A month ago, the MTA had a legal obligation to pass a balanced budget, and in the face of a budget gap that may reach nearly $400 million, the agency simply passed a series of cuts that resembled those put forward in late 2008. Following that vote, MTA CEO and Chair Jay Walder directed those at the MTA to reassess the service cuts and set for the necessary savings in such a way that will have as little impact on the MTA’s customers as popular.
This afternoon, the agency unveiled those cuts, and barring an economic miracle, they will go into effect in late June. Although the cuts are still reductions in transit offerings and straphangers will see slightly less frequent service and slightly more crowded trains, the latest iteration are designed to minimize the pain and provide more efficient service. Many overnight bus routes have been spared the chopping block, and others have been restructured to ensure that no one is more than a quarter of a mile away from transit in high-density neighborhoods and half a mile away in lower density neighborhoods. As service cuts go, things could have been far, far worse.
As part of the announcement about the new cuts, the MTA has updated its website with some very complete information packets, all of which are available right here. The booklets feature extensive data about bus ridership levels and the cost to the MTA per bus route. “While the cuts in funding to the MTA require painful actions, we have worked hard to limit the impact on customers,” Walder said. “We are now making an unprecedented level of information available to the public so our customers understand exactly how these proposals were developed and the impacts they will have well in advance of the public hearings.”
I’ll be delving into the bus cuts over the weekend. They’re rather extensive, and the MTA should be applauded for the rigorous examination and overhaul to which they subjected their original plans. Numerous bus routes, particularly in Brownstone Brooklyn, have been restructured to provide continuous service, and although some routes were eliminated entirely, those featured some of the lowest ridership figures in the city.
Furthermore, the MTA showed a willingness to respond to complaints raised at last year’s public hearings. Last year, vocal groups of bus supporters showed up, and the new plans reflect those demands. The M8 and M10, both scheduled for elimination last year, have been partially restored. The M10 will no longer run south of 59th St., and the M8 will operate on weekdays only. The crosstown buses through Central Park, the subject of a piece in The Times a few weeks ago, won’t be cut either.
So how then are the changes configured on the subway side of the equation? To find out, you’ll have to click through the jump.
First, the MTA says weekend service will cut, and by doing so, they will better accommodate scheduled construction projects. On Saturdays, the D, F, G, J, V, N, Q and R trains will see trains show up every 10 minutes instead of every eight minutes. On Sundays, the A, D, E, F, G, N, Q and R trains will experience the same 10-minute frequency. Headways on the 1 will decrease to eight minutes from six on Saturdays and Sundays. This move will save $5.5 million and will lead to wait times on average one minute longer than they are now.
Next, the MTA is changing its off-peak service levels to meet new passenger load guidelines. Instead of considering a car with no seats available but no one standing to be 100 percent full, the new load guidelines will consider a car 100 percent full if there are no seats available and 10-18 standees per train depending upon the rolling stock. This move will allow the agency to adhere to internal guidelines while running fewer off-peak trains.
Beyond the rather technical changes, the agency is also changing a few service patterns on the G, N/W/Q and V/M lines. Take a look:
The G train will run only from Court Square to Church Ave. at all times. Although this change requires Queens Boulevard-bound G passengers to transfer, Transit will now run three additional evening G trains to provide more frequent service along the route. As it stands now, the G went to Forest Hills during just three weekends in 2009, and construction often alters that route.
For those who rely on the BMT Broadway line, the W will be completely eliminated. Yet, service to Astoria will not be markedly worse as the Q will now extend north from 57th St. and run local in Astoria. South of 57th St., the N will replace the W, making all local stops to Canal St. Only the R will service City Hall, Cortlandt St., Rector St. and Whitehall St./South Ferry.
