$1.2 trillion dollars for US infrastructure.
How do you wrap your head around such a large number? (Believe it or not, it’s not even close to the amount spent by the U.S. government in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is around the size of the NYC metropolitan region’s GDP.)
The NYC region will hopefully be able to capitalize upon federal funding for all types of infrastructure, including public transport. There are no shortage of projects and proposed transit expansion plans in the region.
But will this funding be squandered? Will we only manage to squeeze out one or two public transportation projects (especially with inflation and supply shortages), and then fail to design them to be flooding-resilient, or to operate frequent, fast service? We have limited resources and priorities should be picked carefully (a rail link to Stewart Airport should be at the end of the list).
Top priorities would be to implement (de)congestion pricing, build the next 3 stations on the Second Avenue Subway (some tunnel segments already exist from earlier construction), new North River Tunnels to double capacity (and Penn/Moynihan/Empire Station improvements), the North Shore BRT on Staten Island (and more City-wide bus lanes), and maybe even a Utica Avenue subway (and IRT Nostrand Line extension). Of course, finishing East Side Access, Third Track, and Penn Station Access would also greatly improve the regional rail network, as well as activating the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch (IBX) and Lower Montauk Branch for passenger service again, and the QueensLink (the former LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch right-of-way). Let’s not forget extending the Astoria Line to LGA (and turning Rikers into an extension of LGA or new infrastructure hub), and a PATH extension to Newark Airport (perhaps directly). In addition, the 42nd Street Bus Terminal needs to be replaced, and there is demand for extensions to the HBLR (perhaps actually to Bergen County, where hopefully the Bergen Loop is built as part of Gateway). Additional projects could be the long-discussed Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel, which would reduce truck traffic, or relatively simpler transit connections such as a free transfer between the 3 and L, or even a free transfer between the G and J/M.
Above is an unused mezzanine at the G Broadway station which extends north to South 4th Street. A ramp could be built along Montrose from this mezzanine below Broadway to the aboveground J/M Hewes Street station, in lieu of closing the Hewes and Lorimer stations to create a central station with fewer stops (and greater convenience for most riders).
Clearly there are more priorities in the region than could ever be built in our lifetimes! Why? The cost of government-managed infrastructure construction in the U.S. (and in particular NYC) is much more expensive than it should be, based on comparisons with other countries and global cities, and adjustments for wages, land values, and other variables. Higher costs not only keep projects from being built, but make completed projects less successful. For example, the Hudson Yards extension was planned to include a 10th Avenue station which never got built due to cost overruns. Also, the Second Avenue Subway is currently not being planned/built with express tracks, and because it costs so much, it needs to be split into phases that take it only a few stations along at a time; work then needs to restart all anew for a new phase (because of how long it takes), with teams that may be brand new, requiring remastering lessons learned. The NYC Subway is unique in many ways, including that it operates 24/7 and many lines have local and express tracks (either 4 or 3 total tracks). Planned work on nights and weekends can occur while service still operates partly because of this additional track capacity and because of all the complex interlining; the Second Avenue Subway, with only 2 tracks, may be more difficult to maintain and also run service at the same time (if it ever gets fully built).
This SAS ancillary facility could potentially have been built into the lower floors of a development in exchange for permission to build taller. But the City would need to approve that, and the MTA may not have had the resources to pursue such a complex approach with additional partners.
Why are costs so high? There are many theories. Some argue that we’ve been swinging too far in the opposite direction of the Robert Moses era, with too much power given to communities and NIMBYists, and that America’s heterogeneity as well as distrust of authority is intensifying NIMBYism. Others argue that because of a resurgent anti-tax culture in the U.S., government agencies cut costs and are forced to hire consultants instead of relying on cheaper, in-house expertise. There also is a receding culture of public service (a negative feedback loop), and without strong incentives or leadership, mismanagement at public agencies can flourish. Still more discuss the country’s open court system, which allows for relatively more litigation and complexity. Experts point to other countries with common law (like the U.K.), which also have relatively higher construction costs. The U.K. does have nationalized health care, however, so perhaps that’s why union workers in the U.K. do not generally have contracts with as many expensive demands as in NYC (where unions could feel more threatened). Our processes exist for a reason, but have gotten too extreme; environmental impact statements grow in length annually; the region and country must focus on making it easier to build projects which improve the environment and increase the housing supply.
Whatever the reasons, New Yorkers need their commutes sped up to improve quality of life socially, economically, and environmentally. The 4 billion dollar Oculus looks great, but PATH train riders still need to walk 10 minutes to most subway transfers; a physical connection could have been built instead of a terminal. Would this have been more likely to happen if the Port Authority and the MTA were unified as a single agency or otherwise got their acts together? Perhaps, but even the MTA’s Metro-North Railroad did not want to share their Grand Central Terminal tracks with MTA Long Island Rail Road; as a result, the new LIRR East Side Access terminal is 100 feet below GCT. More tracks will be built, but there also was existing capacity left in GCT, and operational as well as technical challenges could have been overcome (such as MNR using under-running third and LIRR using over-running third rail).
