New York City is one of the few premier international cities without direct rail access to its airports. Mayor Bloomberg wants to fix that. A centerpiece of the mayor's vision for the revival of Lower Manhattan is to build rail connections between Lower Manhattan and John F. Kennedy and Newark Liberty International airports. Bloomberg believes that direct rail access is pivotal to making downtown Manhattan a global center that can compete with the likes of London, Berlin and Hong Kong.
Under Bloomberg's "Vision for Lower Manhattan" the AirTrain elevated guideway system, currently under construction by the Port Authority, would be extended from Jamaica, Queens through a new tunnel to Lower Manhattan. Under current plans, AirTrain will connect JFK terminals with each other, airport parking lots, the Howard Beach subway station and subway and Long Island Rail Road train lines in Jamaica, Queens. AirTrain's opening, scheduled for this year, has been delayed by an accident last summer that killed one worker. Extending AirTrain from Jamaica to lower Manhattan would provide air travelers with a one-seat ride (i.e., no need to transfer) from the airport to downtown, and would also connect Lower Manhattan to LIRR trains in Jamaica.
Bloomberg also proposes to extend the PATH train from Newark's Penn Station to Newark Liberty airport. This extension would provide direct rail service from Newark to a new PATH station at the World Trade Center site as well as PATH stations as far uptown as 33 Street.
Bloomberg estimates that the AirTrain extension would cost $3.7 billion and take nine years to complete. The Newark PATH extension would cost $775 million and presumably could be built more quickly than the AirTrain tunnel.
Bloomberg says that a one-seat ride between JFK and Lower Manhattan "is key to our success." The concept of a one-seat ride is attractive for many reasons. It offers faster and more reliable travel times by eliminating transfers between trains. It also offers greater convenience, especially for air travelers lugging bags. The simplicity of direct rail service also contributes to the image of a city as an easy place to visit and do business.
On the other hand, spending nearly $4 billion for a one-seat ride from JFK to Lower Manhattan offers few benefits to the much larger number of travelers originating in or bound for other parts of New York City. Air travelers using JFK come from locations throughout the metropolitan area. Although it requires the transfer in Jamaica or Howard Beach, AirTrain will let travelers reach JFK by rail from throughout the city via the subway connections and from throughout the LIRR service territory via the Jamaica LIRR connection.
In his Lower Manhattan speech, Bloomberg cited Heathrow airport's 30 minute transit access to Paddington Station in London's West End, alluding to the high-speed Heathrow Express service. What he did not point out, however, is that ridership is higher on the Piccadilly Underground line from Heathrow than on the faster Heathrow Express service, according to the 2000 Transit Cooperative Research Report, Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports. The Piccadilly line is slower but it serves a larger geographic area. It is also cheaper,another advantage that is particularly important to airport employees, who far outnumber air travelers at major airports such as JFK.
In comparing New York with other international cities, the mayor also raises the question of whether as many travelers can be attracted to public transportation at American airports as at airports in Europe and Asia. Rail serves 25 percent of air travelers using Heathrow Airport in London, 35 percent of travelers at Tokyo's Narita Airport, 25 percent in Hong Kong and 20 percent in Paris (DeGaulle). A substantial additional fraction of travelers take buses to the airport, Â 15 percent in the case of Heathrow.
American cities with direct rail access have attracted much lower levels of transit ridership. The best case is Reagan National airport outside Washington, DC, where 15 percent of air travelers use the excellent Washington Metro trains. Virtually all of these travelers are domestic travelers, many of them traveling on business and going to offices or hotels close to a Metro station. The walk from the terminal to Metro is very short, Metro service is frequent and the fare is relatively cheap.
Rail's share of airport travel is much lower in other U.S. cities. Direct subway service between downtown business districts and the airport draws 12 percent of air travelers for Boston's Logan airport, eight percent for Atlanta's Hartsfield airport, eight percent for Chicago's Midway airport and four percent for O'Hare.
According to an update (in pdf format) to the Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports report, about four percent of air travelers from JFK use the bus to A train connection. International leisure travelers are most likely to use the A train and are easily spotted with backpacks by anyone who has traveled through Howard Beach. Despite this low ridership level, the A train carries a substantial and growing JFK ridership. About 900,000 people used the Howard Beach station entrance that connects to shuttle buses in 2001, a 125 percent increase from a decade earlier. Many of these riders are airport employees.
In many ways more promising than the expensive JFK direct rail link is the mayor's proposal to connect PATH to Newark airport. It is not clear from the mayor's speech whether he has in mind connecting PATH to Newark's AirTrain system or extending PATH trains directly to airport terminals. The Port Authority has been looking at the first option, however, which seems the more likely option although here again, it would require travelers to make a transfer between AirTrain and PATH.
