Magazine, Spring 2005 Introduction In this article, I will explain many of the inner workings of the New York City Transit Authority fare collection system and expose the content of MetroCards. I will start off with a description of the various devices of the fare collection system, proceeding into the details of how to decode the MetroCard©s magnetic stripe. This article is the result of many hours of experimentation, plenty of cash spent on MetroCards (you©re welcome, MTA), and lots of help from several people. I©d like to thank everyone at 2600, Off The Hook, and all those who have mailed in cards and various other information. Becoming familiar with how magnetic stripe technology works will help you understand much of what is discussed in the sections describing how to decode MetroCards. More information on this, including additional recommended reading, can be found in ªMagnetic Stripe Readingº also in this issue. Terms These terms will be used throughout the article: FSK - Frequency Shift Keying A type of frequency modulation in which the signal©s frequency is shifted between two discrete values. MVM - MetroCard Vending Machine MVMs can be found in every subway station. They are the large vending machines which accept cash in addition to credit and debit. MEM - MetroCard Express Machine MEMs are vending machines that accept only credit and debit. They are often located beside a batch of MVMs. MTA - Metropolitan Transportation Authority A public benefit corporation of the State of New York responsible for implementing a unified mass transportation policy for NYC and counties within the "Transportation District".
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Libery State Libery
    This fantasy map depicts the Second Ave subway as a fully built out system with a 8th Ave Exp., Fulton St Exp. Broadway Lcl., Astoria Lcl., 4th Ave Exp. 2nd Ave Exp., Fulton St lcl. Wakefield- Eastchester-Dyre Ave Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to 241st St four track trunk line running down 2nd Ave, three branch lines in the Bronx to 207th St to Lefferts Blvd, Rockaways Langdale St to Cross Island Pkwy 5 Stillwell Ave via Bridge 2 Fordham, Co-op City, and Throgs Neck, service along the Queens Blvd line with an 6th Ave Exp., Grand Concourse Lcl., 2nd Ave Lcl., Throgs Neck Lcl., Bushwick Exp., Atlantic Exp. extended Hillside Ave subway, service to south Brooklyn via the Brighton Beach Culver Line Exp. Fulton St Exp. Francis Lewis Blvd to Midtown via Nereid Ave E Gun Hill Rd to Stillwell Ave E Tremont Ave to Far Rockawy Forest Hills, to Downtown via Atlantic Ave Wakefield 5 and West End lines, and service to south Jamaica and Far Rockaway via the Fulton St subway with an extension out to Cross Island Blvd. Broadway Exp., Astoria Lcl 8th Ave Lcl., Fulton St Lcl. Brighton Beach Exp. 7th Ave Lcl. 168th St to Euclid Ave Riverdale 233rd St Baychester Ave Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to 242nd St, Bronx to South Ferry For more information Stillwell Ave via Bridge visit vanshnookenraggen.com Free Subway Transfer 6th Ave Exp., Grand Concourse Exp., Broadway Lcl., Queens Blvd Lcl., 7th Ave Exp., White Plains Lcl., Co-op City Eastern Pkwy Lcl. Woodlawn Woodlawn West End Lcl. 4th Ave Lcl.
