!!!!

From Myth to Mass TransitPolicy and Politics of the Second Avenue Subway !

!!!!!!!!!

Molly Ward PS479: Political Science Seminar

February 12, 2015

Ward !2

In a less than scripted moment about a year before he left office, outgoing New York City

Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared that construction delays would not stop him from seeing the

extension of the 7 train completed: Theyll run a train, if I have to push it myself. Sure 1

enough, he boarded a train bound for a brand new stop at 34th Street in December 2013.

Reporters crowded into the sparkling new station that had not yet been besieged by the grime

typical of New Yorks well-used subway platforms while the mayor heralded the project as yet

another symbol of how New York City is a place where big projects can get done. 2

The scene was truly just the first element of a much larger project to revitalize the rail

yard wasteland known as Hudson Yards. A collaboration between the Department of City

Planning and the MTA, the project would develop a 26-acre industrial rail yard on the far west

side of Manhattan into a hot new neighborhood with 12 acres of public spaces (like parks), a

luxury hotel, restaurants, businesses, and some 20,000 units of housing. 3

However, the Hudson Yards project and accompanying 7 train extension were not just

average urban revitalization plans; rather, they were pet projects of Mayor Bloomberg. Following

in the footsteps of his predecessor, Bloomberg was supportive of a proposal to erect a new

football stadium on the site as part of a larger plan to draw the Olympic Games back to New

York. The proposal required approval from lawmakers upstate, who rejected the $2.2 billion

Michael Gyrnbaum, Twitter post, February 15, 2013, 8:25 a.m. http://www.twitter.com/gyrnbaum.1 Jennifer Fermino, "Mayor Bloomberg gets ride on No. 7 subway line extension he championed, New 2

York Daily News, December 20, 2013, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bloomberg-sneak-ride-7-line-extension-article-1.1554643. Rachel Hennessey, "Hudson Yards To Shake Up Manhattan Skyline, Forbes, June 4, 2013, http://3

www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2013/06/04/six-months-into-construction-and-a-long-road-still-lies-ahead-before-manhattans-new-frontier-reaches-completion/.

Ward !3

project citing concerns about undermining the ongoing redevelopment of Lower Manhattan. 4

Without the stadium, the city poured its resources into a mixed-use redevelopment plan,

including at least $434 million in tax breaks for two of the proposed towers on the site. In 2013, 5

the New York Daily News reported that the mayor funneled $9 million of property tax money

toward the project without the approval of City Council. 6

While the project consists primarily of private development, the success of the ongoing

project hinged upon making the area more accessible. An extension of the 7 train line survived

the demise of the stadium plan with one major revision, the exclusion of a second stop originally

planned for 10th Avenue and 41st Street. The city itself (rather than the MTA) served as the 7

primary funder of the $2.4 billion project which began construction in December 2007. 8

The average New Yorker likely wont take Mr. Bloombergs trip to 34th Street until April

2015 at the earliest, but the 16-year period from planning to completion for 7 train extension still

dwarfs the near-century long history of the Second Avenue subway. For nearly 90 years, the 9

desire for more public transit services on the east side of Manhattan has been strong enough to

Charles V. Bagli and Michael Cooper, "Bloomberg's Stadium Quest Fails; Olympic Bid Is Hurt, New 4York Times, June 6, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/nyregion/07stadium.html?pagewanted=print. Daniel Levitt, Related Hudson Yards Approved for $328 Million Tax Break, Bloomberg, October 15, 5

2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/related-hudson-yards-gets-approval-for-328-million-tax-subsidy.html. Juan Gonzalez, "Bloomberg secretly funneled $9 million in city property taxes to Hudson Yards 6

project, New York Daily News, March 6, 2013, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/gonzalez-bloomberg-secretly-funneled-9-million-hudson-yards-article-1.1281568. Michael H. Saul, New Hope for Tenth Avenue Station on the No. 7 Subway Extension, Wall Street 7

Journal, June 30, 2010, http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/06/30/new-hope-for-tenth-avenue-station-on-the-no-7-subway-extension/. New York City Office of the Mayor, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Spitzer Announce Start of 8

Construction on #7 Subway Extension, December 3, 2007, http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2007b/pr437-07.html. Rebecca Harshbarger, 7 Train Opening Delayed, New York Post, December 15, 2014, http://9

nypost.com/2014/12/15/7-train-opening-delayed/.

Ward !4

garner consideration. In recent history, the crowding on existing platforms almost speaks for

itself.

As of 2004, The Lex[ington Avenue line] carries 1.5 million passengers, more daily

riders than the metro systems in Washington, D.C., Boston, and Chicago - combined. Building 10

another train would not only reduce some of the pressure on the 4, 5, and 6 trains, it would

increase the value of the far eastern parts of the neighborhood where some locals can walk up to

a mile to access the subway. While businesses along the current construction route on the Upper

East Side have suffered during the construction process, the looming end of construction has

some developers and owners seeing dollar signs. 11

Despite intense need and some appealing benefits, the project has only come to

substantial fruition in the middle of the first decade of this century; multiple false starts and

financial woes have transformed the project over time even as need grew exponentially. The

potential factors that have delayed and eventually ended previous iterations of the Second

Avenue subway line reveal why the project is only now progressing toward likely fruition, while

highlighting the realities transit supporters must understand in order to earn more support for

their cause.

False Starts

A proposed subway line to serve Second Avenue in Manhattan has been requested,

discussed, delayed and eventually dismissed outright multiple times in the nearly century long

Greg Sargent, The Line That Time Forgot, New York Magazine, March 29, 2004, http://nymag.com/10nymetro/news/features/n_10109/.

Joe Anuta, Landlords dig Second Ave. subway, Crains New York Business, February 24, 2014, http://11www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140224/REAL_ESTATE/302239989/landlords-dig-second-ave-subway#.

Ward !5

history of the project. First in the late Twenties, and again in the Forties and Fifties, the projects

high costs and the general economic conditions made full funding difficult to acquire, thus

ending the project before any sort of construction could break ground.

As railways were developed throughout New York City in the late 1800s, access to

inexpensive mass transit spurred growth out and away. Areas like the Upper East Side were

largely underutilized, with small buildings scattered haphazardly among open tracts of land.

First, rail cars began to venture further north, followed by the elevated railways or els that

traversed Second and Third Avenue. A trip that could take three hours in a horse-drawn coach 12

took 45 minutes on the el. However, the newest transit option was not without drawbacks: the els

were noisy, they blocked the sun at street level, and the coal that powered them created an ever-

active volcano of smoke and ash, as one Australian visitor described it. 13

While many of the citys most affluent people had already built mansions along Fifth

Avenue just south of 59th Street, growing access to Manhattans further reaches helped to nudge

them north, where they began to build even more lavish residences in the western parts of the

Upper East Side. Simultaneously, the areas around the els filled with large tenement buildings, 14

housing a substantially more working class contingent. By 1890, most of the available ground in

the area had been developed in some way. 15

Construction for the easternmost underground subway - the Lexington Avenue line -

finally reached the Upper East Side in 1911, even though sections of the line in Lower

Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, History, Upper East Side Historic District 12Expansion, accessed April 27, 2014, http://www.lexingtonexhibit.org/history.php.

Clifton Hood,722 Miles: The Building of the Subways and How They Transformed New York 13(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004) 51-54.

Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, History.14 Hood, 722 Miles, 54.15

Ward !6

Manhattan had opened seven years prior. As part of the first underground subway in the city, it

changed the landscape of the area drastically, ripping up the stoops and replacing them with

ground level commercial spaces. These patterns of occupancy - with businesses on the ground

floor and apartments above them, more formal residences on the side streets - still characterize

New York City life. 16

The concept of the Second Avenue Subway emerged in the heyday of New York Citys

transit infrastructure construction. Daniel L. Turner had become a key figure in the realm of

subway engineering, serving as one of the key minds behind one of the first subway projects and

an effective advocate for the transformative role of public transit in the city. As an engineer for

the Transit Construction Commissioners office in 1920, Turner issued a massive plan on the

expansion of the existing rapid transit systems in New York City at the time. His plans included

new subway lines under many avenues (including Madison and Third), as many as eight new

crosstown lines in Manhattan, and even a connection to Staten Island.

Some of Turners proposals were scaled down and reinterpreted in the Regional Plan of

New York and Its Environs in 1929, a comprehensive plan for new highways, tunnels, bridges

and mass transit projects. One aspect of the plan called the Second Avenue Trunk Line would 17

include six tracks with possible eight track sections to accommodate connections to Queens,

while replacing the aging el system that currently served the Upper East Side. 18

In 1929, the Citys Board of Transportation first announced plans to build a Second

Avenue subway line. The proposal, much like Turners, featured six tracks of varying length

Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, History.16 Hood, 722 Miles, 198-201.17 Second Avenue Subway: The Line That Almost Never Was, NYC Subway, accessed April 11, 2014, 18

http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway:_The_Line_That_Almost_Never_Was.

Ward !7

collectively extending from Houston Street all the way to Harlem River. The original plan

included connections to lines in the Bronx and in other parts of Manhattan; the project was billed

as potentially unifying the current two-operator system. The New York Times at the time cited the

estimated cost as $800 million. 19

In the following months and years, planners argued about routes as many land owners

brought up concerns about their property. The plan originally featured a turn off at 57th Street to

connect service to the Sixth Avenue line, but property owners along the street fought against the

use of the thoroughfare for the line. The plans were eventually revised so 61st Street would

anchor the turn off. By February 1930, civic organizations used a public hearing on the plan to

urge immediate action, concerned that the price tag for the project was steadily increasing. Some

connections were eliminated in an effort to cut costs. 20

The first phase of construction was set to begin in 1931, but the effects of the Great

Depression proved too substantial for the project to proceed. Earlier cost estimates for the entire

IND line were proving to be too low by nearly 100 percent, compounded by other construction

plans that had fallen far behind schedule. The Second Avenue line was postponed: small tweaks

were made to the projects plans, but the true substance of the project was dead. 21

The 1930s were heralded as a golden age for transit riders. Artistic representations of

the era depicted the subways as crowded with men, women, and children of many races and

ethnicities, all safe underground. The system had succeeded in moving working-class residents to

the outer boroughs, making them appear to be the greater share of regular riders; the nickel fare

"SECOND AV. CHOSEN FOR NEXT SUBWAY; COST $800,000,000, New York Times, August 30 191929, p 1.

Second Avenue Subway, NYC Subway.20 Ibid.21

Ward !8

was low enough to enable access for the poor, but still prohibited some from taking advantage of

the system at the height of the Great Depression. Ridership rebounded in the early to 22

mid-1940s, before falling off yet again as automobile manufacturing picked up after World War

II. 23

In 1944, the City began dismantling the Second Avenue el, taking two years to clear the

avenue of the entire structure. At the same time though, a slightly simplified version of the

Turner plan reemerged. The key promises of the plan were potential connections to Brooklyn via

the Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridges. As the project faced continued revision, the Board of 24

Transportation was operating at a deficit even with fare hikes on both the underground and

surface lines. The city lost $18 million in 1947 and $30 million in 1948. Coupled with the

growing wear on the system as a whole and the limited availability of municipal funding for

capital improvements, procuring outside funding became a necessity. 25

That capital came in 1950 in the form of a debt exemption that would allow the city to

exceed a constitutionally imposed borrowing limit. The next step, a state-level bond measure 26

that would garner $500 million for the city, came up for a vote in November 1951. Signs created

by the Board of Transportation advocated for the measure, declaring that Construction Means

Employment For Thousands. 27

Hood, 722 Miles, 214-216.22 Ibid, 240-241.23 The New York Public Library and the New York Transit Museum, Second Avenue Subway, The 24

Future Beneath Us: 8 Great Projects Under New York, accessed April 27, 2014, http://www.transitmuseumeducation.org/fbu/projects/secondavenue.

Second Avenue Subway, NYC Subway.25 Paul Crowell, "$500,000,000 Voted for 2D Ave Subway by Estimate Board, New York Times, 26

September 14, 1951. New York Public Library and Transit Museum, Second Avenue Subway.27

Ward !9

The measure passed, but construction never began. Amidst the Korean War, inflation and

elevated construction costs made the project seem too ambitious for the time. The $500 million

was steered toward smaller capital investments, like buying new train cars and lengthening some

platforms. The decision angered many who voted for the bond thinking it could only be used 28

for new construction, but the NYCTAs decision to redirect the funds was later upheld by a

formal probe in 1957. 29

Construction Begins

It took until the late 1960s and early 1970s to finally advance the Second Avenue project

to a point where construction actually began. The combination of stronger support from state and

local government officials and the establishment of lasting national policy through the Federal

Mass Transportation Act was able to deliver the project from planning phases where it had

languished previously.

In 1963, proposals for a new tunnel connecting Queens with the Upper East Side of

Manhattan were taken up by the City Planning Commission. It was clear that a Second Avenue

subway would greatly enhance concepts of the plan, which focused on tunnels originating as far

north as 76th Street in Manhattan. The project was considered long-range, meaning it

languished in government bureaucracy never truly gaining any traction. However, it revived the 30

idea of the Second Avenue subway in the public consciousness once more.

Two major leaders were key to acquiring substantial funding for the project. During his

term as Governor of New York, Nelson A. Rockefeller did not shy away from his states mass

New York Public Library and Transit Museum, Second Avenue Subway.28 Second Avenue Subway, NYC Subway.29 Ibid.30

Ward !10

transit issues. Although hed assumed the governorship reticent to save the failing commuter

railroads, he eventually created the Metropolitan Transit Authority, centralizing control of the

subways, bridges, tunnels and those commuter rail lines. The change was one of many who put

him at odds with New York City Mayor John Lindsay, who had his own ideas for reforming the

agencies controlling transportation in and around the city. While Lindsays own proposal to tap 31

the resources of the bridge and tunnel authority to subsidize an increased subway fare was

illegal, Rockefellers creative holding company structure of the MTA allowed him to do just that

without legal implications. Rockefellers involvement in mass transit issues was not just

unprecedented at the time, it was another way to exert his control over the city and Lindsay, with

whom he did not get along at times. 32

However, the pair happened to find agreement on this issue. In 1967, Rockefeller actively

campaigned in favor of a $2.5 billion transportation bond measure intended to finance multiple

projects throughout the state. The New York Times reported, the Governor has repeatedly said he

considers the bond issue the most significant state undertaking since he took office eight years

prior. In addition, half of the sum was marked for mass transit projects, a preponderance of

which would benefit Lindsay and his constituents. 33

On election day, Rockefeller joined Lindsay and City Council President Frank OConnor

underground to solicit votes. Rockefeller said he was optimistic the measure would be

approved, but emphasized that if the measure failed tax hikes were likely. Lindsay was simply

Vincent J. Cannato, The Ungovernable City: John Lindsay and His Struggle to Save New York, (New 31York: Basic Books, 2001) 97-99.