Will New Yorkers ever enjoy truly direct rail access from Manhattan to any of the region's three major airports? The coming of AirTrain at JFK and possible extension of PATH to connect with the Newark airport's AirTrain would offer two-seat rail access to travelers who originate or are destined for many locations throughout the metro area. A one-seat ride is a more distant goal. But it may not be a bad thing that it is distant. The two-seat rides take advantage of the region's extensive rail infrastructure which offers access to numerous destinations with frequent and reasonably reliable service. It is not hard to argue that a two-seat ride to where you want to go is better than a one-seat ride to select locations, such as Lower Manhattan, that will serve only a thin slice of the flying public.
Bruce Schaller is Principal of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis to government, business and non-profit groups seeking to identify and meet customer needs in the transportation sector. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
Recent stories in the Times and Daily News have highlighted the increasingly fractious debate over allocating $4.55 billion in 9/11-related federal aid for transportation projects.
Some projects have won a broad consensus, including a Transit Center on Fulton Street, a block east of the Trade Center site and connected by an underground concourse to a new PATH station to replace the station destroyed with the Trade Center.
Far more contentious is a proposed "Super Shuttle" train between Jamaica, Queens and this new transit hub. The new rail link would run on Long Island Rail Road tracks from the Long Island Railroad's Jamaica Station in eastern Queens to downtown Brooklyn, then through a new tunnel to connect with subway lines into Fulton Street in downtown Manhattan.
The Super Shuttle rail link is pushed by Brookfield Properties, which has extensive downtown real estate holdings and strongly desires direct commuter rail access from the suburbs to downtown offices. The proposed Super Shuttle is a bit less than a super shuttle -- Long Island Rail Road riders would still need to transfer in Jamaica, and many would have a considerable walk from Fulton Street to offices at the southern tip of Manhattan. Travelers headed for Kennedy Airport would transfer in Jamaica to the AirTrain monorail now under construction.
The Super Shuttle would not improve access from Westchester, Connecticut or New Jersey at all. At a price tag of $1.9 to $5 billion, the New York Times notes that many transit officials consider the link to offer poor bang for the buck. Also important is that the new train would displace the C subway line, forcing downtown-bound C riders to transfer in Brooklyn.
The debate over the Super Shuttle exposes developing fault lines in how the different parties to the debate view lower Manhattan's needs and its future. Five main fault lines can be identified:
Even with differing views on these questions, there is a consensus that lower Manhattan needs better suburban transit access. What would bring about that access, and quickly enough to make a difference?
First, it is critical to think about a package that utilizes various modes that may include rail, bus and ferry. The Super Shuttle proposal puts a huge amount of available funding into rail. A multi-modal approach that includes buses and ferries could be cheaper and quicker and win broader support.
Second, it is critical to think beyond concrete. Why do LIRR riders who work downtown mostly use Penn Station instead of going through Brooklyn? One reason is that Penn Station offers more frequent departures. Also, riders departing from Penn are less likely to have to transfer to another LIRR train in Jamaica. Improving access is not just a matter of pouring concrete. It's also a matter of how the service is configured, the frequency of service and cost. Transfers illustrate the point. While no one likes to transfer, a transfer between trains serving the same platform and offering frequent service is far different than a transfer that requires climbing stairs and long waits for the next train.
Finally, vision and political leadership are needed. Vision of what lower Manhattan will be in five, 10 or 20 years. Will it continue to be primarily an office and financial center? Will it be a 24/7 community with residential, shopping and entertainment? The vision will help define transportation needs.
Political leadership is also critical to define and articulate that vision and move diverse and often fractious interests toward a consensus. Post-election news reports that Governor Pataki intends to take a more direct role in the process, while also involving the city administration more integrally, is a welcome development.
Bruce Schaller is Principal of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis to government, business and non-profit groups seeking to identify and meet customer needs in the transportation sector. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
When the Senate passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 early in October, it was one of those good news, bad news situations.
The legislation had already been passed by a wide margin in the Republican-controlled House, and the Democratic-controlled Senate passed it 92 to 2. The President, a Republican, has pledged to sign it into law. So the bill will be born into law with no lack of bi-partisan parentage. And that's good news.
The Help American Vote Act includes $3.86 billion in federal aid over the next four years to state and local governments to help them improve and upgrade current voting methods. The law includes stipulations to ensure that registered voters who show up at polling places will be allowed to vote that day, even if their names do not appear on the voter registration rolls. There are several provisions to address voter fraud and keep voting rolls accurate. There are timetables to ensure that within four years, statewide voter registration systems will be computerized and linked to state agencies for issuing driver's licenses. There are plans in place to allow voters the chance to correct balloting errors before the ballots are officially cast.
