Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

NJ, the far West Side, and LIC should pay for the No. 7 subway expansion

By

The transit blogosphere has been falling over itself with excitement since yesterday about Bloomberg’s proposal to extend the No. 7 train into New Jersey, and I have to agree that it sounds like a very good plan. It would be much cheaper than the recently-axed ARC project and wouldn’t involve a mile-deep, dead-end station. But best of all, it would reward areas like the far West Side, Queens, and North Jersey cities which have opened themselves up to development and allow the density necessary for mass transit to at least pretend to be self-sustainable – something that the commuter rail-centric New Jersey suburbs have been loathe to do.

A "lengthy environmental review" is obviously necessary to protect this pristine ecosystem, teaming with wildlife, from the ravages of developers

Despite the project’s reduced cost ($5.3 billion), it will apparently not be eligible for the $3 billion in federal funds that Chris Christie forfeited when he canceled the ARC project, so funding is the main stumbling block at this point.  The Times also cites “the lengthy environmental review required of such projects” as an obstacle.

My suggestion is that West Side developers or tenants, along with those in the benefiting parts of Queens and New Jersey, should pay for at least some of the cost. Mass transit, especially in metro New York, has huge positive externalities for real estate, and West Side developers are already salivating at the prospect. Back around the turn of the last century, when transit lines in America were still built and operated by private companies, developers themselves would internalize these externalities by directly controlling the real estate around their stations. While this model still works in East Asia, it would be hard to imagine such flexibility in New York any time soon, but a well-designed tax increment financing system could come close.  Under such a plan, a tax would only be levied on the areas that will directly benefit from the project.  The highest burden should obviously fall on the far West Side, with money also being collected in the areas around the new North Jersey stops and in Long Island City, Queens, which would gain a one-seat ride into North Jersey.

Given the huge boost the project would give to development deals across even already-built sections of the 7 train, it seems reasonable to ask developers, residents, and tenants to shoulder at least some of the costs of a No. 7 extension. Stephen Ross, whose Related Development won the contract for the lucrative Hudson Yards development (worth $15 billion, or three times the cost of the proposed subway expansion), has already been gifted with a new No. 7 station at 11th Ave. and 34th St. – the least he can do is give the city a little bit of money to give his new development a direct line into New Jersey.  Savvy developers will never pony up what they think they can get for free, though, so Bloomberg should make it clear that the project will only go forward if beneficiaries are ready to pay up.

  • I think NYC should pitch in too, as a whole. It would ease rents throughout the city by making it much easier to commute from New Jersey.

  • Thatdurcholaguy

    To improve discourse, it is important to state facts correctly. The ARC station was not proposed to be a “mile deep”. It was to be 150′ deep. A number of transit stations around the world, including some in Manhattan, are deeper.

  • I was exaggerating, but I must admit, that’s a lot deeper than I thought it was. I used to live in Georgetown and would cross the Potomac to go to the Rosslyn Metro station, which was only 100 feet deep but it took forever to get down (Wikipedia says the escalator takes 159 seconds). Can it really be true that the ARC station would have been four times as deep?

  • Urbanist1100

    Is it really better to have a NYC Subway line that dead-ends in Secaucus than to have a NJ Transit line that dead-ends at Herald Square?

  • Another externality / internalizing data point. Condos on the east coast of Singapore, otherwise pretty swish and near the beach, but a public transport black hole, often put on private buses to town or the MRT (subway). They would otherwise rent for much less.

  • The Herald Square dead-end would still have to figure out how to distribute a huge stream of passengers within the already overwhelmed area. Instead, the Secaucus dead-end is at the Lautenberg station — making use of an already-built white elephant built to distribute passengers between the various NJT lines. A subway, with its higher-frequency and higher-capacity service, probably also activates greater TOD opportunities in the areas Stephen mentions.

  • BenRoss

    Actually, the Washington Metro is doing this. The authority owns much land around its suburban stations, purchased when the system was built for surface parking or in some cases for construction staging. FTA now allows transit agencies to keep funds raised by developing land purchased with its aid (instead of demanding repayment of the original grant).

    Ben Ross

  • Pingback: Today’s briefs « west north()

  • Pingback: Visitez le site()

Meta