Ideas: Trying to Make Mass Transit Better
Ideas
Trying to Making Mass Transit Better!
During the election season, the
topic of infrastructure revitalization was one that caught the ears of many in
the Northeast Corridor. From
Massachusetts to Washington, DC, the roads, rails and airports are in desperate
need of repair or replacement. Despite the poor condition of many of the area’s connecting arteries, this part of the nation has some of the
most heavily tolled-roads, and expensive commuting cost.
Although relief has not come from Washington, DC, Governor
Andrew Cuomo of New York has been active in calling for changes to improve the roads,
airports, and local, commuter and national railways. To his credit, Governor
Cuomo is already engaged in this crusade. He has rebuilt many of the
state’s most distressed bridges and airports. The governor has supported the
current renovation and rebuilding of terminals at LaGuardia Airport and has proposed
improvements to New York City’s Kennedy Airport.
Governor Cuomo has enlisted Governor Christie to join
him. Governor Christie, in a charge of
heart, now supports the renovation of Newark-Liberty Airport and the replacement
of its monorail, and the expansion of the PATH trains in Newark. Since Governor
Christie’s termination of the ARC tunnel, Governor Cuomo has convinced him to
support a new Hudson River rail tunnel.
Together, the two governors are engaged in plans for the tunnel, a new Port
Authority Bus Terminal, and the short-term overhaul and eventual replacement of
Amtrak’s New York Pennsylvania Station and adjacent tracks that serve NJ
Transit and the Long Island Railroad.
As New York State’s and the city’s transit needs
continue to escalate, Governor Cuomo has taken additional steps to address the
problems of the MTA, one of the nation’s largest transit systems. The MTA includes the Long Island and Metro
North commuter rail lines, the New York City buses and subways, and the New
York City bridges and tunnels. The
recent announcement of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s MTA Genius Challenge is the
boldest of numerous proposals made since January.
The announcement stated:
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today
challenged the MTA to launch "The MTA Genius Transit Challenge," an
international competition seeking groundbreaking and innovative solutions to
increase the capacity and improve the reliability of New York City's subway
service. During a conference in late June, all participants in the competition
will be given comprehensive briefings on the transit system and will be
challenged to find solutions that can be implemented with speed and efficiency.
Competitors will be presented with the issues, current solutions and best
practices. The competition will be judged by an expert panel of technology and
transportation experts and a $1 million "Genius" award will be
provided to the best ideas in three categories.[1]
These three specific areas are: 1) To address the aging signal system in a faster
and more efficient way to enable the MTA to expand the number of trains per
hour during peak periods; 2) To address the subway system’s aging cars. Strategies can include
the refurbishment of current subway cars, upgrading existing systems, better
maintenance programs/protocols, and faster delivery of new cars; and
3) To design communications
technology for cellular and WiFi connectivity that can be installed throughout
the entire subway system including tunnels.[2]
This is a great start. Yet,
the proposal urges a reconsideration not just of these specific ideas, but also
transit ideas, in general. How are American
transit ideas promoted and how do they come to life? The simple answer is through civic engagement
and constant agitation. Decades ago, there were dozens of independent transit
advocacy groups in the Tri-State area. During the 1960s and 1970s, they were
well known and quite vocal. For instance, they challenged the perspectives of Robert Moses, who favored cars and highways over
mass transit. They demanded legislators,
mayors and governors take action to improve local and regional transportation
systems. And during the bleak periods of the 1970s they were prominent voices
for commuter safety and transportation improvement. As the years, progressed, these organizations
demanded more expansive and better systems, the abolishment of tolls,
affordable costs for commuters, and the reduction of pollutants from cars and
buses.
But something changed. Over the course of time, many of these
groups became more sophisticated but seemingly disappeared from public view.
However, despite not being on the nightly news, those that are still active are quite
busy. They can be found on FaceBook and
online.
And this is what is somewhat distressing in the wake of the
governor’s million-dollar announcement. It seems that Governor Cuomo’s challenge
could be easily resolved without giving a prize, but by tapping into the
brainpower of the region's transit advocacy groups. In fact, these organizations, all of which
are populated by scientists, social scientists, planners, engineers, and
commuters, have already played a historical role in the transformation of the
region’s transportation plans. Why hasn’t the governor reached out to these
groups, what role could they play, and what role are they going to play in this challenge?
I want to highlight three organizations, two of which are still
active, that have the manpower to support the governor’s challenge. The first organization, however, must be
mentioned because its late founder, Stephen Dobrow, was a pioneer in advocating
change and using a core of researchers to develop proposals and ideas. Stephen
Dobrow, Ph.D., created one of the first modern transit advocacy organizations, the
Committee for Better Transit in 1965.[3] An engineer, Dobrow, lived in New York City
and traveled to his job at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Teaneck, New
Jersey by bus and subway. He was an
advocate for numerous ideas to improve transit throughout the tri-state area.