Richard Norton Smith, On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller, (New York: Random House, 322014) 503-506.

Richard Witkin, "GOVERNOR PLEADS FORYES' ON BONDS, New York Times, November 07, 331967, p. 1.

Ward !11

emphatic: The City will be in very deep trouble building new subway lines without the funds.

The measure - the largest of its kind at the time - passed. 34

Two years later, financial support for the Second Avenue subway became more explicit.

Despite the transit bonds passage, the amount dedicated to the citys mass transit had been

reduced to $600 million, to be split between multiple projects. With Lindsay running for

reelection for mayor, Rockefeller announced that the state would grant an additional $99 million

to the city for the first phase of construction on the Second Avenue project. This, combined 35

with the $43 million commitment from the city ($22 million for the first phase of construction),

was a substantial beginning for the previously ill-fated project.

Federal action also played an important role in the feasibility of the plan during this

period. While the federal government had previously been involved in capital funding for

transportation projects, previous outlays were sporadic and focused predominantly on railroads

and highways. The 1961 Housing Act signed by President John F. Kennedy included a $25 36

million allocation for mass transportation demonstration projects and authorized the Housing

and Home Finance Agency to loan funds for such plans. However, the project was considered

small and the available funds specified for neediest cases. More would need to be done to

actually strengthen mass transportation support at the federal level. 37

More came in the form of a federal capital grant program for mass transit projects that

was introduced in Congress in 1962. Language in a highway bill passed the same year required

Witkin, "GOVERNOR PLEADS FORYES."34 "CITY SUBWAY GETS 99-MILLION GRANT, New York Times, October 26, 1969, p. 46.35 Federal Transit Administration, "About FTA and Our History, United States of America 36

Department of Transportation, accessed April 27, 2014, http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/14103.html. George M. Smerk, "Development of Federal Urban Mass Transportation Policy, Indiana Law Journal 37

47, no. 2 (1972): 270-272.

Ward !12

urban areas to at least consider transport alternatives beyond highways, but monetary backing

would be necessary to make such considerations plausible. The resulting proposal, known as the

Urban Mass Transportation Bill, was supported in the Senate and strongly backed by the

Kennedy administration. However, Southern Democrats were frustrated by the push for civil

rights, resulting in an anti-urban sentiment. House of Representatives Rules Committee stalled,

refusing to report the measure out to the floor. It looked like the measure would meet a similar

end after being reintroduced in 1963, when fear of the measures failure in the full House

motivated its supporters to keep the bill in committee. 38

Concerned by the blockage, outside supporters - city interests, the transit industry, and

organized labor - united to form the Urban Passenger Transportation Association (UPTA), a

coalition strong enough to earn the support of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Yet the 39

New Deal coalition of Northern labor interests and Southern Democrats that had previously

stood united was now at odds over urban issues like this, making the support of Northern

Republican House members essential. While some had supported earlier iterations of the 40

measure, many conservatives believed the proposal was an undue invasion on local sovereignty

and would increase the federal deficit. UPTA believed 35-40 Republicans would ultimately 41

vote in favor of the measure; however, the House Republican Policy Committee claimed to be in

Smerk, "Development of Federal Urban Mass Transportation, 272-274.38 Ibid, 275.39 Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle, ed., The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order 1930-1980 (New Jersey: 40

Princeton University Press, 1989). "Mass Transit Bill Fails to Pass." In CQ Almanac 1963, 19th ed., 556-62. Washington, DC: 41

Congressional Quarterly, 1964. http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal63-1315960.

Ward !13

direct, unalterable opposition to the measure, a stance many believed they would not take if

they feared that members might actually vote otherwise. 42

In the end, it was political brinksmanship that brought the measure to the House floor.

Republican Representative William Windall threatened to call a press conference announcing

that Republicans would vote for the mass transit measure, and bully the Democratic House

Speaker and the White House for obstructing legislative procedures. The potential perception of

a Republican victory and threat of embarrassment motivated the Democratic House leadership to

bring the measure to the full House, where northeastern Republicans voted yes, straying from the

party line en masse. The measure passed with 212 in favor and 189 opposed. 43

In July 1964, Johnson signed the measure into law, thus authorizing the Housing and

Home Finance Administrator to make grants or loans to finance the acquisition, construction,

reconstruction, and improvement of [] mass transportation service in urban areas. Another 44

law passed in 1970 added an additional $10 billion over 12 years toward the previously specified

outlays. 45

This marked the first significant step toward providing any regular funding for mass

transportation in the United States. In his signing remarks, President Johnson called the measure

by any standard one of the most profoundly significant domestic measures to be enacted by the

Congress during the 1960s and pegged it as remaining faithful to the tradition of investing all

kinds of transportation infrastructure. Our Constitution empowered Congress to provide for post

roads. Since that time, congressional support of transportation has been a major constructive

Smerk, "Development of Federal Urban Mass Transportation Policy, 275.42 Ibid.43 Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964" (PL 88-365, July 9, 1964).44 Urban Mass Transit Assistance Act, 1970 (PL 91-453, October 15, 1970).45

Ward !14

influence on the progress and development of our American society and our American

economy. 46

With specific support for mass transit projects in place, it was only a matter of time

before Second Avenue was able to procure funds from the program. In May 1972, the MTA

formally requested $254 million for the northern section of the line, beginning at 34th Street and

extending to 126th Street. A month later, the Federal Government announced a $25 million grant

contribution for the project. The government was expected to provide that full amount at the 47

time, as it constituted the two-thirds threshold that the Federal government was willing to

commit to any funded project; however, the law also states that no state can get more than 12

percent of the total funding in any year, meaning the full outlay would have to come over the

course of many, many years. This marked the first time in the history of New York City that 48

federal funding was ever made available for major new subway construction, serving as an

example of the Johnsons Great Society plan to involve the federal government in revitalizing

cities. 49

With federal funds in hand, Mayor Lindsay swung a pickaxe at the asphalt as Governor

Rockefeller, Senator Jacob Javitz, and the U.S. Secretary for Transportation looked on. 50

Politicians hosted multiple similar groundbreakings as the construction began at locations

Lyndon B. Johnson, Remarks Upon Signing the Urban Mass Transportation Act, in The American 46Presidency Project, University of California Santa Barbara, accessed April 26, 2014, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26369.

U.S. Provides Funds To Aid Construction 2nd Ave. Subway, New York Times, June 22, 1972, p. 78.47 U.S. Agrees to Aid 2nd Avenue Subway, New York Times, June 10, 1972, p. 1.48 Second Avenue Subway, NYC Subway; Richard Florida and Andrew Jonas, "US urban policy: the 49

postwar state and capitalist regulation." Antipode 23, no. 4 (1991): 349-384. Neal Boenzi, photographer, Second Avenue Subway Groundbreaking in 1972, Photograph. New 50

York: New York Times c.1972.

Ward !15

throughout the city. Yet construction brought its own challenges, as workers were delayed by the

discoveries they made under the street: water mains and gas lines (functional and otherwise)

needed to be dealt with. 51

These were not the only issues the project faced: the local economy forced leaders to

reconsider new capital projects. Two years after the groundbreaking, the MTA reported that the

completion of the project would likely be delayed until 1986. Following the election of Mayor

Abraham Beame in 1973 and the onset of high inflation related to the citys growing financial

issues, the cost of subway construction projects like Second Avenue began to grow exponentially.

