Another big transportation project moved a step forward in May with release of a draft environment impact report on a rail freight tunnel between Brooklyn and New Jersey. The $20 million study, commissioned by the New York City Economic Development Corporation during the Giuliani Administration, found that a 5.5 mile cross harbor tunnel from Sunset Park in Brooklyn to Greenville Yard in Jersey City would improve the movement of goods in the region, spur economic growth and reduce both air pollution and traffic congestion.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler of Manhattan, who has pushed the project for years, supported by Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, are seeking $1.4 billion in federal funding from the federal transportation bill now under consideration by a Congressional conference committee. If approved and funded, construction would start in 2008 at the earliest.
Freight transportation is a major issue in the New York region, although it receives much less public attention than auto travel and transit issues. The region is highly dependent on trucks for the movement of goods, and those trucks obviously encounter the same traffic congestion and unpredictable travel times as every other vehicle encounters on the highways and streets of the region.
This congestion drives up the costs of living and doing business in New York, and is thus an important impediment to the economic development of New York City and its suburbs. These costs are typically bundled into the costs of products and services, however, and thus hidden from the consumer. Occasionally the higher goods transport costs become apparent. As a personal example, I once found that it cost twice as much to ship a large skylight from California to Brooklyn than to the New Jersey suburbs - illustrating that goods shipment across the Hudson is particularly affected.
These problems are only going to worsen over the next several decades. The cross harbor freight tunnel study projects that overall traffic volumes will increase 47 percent for Hudson River bridge and tunnel crossings between 2000 and 2025 and by 25 percent for East River crossings.
Although the New York region developed in the heyday of railroads, remarkably little freight uses the rails. While 79 percent of regional freight movement (measured by weight) is by truck and 15 percent is waterborne, only 5.6 percent moves by rail. Furthermore, rail transportation accounts for only 1.6 percent of freight tonnage east of the Hudson River.
A major impediment to increasing the share of freight using rail transportation is the lack of direct connections across the Hudson. The closest rail bridge is in Selkirk, New York, 140 miles north of the city. A new rail tunnel connecting Brooklyn with either New Jersey or Staten Island could use the substantial capacity of existing rail lines in Brooklyn and Queens.
The environmental study favored building the tunnel to New Jersey instead of Staten Island due to lower cost, less environmental impact and offering better rail connections. The Staten Island tunnel alignment would require more circuitous routing for some trains to reach the Staten Island portal, and would thus attract less cargo than a New Jersey connection.
The study recommended further consideration between a single-track tunnel versus double-track tunnel to New Jersey. The single tunnel would cost $4 billion versus $7 billion for a double tunnel and would have lesser adverse environmental and neighborhood impacts. But a single tunnel would also divert less truck traffic from congested roads and bridges and thus produce lower benefits than a double tunnel. The single tunnel would divert 5.4 percent of all truck cargo, compared with 8.5 percent for a double tunnel.
Diversion of freight from truck to rail would obviously reduce traffic volumes and traffic congestion throughout the New York region. A single tunnel would reduce truck travel by three percent in the region while a double tunnel would produce a 4.5 percent reduction.
A cross harbor tunnel would have the most impact on commodity trucks - think of the big tractor trailers - using Hudson River crossings. Commodity truck traffic would decline by up to 11 percent on Hudson River crossings overall, and by up to 18 percent on the Verrazano Bridge.
While this is good news for New Jersey, Staten Island and Westchester, the effects are a bit different for Queens. Since rail freight would be transferred to trucks in Queens, truck traffic would increase on Queens roads and bridges. Commodity truck volumes would increase as much as 41 percentin the Queens-Midtown Tunnel, for example, as well as on major highways.
While a cross harbor tunnel would have major impacts on the volume of commodity truck trips, overall effects on traffic congestion would be extremely modest. Commodity trucks represent only 1.9 percent of all vehicles using the Hudson River crossings and 0.7 percent using East River crossings. Thus, total traffic volumes would fall by only as little as 0.1 percent on Hudson River crossings, while increasing by the same range on East River crossings.