Finally, the MTA will, as I reported a few weeks ago, reactivate the Chrystie St. Cut for revenue service. The M designation will be eliminated, and the V will replace the M between Essex St. and Metropolitan Ave. The V will continue to run between 71st St./Continental Ave. in Queens and Broadway/Lafayette St. via the Sixth Ave. line. Then, it will service the Myrtle Ave. corridor in Brooklyn. Overnight and during the weekends, the V will run only between Metropolitan and Myrtle Aves., and at no time will the train run between Essex St. and Bay Parkway as the M currently does during the two rush hours. This move will provide more one-seat options into midtown from parts of Brooklyn.
On the down side, because the stations along the current J/M/Z route are smaller than those along the V line, the V train will lose approximately 120 feet of length or the equivalent of two cars. Passengers riding through Manhattan and northern Queens may find space at more of a premium than it already is. However, load volumes on the V are currently nowhere near capacity.
So that’s that, for now. Unlike in the 2008/2009 Doomsday plan, the MTA has worked hard to make sure popular routes aren’t shuttered and inefficient but inconvenient changes are not implemented. The Z train will not be cut, and the J/Z skip-stop service will not be eliminated. The Lower Manhattan stations on the BMT Broadway line will not shutter overnight, and late-night headways will not increase from 20 to 30 minutes as the agency had proposed a year ago.
Over the weekend, I’ll delve into the bus changes on a borough-by-borough basis. Between the restructuring and the cuts, those are more complicated than the subway changes. While it is important to remember that these cuts are still just that, the MTA took a month to analyze service patterns and have come up with cuts that minimize the pain and save the most money. It is a small victory amidst service reductions but an important one nonetheless.
71 comments
I just now realize that it’s about a 30 minute walk from one terminus of the V to the other in this scheme.
Or you could take the Q23 from 71st Av to Metropolitan Av & transfer to the Q54 to the Metropolitan Av station. Total trip time 35 minutes.
Will the Q operate to Astoria on Weekdays only, or will it run Weekends and Late Nights too? If the latter is the case, this is actually better for Astorians like myself.
It appears as though the Q will run to Astoria only during the day Monday through Friday. For late nights and weekends, only the N will go to Astoria. The Q will continue to, at all times, run to Coney Island.
I’m frustrated that the W is being cut – rush hour service to Astoria is poor enough as it is. I transfer between the 7 and N/W and routinely will see four or five 7 trains arrive before an N. The 7s are by no means full, whereas the N is invariably packed enough that many people can’t board.
Checking the 2009 Straphangers report I see that the N and W have a 28% chance of getting a seat compared with 54% on the 7. I realize I’m biased because these are the lines I take. But what about diverting some resources from an above-average line, to one that is already overcrowded and about to get worse?
I’m not quite sure what your complaints about the W being cut are. Instead of transferring to the N/W, you’ll be transferring to the N/Q. Rush hour service to Astoria will, in effect, remain the same but with a different lettered subway replacing the W.
As for the differences in headways, the 7 train runs more frequently because it’s a far more crowded and popular line than the BMT. That Straphangers report isn’t an accurate assessment of train loads.
This is true. But I had figured they would run less frequently because the Q will cover a much longer route than the W.
I’d anticipate the same headways with the Q as with the W. Because Transit is taking the W out of service, the current rolling stock along the W will be used for the Q, and thus, Transit can run more trains along the Q than it currently does while still saving money.
Good point, I forgot about the extra cars – I figured they’d end up in the ocean.
Don’t the Q & W use the same car fleet?
If so how can the MTA take this oppertunity to retire the oldest cars?
The cuts for the MTA’s other agencies (MNR, LIRR) do not seem to have gone through the same level of searching analysis. If you read the PDFs for those agencies, they are far less detailed.
Of particular interest to me (because I use it sometimes) is the complete elimination of LIRR service on the Greenport Branch beyond Ronkonkoma, except on summer weekends. As far as I could see, it is the only eliminated service for which no alternative is being offered.
I do agree that the NYCT cuts, if one must have them at all, have been pretty sensibly designed to minimize the impact.
