Great report and analysis of the key issues.

1. Anything built underground in Manhattan anywhere is going to be enormously expensive, no matter what it is. Just the cost of identifying and moving utilities alone is enormous.
2. Anything public, crowded, and underground could make a good target. Shall we never build them again?

"...adding more than a billion dollars to the cost..."

Just a billion? Maybe in 1985.

Part of the project involves underpinning perhaps five subway lines (IND 8th Ave, IRT 7th Ave, IND 6th Ave. BMT Broadway and PATH). Do you have any conception of that cost? Such massive underpinning has never been done before in a single project. The closest to that was the underpinning of the PATH for the construction of the 6th Ave. subway extension. Then, of course, is the relocation of the usual suspects, viz., sewers, ECS, Verizon, Con Ed gas, electric and steam, etc. You are proposing REALLY big bucks here.

To put things in a better perspective, let's talk about cost/benefit ratios. The trans-Hudson ridership accounts for fewer commuters than the Canarsie Line, which, next to the Rockaway Line, has the lowest ridership in the NYCTA. Unless this artery carries every F-500 C-level executive, the Jersey pax will have to settle for Moynihan Station.

Do you think a more cost-effective soultion would be a people mover system between, say, Moynihan Station and Herald Square, utilizing the abandoned 6th Ave to Penn Station passageway?

I think the fundamental problem is that without increased capacity in Penn Station (i.e., more platforms), there is little way to handle the large increase in trains expected with the construction of the new tunnels. While the ridership on commuter rail trains is obviously lower than that on the subway network, the truth is that commuter rail lines are essential in backing the metropolitan economy. Frankly, without providing good travel from the rich suburbs to the center city, Manhattan would stand to lose thousands of jobs because executives simply wouldn't be willing to stand a bad commute. I'm not arguing that mass transit ought to be designed for the benefit of the rich, I'm just suggesting that projects aimed towards improving service for them ought to be part of the mix. It's also true that adding capacity at a new terminal, rather than attempting to pressure all the trains into Penn Station, will improve commutes for all riders on Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road, and New Jersey Transit. This isn't just about Trans-Hudson Express Riders.

Second, the billion-dollar number comes from New Jersey Transit. Their estimates could be wrong, granted, but I'm not sure what else to rely on.

Thanks for your response.

To paraphrase the late Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, "A billion here, a billion there and before you know it, you're talking real money."

But to use the mindset of road builders, "If the Feds are going to pay for it, who cares what it costs?"

So anyway, where does a commuter station at Herald Square stand on your pecking order of what is important and what can be scrapped? To me, the most important and least important projects on the planning books are as follows:

(1) Trans Hudson Freight Tunnel, Bayonne Greenvile Yards to Brooklyn Army Terminal. There is not a single project on the books that has the positive impact of this project on the Tri-State region nor the cost/benefit ratio. Just a single track tunnel has the potential of eliminating 1800 trucks per hour crossing the GWB, which has to be one of the most serious of terrorist targets. It will also provide the impetus for at least three intermodal terminals in New Jersey, Maspeth, Queens and at the Pilgrim State property in Ronkonkoma. It can also lead to the much discussed resurrection of the Landia (Robbins Lane, Syosset) LIRR Station along with more thoughtful uses of the Cerro property adjacent to the Landia stop. Then there is the elimination of the 260 mile Albany detour.

(2) Second Avenue Subway. City and/or State residents voted twice for bonds to pay for this improvement. The first bond proceeds were redeployed in 1940 for BMT/IRT/IND unification. A second bond issue was approved in the 1960s only to have construction halted because the City was unable to pay back its existing debt in 1975. The jobs are on the East Side but the subways are on the West Side. This is a no-brainer.

(3) One single track Trans Hudson pax tunnel. The issue here is that only two tracks connect Penn Station to the West at a time when it is planned to provide more access for Erie-Lackawanna pax. It is actually not as critical an issue as the politicians would have us believe. That is because there is no dead head traffic as all Amtrak and TNJ road equipment is stored at Sunnyside.

(4) Third LIRR track between Floral Park and Hicksville. Here the issue is a heavy demand for reverse rush hour transportation and increased freight traffic once the Trans Hudson Freight Tunnel is completed.

Projects at the bottom of my barrel:
(1) GCT to Penn connector. This is expensive and services only a handful of Connecticut and New Jersey commuters. Metro North commuters would not be able to use this facility because of third rail configuration problems. It would also be difficult for NYC politicos to sell this project as it would provide zero benefit to City residents. As they say in Brooklyn, "Figgetaboutit."

