With the Second Avenue Subway, the Long Island Railroad to Grand Central, and other major rail projects planned, borrowed for, financially diverted from and abandoned, in some cases several times, new politicians on the block face a dilemma. Come up with even more money to carry out those plans, and they get the blame for the cost and disruption while the irresponsible pols that preceded them get credit for the improvement. Fail to do so and they might get blamed for the absence of such improvements. Thus, a few ambitious up and comers have hit upon water transportation as a new mode they can get credit for supporting, and have hit upon calls for public subsidies as a way to get their name in the news. Unfortunately, such subsidies would divert scarce resources from the existing subway system most New Yorkers rely on, to a new luxury mode that almost exclusively serves the better off — and relatively few of them at that. On a populist basis, such a proposal is easily and fairly attacked. There is, however, a potential transformational investment to that very subway system, one not on anybody’s radar screen, that would permanently increase the potential of ferry service as a transport mode. The opportunity to make that investment is about to close as a result of a development that would be built in its path. That investment is…
…extending the Times Square shuttle at grade through the former Con Edison power station site south of 41st Street and East of First Avenue, at grade under the FDR Drive, and down to the ferry terminal at E. 34th Street.
The key problem with ferries not is the lack of subsidies, as some have suggested. It is the lack of inland connections. If the former industrial land along the Hudson and East River waterfronts is redeveloped with commercial space, housing, and parks, then eventually the number of people living and working on the water may be enough, by itself, to support a ferry network. As it is, most people live and work inland, and only at South Ferry in Manhattan, St. George on Staten Island, and Hoboken in New Jersey is the water directly connected with the region’s rail transit network. And while most of Downtown Manhattan is within walking distance of the waterfront, Midtown – a far greater job and activity center – is not.
This affects the viability of ferry service overall. To get from a ferry into Midtown, you have to take a slow cross-town bus, and then transfer to a subway to go north or south. The jobs are thus at least 20 minutes away from the water, and unless you live on the water and can walk to a ferry, you probably have to take at least that much time to get to it on other end of the trip as well. NY Waterways overcomes this with a private bus, but this is expensive, and their bus is stuck in the same cross-town traffic as the city buses.
It was not always so. It is difficult, expensive and dangerous to build subway stations at the water line, because of flooding problems. When the city relied on Els, however, these tended to go right up to the water. At that time, Downtown was the more important job center, and the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 9th Avenue Els terminated at South Ferry. A spur off the 2nd and 3rd Avenue Els went down 34th Street to the East River ferry terminal. In Brooklyn, the BMT Broadway line, which now goes over the Williamsburg Bridge, ended at a ferry terminal at the foot of Broadway. Other Els along Fulton, Myrtle and 5th Avenue, now long replaced by the Fulton Street (A/C), 4th Avenue (N/R/W), and cross-town (G) subways, not only went over the Brooklyn Bridge and terminated at Park Row, but also (via another spur) ran down to a ferry terminal at Fulton Ferry. Before the 4th Avenue Line was built, the Sea Beach Line originally ended at a ferry terminal at 59th Street. And before Penn Station was built, the Long Island Railroad ended right at the waterfront in Hunters Point, where ferries finished the trip to Manhattan. You can see metal towers with Long Island writing on them marking the spot. Finally, when there was less motor vehicle traffic, cross-town trolleys moved faster than buses do today.
The best thing the City could do to promote ferry service is to establish direct, fast, seamless, ferry-to-rail transit connections to Midtown, on both the East River and Hudson River sides. This would allow water transit operators on either river to make two stops – one serving Midtown, and one serving Downtown — and in so doing provide their customers with access to all of Manhattan’s jobs and services. While the new connections would be in Midtown, the expansion of ferry service overall would benefit Downtown, which is already accessible to the water. Existing residential neighborhoods on a direct line to the CBD by water but not by rail, such as Whitestone in Queens, City Island in the Bronx, and the Rockaways in Queens, would benefit was well. Private ferries would still not be cheap, but new waterfront housing wouldn’t be either. The ferries would at least provide a quality transit mode for those who could afford them. And since they would not rely on public subsidies, there would be no limit to their expansion.
A relatively inexpensive means of providing a connection from ferries inland to Midtown is discussed below.
The Flushing Line is already proposed to be extended west and south, ending at 11th Avenue and 34th Street. The extension is proposed to be financed by the additional taxes paid by development in the area. For a modest additional cost, a pedestrian connection could extend from the terminal over route 9A into a ferry terminal on the Hudson. With the Flushing Line within one block of the pier, ferry riders could step off a boat, walk a few minutes, and board a train after waiting (during rush hours) two and a half minutes at most, and be at Times Square or at Grand Central four to eight minutes later.