However, the previously mentioned northern section of the line was labeled part of a priority

package that should be functional by 1981. 52

Ultimately the citys financial crisis proved to be bad news for the Second Avenue

subway. Industrial decline, middle class citizens departing for the suburbs, and the large costs of

social welfare programs had all taken a toll on the citys finances in the early 1970s, forcing city

leaders to borrow extensively to cover costs. By 1974, expenses like infrastructure 53

improvements were abandoned or reorganized in favor of efforts that might save the city from

bankruptcy.

Just one month after announcing delays on the project, Mayor Beame proposed a new

six-year transit construction plan that not only gave no funding to the Second Avenue project,

but also advocated that the already dedicated funds be re-assigned to other capital investments.

Ben Heckscher, "Second Avenue Subway Construction in the 1970s, The Launch Box, September 21, 512009, http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/09/second-avenue-subway-construction-in.html.

Edward C. Burks, "2D AVE SUBWAY DELAYED TILL'86 AS COSTS SPIRAL, New York Times, 52Nov 01 1974, p. 1.

Kim Phillips-Fein, "Lessons From the Great Default Crisis of 1975, The Nation, October 16, 2013, 53http://www.thenation.com/article/176707/lessons-great-default-crisis-1975.

Ward !16

Instead, he emphasized the completion of a new Queens trunk line and modernizing the

existing system. By September of the next year, Beame ordered that work stop at one of the 54

four active construction sites along Second Avenue. With no new funding in place and orders to 55

end construction, the four active construction sites were completed and promptly sealed. 56

But Now More Expensive

The most recent iteration of the Second Avenue subway shares many factors with the

1970s version of the project. Although the citys financial crisis stymied the project back then,

financial constraints became an operational norm in the 21st century that had only minimal

impact on the current construction, due in part to the protection of the project by supporters in

government and the established role of federal funding.

The Manhattan East Side Alternatives Study, or MESA, was released in June 1995. The

document reported that in 1990 roughly 1.2 million people traveled within the studied area for

work on a daily basis, 18 percent of which also lived within the area. The study also reported low

accessibility in many of the studied locations, meaning a 10-minute walk or longer to the nearest

rapid transit mode. With this in mind, a further altered version of the Second Avenue subway was

recommended, focused on the Upper East Side, extending service through a connection at 63rd

Street and leaving the Lower East Side to develop other transit options. 57

Edward C. Burks, "2D AVE. SUBWAY FACES NEW DELAY, New York Times, December 14, 1974, 54p. 61.

Edward C. Burks, "WORK IS STOPPED ON SUBWAY LINE." New York Times, September 26, 1975, 55p. 41.

Heckscher, "Second Avenue Subway Construction.56 Metropolitan Transit Authority, Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives (MESA)/Second Avenue 57

Subway Summary Report, Metropolitan Transit Authority/New York City Transit (2001), http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/final_summary_report.pdf.

Ward !17

A Notice of Intent to pursue the project was filed in 2001, thus allowing the completion

of a final Environmental Impact Statement, which was required before any construction could

start or the project could gain full approval. Although the EIS was published in 2004, another

three years would pass before ground would be broken, as the city, state and federal governments

took stock of available financial assets for the project. 58

Committed funding from both the state and the city were essential to moving the project

forward. In 1999, with the MESA Studys results in mind, the MTAs 5-year capital plan was

approved, including $700 million for the Second Avenue Subway. Riders and Manhattan officials

at the time said the amount specified for the Second Avenue project was too low. 59

With the project very much still in flux a year later, a group of New York state senators

put together a plan to help the project proceed without making a full-throated commitment. They

called for a bond measure - $3.8 billion total, $1.5 billion for the MTA - that would help finance

an engineering review for the entire line (rather than the favored Upper East Side short route). 60

By 2004, a two-track version of the line extending from Hanover Square in lower Manhattan to

125th St was officially proposed.

By 2005, a similar bond measure was able to make its way to to the ballot. State voters

approved the $2.9 billion measure, with strong support throughout multiple levels of government

Ben Heckscher, Fewer than 1,000 Days to Go! The Launch Box, April 8, 2014, http://58thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2014/04/fewer-than-1000-days-to-go.html.

Thomas J. Lueck, "M.T.A.'s Capital Plan Goes Beyond Second Ave. Subway, New York Times, 59October 3, 1999, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/03/nyregion/mta-s-capital-plan-goes-beyond-second-ave-subway.html.

Richard Perez-Pena, "Plans Advance for Building a 2nd Avenue Subway the Length of Manhattan." 60New York Times, April 5, 2000, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/05/nyregion/plans-advance-for-building-a-2nd-avenue-subway-the-length-of-manhattan.htm.

Ward !18

and crossing party lines. The $450 million section specifically for the Second Avenue subway

ultimately secured the beginning of construction. 61

Despite the progress toward securing funding, actual disbursement of funds proved to be

its own political challenge. In 2010, state lawmakers had approved yet another 5-year capital

plan for the MTA, this time to the tune of $22.2 billion. When the MTA approached Albany

lawmakers two years later, they were seeking a $7 billion increase for their bonding cap to

enable them to help fund the remaining three years of the already approved plan. Republicans

threatened to not only deny the bond increase, but to slash $770 million more of direct state

funding for the MTA. Governor Andrew Cuomo eventually reached a deal with the Republicans

that had the state follow through with the proposed funding. 62

Although less than in the past, the role of the Federal government in funding the project

remained significant, especially in its ability to provide a lengthy commitment. Transportation

Secretary Mary Peters announced in November 2007 that the federal government would give

$1.3 billion in capital funding for the first phase on the project, to be paid out over 7 years. The

New York Times called it the second-largest federal expenditure ever on a single mass transit

project. 63

However, congressional budget cuts caused some alarm about whether the funding would

actually come through. Conservative federal legislators, often from suburban or rural areas, were

Sewell Chan, "Voters Approve Transit Bonds for $2.9 Billion, New York Times, November 9, 2005, 61http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/nyregion/metrocampaigns/09transport.html?fta=y&_r=1&.

Dana Rubinstein, Cuomo reaches an M.T.A deal, as Senate Republicans abandon their threat to trigger 62a crisis, Capital New York, March 26, 2012, http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/03/5556790/cuomo-reaches-mta-deal-senate-republicans-abandon-their-threat-trig.

William Neuman, "U.S. Approves $1.3 Billion for 2nd Avenue Subway, New York Times, November 9, 632007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/nyregion/19subway.html.

Ward !19

concerned about excessive federal spending, and often attempted to limit large outlays for

projects like Second Avenue. In 2011, the House appropriations committee approved a 21

percent cut to the full funding amount requested in the Presidents budget, putting the project at

risk of losing roughly $40 million. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rodgers called the bill

another example of this Committees commitment to return our government to some semblance

of fiscal sanity by restoring responsibility, restraint and thoughtfulness to the budgeting

process. 64

The threat of these losses provoked at least two of NYCs representatives into action.