(2) East Side LIRR access. I'm not against East Side LIRR access. The LIRR's portion of the 63rd Street tunnel has been unused, for over 30 years. I am against the utilization of GCT as the LIRR east side terminal. In 1975 John Culhane, NYCTA Deputy Chief Engr for Planning asked me to study GCT as an alternative to William Ronan's plan for a stand-alone LIRR terminal and underground yard somewhere around 3rd and 58th St as I recall. The City was short on cash at the time and *any* cost savings would be welcomed.

After I had meetings with GCT and Metro North management including the GCT station master, I was convinced, as I am today, that this is a project that will drain us of $billions with the outcome being a lower LOS for *all* pax, Metro North and LIRR. Again, the issue is the New York Central third rail configuration which means badly needed tracks will taken from Metro North. Unlike the Hudson River tunnels at Penn Station which have no deadhead traffic, there will be dead head traffic on the 63rd St. Tunnel. This is a bottleneck that cannot be stressed too much. In short, IMO, this is a project that looks nice for the construction unions and politicians but a boondoggle of Boss Tweed proportions.

(3) LIRR Wall Street to Flatbush Ave Connection. This is just one of those gimmicks governors enunciate around Election Day. I keep this promise in the same filing box as Gov. Rockefeller's promise of a nuclear powered desalinization plant (when we had a drought) and Gov. Cuomo's promise of a statewide residence science high school along the lines of similar high schools in other states. In 1973 the NYCTA rebuilt the Bowling Green station (added a side platform to the existing island platform) and added two underground substations (Bowling Green and Hanover Sq.) to accommodate the increased air conditioning load. The TA learned a good deal about construction in this part of Manhattan:

First, utility relocation is a Herculean endeavor in this part of the world and second, if construction can be avoided, avoid it. Our meager capital funds could better be used to resurrect the Ronan plan for East Side LIRR access.

I feel compelled to add one very positive event occurred while I was a boss of the TA's survey party at the Bowling Green construction. Basketball great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar stopped by our survey party to get an understanding of what we were doing. My technician, Andy Zavatjian, and I explained to him the theory of our surveying instruments. It was definitely a *high* (all 7'-2" of Kareem) point of my career at the NYCTA.

To me, it's clear that the New York region's #1 most important project is the Second Avenue Subway - with its completion, it would dramatically reduce crowding on the Lexington Avenue lines and provide dramatically improved transportation for 500,000 riders a day. You can't beat that for a strong investment. I think that the MTA has been and continues to drag its feet on this line, partially because I'm sure they recognize the enormous challenges and costs that will be incurred throughout its construction. However, I'm sure that the line qualifies for federal funding, and the city and state ought to be putting it at the top of the list of transit initiatives.

In terms of the Long Island Rail Road East Side Access Project (my God, does the name get any longer?), I tend to think that the project is a worthwhile investment, as planned, and as constructed. As you said, the 63rd St tunnel ought to be used, and LI commuters deserve east side access. However, you're wrong in your contention that the project will result in MNR tracks being taken away, because the project is being built as if it were an entirely new terminal. No LIRR trains will be put on to current MNR tracks; in fact, there won't even be a connection between the two series of tracks. That's because the project was redesigned, with the terminus of LIRR trains moved to a new station far below MNR tracks, rather than with LIRR trains moving onto MNR tracks after the 63rd St tunnel. This is an important change that ought to be understood. As a result, it is my understanding that there will be a dramatic increase in LOS for LIRR passengers and a steady LOS for MNR ones. Therefore, I support the project wholeheartedly.

I think you make a valid point in arguing that a one track tunnel through the Hudson would be acceptable. I agree, though in future we might regret limiting the expansion.

I think the GCT-Penn Connector is virtually pointless, especially if MNR trains eventually are able to access Penn Station via Hell's Gate Bridge.

I'm not an expert on freight movements, so I don't really feel that I have the right to comment on them - from what I've heard, the Trans Hudson freight tunnel seems like a good idea, but one that's unlikely to happen!

I'm going to write a longer post later about a new Downtown-Flatbush tunnel for LIRR/Air Train.

Thanks for your comments.

If the 2nd Ave Line were constructed as it was originally designed, complete with the 6 track interlocking at 63rd and express stops, you would have a valid point for it to be your #1 priority. But like everything else designed prior to the 1975 fiscal crisis, it has been scaled back limiting its usefulness and its significance. We New Yorkers like our express trains (no other city has them!) and tolerate humiliating sardine can-like crushes to avoid the local trains. My reading of the 2nd Ave line looks like it will be another $1.98 scale back to an all-local service.