WTC Oculus
Reactivating existing right-of-ways should therefore be a top priority; unfortunately, NYC has fewer track miles and rapid transit stations than it did decades ago. Many abandoned and demolished elevated lines were replaced with nearby, faster subway lines, but not all, including of course the Second and Third Avenue Els in Manhattan (and the Bronx). In Brooklyn, the Myrtle El / Lexington El provided fast service to Downtown Brooklyn from the north, and even the Culver Shuttle remnant of the BMT Culver El could have been useful today so not all of the work trains from 36-38th Street Yard need to use the BMT 4th Avenue line, and some could quickly be routed to the IND. There are also many unused mezzanines and station entrances at existing, active facilities today (closed to save costs and prevent crime by routing more people to the remaining open areas; to reopen today would require ensuring the station meets ADA requirements). It used to be possible to walk underground from 9th Avenue and 31st Street (Penn Station) to 5th Avenue and 42nd Street via the Gimbels tunnel and IND passageways.
Unlike Chicago, where outside of the Loop, Els are largely built along alleys (which NYC mostly does not have), NYC built elevated lines above streets, causing more quality of life issues with noise, sunlight, and even falling debris. Above is one of only a few elevated lines in NYC not built above a street (portions of the remaining section of the BMT Myrtle Line).
Elevated lines were loud, noisy, and didn’t bring light to the street; by the time the IND was building, they only built one elevated section (above the Gowanus Canal) and it was designed with concrete barriers to limit noise levels. Today’s elevated lines could be minimally invasive and cheap to construct. The MTA could also increase capacity on its existing subway lines, effectively creating new subway lines by increasing existing service, with modern signaling and other operational changes. But it is often costing as much to install new signals as it would cost to build new lines in other countries.
In many cases, we have the assets ready to be renewed, from underused railroad right-of-ways, to unused subway mezzanines and entrances. Below are some samples of subway passageways in all four boroughs which could perhaps be sold and/or transformed into underground experiences:
Passageway to the Woolworth Building from BMT City Hall (Manhattan)
Passageway to additional sealed-off sidewalk entrances from IND Fort Hamilton Parkway (Brooklyn)
An unused mezzanine on the IND Concourse Line in the Bronx
An unused mezzanine on the IND Concourse Line in Manhattan
An unused entrance at IRT Canal Street in Manhattan
Beyond new capital projects, getting basic operations right every day under consistent, straightforward, honest, transparent leadership shouldn’t be considered a miracle for a global city like New York. All subway stations have bathrooms, but none are open to the public. Most do not have step-free access, and when elevators are built, the MTA will deem a station accessible — but due to high costs, generally only one elevator (designed to the smallest capacity possible) is built per platform. Whenever that elevator breaks down or work needs to be done, there is no back-up, and those chances of failure are multiplied by the need for multiple elevators to get from the street to the mezzanine to the platform or to a transfer station (or more during the duration of a single journey). Let’s hope the MTA has accurate notifications!
Radical changes to our political processes may need to be undertaken to speed up urban development, including greater privatization. For example, why did the MTA pay $1.4 billion for the Fulton Center in Lower Manhattan, building a structure only a few stories tall next to some of the tallest buildings in the USA and above numerous subway lines? A developer would have likely (reluctantly) agreed to build the MTA a brand new station hub for free as part of a deal with the City to allow for significantly more FAR. There is tremendous demand for views of the NY skyline and harbor, and a tall mixed-use retail, office, and luxury condo development could have helped recoup costs — which, by the way, would likely be much cheaper since government wouldn’t be building it. No wonder private companies like Oonee take it upon themselves to solve problems like secure bike parking, especially near subway stations for last-mile solutions. (And will we have a similar private solution for $2m public bathrooms?)
Fulton Center
Hudson Yards was decked over a rail yard, and Terminal City was built atop GCT. There are many examples throughout the region:
Housing decked above MNR in Melrose, the Bronx (they didn’t install windows facing the RR for the rail fans)
Along the LIRR, commercial properties extend uninterrupted on a bridge overpass (no, it isn’t the Ponte Vecchio)
Perhaps a challenge to maintain, but the developer thought it was still worth it to build housing decked atop the LIRR Main Line in Queens!
Journal Square (PATH HQ)
Harlem–148th Street station and Lenox Yard below the Frederick Douglass Academy
Pitkin Yard
Maybe Atlantic Yards will get decked before Sunnyside? (Atlantic Yards has been reconfigured and has adequate clearance for decking, but construction above active tracks will always be a challenge.)
Diesel locomotives at the LIRR LIC Yard often idle; ventilation would be a challenge for any deck at this yard, which is at ground-level and would therefore cause additional access challenges.
Transit-oriented development has profound social, economic, and environmental benefits. NYC needs more housing, and building it next to public transport is ideal, providing greater access and mobility and improving quality of life. It shortens commutes to work, to school, to appointments, and of course to your social life. It also makes those commutes more environmentally sustainable by encouraging use of public transport (which gets more revenue as an added bonus). Surely we should up-zone, especially along subway corridors, as long as developers contribute funds to transit improvements in exchange for more FAR.