The major benefits from a tunnel are economic rather than traffic or air quality. Based on complex economic models that are typically used to assess major construction projects, the study estimates that a double tunnel would produce $10.28 billion in total benefits over its lifetime. Most of this figure comes in economic benefits measured as growth in personal income as the tunnel's improvement to freight movement results in costs savings for businesses, spurs growth of existing businesses and attracts new companies to the region. The study projects $7.5 billion in growth in personal income over the life of the project, measured in constant 2002 dollars. Some of this is in the form of direct benefits (e.g., the incomes generated by new jobs). Also included in the $7.5 billion are so-called multiplier effects, attained as the money further circulates within the region. For example, if a new employee hires a babysitter, the babysitter's income is counted in the multiplier.
The study estimates that a double tunnel would produce $10.3 billion in benefits and $4.7 billion in costs, using 2002 dollars, for a 2.2-to-1 benefit/cost ratio. The ratio for a single tunnel is 1.9-to-1. Congressman Nadler points out that these ratios are unusually high for transportation projects.
While receiving scant attention from major New York media outlets, release of the tunnel study generated a lively debate in Queens and New Jersey. Queens newspapers focused on the loss of 44 to 52 businesses due to expansion of the West Maspeth rail yards, with possible loss of 1,200 to 1,400 jobs.. The tunnel would also attract additional trucks to the neighborhood. The Queens Chronicle quoted Gary Giordano, district manager of Community Board 5, saying that, "There are concerns with regard to increased truck traffic in that Maspeth industrial area. That's a big concern, as well as the pollution associated with that."
Although the study did not include solid waste as potential tunnel cargo, Jersey City officials assailed the project as a "trash tunnel." The Jersey Journal quoted Jersey City Mayor Glenn D. Cunningham saying that, "We do not need to be a garbage transfer locality for the city of New York."
The next step in the project is public hearings on the draft environmental impact statement in June. As with many other major projects -- including the Second Avenue subway, extension of the #7 train and linking the Long Island Rail Road to lower Manhattan -- the biggest stumbling block is funding.. It remains to be seen whether Nadler can secure partial funding from Congress.
Bruce Schaller is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation, and is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
Pushing ahead with plans to dramatically improve rail service to Lower Manhattan, Governor George E. Pataki announced his support this month for a $6 billion rail link from Downtown Manhattan to Kennedy Airport and Long Island. The project would create the long-sought one-seat ride from JFK to the World Trade Center area, and also provide a direct commuter rail service to Downtown for Long Island Railroad (LIRR) commuters.
The central part of the governor's plan is to construct a three mile tunnel from the Long Island Railroad's existing Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn, under the East River and terminating at Fulton Street in Lower Manhattan. There would also be a new 1,500 foot connector between AirTrain and LIRR tracks in Jamaica, Queens.
According to a fact sheet released with the governor's speech, the new line would provide 36-minute travel times from JFK to Manhattan, down from 55 minutes currently via the new JFK Airtrain and the A train. For Long Island Railroad commuters, the proposal would reduce travel time from Jamaica to Lower Manhattan from the current 36 minutes to about 21 minutes.
The LIRR service is expected to attract "up to" 100,000 riders per day; as many as 6,000 riders are expected to use the JFK connection daily. The line could be up and running by 2013.
Lower Manhattan business interests have pushed strongly for the rail link to create direct access to the suburban labor market. Currently, workers living in Long Island, Westchester and parts of New Jersey must take commuter rail trains into Midtown and then the subway downtown. This is one reason that many businesses choose Midtown over Downtown in deciding where to locate or expand their offices.
As with the Second Avenue subway and other transit projects currently under consideration, funding is a major hurdle for the proposed tunnel and rail link. The Port Authority has at least $560 million lined up. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation could tap into $1.2 billion in community development block grants, although some downtown community groups prefer that the money be spent on housing, community services and cultural institutions. Senator Charles E. Schumer has said that he will fight to obtain transportation funding from up to $2.5 billion in unused tax benefits that were allocated as part of the $21.4 billion post-9/11 federal aid package to New York.
Transit advocacy groups were cheered that the governor opted for a new tunnel rather than using the Montague Street subway tunnel used by the M and R trains. Transit advocates feared that using a subway tunnel for LIRR and JFK trains would compromise existing subway service for New York City residents. Moreover, building a new tunnel under the East River creates the possibility of extending into Brooklyn the Second Avenue Subway, which is planned to terminate near Hanover Square (a couple of blocks south of Wall Street). Such an extension would improve access to the East Side for many Brooklyn residents. A new tunnel might also allow the E train to continue into Brooklyn.
