Archive for July, 2007
MTA may cut beneficial services to save money
Posted by: | Comments
So the MTA seems to be taking this whole financial crisis thing pretty seriously. They’re even going to start cutting small problems that they consider to be non-essential.
In The Daily News today is a report stating the MTA may cut its in-station EMTs. The Authority currently posts emergency response teams at seven of the system’s busiest stations, and those in charge feel the savings are worth it.
The Daily News has more:
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which projects huge budget gaps, says it can save nearly $250,000 a year by killing off the “Sick Customer Response Program” in 2009.
Sick customers are responsible for approximately 430 train delays a month, the third-highest monthly average.
NYC Transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges said it’s “premature” to discuss the proposal, part of the MTA’s 2008-2011 budget plan.
Now, to me this seems ludicrous. The MTA is projecting an operating deficit of nearly $1 billion if they don’t see a tax revenue situation similar to the one they enjoyed this year. But the Sick Customer Response Program is a minimum-cost program that can benefit riders throughout the system. If the MTA wants to cut down on delayed trains and disgruntled passengers, rapid emergency response teams are a necessity.
Meanwhile, the good folks commenting on this story at Subchat are picking on the MTA for offering the holiday discounts in 2005. And can you blame them? The MTA stupidly handed out $50 million in discounted fares that didn’t do anything to increase ridership at the time. That would be enough to fund the Sick Customer Response Program for 200 years.
Maybe the MTA should just ask for that money
Posted by: | Comments
Growing up, I learned to always say please when I wanted something. Now, one New York State Assembly member is suggesting that maybe the Metropolitan Transportation Authority should try the same approach.
Richard Brodskey (pictured at right), representative from the 92nd Assembly District in Westchester, suggested last week that the MTA should ask Albany for more money as a way to avoid a fare hike. Another Assembly member, Linda Rosenthal of Manhattan’s West Side, echoed Brodsky’s sentiments.
MTA Elliot “Lee” Sander notes that he would gladly accepted state money if the legislative and executive bodies could deliver. But, as The Daily News notes, history is not on the side of the subways:
“We’ll take the money,” Sander said. “Maybe we will look at being more ambitious in our requests than we have been.”
The state has been shortchanging the MTA for years, the transit officials said. Money that has been raised through a series of taxes was earmarked for mass transit, but state government never passed the required legislation to send it to the MTA. For the first time, the governor’s office has indicated it will abide by the formula, and the MTA expects that to bring approximately $330 million into its operating budget next year.
To Sander, I say, “Go for it.” No one has ever come out behind by asking for more. With Gov. Pataki and Mayor Giuliani, the two men most guilty for diverting those funds earmarked for the MTA, out of office, maybe the MTA could even get that money from Spitzer and the legislature.
For Bodsky though, I have to wonder about his intentions. He was, after all, one of the Assembly members who killed the congestion pricing. It’s great that he’s offering Sander his advice, but the MTA would have had access to plenty of funds if Brodsky and others had passed the original congestion fee plan. Now, Sander has to go hat in hand to a legislature that seems fairly hostile to New York City.
The subways need the money to meet the demands of a growing city. Will the State of New York step up and give it to the MTA?
Just why is it going to take so long to build a new subway?
Posted by: | Comments
If you squint, you can almost see a subway. (The hole in the ground at Second Ave. from Curbed).
78thAnd2nd, an online friend of Second Ave. Sagas, is guest blogging at Curbed this week. For his post, he hit upon an interesting question: Why is it going to take so damn long to get this Second Ave. subway built?
The MTA shut down parts of Second Ave. a few weeks ago, and since then, not much has happened on the street. Meanwhile, as we all know quite well, the Second Ave. subway project is due to last until 2020, and even the three stops that make up Phase I of this project won’t be completed until 2013.
So to answer our question, we turn to a recent piece by Alex Marshall, editor of the Regional Plan Association’s newsletter. He writes:
The first phase of the Second Avenue subway is a tenth the size of the original IRT in track length and has three stations as opposed to 28. Yet it will take six years to complete as opposed to four for the much larger IRT. Why is this?…
I think part of the answer is funding. If the funding stream for the Second Avenue subway were doubled, for example, could construction time be cut in half? If you add up all the time lost to individuals stuffed onto overcrowded subways on the Lexington Avenue line, if you contemplated the dollar value of the new development that will spring from the East Side once the Second Avenue is completed, it would make sense to spend a lot more money sooner to make the subway happen more quickly.
Marshall also notes that micromanagement and the recent attention to environmental studies, historical impact and and workplace safety measures contribute to the snail’s pace of construction.
