Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Transportation

Transportation

How Disruptive Will The Convention Be?


How easily can New York absorb 50,000 delegates, dignitaries and press representatives for the Republican National Convention being held from August 30 to September 2 in Madison Square Garden?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Democrat-turned-Republican who enticed the Republicans to hold their national political convention in this Democratic stronghold, says, "The disruption will be a little bit annoying, but minimal." The mayor declared that, "If you don't live or work in the garment district, you won't even know that there's a convention in town."

Clearly, the mayor has a good point. My own experience during the 1992 Democratic National Convention was that from working on 42 Street, the only difference was the bright lights barely visible eight blocks to the south. Nevertheless, a lot of people do in fact work or live near Madison Square Garden, including 600,000 people who use Penn Station every day.

Perhaps the most visible disruption will occur for commuters exiting and entering Penn Station, which is buried under the Garden, during rush hour. Only two exits at the station, which serves Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, Amtrak and several subway lines, will remain open. These are the main entrance on Seventh Avenue and the LIRR entrance on 34 Street. Station and subway entrances that are midblock between Seventh and Eighth Avenues and on Eighth Avenue will be closed for security reasons.

Penn Station exit closures mean that commuters will have to squeeze into two exits that are already jam packed at rush hour. The New York Times reported that railroad officials counted current passenger flows and found that two-thirds of Penn Station users already use the Seventh Avenue and 34 Street exits and the rest used the six exits that will be closed. Since ridership is normally down 10 percent in August, this means that the two exits will have to accommodate about 33 percent more commuters than normal. Given the normal level of crowding, that will be a challenge.

New Yorkers are famously adaptable and perhaps there will be less of a problem than these numbers suggest. Already, some commuters are planning their vacations to coincide with the convention. Others may avoid Penn Station by deboarding the LIRR in Queens and taking the subway into Manhattan. NJ Transit passenger flows will be lessened since Midtown Direct rail lines will be diverted to Hoboken during the convention, affecting 11,000 weekday rush hour commuters.

Subway and bus riders will also be affected. Bus lines on Seventh and Eighth Avenues will be diverted for the 13 hours that the convention is in session, primarily in the evening. Effects on subway service remain to be seen. Preliminary plans call for police officers accompanied by bomb-sniffing dogs and hand-held chemical detection devices to sweep subways and trains one stop before they reach Penn Station during the hours of the convention. The police will be checking for suspicious packages and terror suspects, according to Newsday. Thorough checks could substantially delay train service on both the subway and commuter trains, which perform a delicate and carefully timed dance to get into and out of Penn Station as quickly as possible.

And finally, what about transportation for convention delegates and the press? They will have more choices than the typical New Yorker. The Republicans plan to use 200 buses to shuttle delegates, dignitaries and reporters to and from Manhattan hotels. Buses will be whisked into Penn Station on specially coned-off lanes. But the bus is not the only option. Corporate sponsors are donating MetroCards to be given to each delegate. In addition, most of the hotels are in Midtown, within walking distance of the convention. Delegates' choice of bus, subway and walking is much like the choice locals make every day. How Republicans choose will depend partly on how much of a New York experience they want to have during their stay in the city.

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rail Freight Tunnel


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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed Rail Link


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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years