Skip to main content

Not even a four-burner stove: the temporary AY railyard might be more akin to an outdoor grill (but persist for years)

The discussion about changes at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) Vanderbilt Yard has focused on the quality of the permanent replacement yard that Forest City Ratner (FCR) is supposed to build.

But the more immediate question concerns the temporary yard, which would result in diminished capacity, perhaps lingering for years, and could leave the MTA facing some challenges in implementing its crucial East Side Access project, which would bring Long Island Rail Road trains to a new station under Grand Central Station, in a project now scheduled for completion in 2015.

To apply a metaphor used regarding the value-engineered Atlantic Yards arena, the permanent yard, which would contain seven tracks rather than the promised nine--and just might contain less storage capacity than the current formation--would be the four-burner stove.

But the temporary yard--with less capacity, no long-term guarantee, and exposure to the elements--would be more like an outdoor grill.

What was promised

The railyard functions are currently located in the western third of the Vanderbilt Yard: Block 1119. They would be moved, in the case of both the permanent and temporary yards, to the east, mostly to the easternmost third, Block 1121, but with some spillover into the center third, Block 1120.

According to the construction schedule attached to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the temporary yard was supposed to take ten months to build, after which it would take 32 months--two and two-thirds years--to finish the permanent yard. The original schedule had the permanent yard opening in March 2010.

Shortly afterward--approximately 11 months for the middle block and 18 months for the eastern block--platforms were to be built over the permanent yard.

However, as I wrote, there may be no platform if Phase 2 of the project is permanently delayed. And that decreases the incentive to complete the permanent railyard--which is why we should see whether and how the MTA and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) require the permanent yard to be built. Meetings are scheduled next week.

The deficits of the temporary yard

The temporary yard, at least as described in this February 24, 2005 MTA letter (p. 29ff. of this PDF) to Forest City Ratner, would have significant deficits.

The graphic (click to enlarge) indicates that storage capacity would be reduced from 72 to 42 cars.

(Remember, the replacement permanent yard was supposed to have a capacity of 76 cars, but the decrease from nine to seven tracks puts that in doubt.)

The berthing capacity would go from ten consists (trains) to five. The toilet servicing opportunities per day would go from 36 cars to 21 cars.

(In the permanent yard, there would be--perhaps--seven consists, given seven tracks. Toilet servicing would improve considerably, but I haven't seen the numbers.)

The opportunities per day for E.I.C. (Extraordinary Interior Cleaning) and inspection would go from 72 cars to 42 cars.

(In the new yard, that would improve considerably, presumably to the full capacity, once 76 cars, now--I suspect--a lower number.)

The number of inspection pits would go from two to zero--again to be improved in the new yard.

Other locations take up slack

The document states:
The deficits in the Temporary Yard are not deficits that can be scheduled around. These deficits will have to be accommodated at other locations on the Railroad.

FCR will be responsible for all capital and incremental operating costs encountered by the LIRR to make up for the above Deficits in the Temporary Yard.

(Emphasis added)

Keep in mind that the memo, however, was non-binding, and the exact contours of the temporary and permanent yard remain unresolved, subject to contracts approved by the MTA board, which is what is expected next week.

Improvements guaranteed?

Note that the MTA letter said that the track configuration should "not reduce yard/station capacity or functionality, such determination to be made by MTA/LIRR in its its sole discretion."

It also said that Forest City will be required to guarantee the completion of the work, including the New Yard, the deck and the overbuild.

Stay tuned for MTA's explanation of how the seven-track railyard does not reduce capacity and whether such a guarantee is provided.

The impact of delay

The MTA letter set out several terms and conditions to the authority's participation, among them:

6. MTA's cooperation is conditioned upon FCRC's acknowledgment that VD Yard is essential in its current location and currently performs the function described on Appendix "A" [right] annexed hereto.... The LIRR's requirements for its safe and efficient service and operating needs, until the new permanent yard is constructed, are described in Appendix "B" hereto [above].

The LIRR reserves the right at FCRC's expense to use self-help, including the right to stop all construction if, in its sole discretion, its minimum functionality requirements are not maintained by FCRC or FCRC is not adequately progressing the work to complete the New Yard by no later than July 2008... The permanent functions for the New York will be set forth in a Design Definition Report ("DDR") to be approved by the LIRR, with such functions to be defined in the LIRR's sole discretion.

9. FCRC must acknowledge that delays in the relocation, reconfiguration and construction of the New Yard may result in significant adverse financial and operational impacts to MTA/LIRR. These impacts include, but are not limited to, increased relocation, reconfiguration, construction and force account costs for projects connected with the East Side Access project and other projects set forth in the MTA's Capital Plan, and maintenance projects; and the cost to mitigate consequential adverse service impacts In the event that FCRC and MTA negotiate a final agreement, such agreement must address reimbursement of MTA/LIRR for such impact costs associated with delays to the New Yard construction.

(Emphasis added)

East Side Access

Appendix A cites:
Contemplated additional storage to accommodate the 40% system-wide fleet expansion in 2009 through 2012 associated with the East Side Access program implementation.

It's unclear whether and how much additional storage is contemplated as of now, and whether the 2012 date has been pushed back.

However, it is clear that the impact on East Side Access was not studied by the ESDC. From the Final Scope of Analysis for an Environmental Impact Statement, issued 3/31/06:
In addition to the comments described above, several comments requested analyses that are beyond the scope of this project’s SEQRA review, specifically:

The DEIS should consider the implications of the proposed reconfiguration of the Vanderbilt Yard on the Cross Harbor Rail-Freight Tunnel, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA’s) East Side Access project, and the JFK rail service to Lower Manhattan.

The EIS will not consider the Cross Harbor Rail-Freight Tunnel because the Vanderbilt Yard serves Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) commuter rail operations and cannot accommodate the requirements for freight rail service. Even after the completion of the East Side Access project, the MTA reports that it would have no plans to discontinue operations at the Vanderbilt Yard; the rail yard would still be needed for electric train storage.

That seems to be a non sequitur. The concern expressed by the MTA in the 2005 letter was whether the new Vanderbilt Yard would add storage to accommodate East Side Access. But the ESDC dismissed the issue of East Side Access because the railyard would still store trains.


Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…