The governor pledged not to allow the tunnel and rail link to compete with other projects for funding. Transit advocates, however, fear that a new tunnel will eventually compete with other projects, principally the Second Avenue Subway, for scarce dollars.
They also question the official ridership projection. Based on 1990 Census data, the LIRR carries about 40,000 work trips per day between Long Island and Lower Manhattan. Especially since it is questionable whether all Long Island Railroad commuters would use the new link, it is difficult to see how the "up to 100,000" ridership projection is realistic.
Another way to evaluate the LIRR link is to compare its costs and ridership with those of other major rail projects that are currently in various stages of discussion, planning, design and construction. In addition to the tunnel project, these are:
- Second Avenue Subway, which would run from 125th Street to Hanover Square.
- East Side Access, which will allow LIRR trains to deliver passengers directly to Grand Central Terminal.
- #7 line extension, which would extend the #7 train west from Times Square to 11 Avenue and then south to 33 Street.
The table below shows ridership projections and construction costs for each project (except that ridership projections are not available for the #7 extension):
|
Peak hour AM ridership |
Weekday ridership |
Capital cost |
Capital cost per daily rider |
Source (ridership and costs) |
Second Avenue subway |
85,900 |
723,000 |
$17 billion |
$24,000 |
Metropolitan Transportation Authority |
East Side Access |
Not avail. |
178,000 |
$6.3 billion |
$35,000 |
Metropolitan Transportation Authority |
LIRR link to Lower Manhattan |
Not avail. |
Up to 100,000 |
$6 billion |
$60,000 or more ($120,000 if ridership is only 50,000) |
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation |
#7 line extension |
Not avail. |
Not avail. |
$2.2 billion |
Not avail. |
Partnership for NYC |
This chart is a very rough cost comparison and does not take into account the economic development benefits that proponents say are major benefits from the LIRR link - though it should be noted that the Second Avenue Subway is expected to generate economic development in East Harlem and perhaps on the East Side. The chart also does not distinguish between additional ridership attracted by the construction of new capacity and simply shifting riders from one line to another. Nor does the chart take account of benefits in reduced crowding and travel time.
All that said, however, the comparison is a useful starting point to evaluate the relative merits of each alternative. Clearly, the chart highlights a central question - in terms of ridership, the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access show costs per rider of about one-half or even one-quarter of the LIRR link. It will be the task of proponents to show that the LIRR link to Lower Manhattan has separate funding sources, or that in the overall equation, it is a more beneficial project than the seemingly lower-cost Second Avenue and East Side Access projects.
Bruce Schaller is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation, and is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
While many New Yorkers worry that they may no longer be able to afford to take a taxi cab with the 26 percent fare increase that went into effect this month, a whole group of citizens here have to wonder if they will ever be able to hail a cab.
April was the cruelest month for disabled New Yorkers. Half the drivers of the Access-a-Ride vans on which so many people with disabilities rely for public transportation went on strike. When medallions for 300 new taxis were auctioned, no one who was willing to deploy a wheelchair-accessible vehicle made a high enough bid to secure a medallion, despite the hope that nine percent of the new cabs would be accessible. And a bill to make all new cabs accessible has yet to have a hearing, despite having attracted 38 sponsors out of the 51 City Council members.
"There's lots of prejudice and discrimination and that's why our issues are neglected," said Jean Ryan, vice president of Disabled in Action and a leader of the Taxis for All Campaign.
While all Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses were made accessible by 1995 after a concerted campaign by disability rights groups, the 100-year old subway system has been slow to install the elevators necessary to make it accessible. In addition, the Transit Authority has not solved the problem of bridging the gap between the platforms and subway cars that make boarding them difficult and dangerous for those in wheelchairs.
The Americans with Disabilities Act does not require that all taxis be wheelchair accessible if a city provides an alternative for the disabled. In New York, that "paratransit" alternative is Access-a-Ride, private van services that contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to transport people with disabilities from point to point in the city for the price of a bus or subway ride. It must be booked "one to four days in advance" and can involve long delays as many riders use the same van and are picked up from different points.