The point however is one I made earlier today, and the one those commenting on my post this morning are making. New York City should be willing to spend money now to get its public transportation infrastructure ready for the next 100 years. The city, once a visionary in this field, has stagnated. Now we need someone to deliver the proverbial kick in the pants. But what politician will shepherd through a multi-billion-dollar subway expansion plan? Anyone?
New York should take its cue from London Transport
Posted by: | CommentsEvery subway rider has his or her own vision for a better subway system. (Click here or on the image for guypak’s full version.)
Every few months, a thread such as this one pops up on the Straphangers Riders Diaries board or on Subchat. One person proposes the ways in which the New York City subway system could be extended to be a more inclusive system.
In the future MTA system linked above, the 7 goes beyond Main Street in Flushing and the F extends past its eastern terminus in Jamaica. The V journeys through a now-neglected part of Queens before meeting up with the A out to Far Rockaway. The 2 extends to Kings Plaza; the G permanently stops at Church Ave. (instead of its current planned temporary excursion into Kensington); the A runs a cross-Bronx line; and the N and W finally deliver subway riders to LaGuardia Airport.
While this map doesn’t include F/V express/local service in Brooklyn or the West Side extension of the 7 train, the 28 new stops would address many of the inadequacies of the current system, which, mind you, hasn’t been extended in over 80 years. Meanwhile, as we New York transit buffs dream of a future, plans for expansion seem noticeably off the table.
For the last few days, the MTA chiefs have been trying hard to justify a fare hike (and some pols think the MTA should just ask for more money from Albany). But in all of the talk of fare hikes, nary a word has been uttered about expanding subway service. Sure, the Second Ave. subway is under construction, but what about the rest of the city? At a time when the mayor is trying to push for fewer cars and better public transportation, more rail service is exactly what this city needs.
As a model for its expansion plans, New York City should look no further than London. While its taken more than 10 years to get this project off the ground, London Transport announced plans last week for the long-anticipated Thameslink rail project. The project will deliver more comprehensive commuter rail service through London. This includes a 300-percent increase in the number of trains reaching center London and an increase in the number of seats available during peak hours by 14,500.
The article contains a kicker that should ring some bells with New Yorkers:
Network Rail says the Thameslink upgrade is needed because 70% of all rail journeys begin or end in London and the south east and London’s population is projected to grow by nearly one million people in the next 20 years.
Those numbers sound suspiciously similar to Mayor Bloomberg’s estimates of the projected increase in New York’s population over the next 23 years. In London, the British are addressing projected population growth by preparing for it now. In New York, we’re sitting idly by while politicians whittle away the one good plan — congestion pricing — that would have boosted funds available for public transportation infrastructure. We’re not even considering increasing LIRR or Metro-North service either.
So as the fare hike debates heat up and the congestion pricing debates heat up, New York should turn to its sister city in the UK for inspiration. After 80 years of pining for a Second Ave. subway and a JFK Raillink, I would hope that the city would have learned its lesson. Planning now for the future seems obvious to me. Maybe we just need a reminder.
New signs announce weekend service changes
Posted by: | Comments
When the MTA unveils something new, the Transit Fan in me totally geeks out. That’s what happened this week when I arrived back home in New York after my trip out west. I saw one of these posters (at right) announcing the service changes.
Now, every week these posters pop up, and most people have come to know and trust the old ones. A white background, some black letters and a red stripe would announce the change.
But no more! The new posters are colorful and, supposedly, more informative. Now we have a blue band at the top proclaiming “Service Changes.” We have a smaller, orange band telling us that it’s a weekend change. And then we have the text of the service alert as black text on a salmon background. The familiar black band of the MTA is on the bottom.
Now, while the MTA website in some places still refers us to the black and white posters, the new ones are here to stay. These new posters are intended to be easier to follow. The question, “How does this affect my trip?” provides a summary of ways to get to your destination in spite of this service changes.
I’m less thrilled, however, with the next section. “Why is my service being changed?” the poster demands to know. Well, on every poster I’ve seen so far, the answer is always the same: “We are performing XXX work to make sure that subways continue to operate safely along the X line.” Well, thanks. Good to know the MTA is making sure the subways are continuing to operate safely. And here I am, thinking that these service changes were in place simply to mess with tourists who don’t really know where they’re going anyway.
I still wish these posters had colors to match their subway lines. The posters for the West Side IRT should have red subway bullets; the one’s for the IND and BMT should have blue or orange bullets, depending upon the line in question. But for now, these new posters will work.
With that in mind, here are your service changes for the weekend. The highlights:
- Shuttle buses on the L past Lorimer St.
- Weekend Manhattan-bound N trains are going over the Manhattan Bridge until Monday when the N will run along the R at all times for a few weeks.
- Brooklyn-bound Q trains running on the R over the weekend.
- West Side IRT express trains are running local.
Enjoy the weekend.
