|
|
Post by movedeast on Sept 11, 2007 0:55:27 GMT -8
secondavesagas.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/subwayhistory.gifA bit of 'inspiration' for the members of the Transit Coalition. The link above should take your browser to an animated map revealing, in order of construction, each line/segment of the NYC subway system. All great systems are built in stages! Keep it going Transit Coalition and Friends4Expo. Every generation has their part to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 11, 2007 13:34:20 GMT -8
That is really cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by movedeast on Sept 16, 2007 18:33:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 21, 2007 12:44:51 GMT -8
From New York Times Editorial yesterday:
November 20, 2007Editorial
A Subway for 2nd Avenue (Really)
The Second Avenue Subway seems like the stuff of urban legend. City and state officials have been promising since the 1920s to build another line on Manhattan’s East Side to relieve overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue line. They have already presided over four groundbreakings. These promises look as if they could finally come true now that the federal government is adding $1.3 billion to the effort.
The first leg of the line, which is to run from 92nd Street down to 63rd Street, would be the first new addition to New York’s subway system in a half-century. The federal money will be applied to the first phase of the line, which is expected to take seven years to build. At a celebratory ceremony on Monday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer vowed unequivocally that it will be finished.
That assurance is heartening for a transit system in dire need of expansion. The more than one million daily riders of the workhorse line along Lexington Avenue, two avenues over, should welcome the breathing space.
Prodded by a Democratic majority in Congress, Washington has been generous lately. Along with helping with the new subway line, the Bush administration is promising to aid other major transit projects, including the link between Grand Central Terminal and the Long Island Rail Road. It has also pledged some $350 million to help implement a plan to relieve traffic congestion in Manhattan.
The projected cost of the Second Avenue line’s first phase is $4 billion, and all but $1 billion of it is in hand, making the project as close to surefire as it has ever been. The remaining three phases of the plan, which would take the line from 63rd Street to the financial district in Lower Manhattan, will cost billions more. We’ll take a quarter-loaf for now.
All great systems evolve and expand. I remember living in New York the day that day/week/monthly passes arrived. That was wonderful!
The Second Avenue Subway is desperately needed. Keep plugging away!
|
|
|
|
Post by movedeast on Oct 18, 2008 3:26:16 GMT -8
New York Area Round Up (New sites found and shared) ARC: Trans-Hudson Passenger Rail Tunnel: (An impressive new site - strong video presentation: including station renderings/animation www.arctunnel.com/ News: NJ's Turnpike Authority and Atlantic City Expressway recently voted to raise tolls on all three of NJ's toll roads to raise funding for transit: Turnpike and Parkway drivers will fund ARC with 1.25 billion in proceeds (over and above of the Port Authority's $3 billion from bridge and tunnel tolls) MTA Long Island Rail Road East Side Access: (this project is moving at a rapid pace. Hard to believe that the TBM's have all ready reached Grand Central (2nd on Sep 30th)! www.mta.nyc.ny.us/capconstr/esas/manhattan_progress_map.htm (this site could use an update) Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Environmental Review ( www.tzbsite.com/index.html New site up! The proposal: a brand new bridge, a commuter bus corridor and a new Metro North commuter rail corridor. Great transformation of an interstate) |
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 18, 2008 10:43:09 GMT -8
thats one sexy staiton.  hope the westside extension can get something of that caliber instead of this thing:  |
|
|
|
Post by movedeast on Nov 24, 2008 17:34:11 GMT -8
curbed.com/archives/2008/11/24/wtc_special_report_2_calatravas_hub_of_burning_bills.php curbed.com/archives/2008/11/24/wtc_special_report_2_calatravas_hub_of_burning_bills.phpClick the link above for 19 photos from Curbed/NY of construction progress Santiago Calatrava's World Trade Center Transportation Hub now visibly under construction. Scheduled to open at the end of 2013 at a cost of $3.1B. Yes its costing more than planned... a lot more. A few facts: * 800,000 square feet -- 3rd largest Transportation Hub in NYC. * 500,000 square feet of first-class retail, larger than the retail in the Time Warner Center. * Hub will serve 250,000 pedestrians a day, millions of annual visitors. * Advanced signal systems, state-of-the-art fare-collection equipment. * Climate-controlled passenger platforms. * Indoor pedestrian access to World Financial Center, PATH and NYC Subways. * Supported by 900 tons of steel. 