Just days later, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney held a press conference with Republican

Congressman John Mica of Florida (who also serves as the chairman of the House Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure). After touring the construction site with Maloney, Mica

emphasized the necessity of not only fixing an immediate funding shortfall, but also to passing a

transportation bill that would help fulfill the federal governments long-term commitment to the

project. Weeks later, Senator Charles Schumer and Congresswoman Maloney both took credit 65

for helping restore some of the projects funding, reducing the proposed cut from 21 percent to

roughly 5 percent. 66

Committee on Appropriations, Appropriations Subcommittee Approves the Fiscal Year 2012 64Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Funding Bill, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, September 8, 2011, http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=259012.

Amy Zimmer, Feds Will Deliver $300 Million for Second Avenue Subway, U.S. Rep. Assures, DNA 65Info (New York), November 1, 2011, http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20111101/upper-east-side/feds-will-deliver-300-million-for-second-avenue-subway-us-rep-assures.

Mary Johnson, Schumer Saves Funding for East Side Access, Second Avenue Subway." DNA Info 66(New York), November 16, 2011; Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Maloney & Colleagues Fought Cuts in next Years Outlays for Transit Projects, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, November 11, 2011.

Ward !20

As the project stands currently, it seems likely the first phase of construction will be

completed. Through a connection at 63rd Street and Lexington Avenue, the underground subway

will travel through the Upper East Side to stations at 72nd Street, 86th Street, and 96th Street

before connecting with the old tunnels built in the 1970s. Officials say the section will be

completed in December 2016, but a consistent record of delays and concerns about the 72nd

Street station are leading speculation about further delays. Regardless of when it opens, it is 67

expected to relieve pressure on the intensely overcrowded Lexington Avenue line.

Tipping Points

Two major factors have allowed the Second Avenue subway project to proceed beyond

preliminary discussions and funding in the 1970s and now compared to the citys first two

attempts at the line. The shifting relationship between federal and state/local governments that

helped create access to substantial federal funds and active support from government officials for

the project are what allowed the project to break through from the planning stages to actual

construction.

The idea of federal funding never entered the picture during the 1920s or 1940s when

the city attempted to finance and build the Second Avenue line. As mentioned previously, most

federal funding at the time was focused on building not so much mass transit projects as those

that would support the growing industries of long-distance rail transportation (be it people or

goods) and automobiles. In this period however, the relationship between the federal 68

Lindsay Armstrong, Second Ave. Subway Delays Cast Doubt on 2016 Completion, Consultant Says, 67DNA Info (New York), June, 27, 2014, http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140627/upper-east-side/second-ave-subway-delays-cast-doubt-on-2016-completion-consultant-says.

Federal Transit Administration, "About FTA and Our History.68

Ward !21

government and cities was changing, as the federal government came to recognize the power of

having a role in issues that up to that point were perceived to be state or local issues.

Passing the Urban Mass Transportation Act in 1964 not only encouraged the construction

of mass transit projects by offering money to support them, it codified in law the idea of federal

involvement in such plans through block grants in much the same way federal spending was

already involved in other transit projects. Instead of continuing to insist that federal involvement

in so-called local transit projects was gross overreach, officials had to accept that there was

precedent for national government attention to and spending targeted at mass transportation

projects in much the same manner as roads. Only recently have legislators begun to challenge

this. 69

In the 1970s, it was those federal grants that made the Second Avenue proposal feasible.

The city was able to secure only so much funding for the project, and the availability of federal

matching funds made the project seem within reach. The city was not shy in asking for as much

money as they could, and what was received was enough to begin bursts of construction that

made the project feel like a reality. When the federal dollars were spent and the city found itself 70

only more incapable of supporting such a hefty financial project, the slow dismantling of the idea

began. 71

The modern iteration of the Second Avenue project may not have needed federal financial

support to the degree that its 1970s counterpart did, but the federal funding was still a necessary

Eric Jaffe, Congress is Toying with the Future of Mass Transit, The Atlantic Cities, February 7, 2012, 69http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/02/congress-toying-future-mass-transit/1157/.

Robert Lindsey, "M.T.A. Seeking $1-Billion Under a New Federal Act." New York Times, October 11, 701970, p. 86.

Burks, "2D AVE SUBWAY DELAYED TILL86.71

Ward !22

supplement to the state and local appropriations that actually secured the beginning of

construction in 2007. In this case, it was after the local investments were spent that money from 72

the Federal Transit Administration became important for the projects progression, even if it was

not always timely.

In addition, the presence of an active advocate for the project within government can go a

long way toward creating the political will needed to produce the ultimate necessity: funding.

Such projects provide leaders with opportunities to address constituent issues and earn valuable

support for later political endeavors, while passing the literal buck to other people. In the 1970s

both Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller and Mayor John Lindsay were vocal supporters of the

project. Through efforts like stumping for bond measures and working with state legislators to

gain approval for allocating funds, these leaders established that they not only supported the

project, but that they were actively involved in its success or failure despite failing to fund the

projects in full out of their own individual budgets.

It was only after both Rockefeller and Lindsay had left office that the project began to

derail. Mayor Lindsay left office at the end of 1972; Rockefeller left office as governor late in

1973, instead working on the Commission on Critical Choices for America. Only after losing 73

these two great advocates was the project was slowly de-funded (beginning in 1974) and

eventually halted. While some of the citys financial woes which were instrumental in the

projects termination can be placed on the shoulders of Mayor Lindsay, his successor Abraham

Chan, "Voters Approve Transit Bonds.72 Shannon Torgersen, "Nelson A. Rockefeller, in American President: A Reference Resource, (The 73

Miller Center at the University of Virginia): http://millercenter.org/president/ford/essays/vicepresident/1830; Jim OGrady, "In Embattled Mayoralty Of John Lindsay, Lessons For de Blasio, WNYC News, January 15, 2014, http://www.wnyc.org/story/embattled-mayoralty-john-lindsay-lessons-de-blasio/.

Ward !23

Beame made the decision to steer what funding was already in place away from Second Avenue

toward other transit investments. 74

Recently, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney has served as something of a watchdog

while actively advocating for the recent progress on the Second Avenue project. Her district

encompasses most of the East Side of Manhattan, ranging as far north as 97th Street and as far

south as East Broadway and Canal Street. Throughout construction, she has released report 75

cards for the project, grading various aspects of the project from the economic benefits to the

mitigation of construction impact on surrounding areas. Her position in Congress allows her 76

access to the decision makers who attempt to limit or back out of committed federal funding, and

takes action to ensure that the project. Senator Chuck Schumer has also worked to defend the

project on occasion. Even Governor Andrew Cuomo took part in helping to protect state 77

funding for the project. 78

While Rockefeller, Lindsay, Maloney, and Schumer all occupy very different positions

within government, each was able to identify the project as an opportunity to support an issue of

value to their constituents that provided few political downsides. Supporting a project that would

affect the people who vote for them is a simple act of playing to their base that carries with it

few negative consequences. Taking advantage of their position and political power to encourage

other powerful people to support the Second Avenue subway was not a threatening proposition

Burks, "2D AVE. SUBWAY FACES NEW DELAY.74

"New Yorks 12th Congressional District - Representatives & District Map." GovTrack, accessed May 7510, 2014, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/NY/12.

Benjamin Kabak, "What Rep. Maloneys Second Ave. Subway report card doesnt say, Second Ave. 76Sagas, July 29, 2013, http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/07/29/what-rep-maloneys-second-ave-report-card-doesnt-say/.

Johnson, Schumer Saves Funding.77 Rubinstein, Cuomo reaches an M.T.A deal.78

Ward !24

for them, and it ultimately helped generate the pressure and support that gets the project funded.