It is a comprehensive, timely, sweeping set of reforms designed to ensure that every eligible voter has the chance to cast a vote, and that the vote will be counted accurately. As I said, good news.
But as is often the case, New York City finds itself in a unique set of circumstances. That voting reforms are needed here in the city is a fact that few in government or public policy would dispute. But the two votes against the legislation in the U.S. Senate were both from the New York delegation: those of Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Clinton.
The reasons any legislator has for casting a vote either for or against a given piece of legislation are complicated. It can be difficult to say with certainty that even two Senators from the same party and the same state had all the same reasons for casting the same votes.
But a recent report by the Century Foundation, a non-partisan think tank, shows that the newly passed Help American Vote Act may not address every problem, particularly here in New York City.
In other words, the bad news.
The report looked at several campaigns that took place in 2001. It compared governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia, and mayoral races in New York and Los Angeles. The report concluded that while voting technology was important, it was not as important as voter education, sufficient numbers of trained poll workers, and the availability of translators.
As an example, the report points to the fact that in New Jersey, there were more uncounted votes in 2001 than in 2000, even though the state upgraded its punch card ballot machines between the elections.
In New York City, the use of lever machines that constantly break down or otherwise malfunction was blamed for the city's tremendous numbers of lost, unmarked, or uncounted votes in the 2000 elections. Indeed, the number exceeded the lost votes cast in the rest of the nation combined. No one would argue against improving and modernizing the equipment. But just one year later, in 2001, the city had more complicated problems: lack of trained poll workers, lack of translators, and other problems resulting in barriers to non-English speaking voters.
This report may parallel some of the concerns that New York's two Senators had when they cast the only two voters against this otherwise widely popular legislation. Maybe they thought it would be a reminder that no matter how well intentioned or well-funded, any reform can be ineffective or even destructive if it is not carefully tested and monitored.
<
B>The Help America Vote Act -- The Good News and Bad News For NYC
When the Senate passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 early in October, it was one of those good news, bad news situations.
The legislation had already been passed by a wide margin in the Republican-controlled House, and the Democratic-controlled Senate passed it 92 to 2. The President, a Republican, has pledged to sign it into law. So the bill will be born into law with no lack of bi-partisan parentage. And that's good news.
The Help American Vote Act includes $3.86 billion in federal aid over the next four years to state and local governments to help them improve and upgrade current voting methods. The law includes stipulations to ensure that registered voters who show up at polling places will be allowed to vote that day, even if their names do not appear on the voter registration rolls. There are several provisions to address voter fraud and keep voting rolls accurate. There are timetables to ensure that within four years, statewide voter registration systems will be computerized and linked to state agencies for issuing driver's licenses. There are plans in place to allow voters the chance to correct balloting errors before the ballots are officially cast.
It is a comprehensive, timely, sweeping set of reforms designed to ensure that every eligible voter has the chance to cast a vote, and that the vote will be counted accurately. As I said, good news.
But as is often the case, New York City finds itself in a unique set of circumstances. That voting reforms are needed here in the city is a fact that few in government or public policy would dispute. But the two votes against the legislation in the U.S. Senate were both from the New York delegation: those of Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Clinton.
The reasons any legislator has for casting a vote either for or against a given piece of legislation are complicated. It can be difficult to say with certainty that even two Senators from the same party and the same state had all the same reasons for casting the same votes.
But a recent report by the Century Foundation, a non-partisan think tank, shows that the newly passed Help American Vote Act may not address every problem, particularly here in New York City.
In other words, the bad news.
The report looked at several campaigns that took place in 2001. It compared governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia, and mayoral races in New York and Los Angeles. The report concluded that while voting technology was important, it was not as important as voter education, sufficient numbers of trained poll workers, and the availability of translators.
As an example, the report points to the fact that in New Jersey, there were more uncounted votes in 2001 than in 2000, even though the state upgraded its punch card ballot machines between the elections.
In New York City, the use of lever machines that constantly break down or otherwise malfunction was blamed for the city's tremendous numbers of lost, unmarked, or uncounted votes in the 2000 elections. Indeed, the number exceeded the lost votes cast in the rest of the nation combined. No one would argue against improving and modernizing the equipment. But just one year later, in 2001, the city had more complicated problems: lack of trained poll workers, lack of translators, and other problems resulting in barriers to non-English speaking voters.
This report may parallel some of the concerns that New York's two Senators had when they cast the only two voters against this otherwise widely popular legislation. Maybe they thought it would be a reminder that no matter how well intentioned or well-funded, any reform can be ineffective or even destructive if it is not carefully tested and monitored.
Bruce Schaller is Principal of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis to government, business and non-profit groups seeking to identify and meet customer needs in the transportation sector. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.