In addition, the 42nd Street shuttle could be extended east to the waterfront (on 40th or 41st Street). Given the steep grade drop from 1st Avenue to the river, it could then be extended south at grade through the basement of that site and under the FDR Drive to a series of East River ferry piers. Incorporated into a development at the Con Edison property it could extend as far south as the hospital complex south of 34th Street. This would require ½ mile of expensive underground construction, but the portion in the Con Edison site – assuming the building is built at the same time – and at grade under the FDR – would be much cheaper. The line would pass across the access road south of the entrance ramp to the FDR – the access road would either be made discontinuous there or would elevated over the rail line – to get under the FDR itself, and thus adjacent to the water. This extension could be financed by having the City dedicate some additional taxes from the West Side rezoning, and having the City and State dedicate taxes from the Con Edison site itself – having a rail station right in the complex would make a new development on this site much more valuable. The Port Authority could also be asked to contribute, since ferry service is within its “port” mission.
Moreover, the city has begun to conclude that perhaps waterfront housing development in Brooklyn and Queens ought not receive a full exemption from taxes for years and years. The current proposal is to use some of the proceeds from those developments to subsidize less expensive housing for a small number of beneficiaries. Anywhere else in the country, however, major new developments like these would be required to pay for the schools or infrastructure required to service them as a condition of approval. The City could reduce the tax benefits for such housing, and use the tax dollars collected to help fund the extended shuttle. The presence of the extended shuttle, and the potential for ferry service to it, could then be cited as mitigation for any traffic impacts of new development anywhere on the waterfront.
Together, the extended Flushing Line and the extended Shuttle would become the equivalent of the long-discussed 42nd Street light rail line — but with far more capacity, no loss of street lanes, and no need to wait at traffic lights. In addition to serving ferry terminals and new development, the lines could serve east-west traffic in general, including those transferring from the 6th Avenue line to get to the Grand Central area. Finally, those living or working in Manhattan could use the Flushing Line and extended shuttle, and then ferries or other watercraft, to get to destinations outside the central business district, such as Yankee and Shea Stadiums, the airports, and waterfront parks.
The Shuttle would be converted to a highly automated, high frequency (every 90 seconds or less) line, with stations close together. It would run like an elevator, with employees on the platforms, rather than on the trains. Train-sets would be just 250-300 feet long, cutting the cost of the stations, reducing braking distances, and increasing trains per hour.
Since the route would be very short, the cars would lack seats, instead having as much door space as possible, with doors and roof supports lining both sides of the car from end to end. At the major transfer stations – the ferry terminals, Grand Central, Times Square, and Sixth Avenue (a new subway transfer) — both center and side platforms could be built, allowing passengers to exit in one direction and enter from another; there is room for this because the shuttle was part of the city’s original subway, a four track line. Entering on one side and exiting on the other, combined with the extensive door space, would limit dwell time in the stations, allowing far shorter headways than are possible on the commuter railroads or even the subway.
Passenger capacity would thus be substantial – up to 40,000 per hour in each direction. Additional stations could be located at 5th/6th Avenues, between Lexington and 3rd Avenues, at 2nd Avenue (thus providing a direct connection to Grand Central and Times Square from the Second Avenue line, if it is built), in the Con Edison development — and at ferry terminal or terminals along the East River between 36th and 34th Streets. The extended shuttle would have not problem getting past the Lexington Avenue line, because that line was connected at a lower level when the IRT was restructured in the 1910s.
With a subway connection to the heart of Midtown as well as Downtown, waterborne transit could continue its renaissance. Moreover, with a direct and fast inland connection, Upper East Side residents would be able to use ferries to get to the Grand Central area and Times Square as well as Downtown, providing an alternative unless and until the Second Avenue subway is built. Only with such a connection would a network of ferry piers, proposed by the 2012 Olympic Committee, really be useful. And, with the addition of Midtown as a destination, a watercraft service from the Rockaways, perhaps stopping at Bay Ridge and Red Hook as well as Lower Manhattan and E. 34th Street, would be more likely to succeed. Moreover, the Mayor’s recently released plan for housing development, which relies on extremely wealth people paying vastly more than they would elsewhere to live in towers over highways and railyards, is shall we say a little unrealistic and a product of a housing boom about to bust. However, the idea that such people would pay similar sums to live on the waterfront a short ferry ride from Downtown AND Midtown is more reasonable.
The former Con Edison plant at the heart of this proposal is being demolished. Plans to replace it with a major development are under review at the state level. Once that development is approved, the possibility to requiring an easement for an extended shuttle is eliminated. The possibility of requiring a contribution to its construction, or dedicating a portion of the tax revenues, may also be lost. And once such a development is built, it may be difficult if not impossible to extend the shuttle at-grade to the water one – doing it below grade is, as mentioned, near impossible and foolish.
Is there some ambitious pol willing to call the public’s attention to this opportunity, before the opportunity is lost? Perhaps one with a sense of humor? Don’t be wieners guys. The worst that can happen is some future pol may be blamed when they are unable to complete your plan.