Fare hike returns seem meager
Posted by: | Comments
As the MTA tries to figure out whether or not there are better ways to raise revenue than implementing a fare hike, some of the details of the fare hike have been seemingly ignored. What, for instance, are we subway riders going to get for our increased fare?
Well, the MTA has released preliminary details of the specific service improvements, and the returns are, in my opinion, quite lacking. Here’s what the MTA is promising us for all of our fare hike problems:
- Additional rush hour, weekday off-peak and weekend service on the L Line.
- Additional evening service on the Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6, and additional weekend service on the No. 7.
- Increased Staten Island express bus service on weekends, weekdays, middays and nights, in addition to the new S89 service to Bayonne kicking off this fall.
- Bus Rapid Transit initiative scheduled to begin with implementation along two routes.
- Next year, a total of five subway station rehabilitations are scheduled to be completed, all made newly ADA accessible.
Wow. Not much, eh? The L service is a step in the right direction. For months and months, we’ve heard about how the MTA had not anticipated the population explosion in Williamsburg and points east. Finally, they’re addressing problems of overcrowding and unreliable service along a vital artery line into Brooklyn.
The increased evening and weekend service along the IRT lines sounds nice. But I don’t know too many people complaining that the 4, 5 and 6 suffer from lack of off-peak service. The 7 train service will benefit John Rocker’s friends.
The other benefits are niche improvements. I wrote recently about the Bus Rapid Transit lanes. As I said two weeks ago, those will work only if the MTA and NYPD figure out a way to keep cars out of the designated bus lanes. I like the idea as a pilot program; I’m less than thrilled that this is one of the top five pressing needs for New York City Transit. Ideally, if this pilot is a success, the city could add more BRT lines with the arrival of the congestion fee.
The five subway stations scheduled for rehabilitation intrigue me. I get a lot of search hits as people look for information about the plan to connect the Uptown IRT platform at Bleecker St. with the rest of the Broadway-Lafayette stop. When I wrote about it in May, it was hard to tell if the MTA would follow through with this now or in the indeterminate future. There’s still no indication of this plan’s fate.
In addition to those changes listed on the MTA’s site, amNY’s Tracker Blog highlights a few more additions for us. These changes included longer weekday operating hours for the B and W as well as that long-promised G train extension to Church Ave. in Brooklyn.
For fans of the MTA’s rolling stock, the Authority will add new R160 cars along the J, Z, L, M, N and Q Lines. That’s great for the L, N and Q, but by adding new cars to the J, Z and M lines, the MTA is targeting barely-used train lines. Those cars are the oldest, but they are also the least frequented of any subway line in the city.
Overall, then, we’re getting a mixed bag of service upgrades. We’re not seeing a commitment to the Broadway-Lafayette plan or the plans to paint many of the subway stations. I like new subway cars as much as the next guy, and I like increased off-hours service. But why is the MTA targeting lines that aren’t underserved? And where’s our F/V express service? Not yet here, it seems.
Behind the numbers of the subway sexual harassment survey
Posted by: | Comments
So while Norman Seabrook’s plan to Disney-fy the subways took the headlines this morning, another story made the rounds. As numerous news outlets noted, a recent survey revealed that two-thirds of subway riders claim to be victims of sexual harassment while riding the rails.
The Daily News summarizes:
Two-thirds of people responding to an online survey say they have been sexually harassed on the subway, but only 4% reported the incident to authorities.
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who conducted the study over the past month, said yesterday more has to be done to reduce the rate of sex harassment.
“There’s this credo in New York that what happens underground, stays underground,” Stringer said. “You should not have to take a staircase out of a subway after having been harassed or assaulted, and feel that no one was there to help you underground.”
Now, that sounds pretty bad, right? 1800 people surveyed; 1200 harassed. Those are hardly good numbers. Meanwhile, Sewell Chan at CityRoom has more on the survey. He writes: “One-tenth said they had been sexually assaulted and more than two-thirds percent said they had ‘felt the threat of sexual assault or harassment’ in the subways. More than 9 in 10 of the respondents who reported they had been harassed or witnessed harassment said they never told the M.T.A. or the police.”
But, without lessening the impact of these incidents, something funny happens when you look beyond the numbers. This survey, conducted by the Manhattan borough president, was e-mailed to over 20,000 people. Those who responded were the men and women who wanted their voices heard on this issue. They were the ones who were the victims of harassment; they were the ones who want to see something happened.
My initial reaction to this survey was “no way.” No way are two-thirds of all subway riders victims even if that’s how the articles in the papers portray this very unscientific story.
That’s not to say sexual crimes in the subway doesn’t exist. They do, and it’s important to remain vigilant on trains. But 66 percent of riders? No way. This is a fine example of the media overplaying a high number from a poor survey to report a story that isn’t really as important as we are lead to believe.