I agree that we definitely need more rapid transit service on the east side, but this scaled-back 2nd Ave Line has me wondering if it will be patronized to the extent it would relieve traffic on the Lexington Ave. Express.

I knew that the LIRR would confiscate four tracks on the old "suburban level" of GCT, which is now the Food Court and entrance to the best seafood restaurant in town, the Grand Central Oyster Bar (Puget Sound oysters -- yummy!!). It is still four tracks that were used by MetroNorth for storage that get moved to LIRR. Without adequate storage at GCT for LIRR rolling stock nor the flexibility we would like at a terminal station (even Flatbush Ave has 6 tracks), the 63rd St Tunnel is effectively reduced to a single track (one track for commuters, one track for deadheading). If you think Jersey commuters have it bad with two trans-Hudson tunnels, this has the potential of being hellish and possibly dangerous if there is a tunnel fire.

I invite you to examine the MTA's Plan for Progress promulgated in 1969 and pay particular attention to the proposed LIRR terminal and yard on 3rd Ave. Then compare it to the GCT plan.

The GCT plan looks exactly as it was planned. The layout was designed over dinner on a paper napkin (I wish I had kept that grimey napkin!) by John Culhane (Deputy Chief Engineer for Planning and Contracts) when he was told to cut back on the New Routes Program during the 1975 fiscal crisis. The napkin was handed to my boss, Cal Turin (Planning Division Engineer), who handed it to me with the instructions to conduct a study and "make it look good."

I had previously reported on the result of that study. To me, this project has a poor cost/benefit ratio and does not justify the cost. I will also forecast that LIRR service to/from GCT will be so poor that a second tube adjacent to the 63rd St tunnel will be needed within 10 years to rescue this example of spur-of-the-moment planning. On the other hand, it could have been constructed correctly from the very beginning.

It should be noted that not a single O-D study nor any shred of customer demand modeling or computer simulation accounted for the change of terminus. It was based solely on the City's financial shape as of 1975. This isn't software. If software doesn't work, we change a few lines of code and everything is fine. This project -- good or bad -- will be with us for the next 100 years. On that basis alone, we need a better solution.

However, nothing, in my estimation, has the importance as the Trans-Harbor freight tunnel. If you would like more information, please get in touch with Rep. Jerry Nadler's office in Brooklyn or in DC. Congressman Nadler did a great presentation at the Long Island Means Business breakfast on March 3rd, 2006. He didn't have to sell me, because I was on the bandwagon after reading John Kneiling's article endorsing it in Trains Magazine in 1971. According to Congressman Nadler, the Trans-Harbor Tunnel was the reason the Port Authority of NY and NJ was established in 1921.

Every other improvement we have discussed in these series of posts simply makes life a *little* easier in the Tri-State region, i.e., a little less crowding on the Lex; more reliability for Jersey to/from NYC commuters and a little less congestion at Penn for LIRR commuters. The Trans Harbor Freight Tunnel will result in a comprehensive *change* in the region in ways we cannot even forecast.

We know it will remove trucks off the City's expressways and highways and the GWB. We also know goods from Mexico, as a result of NAFTA, and produce from Florida will be just a little less expensive. With less reliance on trucking it would also mean that the region will no longer be the asthma capital of the world. And that is only for starters. It's anybody's guess what cleaner air and fewer vehicles on the X-Bronx or LIE would mean to the region.

This is an interesting discussion. I think that this information, taken from the East Side Access EIS, is important:

"The Preferred Alternative would displace a total of 15 MNR tracks in GCT: four platform tracks, nine storage tracks, and two tracksw used for train maintenance. All of the above tracks are currently used for midday storage and maintenance of MNR trains...

"To preserve MNR's capacity for storing and maintaining trains...[the project] would construct five new storage tracks and expand five existing storage tracks within GCT... it would [also] construct new storage tracks and maintenance facilities in Highbridge Yard in the Bronx... [this] would be more than adequate to... provide for MNR's current and future train storage needs...

"The project would also create new capacity in Penn Station that could benefit MNR, allowing MNR to bring service for its commuters to Penn Station."