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 7, 2008 22:27:43 GMT -8
Regarding the Penn Station vs. LA Red/Purple line pictures--the LA picture would probably be more appealing if the brightness level were increased--LA subway stations really aren't that gloomy. Also, ink and paper (or computer power and pixels) are cheap--excavations are expensive. When I go to a subway station, I expect a train ride, not an aesthetic experience. And the World Trade Center "rendering"--at first I thought it was an ice skating rink. That transportation center is a special case, because of all-too-familiar historic reasons. Does Southern California need anything that monumental? Probably the most impressive rapid transit station I've seen personally is the Chicago Transit terminal at O'Hare Airport. One rumor hinted that the mayor of Chicago wanted something that would really "knock the socks off" people arriving in "his" city, and never mind the cost. Here in So. Cal. it's only been in the last two decades that we've had a subway (the PE Subway Terminal doesn't count) and we need to spend carefully, not build ego-boosting extravanganzas. With all the different projects needing funds, we need to have more of a Senator James Mills mindset.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 7, 2008 23:16:29 GMT -8
 A bright and shiny LA subway image I like. Although I wonder what Santiago Calatrava would do with a basic L.A. subway station box? |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 25, 2008 12:11:24 GMT -8
Regarding the Penn Station vs. LA Red/Purple line pictures--the LA picture would probably be more appealing if the brightness level were increased--LA subway stations really aren't that gloomy. Also, ink and paper (or computer power and pixels) are cheap--excavations are expensive. When I go to a subway station, I expect a train ride, not an aesthetic experience. And the World Trade Center "rendering"--at first I thought it was an ice skating rink. That transportation center is a special case, because of all-too-familiar historic reasons. Does Southern California need anything that monumental? Probably the most impressive rapid transit station I've seen personally is the Chicago Transit terminal at O'Hare Airport. One rumor hinted that the mayor of Chicago wanted something that would really "knock the socks off" people arriving in "his" city, and never mind the cost. Here in So. Cal. it's only been in the last two decades that we've had a subway (the PE Subway Terminal doesn't count) and we need to spend carefully, not build ego-boosting extravanganzas. With all the different projects needing funds, we need to have more of a Senator James Mills mindset. I see nothing wrong with having one or two landmark "monuments." Certainly, with tight budgets and empty pockets, we need to be careful to be frugal and spend carefully on our construction projects. So, I would agree that the majority of our train and subway stations do not need a fancy design. However, it should be pointed out that the Metro Rail Art budget only amounts to a tiny part of the overall budget — maybe about one percent of the total, I think. Also, Los Angeles is not just any city. This isn't Kansas City. This is L.A., home to Hollywood and a huge part of the entertainment industry, beautiful beaches with beautiful people on them, Disneyland, and even in this recession, some important players in aerospace and other industries. If we can't afford to spend money on a little flash and some fancy architecture, what sort of message are we sending to our millions of tourists, business travelers, etc. etc. The plans for LAX are a good example. Sure, maybe we don't need that skybridge. But it sure is impressive. What sort of image do Japanese investors or Chinese tourists get when they arrive at LAX today? Dirty, dingy and low-tech? When we get a Green Line connection/ Metrolink Express train to the airport/ LAX transit center, we should demand nothing less than the best for our arriving guests and for returning Southern Californians. In short: No, we don't need every station to be spectacular. But a few strategically placed monuments - at LAX, at downtown, perhaps a Union Station West- would be worth the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 25, 2008 22:19:02 GMT -8
Metro Art gets one half of one percent of construction budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Jun 24, 2009 11:39:02 GMT -8
