In the wake of the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Downtown business community renewed
its longstanding calls for direct commuter rail service to Lower
Manhattan. Discussion has
focused on a proposal to connect the Long Island Rail
Road’s Jamaica
transfer station to Lower Manhattan. A similar plan was endorsed by Mayor Michael
Bloomberg in his vision for Lower Manhattan. But the Downtown business community’s plan encountered
strong opposition due to its price tag (estimated at $1.9 billion to $5 billion
or more) and because it would use an existing East River subway tunnel and thus
disrupt subway service. The issue of
suburban access to Lower Manhattan thus continues to be
an important and contentious issue.
This report seeks to put the debate over LIRR service to Lower
Manhattan into a larger context by posing two fundamental questions:
(1) What should be the focus of commuter access
improvements? (2) What modes would best
serve those needs?
Based on a review of past studies of Lower
Manhattan commuter access options and available data on travel
patterns, we conclude that focusing on direct commuter rail service from Long
Island does not address Lower Manhattan’s most
critical suburban access needs. Improving
the commute from the Metro North service area north of the city is much more
important than improving the commute from Long Island:
§
Travel
times from Long Island are relatively competitive between Lower Manhattan and much of Midtown. The travel time
difference is only two to six minutes for Long Island
commuters destined for East Midtown – the center of gravity for Midtown jobs –
as compared with those going to Downtown offices. Commutes to East Midtown and Downtown are
also similar in that commuters must transfer between the LIRR and the subway or
bus.
§
Midtown,
on the other hand, enjoys a major travel time advantage for suburban commuters traveling
from Metro North’s service territory in Westchester County, Connecticut and other northern suburbs.
The travel time difference is 10 to 15 minutes shorter for Metro North
commuters working in East Midtown compared with Downtown. The Downtown trip also requires a transfer to
the crowded Lexington Avenue
subway or other transportation, whereas most Metro North commuters who work in
Midtown can walk to work from Grand Central Terminal on East 42 Street.
§
Surveys of
businesses in Lower
Manhattan substantiate
our conclusion that improved access from north of the city is the most critical
need.
§
The
significance of differences in LIRR versus Metro North travel times is evident
in commuting data. Twenty-one
percent of all Long Islanders commuting to Manhattan
work in Lower Manhattan compared with 16% of workers
living in Metro North’s service territory.
Suburban commuters who live north of the city are more likely to avoid
the long Metro North/subway commute to Lower Manhattan
than are LIRR commuters, for whom travel times to
Midtown and Downtown are more comparable.
Lower Manhattan business interests
have focused on achieving direct LIRR commuter access because it is seen as
relatively feasible compared with building a direct Metro North connection. There is no doubt that a direct Metro North
connection to Lower Manhattan is a remote possibility at
best. Rail should not be assumed to be
the only suitable mode for improving suburban access to Lower
Manhattan, however. Other
modes – specifically ferry service – should be considered in addressing the
pressing needs for better access to Lower Manhattan.
§
While many
people think of rail as synonymous with suburban commuting, in fact, commuter
rail accounts for only 44% of suburban commuting to Manhattan
(including commuters from the New Jersey
suburbs as well as New York and Connecticut
suburbs). Led by extensive bus service
from New Jersey that takes advantage
of the Lincoln Tunnel bus lane, express buses and ferries carry about one in
five suburban commuters to Manhattan. In thinking about suburban commuting, then,
it is important to bear in mind that commuter rail is not the only viable
public transportation mode.
§
High-speed
commuter ferries from coastal suburbs in New Jersey and Long Island to Manhattan can offer substantial travel time savings
over commuter rail service. A
recently discontinued ferry service from Glen Cove,
Long Island to Pier 11 at the foot of Wall Street was
over 20 minutes faster than an LIRR trip to Penn Station – not even including
the travel time from Penn Station to Lower Manhattan. This and other examples of high-speed
commuter ferries illustrates that ferries can offer superior travel times for
suburban commuters.
§
The total
cost of providing ferry and rail services (when including government subsidies)
is roughly comparable.
§
Ferries
offer a capacity commensurate with the need. The handful of high-speed, longer-distance
commuter ferries currently operating serve 5,000 passengers per weekday, a
sizeable ridership when compared with the 19,000 Lower Manhattan
commuters served by Metro North. Ferries
could serve a much higher volume of passengers where demand merits greater service
levels.
Thus, we conclude that a network of high-speed, high-amenity
ferry services between selected suburbs and Pier 11 near Wall Street and/or the
World Financial
Center offers the opportunity to
substantially improve the accessibility of Lower Manhattan. Ferry service could operate along the Hudson
River to points in Westchester and Rockland
counties and via the East River to points in Westchester
and Connecticut. Existing service to New
Jersey and the North Shore of Long Island could also
be expanded. Thus, current governmental
efforts to establish or evaluate ferry service from north and east of the city
should be supported and expanded.
Ferries offer a number of advantages. New ferry services can be implemented quickly
and with manageable capital costs. Ferries also make full use of Lower
Manhattan’s best natural advantage – the business district’s
proximity to the water, its compactness and high density of office space. The large majority of Downtown workers are
within walking distance of either Pier 11 on the East River
or piers at the World Financial
Center.
At the same time, high-speed ferry service also raises
important issues concerning cost, possible government subsidies and overseeing
subsidized ferry services. The task of
siting new ferry terminals is also an important issue.
A second mode also deserves serious attention – express bus
service from New Jersey. More New Jersey
residents commuting to Manhattan as
a whole take express buses to get to work than any other single mode including commuter
rail. Yet the vast majority of express
buses terminate at the Port Authority Bus Terminal on West 42 Street. The travel time differential to Lower
Manhattan as compared with Midtown is greater for these commuters
than for LIRR riders. A few routes serve
Downtown Manhattan directly, but the travel times are very extensive due to
traffic congestion at the Holland Tunnel.
Speeding up express bus service to Lower
Manhattan is a challenging task.
The Holland Tunnel’s two tubes are not conducive to adding exclusive bus
lanes. Traffic congestion at the Manhattan
approaches and exits to the tunnel are an important source of delay. Other approaches are worthy of consideration,
such as linking express bus service to PATH in Hoboken once downtown PATH
service reopens toward the end of 2003 or to ferries on the New Jersey side of
the Hudson River. These options merit
further analysis as possible ways to improve access to Lower
Manhattan relatively quickly and affordably.
In sum, Lower Manhattan’s suburban
access needs will not be met with one mode – be it rail, ferry or bus. Neither ferries nor express buses are
panaceas to Lower Manhattan’s transportation needs. But expanding ferry and express bus service
to Downtown offers clear advantages in addressing critical access needs in a
timely fashion. Development of ferries
and express buses thus deserve at least as much attention and energy in the
planning for Lower Manhattan’s economic recovery as do improvements to commuter
rail access.