The LIRR is sneaky. They talk of eliminating the 4:34 Flatbush/Atlantic to Ronkonkoma, but hide the fact that the 4:31 Huntington train becomes local, adding 5 stops at the beginning of the route (and more passengers from that cancelled train). Not to worry, though, because the 4:30 Montauk train, which brings lots of passengers to the Huntington train from Hunterspoint Av by way of transfer at Jamaica, is cancelled. (As are some other trains leaving Hunterspoint).
When such a time comes that the MTA has the funds to restore existing services, will the rerouted V train become permanent if the change becomes popular?
I would hope so. I know living near the Myrtle and Wyckoff right now, the reroute looks darn enticing. Although it’s still weird to me that to get to downtown Brooklyn I have to change trains at least once. The old M route was nice for one seat ride to Downtown BK.
Hopefully too, when and if the economy returns, money can be put into the sprucing up the stations on the M and soon to be V. Most are in deplorable shape. The Knickerbocker station looks like a shack.
Don’t be fooled by the allure of a one-seat ride! Even the M from Myrtle/Wyckoff isn’t the most direct route to downtown Brooklyn. Taking the L to Broadway Junction and then the A to Hoyt/Schermerhorn should be far faster than taking the M through Manhattan, no?
Google Maps says 23 minutes. No way the M can make that ride in less time.
Oh I know. But the allure is powerful. I HATE backtracking as well. So really dislike the idea that I have to go East first before going back West. It’s totally an OCD thing of mine, nothing to see here…
Which admittedly the M doesn’t solve, but FEELS like it does.
Doesn’t the M go west first before going back east though? 🙂
Yes yes yes. And that bugs me, believe me.
As a West End Line rider, I am really, really going to miss the rush-hour M on my line. That thing is really useful.
However, I agree that these cuts are way better than they might have been.
I agree. I am an R train rider and I think that this will make the R train even more crowded during the morning rush. It will also eliminate a one-seat ride for West End riders to Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn!
Also worth noting, but not reported anywhere that I’ve seen, is that the MTA is cutting ALL bus service to Jones Beach. This effectively makes Jones Beach off-limits to city dwellers.
As usual Ben, thanks for the excellent and insightful coverage. I was concerned about loosing the W at 8th Street, but with the N trains running local my concerns are gone (though I will be standing for my short local trip – no biggie). I’ll sum up by echoing what you’ve said. Jay Walder’s team is impressive in their approach.
My main beef here: the Q will be running local in Brooklyn but express in Manhattan. The N will be running local in Manhattan but express in Brooklyn. Seems sloppy.
I get that the express tracks at 57th still need to be used to terminate trains off-peak, but why not have that be the N rather than the Q? Both are otherwise headed for the same place anyway (Astoria), so they’re interchangeable.
And, peak hours, I’d run both express – there’s still the R for the local, and that way you avoid having to have trains switch tracks at Canal – any such switching is a potential cause of delays.
NYCT prefers having each route make the same stops all day over having each route be either express everywhere or local everywhere. The Q is express in Manhattan and local in Brooklyn because on the Brighton Line there’s no need for off-hours express service, so the all-day service should be local; on the Broadway trunk line, there’s demand for 24/7 express service.
that doesn’t preclude the N from running express in manhattan and the Q running local. they both tun all day anyway so it won’t be a big difference. it would make things tidier by making the N all express and the R and Q all local.
Until the R stops running at night, and the N starts running through the tunnel. (Yes, it has to be the N – the Brighton line is busier than the Sea Beach line, and most of those people want Midtown, so sending the Q through the tunnel and the N over the bridge would inconvenience the many to benefit the few.)
I don’t see what’s wrong with this plan. There are plenty of routes that run local in one borough and express in another. The N will simply run its weekend service pattern on weekdays as well, and the Q won’t change at all south of Times Square.
