A report from the NYC Partnership, the city’s most prominent business group, sharpens NYC’s debate over whether capital investment in mass transit capacity should emphasize general mobility improvements or underpin real estate development and thus serve altogether new trips and travel markets.

That debate has been developing within New York City for the past several years. Mayor Bloomberg is on one side of it, stating often that his number one mass transit priority is extending the #7 subway to the far west side of Midtown to facilitate stadium and office tower development. Lower Manhattan business interests have taken the point further. They propose that in-use subway infrastructure be appropriated for a direct LIRR-downtown link they say will boost investment in lower Manhattan.

The Partnership’s paper also backs this point of view. Indeed, it complains that the transportation industry focuses too much attention on current infrastructure and users. It argues that major investment decisions about city transit are generally made without consulting the business community and with little objective regard for projects’ likely contributions to economic growth.

The report ranks major transportation proposals according to their estimated economic development impacts and their transportation benefits.

The economic benefits appear to be linked directly to property values, though job creation is also mentioned at points in the argument. Transportation benefits are derived from assigning values to reduced trip times, including time associated with transfers and walking. It does not estimate the overall mobility or access benefits from groups or combinations of projects, or from single projects’ integration into the overall transit network.

The paper says transportation hubs are the best motors for economic growth, because multiple lines converge at them and thus they are stronger drivers of business location decisions than are single transit lines. Thus, the report is bullish on the lower Manhattan transit hub (combining the permanent PATH station with an upgraded Fulton Street station and encompassing nearby N/R and E-train stations) and the Farley Building/Penn Station project. It is also favorable toward connection of the LIRR to Grand Central and the extension of the #7 train to the far west side. Without analyzing it, it also reports favorably on the Brookfield "super-shuttle" project, which would take part of the A/C subway tunnel between Brooklyn and Manhattan for a LIRR connection to lower Manhattan. Also without analysis, it recommends that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority develop a regional ferry system.

On the other hand, the Partnership calls for rethinking the Second Avenue subway, calling for analysis of various segments and for the MTA to scrap its commitment to its full-build construction. It is also negative regarding additional commuter rail tunnels between New Jersey and Manhattan, though it admits that it did not factor in benefits to New Jersey for the latter and elsewhere calls for rail passenger service from New Jersey to Queens.

The paper seems far from the last word on appropriate transit investment for Manhattan, though it is perhaps valuable as a stark statement of the real estate industry’s point of view. While historically, subways led the development of much of NYC, the long hiatus in transit development during the second half of the 20^th century has created many areas where job and residential development has outstripped mass transit capacity. Brutal crowding on the Lexington Avenue line is a case in point. The Partnership does not consider how such conditions may present a major obstacle to people living and working in lower Manhattan, for instance, nor how some of its recommendations will make subway crowding on the east side even worse. Moreover, the lack of network considerations in estimating transportation benefits would seem to put a greater damper than usual on a project like the Second Ave line, which will increase transit access options for many across the city. And on its face, it is hard to see how a project like the Farley Penn Station project, which has no transportation benefit at all, will on its own stand as a magnet for development. 

MTR back issues:

Go to index of all Mobilizing the Region back issues