The Committee was based in New York, but had affiliates in New Jersey, and for
a brief while in Connecticut. It
published newsletters, including “Better Transit Bulletin”, “Street Car News”,
and “Regional Transit Advocate”, that promoted ideas and attracted
membership in various pockets of the region. However, what made the CBT special
was it fought largely for improved transportation to the outer boroughs. It
realized that the residents of Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island lacked suitable
transportation within their communities, and that most of the city’s subway
lines and the Long Island Railroad were networks taking commuters to Manhattan
while neglecting the fact that an increasing number of New Yorkers were employed
in other parts of the metropolis.
Between 1965 and 2001, CBT
proposed more than a dozen ideas that have been aired and then shot down, only
to be reconsidered decades later. A 1966
issue of the “Better Transit Bulletin” called for the extension of the Newark
City Subway. More than 30 years later, this idea was the core of the Newark
Light Rail/Subway expansion.[4]
In 1985 CBT joined with the
Council of Commuter Organizations to sue the federal government (EPA) and the
state of New York in an attempt to limit air pollution by encouraging the
expansion of mass transit.[5] The groups wanted to limit or end automobile
traffic in lower Manhattan and end tolls on the Harlem and East River Bridges.
A major part of their argument centered on the Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment
supporting public transit to lower emission levels. This idea foreshadowed
Mayor Bloomberg’s Congestion Pricing Plan and the advent of E-Z Pass and toll-less
highways and bridges.
Writing in the first volume of
“Street Car News” in 1994, Dobrow previewed his vision of new styled electric trolley
cars traversing the city. This idea was to reduce congestion and air pollution.
His introduction of streetcars or light rail vehicles to supplement buses and
subways was proposed as an alternative to lengthy and more expensive subway
construction. That year’s newsletter
featured three potential routes. One was a Bronx route from Hell Gate Bridge to
Yankee Stadium, a second was a route that went from Long Island City across the
Gowanus Canal to Brooklyn along the waterfront, and the third, entitled the
Brooklyn Queens Rail Link (inspired from a proposal from George Haikalis and
James Tripp) went from Long Island City through Queens into Jamaica and then
into southwestern Brooklyn terminating near the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. The second proposed streetcar line is a match
of the current proposal for the BQX Light Rail line from Long Island City to
Red Hook.
More proposals followed. CBT
proposed a “Liberty Loop” streetcar line covering lower Manhattan from the World
Trade Center to midtown, dedicated bus lanes, a light rail line through the
Lincoln Tunnel, a elevated train network over the George Washington Bridge and
over Route 4 in New Jersey, a Lower Eastside line, and a 42nd Street
crosstown line that would eliminate cars and feature pedestrian walkways. Such ideas were followed by, “Queenslink,” a
streetcar line from Long Island City to Jamaica to reduce overcrowding on the E
and F subway lines. “Queenslink”, in many ways, foreshadowed the need for and
the construction of the 63rd Street tunnel, and the eastside
Manhattan line was proposed as a quick solution for the then stillborn Second
Avenue subway.
In 2000,
CBT made its last major statement challenging the construction of the JFK
Airtrain. The organization contested the expense of the project stating that it
did not do enough to support the transportation needs of the community nor
support the subway riders who could use the system to travel to the airport. The untimely passing of Dr. Dobow has silenced
CBT, but two other local organizations have carried on its traditions and
research-based calls for change.
In a similar manner, concerned members of the New York Public Interest
Research Group (NYPIRG) formed the New York Straphangers Campaign in 1979.[6] Currently led by Gene
Russianoff, the Campaign was responsible for the redevelopment of the city’s
subways by advocating renewal and safety, giving the public voice and access in
public hearings, providing affordable fares including the elimination of
multiple fare zones and the creation of single fare lines, free subway-bus
transfers, unlimited-ride transit passes, select bus routes, and the
introduction of the Metro Card.
Between 1980 and 1990, the Campaign produced flyers alerting
communities about particular transit issues.
It also took a public stance at community board hearings and open NYC
Transit meetings. The Campaign was equally famous for it annual transit report
cards, starting in 1996, which announced the city’s best and worst subways and
bus lines. These efforts clearly influenced local and state politicians and
transit directors to invest millions of dollars into the trains, buses, and
subways. It’s influence is unquestionable, and it is the best known of New York
City’s advocacy groups.