[…] « MTA unveils more efficient slate of service cuts Jan […]
Duke-The R CANNOT handle the Broadway local all by itself because of its headways. the MTA should at least have the W as a rush hour only route if the N/Q were to both stay express. Also, the bridge tracks are the Broadway express tracks, so whether the switching occurs north of canal (which the N will do), north of 42nd (as the N does now), or north of 57/7 (which the Q will do), it makes no difference
Scott-Totally agree with having to look beyond the obvious for the LIRR and I will miss my 5:11 HPA to Northport one-seat ride (the diesel will originate in Huntington)
I agree about the R not needing even more people on it, but I also don’t want to see the loss of N express north of Canal. I know it’s only a few more stations but commuting to 34th Street is now going to be that much slower. It’s already bad enough that there is such gridlock before going getting on the bridge!
As someone who lives off the Myrtle-Wyckoff stop, I’m really excited about the V replacing the M. No longer will I have to take the L and transfer in order to get to Midtown.
And to get to Lower Manhattan, I can still switch to the J or Z across the platform at the Myrtle-Broadway stop. Since they run express and the M didn’t, there shouldn’t be any difference in total time traveled.
I’ll miss the M. My family grew up in Middle Village, and my mother used to always tell me how she would take it and transfer to the express (J/Z). However, this move is highly efficient, and maybe that utterly useless V train can be put to good use. (Honestly, why would you take it when you can literally get to Manhattan in 30 minutes on the Super-Express E or F Trains?) Since the V is so poorly used as it is, running it along the BMT is the smartest idea I’ve seen in a long time. However, what’s the big deal with changing the overheads an extra 10 minutes late-nights? Let’s be absolutely honest here; other than plastered kids drunk out of their minds, and a few people on the graveyard shift, how many people are going to Far Rockaway at 3 AM? The Staten Island Railway even runs 24 hours a day; nobody even pays fares on it below Tompkinsville, and many Staten Islanders just use the Express Bus: how many people could possibly be using this line at 3 AM, with as little ridership as it gets normally; can’t we increase the headways on this line too? An extra 10 minutes won’t kill anybody.
The V is not useless. If you live near a local stop on the Queens Blvd line with no access to the E or F, then you’d know. I ride it all the time. It’s the only train that allows you to transfer to the G train and it goes additional places in Manhattan the R can’t. Besides, there are a lot of people using these local stops and they need the service. And yes, adding the service to Williamsburg is a major bonus. I just wish they could run it all the time, days and weekends.
Honestly, this looks less like a service cut and more like a service rationalization to me. I won’t be surprised if the M/V combo ends up increasing ridership.
I totally agree. I think this will mean the Broadway line trains will run better and more rationally (no longer will an R and N show up at 34th street at the same time with one having to wait for the other to leave along the uptown local track). And the G should be focused on what it’s really for, moving people a couple stops to where they connect to the larger line that takes them to Manhattan. On those few occasions when the G actually runs between Court Square and Forest Hills, almost no one is on it as the vast majority of people have already gotten off at Court Square. And the VM combo should have happened a long time ago. The only problem I see is the reduced service along the 4th Avenue local track in Brooklyn.
Notice how they spend a great deal of money to extensively renovate Grand Central, and to build a completely new Brooklyn terminal for the LIRR, and then they decide that these terminals don’t need to have 24-hour service.
The old Penn station was destroyed and then replaced with that underground “dungeon”, but Penn Station IS open 24 hours.
I forgot to add the the Port Authority Bus Terminal, which dates from 1950 except for the North Wing, is also open 24 hours.
I was going to mention that as well. Building a brand spankin’ new station at Flatbush/Atlantic, then keeping it shuttered for part of the day is a political ticking time-bomb. And – I wonder if they really COULD keep it shuttered. Doesn’t the subway rely on the LIRR for an ADA-accessible entrance?
Isn’t the difference merely that the LIRR and Metro North don’t run all the time. MTA isn’t the only tennant at Penn Station, and I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the other tennants, say NJT or Amtrak, make it necessary for all of Penn Station to remain open 24/7.
About the M8:
They have to be crazy to abolish ANY crosstown bus service, even on the weekend.
Crosstown buses run on routes that are NOT “duplicated” by subways.