Many people who use wheelchairs can use conventional taxis, albeit with difficulty. The first problem is getting the cab to stop. It is a violation for cab drivers to refuse to stop for a person with disabilities, but some risk it. I've witnessed cabs speed up after pausing and seeing that the potential fare was in a wheelchair. I once hailed a cab for a colleague in a wheelchair and when the driver was loading the chair into his trunk, he was muttering curses at "you cheap handicapped people who don't tip." My colleague bore the insults, as he desperately needed the ride.
I'm 50 and temporarily able bodied, but at 6 feet tall I have trouble getting in and out of the older New York cabs-and I do not mean the sorely missed Checker cabs that could sit five comfortably in the rear. Maneuvering out of a wheelchair into a cab is infinitely more difficult and many disabled people cannot manage it, even with help from the friendliest of drivers. They need to be able to stay in their chairs and roll them into the cab.
In London, where the taxis have always been more consumer-friendly, all taxis have been required to be accessible since 1989 and the passage of the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 added the requirement that new taxis had to be designed so wheelchairs could roll right into the car. As the New York Times reported in a Travel Section feature in April ("Rolling Along in London"), accessibility is not perfect among London cabs due to some ramp malfunctions, but they are light years ahead of New York.
In New York, just five out of more than 12,000 cabs are fully accessible to people in wheelchairs. In these van-like cabs, a person in a wheelchair can roll right in through the back door using a ramp.
Local Law 496-A enacted by the City Council and Mayor Mike Bloomberg in July 2003, authorized 900 more taxi medallions (in part to close a budget gap) and was billed as "mandating alternative fuel and fully accessible taxis." "By providing that nine percent of the vehicles from each sale are accessible, we are reaffirming our commitment to providing transportation to persons with disabilities," said Bloomberg at the time. But there was a loophole in the law that resulted in none of the first 300 new medallion cabs being accessible. That's because none of the bids for accessible cabs were less than ten percent of the lowest winning bid for the non-accessible cabs. Ryan of Disabled in Action called the promise of accessible cabs under this law "a sham."
Even before this failed plan was passed, Councilmember Margarita Lopez introduced a bill to require that when a taxi is taken out of service--as it must be after 3-5 years with rare exceptions--a wheelchair accessible vehicle must replace it. This bill, Intro 84, now has 38 sponsors but does not yet have the endorsement of Council Speaker Gifford Miller or Transportation Committee Chair John Liu (D-Queens).
"People believe there is a lot of money to be made" from owning a taxi, said John Gresham, an attorney with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest who is fighting for the passage of the accessible cab bill. "They have access to cash and medallions are going for record prices, so now is the time to do this bill." When asked why his group has not sued over the lack of accessible taxis, Gresham said, "We believe the most direct way to get where we need to go is through action by the Council."
Advocates have met with Liu, but he said that he has "severe issues" with the bill, while acknowledging that the lack of accessible taxis is something "that should not be." He said, "I don't think you can make a requirement to force a manufacturer to make" accessible taxis. "If the manufacturer makes them, New York City should lead the way" in deploying them, he said. Wouldn't manufacturers produce them if New York required them? "I think we have to be reasonable when we make these kind of requirements," he said.
After speaking with Gotham Gazette, Liu told the Daily News, "The City Council will be putting together legislation that will require yellow cabs - as the older vehicles retire - to be replaced with new vehicles that will be accessible to people who use wheelchairs." But he later said that he is not in support of Intro 84 because it doesn't deal with "clean air" issues and it is a "total renouncement of the budget agreement."
While he told the News that full accessibility could be accomplished "in a matter of three to four years," he later said he was not sure "how quickly" it could be done.
"We want this bill within a few weeks," said Ryan. Liu has agreed to continue to meet with advocates of the accessible taxi legislation to see if a compromise can be worked out.
Gresham noted that Chicago has made one in fifteen cabs accessible, "but you can call for a cab there." Similar progress has been made in Boston, Las Vegas, Denver, Boulder, and Ann Arbor.
"We've learned one very important lesson from the wealthy New York City taxi medallion and fleet owners: it's going to be one hell of a fight," wrote Terry Moakley of the United Spinal Association as well as the Taxis for All Campaign. He was one of the leaders in the fight in 1985 to make New York the first city in the world to make all its buses accessible.