Here is evidence that a reduction in MNR service quality is unlikely. Meanwhile, the 8 tracks to be built for LIRR at GCT as well as new storage areas in Sunnyside Yard will be adequate to deal with a significant number of LIRR trains during peak periods. I see no evidence that MTA's service plan for these trains cannot be implemented with the current 2-track tunnel under 63rd St. While certainly more tunnels would be useful, more LIRR trains will still be running to Penn Station than GCT, and service will be structured to allow for the limits imposed by the 2-track tunnel. I don't think that the money is there to build another tube under 63rd adjacent to the current tracks, or alternatively, to build a new yard under 3rd Ave, as was originally suggested. The plan to be implemented will provide great benefits to Long Island riders - in that it provides them direct access to the East Side - and also allows for service expansion. It isn't perfect, but the money required to build what you're suggesting is enormous and not necessary to make LIRR service improved.

In terms of the 2nd Avenue Subway, the project is, again, too expensive with four - or, as originally proposed, six - tracks. However, riders coming from stations north of 63rd St (72nd, 86th, 96th, 106th, 116th, and 125th) will have the very useful Q train service providing express trains to Times Square, Herald Square, Union Square, and Canal St. With the Q connection and T service, users on the Upper East Side will have both express and local service, and riders further south will have local service that they've never had before. While it is true that New Yorkers love their express services, the reality is that express services aren't actually that much quicker than local trains, especially considering that 2nd Ave trains will be traveling at higher average speeds than most of the city's current express trains. The Q trains will be very effective in relieving Lexington Avenue express (4 and 5) train congestion, just as the T trains will be effective in relieving 6 train congestion. I don't doubt this truth.

Sounds like the freight tunnel is a good idea - on the other hand, the Port Authority voted that the Trans-Hudson tunnel is a better use of funds. Perhaps freight railroads and/or shippers could help pay for some of its costs? I'm not sure that this is a project that transit funds ought to be used for.

I just read the MTA's website in regard to East Side Access. We're now up to an estimated cost of $6.3B with an ETC scheduled for the year 2013. That should make this the most expensive transit project per track mile in the history of the world -- with the least per dollar benefit.

The good news is that the MTA realized that four tracks will not work and bumped it up to eight tracks. This upgrade will most likely eliminate the bottleneck condition that I had previously feared. Thank you for the heads-up on this and I do stand corrected.

Boston may have the Big Dig but once again the Apple will beat the Bostons in another category -- the world's most embarrassing use of capital funds. This has gotten so expensive and services so few that it looks doubtful if we will ever see this thing to completion.

The irony to this whole mess is that the MTA could have just mothballed the project until the City got back on its financial feet instead of rushing to modify the job by committing funds for one band aid after another. The original plan was better situated and would have cost several billions less:

-- no railroad underpinning
-- no auxiliary MetroNorth yard required
-- limited rock tunneling, mostly cut & cover
-- no inconvenience to MetroNorth riders
-- more storage capability at the terminal.
-- more revenue traffic in both 63rd St. tubes.

And the worst part of it is that GCT is not even on the East Side, it is Midtown and less than a mile from Penn Station. If we are going to spend $6.3B (my guess is $10.0B will be the as-built cost) at least MTA should have provided a real East Side Access as promised to the voters in the 1970 transportation bond issue and not simply an annex to Penn Station.

==========================

My reading of your analysis of the 2nd Ave line has me confused. The purpose of this project was to provide relief for Lex riders by providing more east side service. However, your post discusses the 2nd Ave Line as a feeder to the Broadway and 6th Avenue lines via the Central Park Tunnel (today, only the 6th Ave portion of the Central Park Tunnel is in operation).

You should understand that the 6th Ave and Broadway spurs to 2nd Ave. were built simply to increase labor utilization and in the case of the Broadway line to decrease storage requirements at 57th Street. All other benefits are purely coincidental.

So which one is it? Relief for Lex or a feeder to the West Side subways?

Another point is the use of local trains to siphon pax from the express trains. I think the low pax density of the Lexington Ave. local compared to the express should dispel the notion that local-only service on 2nd Ave will siphon much ridership. I think we are in agreement that this improvement has been needed for decades but I think the engineering cutbacks that this line has suffered will limit its usefulness as a relief for the Lexington Ave. pax.

IMO, both these projects have only reinforced every engineering cliché about short cuts

In terms of Second Ave service, what I'm trying to point out is that individuals living on the Upper East Side need good transit service to midtown and downtown jobs. Right now, that service is only provided on the Lexington Ave lines. For a very large number of people who currently commute from the UES to Downtown and Midtown, the Q Broadway Express service, which will allow commuters from 125th St to 72nd Street quick and frequent access to Midtown, Downtown, and Downtown Brooklyn, will provide an alternative to current services provided by the Lex 4 and 5 express lines. The Q train will not be a local train except for the three stops in the UES in the first phase (and 3 more in the second), and as a result will provide competitive service. Commuters might in fact save time by getting off Metro-North at 125th, transferring to the Q train, and speeding downtown, rather than getting off at GCT and transferring to 4 and 5 trains.