Why don’t they combine the M20 and M10 into ONE bus route, like it WAS for all of those years, and let ALL of the crosstown buses run seven days?
The M14 is a short walk from the M8. They don’t both need to run on weekends.
Combining the M10 and M20 wouldn’t save anything.
for me, personally, the removal of V train service from 2 av is a modest inconvenience — a ride from 2 av to 23/ely now requires a transfer or a walk to broadway-lafayette, though still more convenient than on weekends.
I love that service to Astoria where I live has increased because of the service cuts. I’ll take the Q over the W any day. And a no-transfer ride to Williamsburg will be useful. Unfortunately, I’ll assume that the new V will still only run as a shuttle between Middle Village and Myrtle on the weekends.
Just because no one will ride the new V end to end doesn’t matter at all. No one rides the current M or V end to end either. However, I could easily see someone taking the V from Hewes St to anywhere in Manhattan. There are so many new midtown and village destinations for south Williamsburgers that have become much more accessible because of this. I could also easily see someone coming from Queens going to Essex St or Marcy or a few stops deeper into Williamsburg before the bus becomes faster.
I had to ride the M a few times from Williamsburg back to Brooklyn during rush hour and there were only a small handful of people on the train after Broad St. I think we forget how slow and unused the M really is. If you need to hit downtown Brooklyn, it’s usually faster to transfer to the F.
The people who are really being hurt by this cut are those on the 4th Ave local who’ll have to wait a few minutes longer everyday for a train. They should run the D local between 36th and Pacific. It would only add 2-3 minutes to the trip and give those increasingly busy stops at 25th St, Prospect Ave, 9th St, and Union a much faster shot into Midtown. The West End line is not heavily used, so you wouldn’t be adversely affecting too many people.
saying that the west end line is not heavily used is rather ridiculous. sure, the west end stations are mostly less heavily used than the 4 av stations — but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to inconvenience the substantial number of people who do use them. of the 13 west end stations, all but two of them (bay 50 and 55 sts) saw more than 1 million total passengers in 2008, and may of the west end stations service a growing, low-income hispanic community.
given the reduced service on the BMT broadway line, it may just make sense to run the R train more frequently at peak hours.
Yeah, it seems like Brooklyn is bearing the brunt of these cutbacks. My commute on the R is going to be interesting.
You think the subway cuts are rough? You should see all of the shortened bus routes that are brand new to Friday’s plan. South Brooklyn is seriously getting hosed.
Funny, I’m taking the M-train from Pacific Street to Manhattan every day in the morning, and while it’s not a sardine can like the other lines on that platform, I’d characterize it has having more than ‘a small handful’ of riders.
When I’ve ridden it, there have generally been few or no standees. That’s nothing by rush hour standards – even off-peak loading standards are being upped to 125% of a seated load!
Agreed, working near the Broad Street stop, I preferred getting a M to a R train, just because I could always get a seat on the M and the R I would have to scramble for a seat after Pacif Street. And at the end of the day, if I was really tired, I’d take the M, guaranteed seat vs rush hour R at Whitehall.
Going into Brooklyn, the M doesn’t get crowds until Pacific and really not until 36th street. The West End line will get hurt a bit, and it puts a damper on the impromptu (but very nice) D train that runs on the 3rd track to Bay Parkway. Oh, we can dream!
Running the D local would force the B, D, and Q to share the outermost tracks at DeKalb Avenue (there’s no connection from the 4th Ave local to the DeKalb bypass). That couldn’t be done at current rush hour headways, so service would have to be reduced.
So which service would you like to reduce? The D, whose West End passengers have already given up the M? Or one of the Brighton line services, which are already quite crowded?
Perhaps we should just let the R handle the local on its own. Yes, the longer waits will be annoying, but the train won’t be overcrowded. (If anything, I’m more worried about crowding on the D than on the R.)
I think the suggestion was the run the D local to Pacific Street. At Pacific, have the D cross back over to the express track to allow access to the DeKalb bypass tracks.
