Crain's Business News reported last week that the Giuliani Administration is considering a special property tax district on the Midtown Manhattan's far West Side to finance an extension of the #7 subway line from Times Square to the Javitz Convention Center on 12th Ave. The district would begin at the 8th Ave. General Post Office and stretch to the convention center.

According to the article, the "tax increment financing" scheme would give the City a revenue stream, in part brought on by new development spurred in the area, to finance bonds for the $700 million subway extension. Weak transit access is widely seen as a barrier to the movement of Midtown office development west of 8th Avenue, and to various proposals to build sports stadiums in the area. This renewed talk about the #7 project may be in part driven by business figures assembling a NYC bid for the 2012 Olympics (MTR #262)

The proposal has powerful allies in the Mayor and Senator Charles Schumer, who heads a Commission charged with increasing city commercial space for high-tech industries. However, Crain's reports that real estate industry leaders had balked at suggestions of the same manner of financing for the 2nd Avenue subway. And while, at the insistence of the Mayor, the MTA has set aside money for west-side transit planning in its 2000-2004 capital plan, the #7 line extension is only one of a handful of ambitious transit projects waiting in line.

"Traveling to LaGuardia Airport takes 30 to 45 minutes longer than traveling to other American and international airports that are comparably distant from their city's central business district," states the final scoping document for the LaGuardia Airport Subway Access project. But the process to connect the airport to midtown and downtown Manhattan was set back last year when the four extensions of the N-line that NYC Transit proposed met strong local opposition. The agency has therefore expanded the list of possible alternatives that it will study in the EIS to 22, including eleven subway, three LIRR, one Metro-North, four people mover, one guided busway, one ferry and one bus option.

The original proposal would have studied extending the elevated N line via 19th Avenue, Ditmars Boulevard, the Grand Central Parkway or Sunnyside Yards to the BQE and then onto the airport. Ignoring the more fanciful concepts, the MTA's new list contains only two additional alignments. One would run from the LIRR main line, the E or the 7 train along the BQE and the GCP into the Central Terminal of the airport. The other would connect to the 7 or the LIRR's Port Washington Branch, loop around College Point and into the airport's eastern-most terminal. Most of the new proposals vary only by mode (LIRR, bus, people mover or subway.) The choice that may prove most palatable to concerned citizens is sinking the elevated N line into a tunnel along the originally proposed 19th Street alignment.

Given the project's screening criteria, many of the options will be dismissed before they are studied in detail. For instance, one criteria, "to maximize use of existing transit infrastructure and utilize proven transit technologies" will probably eliminate the proposal to circumnavigate Queens with a subway or to build "stand-alone" technology like a people mover. Further, given the heavy emphasis on providing a one-seat ride to the Manhattan central business district including Wall Street, the various Long Island Railroad and Metro-North options are likely to be eliminated. NYCT plans to whittle down the options again this fall and will present those that it will fully investigate in the DEIS to the project's advisory committees. No projected date for completion of the DEIS has been given.

Metro North Railroad released the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for construction of a third track along the lower Westchester section of the Harlem Valley Line. The preferred alternative would improve an existing mile of third track between Mt. Vernon West and Fleetwood Stations and build 2.5 miles of new track between Fleetwood and Crestwood Stations, entirely in MNRR right-of-way.

The Harlem Line is the only Metro-North line restricted to two tracks so close to its Grand Central Station terminus. Both the Hudson and New Haven Lines have four continuous tracks for at least 30 miles. The bottleneck has crimped efforts by the railroad to increase express service to NYC and to respond to sky-rocketing demand for more suburban local trains and a burgeoning reverse commute market. Suburb-to-suburb trips on the line have increased by 258% since 1984, and total Harlem Line ridership has increased 41% in the same period. But the lower Westchester "mid-section" of the Harlem Line operates near capacity during A.M. peak hours, such that the addition of even one local train would require the suspension of express service for stations farther north.

The third track project was delayed for years by Bronxville and Scarsdale residents concerned about added noise and vibrations from more trains, and about the visual impact of retaining walls along the tracks. The environmental assessment for the project was completed in 1995. But although environmentalists, suburban and city politicians, and Hudson Valley construction groups support the project, local opposition was enough to force further environmental study.

The third track is expected to take four years to complete, with operation beginning in 2005. Upon completion, Metro-North projects an increase of 700,000 annual passenger trips by 2005, and 1.9 million additional trips by 2020. Because most of these trips represent diversions from car travel, the project is eligible for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. In fact, according to the 2000-2004 NYMTC Transportation Improvement Plan, almost three-quarters of the $36 million in Federal funds for the Mid-Harlem third track are "flexible" TEA-21 funds, rather than the Federal Transit Administration dollars one would expect in most such projects. The TIP lists about $45 million total for the project.

A "record of decision" on the EIS from the Federal Transit Administration is expected soon.

Next month, NYC Transit plans to replace all standard buses in service along 23rd Street in Manhattan with articulated buses that are 20 feet longer, seat 22 more passengers and more than double standing room. However, the added space comes at a cost: the agency will run three of the longer buses for every four that now run during peak travel periods, with scheduled trips dropping between 12-15%. Riders and residents on other "all articulated" routes have complained the buses are slower, more difficult to get on and off, and cause traffic back-ups around turns. M23 riders are worried about the big buses' ability to navigate the narrow 11th Ave. turn into Chelsea Piers.

Articulated buses took over all service on Manhattan's 79th and 86th Street cross-town routes in January, with similar cuts in numbers of daily trips. Eight routes in the Bronx are served by articulated buses and have subsequently suffered even greater losses in service.

NYC Transit says the introduction of articulated service has increased miles traveled per seat, the measure it uses most to gauge service levels, on Manhattan routes by 31% on weekdays and more on weekends. On the M23 next month, "revenue seat miles" will increase by roughly 35% on weekdays. In addition, Transit projects wait-times will increase by between 1½ to 2½ minutes. However, rider advocates argue that, in practice, the lumbering buses have longer wait times due to low maneuverability and added time needed for boarding and debarking by high numbers of passengers.

More articulated buses are in the pipeline, though NYCT does not plan to introduce articulated service on any more routes this year (CORRECTION). And due to the increased number of CNG buses in the final version of the 2000-2004 MTA capital plan, the number of articulated buses scheduled for purchase has dropped substantially from the 400 originally planned. The Straphangers Campaign and officials like State Senator Tom Duane have argued that the influx of the big buses can help reduce crowded SRO conditions on some routes, but should not be an excuse to cut frequency of service.