A more recent and comprehensive group is the Tri-State
Transportation Campaign. It is a
501(c)(3) non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to reducing car dependency
in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. “Leading environmental
transportation, and planning organizations formed the Campaign in 1993 as a
response to the mounting economic and environmental costs of automobile and
truck dependence and promising reforms after the 1991 passage of the federal
transportation bill, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.”[7]
Quoting from its literature, the
Campaign “uses its unique technical, data, and policy analysis to marshal the
talents of the region's most effective environmental, planning, smart growth,
and transportation policy organizations. Our ability to build diverse
coalitions around a goal combined with our technical media and legal advocacy
is the foundation of our success. The Campaign's board of directors consists of
senior staff from the founding non-profit organizations, as well as
representatives from industry and the private sector. The staff, all of whom
have advanced degrees, is comprised of ten members with various technical,
policy, legal, environmental, and planning expertise. The Campaign is headquartered
in Manhattan with staff based in Albany and Camden.”[8]
The Tri-State Campaign focuses
on key issues including: transportation planning, transportation and
development, managing congestion, transportation equity, biking and walking,
better mass transit, paying for transportation, green freight, and public
accessibility. Led by Executive Director
Veronica Vanterpool, the staff and its board are deeply involved in regional
ecological, transportation, and planning organizations, boards and committees. It
also publishes reports and a web-based newsletter /blog “Mobilizing the
Region”. Started in 1994, “Mobilizing the Region” covers issues in New York,
Connecticut and New Jersey.
Analyzing
the history of these organizations and their ideas, it is apparent that many of
their plans had and have merit worthy of public consideration. Many of the solutions of the region’s current
woes were provided in their literature long ago. But who
knew of them? In fact, how many of the
area's 14 million residents know of the Tri-State Commission or the Straphangers
Campaign? Yet their advocacy is the
reason why state lawmakers and Governors Cuomo and Christie are being forced to
demand rapid improvements.
While it
is easy to blame the Tri-State governments for many of these problems, it is also
possible to suggest that the populous chose to reject inklings of plans that
would raise taxes or lower property values. Although the advocates were no
longer on television complaining about graffiti on the subways or homeless people
sleeping in the stations, the issues these groups addressed were still
important. So, it could be the belief of
“out of sight out of mind” weakened the public awareness of their efforts. Voters, however, have
played a major role in the failure of politicians to implement wholesale
repairs and improvements. Yet, the
elected officials still have an obligation to maintain the things that make our
society work!
It is
somewhat ironic, now with the larger metropolis falling into massive decay that
the governments are open to new and fresh ideas from the public when they
refused to consult them in the past. If we were looking for the best international solutions
to these problems all experts would urge the governor to consider what has been
done in South Korea particularly in Seoul. South Korea's subways and stations are the world's best. But if we are looking for the best local
solutions, I think that the governor is overlooking a key resource. So while
praising Governor Cuomo for his initiative, one must have guarded optimism.
Currently, the Straphangers Campaign and the Tri-State
Commission are the most resourceful and prominent voices in the region. One can only hope that Governor Cuomo will
listen to the recommendations of these bodies and include them in the decisions
to implement improvements and ultimately award these prizes.
-->
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Although 1965 is the date listed for the formation of the CBT on the last CBT
website http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/id1.html
, the Staphangers Campaign states that 1962 is
the date for the formation of the CBT.
See, “The Riders and the Rebirth of City Transit: 25 Years of Advocacy
by the NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign” September 2004, p. 4. http://www.straphangers.org/25th/essay.pdf
.
[4]
Also supported years later by the New Jersey Association of Railroad
Passengers. This all volunteer organization, formed in 1980, was equally in
favor of the ARC Tunnel, the Secaucus Transfer, the Princeton Dinky, the
Midtown Direct (Morris, Essex, and Montclair) Lines, the Newark Airport
Station, the Meadowlands line, the Atlantic City-Philadelphia Line, the
renovation of Newark’s Broad Street Station, the Camden, Gloucester County,
Newark, Bergen, and Hudson Light Rail networks, and the extension of the MTA
Number 7 train to New Jersey.
[5] See, the Council
of Commuter Organizations, Committee for Better Transit, Inc. Barry Benepe, and
Stephen B. Dobrow, Action for Rational Transit, Petitioners, v. Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Respondents, and State of New York, Intervenor. No. 456, Docket 85-4128. United
States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Nov. 19, 1985. Decided Aug. 28,
1986.
[6]
“The Riders and the Rebirth of City Transit: 25 Years of Advocacy by the NYPIRG
Straphangers Campaign” September 2004, p. 1. http://www.straphangers.org/25th/essay.pdf
.
[8]
Ibid.
Comments