However, separate agencies, separate budgets, and separate powers keep us from streamlining up-zoning along subway corridors. The MTA cannot create a value capture district (the City can), and we’re left with case-by-case adjudicative decisions, with developers promising transit improvements in exchange for more FAR. Without a streamlined, legislative, city-wide ordinance approach, we’ll have less done. Unfortunately too many residents fear density, even though developers would be alleviating congestion through transit improvements, or through building schools and improving sewers; Frank Gehry’s latest building in Lower Manhattan, 8 Spruce Street, has a school on its bottom floors (but not a well-thought out waste management plan, with bags piled on sidewalks).
Much MTA NYC Transit property is owned by the City (and ownership of MNR and LIRR property more complicated), but MTA-owned State property is exempt from local City zoning. This should allow the MTA to reap the benefits of TOD and override restrictive local zoning and land use regulations. In practice, the MTA rarely relies on its ability to override local zoning and instead works within local frameworks for a range of political, financial, and technical reasons. While state authorities can preempt conflicting local laws in certain circumstances, they typically coordinate with New York City institutions and rely on local expertise.
For example, the New York City Department of Buildings regulates building construction and enforces the Building Code and Zoning Resolution for most private development. Even where the MTA has legal authority to proceed outside local zoning for core transit purposes, joint development projects (such as housing or commercial uses) generally proceed through local zoning and building approval processes to ensure constructability, financing, and regulatory clarity.
Under Public Authorities Law §1266(8), the MTA may be exempt from conflicting local zoning when acting through facilities and operations serving transportation or transit purposes. However, this authority does not automatically extend to all MTA-owned land or to joint development projects. As a result, the MTA typically aligns with local zoning frameworks or pursues negotiated approvals with the City to facilitate coordination and public support.
Efforts are underway to revise zoning for more transit benefits nearby subway stations, and Elevate Transit is a great step forward, along with many other TOD initiatives at the MTA.
Court Square station transit improvements were funded by the Citi Tower development in LIC, Queens
For instance, these pro-environment projects arguably do not need years of arbitrary environmental review, and building new public transport infrastructure certainly shouldn’t in most cases. The Second Avenue Subway‘s Phase 1, for example, was built deep underground in Manhattan; it wasn’t built over any wetlands, forests, or even above ground on streets casting shadows. Valid concerns such as managing how hazardous materials are dealt with during construction, planning for any archaeological discoveries, or dealing with other construction-related impacts to air quality (public health), noise, traffic congestion and other factors can be routed through other efforts such as construction contracts. Why should, as an example, an LEED-certified housing development proposed for next to a train station (complete with vertical farms for local food access, rooftop solar panels, and open space) theoretically need years of environmental analysis? Do the benefits of so many studies and reports outweigh the costs of delaying progress and alleviating climate change? How can we strike a balance between planning and engaging with communities with decisive action and getting projects off the ground? Other global cities can figure it out.
Density can have an environmental impact, it’s true. But often environmental reviews have become NIMBY tools to delay projects, taking concerns about shadows and “neighborhood change” into the review process. NYC is arguably heading towards the extreme opposite of the Robert Moses era, with little ability to move forward on any large-scale project — or even relatively small-scale project, such as installing elevators at MTA stations or secure bike parking.
Many New Yorkers believe that the City is already built up, and that there’s no more room for development. But that is the wrong attitude; we need to keep building, taller and taller, in order to quench demand, and bring housing costs down. We also need to improve our transit network to support further growth. Most NIMBYists dislike density – but there are different types of density; building height and density does not necessarily translate to population density, nor does it necessarily create a dynamic and lively neighborhood. Human-centered design, based on how our species evolved to walk and perceive the world, is paramount when it comes to smart growth; tall buildings with no ground-floor activation must be avoided.
Why not build taller at MTA properties?
Not everywhere should be built taller, of course, but most locations near transit need to be taller!
We can leave this historic Q train station headhouse alone!
Assuming most people would not want to live atop a bus depot, the green roof at Mother Clara Hale is a great alternative.
New York City faces many social, economic, and environmental challenges, much of which can be seen from our streets, especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. From open restaurants which kept the service industry afloat, to open streets working to improve public health and quality of life, our built environment has been transformed. There is a renewed focus on our public realm, from transportation (with more bike lanes, bus lanes, and the proposed congestion pricing scheme under review), to green infrastructure improvements alleviating the impacts of climate change, and waste management. These initiatives, and many more, are competing with other essential uses of our streets, from freight delivery to day-to-day traffic and all other contemporary accessibility and mobility requirements. Meanwhile, new development continues to be built throughout the city (although not enough).
Challenges abound, but can our City still afford to build practical, visionary solutions to our 21st century problems?
Follow our Instagram for our latest whereabouts or join us on a walking tour!
Leave a Reply