In addition, without substantial aid from those in powerful places, the likelihood that the project

could progress beyond planning would be small, a fact that then lends these politicians more

power in exchange for their support of the proposal.

The factors separating the 1970s and the current project - most notably the phase

structure - highlight the significant difference between beginning construction and nearly

finishing. As previously noted, what is currently under construction constitutes the first phase of

the project. The second phase would connect with existing sections of tunnel between 99th and

119th Streets, before turning and creating a transfer point at the 125th Street station of the

Lexington Avenue line. The third and fourth phases would extend the line from 63rd Street all

the way down to Hanover Square. 79

In the 1970s, four separate groundbreakings occurred at four different locations scattered

along the proposed route. When decisions were made to delay the project indefinitely, the tunnels

were completed but closed off. In the 1980s, the MTA even entertained proposals about what to

do with these tunnels; suggestions included prisons, wine cellars, discos, and even mushroom

farms. While the MTA did not act on any of the suggestions, the ideas pointed out a key flaw in 80

what construction did occur in the 1970s: subway tunnels are useless until they are connected. A

desire to make the project appear beneficial to as many people and neighborhoods as possible

encouraged poor planning: had the project progressed further in the same seemingly haphazard

fashion, its true effect would still hinge upon the ability to connect whatever was completed.

Andrew Lynch. The Future NYC Subway: 2nd Avenue Subway History, Vanshnookenraggen, March 792010, https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/03/the-futurenycsubway-second-avenue-subway-history/.

New York Public Library and Transit Museum, Second Avenue Subway.80

Ward !25

Some have critiqued the phasing of the current project, because it has made it possible

to build one section and forget about the rest of the project for an indefinite period. As it stands 81

currently, the MTAs 2015-2019 capital plan includes $1.5 billion for the second phase of the

project, but as of early 2015 the plan has yet to be fully funded by state legislators. Still, the 82

phase structure has played an integral role in ensuring the project progressed to its current state

of partial-but-functional completion.

Construction in the 1970s began after collecting enough money to begin breaking

ground; construction began on the current project only after it was clear that the entire first phase

had committed funding attached. The pay-as-you-go model in the 1970s meant that there was no

guarantee that any significant portion of the project would be completed. As soon as funding ran

out, the project would be finished regardless of whether a serviceable result was produced. The

current phase structure ultimately breaks up the cost along geographic lines that both makes

funding easier and produces functional lengths of track.

In addition, the ability to fund the current project through a national recession can also be

attributed to the phase structure. When funds were committed to the project in the 1970s, that

commitment represented little other than the theoretical existence of money. There were few

restrictions on how the money would have to be used and/or if those funds would actually be

dispersed appropriately. When the citys financial crisis became dire, existing Second Avenue

subway funds either disappeared or were used elsewhere.

Benjamin Kabak, For SAS Phase I, federal funding all in place, Second Ave. Sagas, July 2, 2012, 81http://secondavenuesagas.com/2012/07/02/for-sas-phase-i-federal-funding-all-in-place/.

Benjamin Kabak, Prendergast: SAS Phase 2 funding to be included in capital plan, Second Ave. 82Sagas, August 7, 2014, http://secondavenuesagas.com/2014/08/07/prendergast-sas-phase-2-funding-to-be-included-in-capital-plan/; Pete Donohue, Ex-MTA bigs beg Cuomo, de Blasio, Legislature for big bucks for transit improvements, New York Daily News, January 13, 2015, http://nydn.us/1C3PEjJ.

Ward !26

As construction began again in 2007, the situation was similar. The city, state and federal

governments had all made financial commitments to the project, but a national fiscal recession

loomed large. What prevented that financial crisis from affecting the project in the same manner?

The phase structure meant that a majority of the funds that were committed were not as

theoretical. While the federal commitments were somewhat tenuous (doled out over time and

occasionally threatened by congressional actions), the city and state funds procured through

bonds and capital investments were what drove the project toward construction and ultimately

what mattered in getting the project substantially funded. In addition, the national recession had a

much smaller impact on New York City than other parts of the country, due largely to the diverse

local economy, a thriving tourism industry, and the cash infusion from federal bank bailouts. 83

Looking Forward

The important factors that separated planning from construction, and later construction

from inevitable completion highlight the inherent difficulties in attempting large-scale mass

transit projects. The comparisons among the various iterations of the Second Avenue subway

project produce more than ideas of how this could have been done better or more quickly. Rather,

the projects history highlights the larger role of mass transportation systems in the future. To

continue to pursue ambitious and expensive projects like these, support must continue

throughout the many levels of government while reconsidering the manner in which projects are

analyzed and prioritized.

Cathy Rainone, Why NYCs Recession Was Shorter Than USAs, CUNY Newswire, April 26, 2012, 83http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2012/04/26/why-nyc%E2%80%99s-recession-was-shorter-than-usa%E2%80%99s/.

Ward !27

The most generous estimate for the cost of the Second Avenue subway in 1929 was $800

million. The current estimates for the current two-track line, all phases combined, exceeds $17 84

billion. Adjusted for inflation over time, the far more ambitious project proposed in 1929 would 85

have cost $11 billion today; our current project would have cost around $1.2 billion back then.

The cost and necessity of mass transit projects do not decrease as we realize how much better off

we would have been to build them long ago. In fact, this realization should impart to the federal

government that their more substantial resources mean their role in funding smart, well-

researched mass transportation projects should be growing.

For years, conservative organizations have argued that federal subsidies for urban mass

transit project do not produce the desired results, and therefore ought to be ended. Public transit

ridership is lower overall since its peak in World War II, and they contend that transit systems are

not well suited to the needs of modern cities that were built for cars as the predominant

transportation method. The facts in aggregate lead them to write off all transit funding at the

federal level as wasteful and worth ending. 86

While some might agree with that premise, it can also be employed to argue for a far

different result. As it stands, the federal governments current process for funding mass transit

projects does not adequately account for the ability of such a system to make an impact. Since

the advent of federal mass transit funding, projects have been judged based on factors like

construction costs and ridership levels. In addition, the government institutes regulations

"SECOND AV. CHOSEN FOR NEXT SUBWAY.84 Sargent, The Line That Time Forgot.85 Jean Love and Wendell Cox, "False Dreams and Broken Promises: The Wasteful Federal Investment in 86

Urban Mass Transit, Cato Institute, October 17, 1991.

Ward !28

intended to spread funds out somewhat equitably, like the common rule that no single state could

receive more than 12.5 percent of the total funding allocated in any given year. 87

However, these regulations actually work against cities like New York in terms of

receiving federal transit funding. New York carries over 30 percent of the transit ridership in the

United States each year, more than any other state. Even with demonstrated ridership that far

exceeds that of most other project proposals, the city is only ever really able to get that 12.5

percent, and must then deal with how to allocate that small percentage amongst multiple,

expensive projects. In the pursuit of equality, the federal government ends up leading 88

themselves toward less financially sound decisions with regard to transportation infrastructure.

To shift away from this model would ensure that federal money is spent where it makes the most

substantial impact on riders and subsidizes systems that are used most.

The way in which the federal government funds mass transportation projects has come

under fire recently. The Highway Trust Fund collects most of its funds from a tax on motor fuels

(gas tax) and other taxes on trucks and heavy-use vehicles. A small portion of the gas tax (2.86 89

cents of the 18.4 cent total) has always been put in a transit account to aid the funding of mass

transit projects all over the country.

