Image 1 of 5
Image 2 of 5
Image 3 of 5
Image 4 of 5
Image 5 of 5
Description & Purpose
A high-speed shuttle effectively makes this large waterfront site adjacent to a major subway and railroad station, and thereby enables a large, high-value office development. The lobby and main entrance would be on a site adjoining Grand Central Terminal (such as 175 Park Ave). The shuttle would be shorter than an elevator ride, making the additional travel time virtually unnoticeable to most workers and visitors. It is akin to a smaller, more accessible version of the successful Hudson Yards development, where the subway extension is replaced with a faster and more economical high-speed shuttle. This development would combine the amenities of Hudson Yards with the convenience of One Vanderbilt, potentially creating the city’s most valuable office space ever constructed.
Specifications
1,770 foot (approx. 1/2km) single tube, bi-directional tunnel
45 second travel time plus 45 second average wait time -- less than the average elevator journey in New York City [a]
Top speed would be approximately 65 miles per hour
Notes
a 118 seconds is reportedly the average duration of an elevator ride in New York City (https://hbr.org/2012/01/why-you-need-a-better-elevator).
b The high speed design enables a single tunnel to provide ample capacity, given the short distance. The construction cost estimate is based on recent New York City subway projects, which are the most expensive in the world (https://tunnelingonline.com/why-tunnels-in-the-us-cost-much-more-than-anywhere-else-in-the-world/).
Actual costs, however, are expected to be lower under substeading due to faster approval, lower acquisition costs, no “M.T.A. Factor” costs (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html), a profit-driven design, and other factors discussed elsewhere in this paper.
c The large waterfront site enables a high-quality development with office rents comparable to Hudson Yards and One Vanderbilt (approximately $125 per square foot). This would be about $50 higher than the average Class A office space in the area (East Midtown/UN submarket). The difference is partly due to the amenities, but at least ⅓ of this difference ($15+ per square foot) is due to the convenience of an entrance at Grand Central Terminal. This is consistent with other research showing that proximity to a commuter rail station is particularly favorable to office rents (perhaps 14% higher for the closest buildings, https://trid.trb.org/view/1667504).
d This likely exceeds the currently allowable floor area ratio. To legalize this development, the zoning could be modified to allow the shuttle investment to qualify for a transit investment density bonus similar to that for sites adjacent to Grand Central Terminal. Developer SL Green spent over $200 million on subway improvements in exchange for a zoning density bonus, in order to build One Vanderbilt, a 1.6 million square foot office building across the street from Grand Central Terminal.
e Operating expenses derived from actual expenses of the JFK AirTrain. The return could be increased by allowing neighboring properties (the United Nations, Tudor City) to purchase access for their employees and residents. Constructing a ferry terminal at the site could provide further revenue opportunities.