Meanwhile, T service will be useful as a counterpart to the 6 train, which is over capacity as well. It's also true that a very large percentage of Manhattan - about 1/4 of the city on the East Side - suffers from very poor service. The T train will give people who live there much improved service, and I don't see evidence that people who live between Lexington Ave and the East River might be just as attracted to T service as to Lexington Ave Lines, when the T trains are running faster, even though they're locals.

As a result, the Second Ave subway serves three purposes: 1. Relief for Lex Lines; 2. Better Midtown and Downtown Access for Upper East Siders; 3. Improved subway service for the entire East Side.

----

If I were MTA, I would have used the money being spent on East Side Access on the Second Avenue Subway and express services from 42nd St to Downtown that could be used by Metro-North commuter trains (O.K., this is a very long-term idea). There is a lot more potential future ridership from the North and West than there is from the East; transit projects should recognize that. Also, if we're serious about rebuilding downtown, we've got to improve access there.

That said, I still think that East Side Access will be a major improvement for many commuters. The construction of the second level of the 63rd Street tunnel and recent advances in construction, as well as the completion of the EIS, mean that it's basically too late to change this project's plans. It's also too late, in my opinion, to stop construction on it; we've already spent too much money on it and promised the service too many times. As a result, I support the project.

"If I were MTA, I would have used the money being spent on East Side Access on the Second Avenue Subway ..."

I am glad to see my abilities of persuasion have not waned in my twilight years.

In regard to the Central Park Tunnel utilization for 2nd Ave Line, you must understand that some transit lines were built for ease of operations and not directly aimed at any pax oriented benefits. Sometimes, it is more cost effective to build a spur than to expand an underground yard. Sometimes it is necessary to increase the length of a run to get a full 8 hours from TWU operating personnel. I hope I am not disillusioning you by stating the needs of Mother TA override the needs of the riding public.

I think we reached the conclusion of this discourse. Sometimes, politicians like to sweep away people who have led agencies with people of their own choosing. Such was the case at the TA. Engineers who lived and breathed transportation so that their fellow New Yorkers can get to work on time have almost been forgotten. Please allow me the opportunity of acknowledging the superstars whose work in the 1960s and 1970s have enabled the improvements we have discussed.

Back then the TA was led by some charasmatic giants in engineering. First was the cigar chomping Chief, Nathan Brodkin who died on the job at the Jay Street station. Brodkin was no figurehead chief engineer. If a drawing came to his desk for final signature, it was not uncommon for Brodkin to pull out his red pen and mark it up.

Then there was the ultra smooth, George Ziegler and his $500 suits. When Mayor Lindsay hired a politico to be Chief, we all knew who the real chief was -- it was Ziegler, whose official title was Executive Deputy Chief Engineer.

Bernie Adler was the quiet guy, the geek. He knew his engineering and he knew what worked. Bernie was the Head of Designs which covered civil engineering, signals, architecture and planning. It was a huge department that was broken-up because his successor was not able to handle the various specialties. Bernie was acknowledged as the father of the New Routes Program which included all we have discussed plus the BMT/IND merger.

We had other superstars there in supporting roles. The ultra-Orthodox Morris Loshinsky managed all the TA's multi billion dollar construction budget, which included subways and bus depots. Under Loshinsky was John Tremko, the boy wonder. Tremko was more married to the TA than any other human. He succeed Loshinsky as Construction Division Engineer and died almost immediately thereafter, while in his mid 30s. It was a terrible loss for the people of the City of New York.

There was also the father-son team of Paul and Bob Apfel. Paul managed the construction of the 6th Ave. Subway which included over a mile of underpinning the PATH. Paul's last hurrah was managing the construction of the Central Park Tunnels, Rte 131A. Paul's son, Bob, managed and pioneered all the TA's EISs.

I should also mention the people at the Planning Division who gave me my start in the software business. Cal Turin was the Division Engineer. Assisting Cal was Gene Callaghan and Jimmy Georgalis. Jimmy graduated CCNY with my thesis advisor at MIT, Prof. Joe Sussman.

I hope this brief moment gives the reader an idea of what the NYCTA was like in its heyday. People of the Jewish faith call such places of employment, "haimlishe" -- home-like, family.