    [Show full text]
  • Metrocard Merchants Manual
    Merchant MetroCard Sales Manual April 2019 ¯˘ MetroCard increases customer traffic to your store. MetroCard Merchant Sales Manual Welcome The rules and procedures governing: • selling • ordering • promotions • payment • delivery • questions • returns Periodic updates will be provided. 3 Selling MetroCard • We will provide you with free advertising materials to display in the front door or window of your business. Additional free promotional materials such as the MTA New York City Subway map and MetroCard menus are available upon request. For your convenience MetroCard menus are currently available in the following languages: English, Spanish, Russian, Creole, Chinese and Korean. • MetroCard customers are MTA New York City Transit customers and should be treated courteously. • MetroCard must be available for sale during all hours and days that your business is open. Merchants must not require customers to purchase other items in order to purchase MetroCard. • MetroCard must not be removed from individual wrappers prior to sale. A customer may refuse to buy any MetroCard with an open or damaged wrapper. • MetroCard may not be sold for more than face value or the dollar value listed on the wrapper. • Merchants are not permitted to charge fees or premiums, including the $1.00 NEW card fee. • MetroCard should not be sold within 30 days of the expiration date printed on the back of the card. • To return a supply of current MetroCard for credit, see return procedure beginning on page 12 or call the MetroCard Merchant Service Center at 888-345-3882. • NYC Transit reserves the right to limit the number of MetroCards sold to a merchant.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 23: Response to Comments on the SDEIS1
    Chapter 23: Response to Comments on the SDEIS1 A. INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and responds to all substantive comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) published in March 2003 for the Second Avenue Subway. Public review for the SDEIS began on March 2003, with publication and distribution of the document. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) held two public hearings to receive comments on the document: on May 12, 2003 in the auditorium of the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House at One Bowling Green (Lower Manhattan); and on May 13, 2003, in the Hecksher Auditorium at El Museo del Barrio, 1230 Fifth Avenue (at 104th Street in East Harlem). The public comment period remained open until June 10, 2003. The SDEIS was circulated to involved and interested agencies and other parties and posted on the MTA’s website, and notice of its availability and the public hearing were published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2003. To advertise the public hearing, MTA published notices in the New York Post, Hoy, Amsterdam News, Chinese World Journal, and New York Daily News. In addition, information on the public hearing was posted on the MTA’s website, a notice of public hearing was mailed to all public officials and interested parties in the MTA service area; and a press release announcing the hearing was sent to all media outlets in the area. Bilingual signs announcing the hearing were posted in all MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) subway stations and on some buses. Brochures were handed out in major Manhattan East Side NYCT subway stations.
    [Show full text]
  • At Capacity: the Need for More Rail Access to the Manhattan CBD
    At Capacity: The Need for More Rail Access to the Manhattan CBD Rosemary Scanlon and Edward S. Seeley Jr. Elliot G. Sander, Director Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Co-Director November 2004 Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service 295 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10012 www.nyu.edu/wagner/rudincenter This report was made possible with support from the New York State Laborers and the General Contractors Association of New York, Inc. Their generosity is greatly appreciated. ABOUT THE RUDIN CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY & MANAGEMENT Established in 1996 at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, and named in September 2000 in recognition of a generous gift to NYU in support of the Center, the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management is currently led by Elliot (Lee) G. Sander, Director, and Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Ph.D., Co-Director. The mission of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management is to encourage innovative thinking and action in transportation management and policy. With a team of Visiting Scholars drawn from both the transportation and academic communities, the Rudin Center conducts research and conferences, provides education and training, and promotes and supports key policy networks in the field of transportation policy and management. A number of publications are produced each year, based on the research, conferences, and training carried out by the Rudin Center. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report focuses on the need for new rail access to Manhattan to ensure that the economy of the Manhattan Central Business District (CBD) will retain its critical central function in the national and New York regional economy, and can expand the level of economic activity and jobs in this new century.
    [Show full text]
  • May 12, 2020 Kate Perez Baywater Corbin Partners
    May 12, 2020 Kate Perez Baywater Corbin Partners, LLC 1019 Boston Post Road Darien, CT 06820 Town of Darien Architectural Review Board 2 Renshaw Road Darien, CT 06820 Follow up to: ARB #08 – 2020, Baywater Corbin Partners, LLC, CBD Zone and Corbin Subarea. Revisions to Proposed Buildings I, H, and K on the east side of Corbin Drive Dear Architectural Review Board Members: We sincerely appreciate your time in reviewing the height adjustments to the first three buildings of our Corbin project and value your guidance. We understand the height adjustments proposed have been approved and we are writing in response to two other suggestions that arose during our discussion related to 1) the residential entries on buildings H and K and 2) the building H storefronts. We have addressed those comments in the following drawings. First, we have re‐evaluated the residential entries on buildings K and H with an eye toward making those entries more solid than the glass entries originally proposed, and with a more markedly residential feel. The reconsidered entries for each building, and elevations shown at the 4/29/2020 ARB meeting, are attached here for your review. Second, there was a question about the rhythm and amount of storefront glass on the building H facade facing Corbin Drive. On a typical mixed‐use new development, the ground floor storefronts would be designed by the tenants of the various spaces. On building H, Beinfield Architects is designing the storefronts so we can ensure the best possible overall composition. Beinfield has made a few adjustments to the storefronts to adjust the rhythm and increase the amount of non‐glass surface.
    [Show full text]