In 2012, the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee voted to end that

practice, instead creating a new alternative transportation account with a one-time payment of

$40 billion. The change could have a drastic impact on urban areas like New York City. The

Matthew J. Lawlor, "Federal Urban Mass Transportation Funding and the Case of the Second Avenue 87Subway, Transportation Quarterly 49, no. 4 (1995): 43-47.

Ibid, 47-53.88 Rep. John Lewis, Understanding the Highway Trust Fund, Rep. John Lewis, accessed May 17, 2014, 89

https://johnlewis.house.gov/issue/transportation/understanding-highway-trust-fund.

Ward !29

MTA alone could lose about $1 billion in capital funding were the traditional transit account

eliminated. However, the impetus for the change is rooted in a misconception that highway users

pay for highways while the general public pays for mass transit regardless of whether they use it.

While eliminating the transit account might help the Highway Trust Fund remain more solvent, it

will not change the fact that many local road projects receive nothing from the Highway Trust

fund. Roughly $600 billion has been disbursed from the general federal treasury to pay for roads

since World War II. While it can be slightly disconcerting to remember that federal mass 90

transportation funding relies on highway users, no better alternative has been suggested.

These fiscal constraints exist in other levels of government. While campaigning for

mayor, Bill De Blasio said the city cannot really afford to give the MTA any more money than it

currently does. This could be interpreted as a lack of support for moving forward with the 91

Second Avenue project, but it also speaks to a larger concern: cities (even some of the largest and

most flush with cash) will continue to need help with funding these projects. Without such

assistance available to them, these projects will continue to disappear.

At the same time, the role of those advocating for mass transit projects is also increasing.

Second Avenue subway is not the only project that the city needs, and the definition of need is

flexible enough that preference often comes into play. Expensive projects like the Hudson Yards

redevelopment and its transportation component also serve to reveal a conundrum at the center of

the Second Avenue subway project.

Jaffe, Congress is Toying.90 Dana Rubinstein, De Blasio: The city is not fiscally strong enough to give more to the M.T.A., 91

Capital New York, October 9, 2013, http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2013/10/8534488/de-blasio-city-not-fiscally-strong-enough-give-more-mta.

Ward !30

While developers stand to gain from both the Hudson Yards project and the Second

Avenue subway, the gains are different. Hudson Yards brings multi-use developments to an area

where rents are already high and availability is low. New apartments and retail spaces will

command a premium even after tax breaks. On and around Second Avenue, the likelihood of

similar development is slim: there is not any similar large empty spaces and the costs of tearing

down buildings and rezoning might make projects less profitable. The economic benefits of the

Second Avenue project will take a longer time to develop, as property values increase steadily

and even more people choose to move to the area, drawing businesses after them. Arguably, both

the Hudson Yards project and the Second Avenue subway project serve needs in the city, but the

needs of whom (and their economic impact) clearly influence the way in which such projects are

treated by government entities.

Federal funding and the advocacy of government officials are key in turning mass transit

projects from plans to reality. The history of the Second Avenue subway project shows how

essential these can be, but they are obviously not the only factors at play. In the current economic

environment, subway construction will only get more expensive and need will not inevitably

match with the desires of those in powerful places. The key to transforming a project like Second

Avenue lies in the example of the 7 train extension: if you can get the city to commit to

construction of the entire project in a substantial way - be it financial or otherwise, you can begin

to build the base level of private industry support that will make the project not only useful for

commuters and the public, but for the private industry that follows those people.

Ward !31

Bibliography

Anuta, Joe. Landlords dig Second Ave. subway. Crains New York Business, February 24, 2014. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140224/REAL_ESTATE/302239989/ landlords-dig-second-ave-subway#. !Armstrong, Lindsay. Second Ave. Subway Delays Cast Doubt on 2016 Completion, Consultant Says. DNA Info (New York), June, 27, 2014. http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/ 20140627/upper-east-side/second-ave-subway-delays-cast-doubt-on-2016-completion- consultant-says. !Bagli, Charles V., and Michael Cooper. "Bloomberg's Stadium Quest Fails; Olympic Bid Is Hurt, New York Times, June 6, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/nyregion/ 07stadium.html?pagewanted=print. !Boenzi, Neal, photographer. Second Avenue Subway Groundbreaking in 1972, Photograph. New York: New York Times c.1972. !Burks, Edward C. "2D AVE SUBWAY DELAYED TILL'86 AS COSTS SPIRAL, New York Times, Nov 01 1974, p. 1. !. "2D AVE. SUBWAY FACES NEW DELAY, New York Times, December 14, 1974, p. 61. !. "WORK IS STOPPED ON SUBWAY LINE." New York Times, September 26, 1975, p. 41. !Cannato, Vincent J. The Ungovernable City: John Lindsay and His Struggle to Save New York, (New York: Basic Books, 2001) 97-99. !Chan, Sewell. "Voters Approve Transit Bonds for $2.9 Billion, New York Times, November 9, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/nyregion/metrocampaigns/09transport.html? fta=y&_r=1&. !"CITY SUBWAY GETS 99-MILLION GRANT, New York Times, October 26, 1969, p. 46. !Committee on Appropriations, Appropriations Subcommittee Approves the Fiscal Year 2012 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Funding Bill, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, September 8, 2011, http:// appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=259012. !Crowell, Paul. "$500,000,000 Voted for 2D Ave Subway by Estimate Board, New York Times, September 14, 1951.

Ward !32

!Donohue, Pete. Ex-MTA bigs beg Cuomo, de Blasio, Legislature for big bucks for transit improvements, New York Daily News, January 13, 2015, http://nydn.us/1C3PEjJ. !Federal Transit Administration, "About FTA and Our History, United States of America Department of Transportation, accessed April 27, 2014, http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/ 14103.html. !Fermino, Jennifer. "Mayor Bloomberg gets ride on No. 7 subway line extension he championed, New York Daily News, December 20, 2013, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ bloomberg-sneak-ride-7-line-extension-article-1.1554643. !Florida, Richard, and Andrew Jonas. "US urban policy: the postwar state and capitalist regulation." Antipode 23, no. 4 (1991): 349-384. !Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle, ed., The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order 1930-1980 (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989). !Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, History, Upper East Side Historic District Expansion, accessed April 27, 2014, http://www.lexingtonexhibit.org/history.php. !Gonzalez, Juan. "Bloomberg secretly funneled $9 million in city property taxes to Hudson Yards project, New York Daily News, March 6, 2013, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ gonzalez-bloomberg-secretly-funneled-9-million-hudson-yards-article-1.1281568. !Gyrnbaum, Michael. Twitter post, February 15, 2013, 8:25 a.m. http://www.twitter.com/ gyrnbaum. !Harshbarger, Rebecca. 7 Train Opening Delayed, New York Post, December 15, 2014, http:// nypost.com/2014/12/15/7-train-opening-delayed/. !Heckscher, Ben. Fewer Than 1,000 Days to Go! The Launch Box, April 8, 2014, http:// thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2014/04/fewer-than-1000-days-to-go.html. !. "Second Avenue Subway Construction in the 1970s, The Launch Box, September 21, 2009, http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/09/second-avenue-subway-construction-in.html. !Hennessey, Rachel. "Hudson Yards To Shake Up Manhattan Skyline, Forbes, June 4, 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2013/06/04/six-months-into-construction- and-a-long-road-still-lies-ahead-before-manhattans-new-frontier-reaches-completion/. !