I suppose its one way Metro could finance system expansion MTA Sells Subway Station Names, Sells Out Public By Jennifer Millman NBCNewYork.com updated 11:57 a.m. PT, Wed., June 24, 2009 The MTA officially has sold naming rights to one of its busiest subway stations in Brooklyn. That means McDonald's 42nd Street and Taco Bell 59th Street-Columbus Circle could be right around the corner -- or not. Sell the name of a station to an advertiser: It's a business strategy the cash-strapped agency has been developing for years. But no one has been willing to pay up until now. Strangely enough, it's a London-based bank that wants first dibs on subway stops at Atlantic Avenue/Pacific Street transit hub. The $4 million deal got approved today, which means all of the subway stations at the busy Brooklyn hub will have Barclays Center added to their names. Why does a British bank with a Manhattan office want its name on Crooklyn subway stations? Barclays Center, the sports stadium intended to be the center of the Atlantic Yards project, will be finished in the next few years. And Atlantic Yards' developer Forest City Ratner offered the MTA $200,000 annually over the next two decades to change the name of the second most bustling station in Brooklyn to reflect the focal point of its $4.9-billion project. If one company can buy rights to change the name of subway stations, a New Yorker might ask, what's next? Coca-Cola 59th Street-Lex? Pepsi 5th Avenue-53rd? Either and more could be on the horizon if the MTA has its way. In the past, subway stations used to be named based on where they were located, but the MTA is jumping on the chance to raise revenue for the transit system by allowing advertisers to buy in. "It’s always a question of balancing our need for revenue and our stewardship of public space,” MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin told The New York Times. But just because a company wants to brand itself on a subway station doesn't mean the advertising will work in its favor. No one's going to buy an ad that doesn't make sense. “To be effective, the viewer needs to understand the relevance of the ad,” branding expert Allen Adamson told the Times. “To rename the 59th and Lex stop the McDonald’s stop — it ain’t going to work. I don’t think it will stick.” That's not going to stop companies from trying. The Barclays name change is scheduled for 2012 in line with the opening of the new arena. Forest City Ratner would pay for the new signs and the MTA would slowly incorporate the name change into city maps once the stadium opens, the Times reports. All of this could hinge on a deal for the Vanderbilt Yard -- a process that has been embroiled in controversy since the project was announced six years ago. The MTA is expected to vote this morning on a proposed payment plan for Forest City Ratner. The Empire State Development Corporation voted yesterday that the company only has to pay the MTA $20 million upfront to acquire the land and start work. However, that would apply only if the agency can find buyers for its tax-exempt bonds for the project, according to The New York Post. Initially, Ratner was supposed to pay a one-time amount of $100 million before construction began. If the new deal is approved, the company would have more than two decades to pay off the rest of the multi-billion-dollar 22-acre development. "This is crazy. The MTA needs this cash now to invest in physical assets like subway cars and signal refurbishment; its budget for these areas already faces a huge cash shortfall," wrote the Manhattan Institute's Nicole Gelinas in a Post op-ed. "Remember, the MTA is so cash-strapped that it had to beg the state for a permanent $2 billion-a-year bailout a couple of months back. Yet now, in effect, it's proposing to lend money to a speculative developer at a 6.5 percent interest rate for decades. That rate is laughable." The whole thing is laughable, according to the watchdogs who've been bemoaning it for years . When the project was announced in 2003, it was slated to open in 2006. It was supposed to include vast public benefits -- affordable housing, cool architecture and jobs for minorities -- that earned the site hundreds of millions in tax breaks but have since disappeared. "Every year the goalposts move," Norman Oder cautions on his blog. Oder doesn't pin all his ire on Ratner or the MTA, however. He partially blames the media for going along with it because of their own interests. "The New York Times, which yesterday offered a truncated and contemptible print account of the deal expected between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Forest City Ratner for the Vanderbilt Yard, today offers a lengthy, fluffy story headlined M.T.A. Sells Naming Rights to Subway Station," he wrote in the Atlantic Yards Report. "A little skepticism--or at least a little hedging--is in order, especially since FCR is the parent New York Times Company's business partner in the Times Tower." URL: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31524989/MSN Privacy . Legal © 2009 MSNBC.com |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 24, 2009 13:38:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Jun 24, 2009 21:03:22 GMT -8
The post was intended to be sarcarstic, dude. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 25, 2009 9:57:19 GMT -8
The post was intended to be sarcarstic, dude. what's wrong with responding to a sarcastic post?  anyways, I take it that the story about the subway naming-rights deal is true. which means that there's a precedent should Los Angeles ever decide to do anything that lame-brained. |
|