Selling out the subway a ‘balm for hurt minds’
Posted by: | Comments
As we take our rides on the subway these days, advertising is just another part of our daily commute. Ubiquitous subway ads have always been there and seemingly will always be there. Now, as one MTA Board member is looking for creative ways to draw in revenue without raising fares, subway advertising has been thrust into the spotlight.
First, a history lesson.
Details emerging about upcoming fare hike
Posted by: | Comments
Update: As expected, the MTA’s announcement jibes with the details we already knew. Of note is that the MTA is committed to provide more service to complement these fare hikes. The public will be much more accepting of this hike if more servide becomes a reality. More later.
=====
As the Day of the Fare Hike progress, details are emerging about the direction in which the MTA will head today. While not great for commuters, it sounds like this won’t be the most drastic fare hike in recent times.
Notably, as William Neumann of The Times notes, the MTA is looking to raise toll and fare revenues by 6.5 percent. The overall inclusion of tolls and fares is an important point to highlight. It’s up to the MTA to determine how they will draw in this revenue. They could opt for a large toll increase and a smaller subway and bus fare increase.
Neumann writes:
The plan..does not specify how much the base subway fare, unlimited ride MetroCards or bridge and tunnel tolls would go up, but it calls for an overall increase in fare and toll revenues of 6.5 percent…Based on annual fare and toll revenues of approximately $5 billion, a 6.5 percent fare and toll increase would generate about $325 million a year in additional income for the authority.
At a time when the MTA’s future revenues are largely relying on volatile property tax rates, the agency is also looking to implement an inflation-based measure that would feature modest fare hikes every two years. I think this is a great idea.
For decades, the New York City subways fell into disrepair because the independent companies that owned the various lines were afraid to hike the rates up from a nickel. For over forty years – from 1904 until 1948 – the fare was a nickel, and it doesn’t take an economic genius to know that a nickel in 1904 went a lot farther than a nickel in 1948. Sticking with inflation would ensure a steady stream of money from the MTA.
As the MTA board gears up to discuss these fare hike plans, they seem to be against cutting service and maintenance. Here lies one of the reasons why the public may feel up for stomaching this fare hike. People understand that the subway system can’t afford more deferred maintenance or delayed service.
And finally, with talk of the congestion fee swirling, the MTA has quickly noted that they wouldn’t see a penny of congestion fee money until 2010 at the earlies. As many have noted, the Authority cannot count on money they may or may not receive until the end of the decade as they contemplate their budgets for the next year. So here comes a fare hike.
MTA struggling to upgrade key technologies
Posted by: | Comments
As we await news of the fare hike, let’s instead check in with some technology problems plaguing New York City Transit. Both concern flooding in the system; one’s about the water and the other, people.
Last week, as Midtown Manhattan exploded in a burst of steam, subway problems in Queens were seemingly neglected. However, that day, as a friend mine related, the underground trains in Queens were an utter mess. Flooding problems effectively isolated hundreds of thousands of Queens commuters on Wednesday.
“Literally at those levels of rainfall we do not yet have the physical capacity to pump it out as fast as it’s coming in,” NYCT President Howard Roberts said.
Today, the MTA will further an ongoing and aggressive push to revamp the pump system along the tracks that shuttle the F, E, V, R and G into Queens. amNew York has more:
Queens train lines prone to flooding will soon weather storms better.
New York City Transit is already upgrading its pump system for the Queens Boulevard line, where the E, F, R and V lines run, and Monday moved toward adding another pump to the mix…The MTA board will vote on the extra pump Wednesday.
The pumps in these key tunnels have not seen serious upgrades since they were installed 75 years ago. When the MTA board meets to ponder the fate of the fares, the pumps will come under scrutiny as well. I anticipate the board to quickly agree to upgrade the pumps. They can strand Queens residents only so many times.
Meanwhile, a few miles south in Brooklyn, the efforts to automate the L train have hit a few speed bumps. Originally, the trains along the L line were supposed to be fully automated by 2004 or 2005 at the latest. Well, it’s 2007, and still no sign of those automated trains. Business as usual for the MTA, right? Well, not quite.
According to a report in the Daily News, these efforts to automate the L won’t come to fruition until at least 2009 because the MTA didn’t anticipate the populartion boom in Williamsburg and didn’t order enough cars to meet demand on the overtaxed L line.
To make matters worse, officials at Siemens, the manufacturers of these automated trains, claim they warned the MTA about the gentrifying north Brooklyn neighborhoods when the projected started during the waxing days of the 21st Century. Train drivers, for now, are happy because their jobs are safe, but riders on the L who have long complained about poor service must be grumbling more than usual these days.