Ward !33

Hood, Clifton. 722 Miles: The Building of the Subways and How They Transformed New York (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004). !Jaffe, Eric. Congress is Toying with the Future of Mass Transit, The Atlantic Cities, February 7, 2012, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/02/congress-toying-future- mass-transit/1157/. !Johnson, Lyndon B. Remarks Upon Signing the Urban Mass Transportation Act, in The American Presidency Project, University of California Santa Barbara, accessed April 26, 2014, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26369. !Johnson, Mary. Schumer Saves Funding for East Side Access, Second Avenue Subway." DNA Info (New York), November 16, 2011. http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20111116/ murray-hill-gramercy/schumer-saves-funding-for-east-side-access-second-avenue- subway. !Kabak, Benjamin. For SAS Phase I, federal funding all in place, Second Ave. Sagas, July 2, 2012, http://secondavenuesagas.com/2012/07/02/for-sas-phase-i-federal-funding-all-in- place/. !. Prendergast: SAS Phase 2 funding to be included in capital plan, Second Ave. Sagas, August 7, 2014, http://secondavenuesagas.com/2014/08/07/prendergast-sas-phase-2- funding-to-be-included-in-capital-plan/. !. "What Rep. Maloneys Second Ave. Subway report card doesnt say, Second Ave. Sagas, July 29, 2013, http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/07/29/what-rep-maloneys-second- ave-report-card-doesnt-say/. !Lawlor, Matthew J. "Federal Urban Mass Transportation Funding and the Case of the Second Avenue Subway, Transportation Quarterly 49, no. 4 (1995). !Levitt, David. Related Hudson Yards Approved for $328 Million Tax Break, Bloomberg, October 15, 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/related-hudson-yards- gets-approval-for-328-million-tax-subsidy.html. !Lewis, Rep. John. Understanding the Highway Trust Fund, Rep. John Lewis, accessed May 17, 2014, https://johnlewis.house.gov/issue/transportation/understanding-highway-trust-fund. !Lindsey, Robert. "M.T.A. Seeking $1-Billion Under a New Federal Act." New York Times, October 11, 1970, p. 86. !

Ward !34

Love, Jean and Wendell Cox, "False Dreams and Broken Promises: The Wasteful Federal Investment in Urban Mass Transit, Cato Institute, October 17, 1991. http:// www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/false-dreams-broken-promises-wasteful- federal-investment-urban-mass-transit. !Lueck, Thomas J. "M.T.A.'s Capital Plan Goes Beyond Second Ave. Subway, New York Times, October 3, 1999, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/03/nyregion/mta-s-capital-plan-goes- beyond-second-ave-subway.html. !Lynch, Andrew. The Future NYC Subway: 2nd Avenue Subway History, Vanshnookenraggen, March 2010, https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/03/the- futurenycsubway-second-avenue-subway-history/. !Maloney, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney & Colleagues Fought Cuts in next Years Outlays for Transit Projects, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, November 11, 2011. !"Mass Transit Bill Fails to Pass." In CQ Almanac 1963, 19th ed., 556-62. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1964. http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal63-1315960. !Metropolitan Transit Authority, Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives (MESA)/Second Avenue Subway Summary Report, Metropolitan Transit Authority/New York City Transit (2001), http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/final_summary_report.pdf. !Neuman, William. "U.S. Approves $1.3 Billion for 2nd Avenue Subway, New York Times, November 9, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/nyregion/19subway.html. !New York City Office of the Mayor. Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Spitzer Announce Start of Construction on #7 Subway Extension, December 3, 2007, http://www.nyc.gov/html/ om/html/2007b/pr437-07.html. !The New York Public Library and the New York Transit Museum, Second Avenue Subway, The Future Beneath Us: 8 Great Projects Under New York, accessed April 27, 2014, http://www.transitmuseumeducation.org/fbu/projects/secondavenue. !"New Yorks 12th Congressional District - Representatives & District Map." GovTrack, accessed May 10, 2014, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/NY/12. !O'Grady, Jim. "In Embattled Mayoralty Of John Lindsay, Lessons For de Blasio, WNYC News, January 15, 2014, http://www.wnyc.org/story/embattled-mayoralty-john-lindsay-lessons- de-blasio/. !

Ward !35

Perez-Pena, Richard. "Plans Advance for Building a 2nd Avenue Subway the Length of Manhattan." New York Times, April 5, 2000, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/05/ nyregion/plans-advance-for-building-a-2nd-avenue-subway-the-length-of-manhattan.htm. !Phillips-Fein, Kim. "Lessons From the Great Default Crisis of 1975, The Nation, October 16, 2013, http://www.thenation.com/article/176707/lessons-great-default-crisis-1975. !Rainone, Cathy. Why NYCs Recession Was Shorter Than USAs, CUNY Newswire, April 26, 2012, http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2012/04/26/why-nyc%E2%80%99s-recession- was-shorter-than-usa%E2%80%99s/. !Rubinstein, Dana. Cuomo reaches an M.T.A deal, as Senate Republicans abandon their threat to trigger a crisis, Capital New York, March 26, 2012, http://www.capitalnewyork.com/ article/politics/2012/03/5556790/cuomo-reaches-mta-deal-senate-republicans-abandon- their-threat-trig. !. De Blasio: The city is not fiscally strong enough to give more to the M.T.A., Capital New York, October 9, 2013, http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2013/10/8534488/ de-blasio-city-not-fiscally-strong-enough-give-more-mta. !Sargent, Greg. The Line That Time Forgot, New York Magazine, March 29, 2004, http:// nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_10109/. !Saul, Michael H. New Hope for Tenth Avenue Station on the No. 7 Subway Extension, Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2010, http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/06/30/new-hope-for- tenth-avenue-station-on-the-no-7-subway-extension/. !"SECOND AV. CHOSEN FOR NEXT SUBWAY; COST $800,000,000, New York Times, August 30, 1929, p 1. !"Second Avenue Subway: The Line That Almost Never Was." NYC Subway, accessed April 11, 2014, http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/ Second_Avenue_Subway:_The_Line_That_Almost_Never_Was. !Smerk, George M. "Development of Federal Urban Mass Transportation Policy, Indiana Law Journal 47, no. 2 (1972): 270-272. !Smith, Richard Norton. On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller, (New York: Random House, 2014) 503-506. !

Ward !36

Torgersen, Shannon. "Nelson A. Rockefeller, in American President: A Reference Resource, (The Miller Center at the University of Virginia): http://millercenter.org/president/ford/ essays/vicepresident/1830. !Urban Mass Transit Assistance Act, 1970 (PL 91-453, October 15, 1970). !Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964" (PL 88-365, July 9, 1964). !U.S. Agrees to Aid 2nd Avenue Subway, New York Times, June 10, 1972, p. 1. !U.S. Provides Funds To Aid Construction 2nd Ave. Subway, New York Times, June 22, 1972, p. 78. !Witkin, Richard. "GOVERNOR PLEADS FOR'YES'ON BONDS, New York Times, November 07, 1967, p. 1. !Zimmer, Amy. "Feds Will Deliver $300 Million for Second Avenue Subway, U.S. Rep. Assures, DNA Info (New York), November 1, 2011, http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/ 20111101/upper-east-side/feds-will-deliver-300-million-for-second-avenue-subway-us- rep-assures.