 |
||
 Sept. 6, 2007 | Vol 6, No. 15 |
||
|
|
||
|
In This Issue: – Putting the Public First at Moynihan Since that time, the project has morphed into something very different, but something potentially even more worthwhile – if done correctly. Under current proposals, Madison Square Garden would be relocated in the Annex of the Farley Post Office at the Ninth Avenue end of the building, and a new Penn Station – actually now called Moynihan Station East – would be built on the site of the existing Madison Square Garden, albeit under what could be two 90-story office towers. And over at Farley, Moynihan West would emerge, albeit hemmed in a bit by a new Madison Square Garden. Both the risks and the advantages of this proposal are pretty clear. If everything goes well, commuters, long-distance travelers and the public in general will get a greatly enlarged, more functional and more appealing new Central Train Station, consisting of two parts, each of which could look and function better than at present. It would have spacious sun-filled concourses, ticketing services shared by the four agencies (NJ TRANSIT, Long Island Rail Road, Amtrak and New York City Transit), flexibility in platform assignments, up-to-the-minute train information in convenient locations, more numerous and visible entrances, as well as better platform access and other functionalities. But if attention is not paid, a less appealing scenario could emerge in a decade, when construction is set to be finished. New York City could emerge with a new train station, but one that didn't look or work much better than today's station. The two towers above Moynihan East could - though not necessarily - limit the potential of a light-filled train hall and require enormous footings running through the stations down to the platforms. They could also make construction much more complicated, increasing the likelihood of disruptions in train service. (Construction at Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn is a recent reminder of how disruptive construction above a station can be.) The station operations could continue to be managed by four separate agencies that refuse to cooperate. Over across Eighth Avenue, Moynihan West could emerge as the world’s most beautiful arena, with a mere afterthought of a train station next to it. Another potential liability is that, with what will probably be a set amount of funding contributed by the developer (though that amount has not yet been determined), taxpayers could be left with an enormous tab if the costs of the project skyrocket. In general, the risk on both sides of Eighth Avenue, and indeed in the Far West Side as a whole, is that private spaces and functions will crowd out public ones. This does not have to happen. Preliminary plans for the station already seem to be going in the right direction – developers and the City are actively considering transferring development rights from Moynihan East to nearby sites, and they seem to be designing the station so it’s spacious and passenger-friendly – but those plans could still change. What's important is that in the next few months and years, when the most important planning and design decisions are made, the public interest be heard – and placed ahead of the private interests of the developer and Madison Square Garden. Sure, they ought to benefit from the project, but not at the expense of New York’s commuters. For a longer look at the risk and rewards associated with the new Moynihan Station, see the recent report “A Regional Rail Center: Moynihan East and West,” at www.rpa.org. All this contributes to the widespread but erroneous belief that the city’s first subway systems were constructed and owned by private companies for profit. Not so. A letter in last week’s New York Observer is a typical example of this error. Larry Penner wrote, “The original B.M.T. and I.R.T. subway systems were constructed and paid for by the private sector.” This misleading statement was used to support a conclusion about “the brave private-sector entrepreneurs who operate the remaining handful of bus, commuter van, ferry and pedicabs who somehow survive in today’s anti-free-market transportation-provider environment.” Actually, (and leaving aside the merits of private pedal cab operators) New York City, under authorization of the State, paid for and owned the first subway system, even if private companies literally performed the acts of construction. It was a then-unprecedented act of civic risk-taking, one that was several decades in the making. It’s worth examining now, because it shows that one, government must almost always take the lead in big transportation initiatives, and two, they are never easy. The actual politics and financing of the city’s first subway lines, which are now more than a century old, are unbelievably complex and tangled, so much so that virtually every book on the subject generalizes to some degree because the blow by blow is so complicated. But by reading multiple volumes, everything from a reprinted 1904 book called The New York Subway: Interborough Rapid Transit to the more known Under the Sidewalks Of New York: The Story of The Greatest Subway System In The World, you can come up with a fairly detailed history. Throughout the last third of the 19th century, pressured by the rising tide of people living and working in the city, private New Yorkers had tried and failed to build a subway system. There was Alfred Ely Beach’s demonstration subway line under Broadway, and William Steinway’s half completed tunnel under the East River. It was clear the city needed subway lines, but the enormous capital requirements of the effort, and the huge risks involved, simply stumped private business. A big push came in a legislative Act of 1891, when the city tried to sell the entire subway franchise to a private company, but got no takers. Mayor Abram Hewitt can properly be called the father of the city’s subway system. Hewitt called for municipal ownership of the subway and the public backed him in 1894, voting 132,647 to 51,388 for public ownership of the subways in a city-wide referendum. After a few years of more torturous political and financial dealing, the city contracted in February 1900 to pay John McDonald $37.75 million to build and operate the first subway line. It was a huge amount of money, so much so that the city had to get special state authority to go that deeply into debt. McDonald, because of financing difficulties, had to form a partnership to the now better known August Belmont, who became the dominant partner. The city raised the money by selling bonds. Belmont got a 50-year lease on the I.R.T. line, getting to keep any profit after paying off the city’s annual debt on its bonds. All this was done under the Rapid Transit Commission, an institution set up by several state acts passed in the 1890’s. Because the subways were enormously popular, far more than anticipated, Belmont made a lot of money initially and the city apparently got its bonds paid off, at least in the initial years. Subway history continues in its labyrinthian ways in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and it’s difficult to tease out the exact costs the city did or did not bear. But taking a step back from it all, the history of the city’s early subways proves the essential nature of government involvement in infrastructure, even if that involvement comes in what today would be labeled a “public private partnership.” (Of course, it’s also true that some of the inefficiencies in early subway operations came from the involvement of the private sector, which exerted great energy trying to keep out competitors in the form of more transit lines.) There was never any mythical time when the essentials of transportation were supplied by private companies, at least not without a lot of help from government. Perhaps none of this needs explanation today, but then again, maybe it does. Government is still too often disparaged and its essential role not recognized. Part of the job of better understanding government’s key functions is to put away the canard that private companies created those underground rail lines that the city and region still depend so much upon. They didn’t. Government did. In Other Publications . . . In this article, Zupan reviews the history of New York's subway system and lays out the challenges it faces in the future. To read the article in its entirety, visit www.stamfordreview.com.
|
|
|
Tonight! Thursday, September 6, 2007 Thursday, September 13, 2007 Tuesday, September 18, 2007 Thursday, September 20, 2007 Friday, October 5, 2007 Tuesday and Wednesday, October 16 and 17, 2007 Friday, February 29, 2008 |
|
|
||
|
Spotlight on The Region A publication of Regional Plan Association, Robert Yaro, President, Alex Marshall, Senior Editor 212-253-2727, x360 alex@rpa.org www.rpa.org |
|