Not that I like this idea at all (4th Ave local service is already disappointing, I don’t mind the extra wait), because I don’t think it worth the effort to tangle the D and N at the much more important Pacific Street stop.
Alas, the switches you’re looking for don’t exist. If it’s on the local track north of 36th St., it can’t get to the bypass.
http://images.nycsubway.org/tr.....atlpac.png
Even if they existed, it wouldn’t be a good idea. In regular rush hour service, the switches south of DeKalb aren’t used – all Brighton trains run over the bridge (outermost tracks at DeKalb), all 4th Ave. locals run through the tunnel (inner platforming tracks at DeKalb), and all 4th Ave. expresses run over the bridge. (The various bridge trains get sorted out north of DeKalb.)
The vapidity of these comments is astounding, but I keep trying to get heard in this madhouse. Because, of course, the whole thing to with the SAS is mad, and these cuts are one more consequence of an insane project. We are expanding a system that in its present state cannot be maintained. Madness. In order to expand a system over here, we will cut it over there. Madness. Kabak will again condescendingly inform us that the capital money and the maintenance money come from different places, as if that makes it any less crazy. The facts remain the same, you don’t expand something that you cannot afford. You don’t make a three bedroom house that you can’t afford into a four bedroom because grandma left you money that she earmarked only for home expansion. No, you use it to pay your mortgage. We wouldn’t have all these taxes and fare hikes if we simply used the money we had to pay the bills we have. It is surrealist in its distortion of reality. What expansion do we have if every inch of the SAS comes with a correlative curtailment of some other service. Madness. The word “therefore” should be used in a rational way. It is not used rationally in the following proposition: We have never had the money to build the SAS nor do we have it now, nor we will ever have it; therefore, it must be built. A logician would grab her head. Madness. Time for Bus Rapid Transit and a rational use of the 7B spent on the SAS.
When will you understand that the MTA cannot take the money it has to spend on SAS and move it to cover the operating gap? Politically and economically, it doesn’t work like that. But then again, that’s never been a point you’ve accepted.
To Peter:
North of 23rd St., there are FOUR subway lines on the West Side, and only ONE subway line on the East Side.
(A line meaning a sequence of stations, as in “6th Ave. line” or “7th Ave. line”).
In the area west of Central Park, there are STILL two lines on the West Side, but only one line on the East Side.
For how many MORE decades should this ridiculous situation continue?
7B? You don’t get to make up your own numbers. The current figure is 5.2. It’s high enough that you don’t need to exaggerate to make your point.
And no, construction money is funded separately so it has nothing to do with operations. The house analogy is nice, but it’s exactly the opposite of how government funding for local construction projects works in the US.
I realize that this is getting way ahead of the current situation, but does the extension of the Q to Astoria mean that the likely initial phase of the second avenue subway will now be the resurrection and left turn of the W at 63rd and on up 2nd ave to 96th street?
Probably not. Only the express tracks at the 57/7 station can access 63rd St.
[…] the MTA unveiled its revised package of subway cuts on Friday afternoon, I focused on the subway service changes. Those are, after all, the sexy part of the package of cuts. Everyone likes to hear about the […]
Why dont they completely shutdown the 18th St station on the 1? There is no need for a station between 14th and 23rd.
Because it’s a fairly busy stop, and because closing it would increase congestion at 23rd St and 14th St, and because closing it wouldn’t save much.
[…] Stresses Efficiency of Revised Austerity Plan; Advos Still See Pain (AMNY, SAS, […]
I feel like I’ve ridden on 10 car ’60 Foot long’ trains before on the J/M/Z lines? They obviously can’t run the current R46s because the 75′ cars won’t navigate the tunnel from B’way Lafayette to Essex (or the turns on the El in Brooklyn), but why a shorter train? The new R160’s are 60 ft, as are the old R32s.
The platform lengths along the BMT route are shorter than those along the IND. You may have ridden in the R160s along the J/M/Z but those were 8-car sets instead of 10.
[…] the MTA, we all will pay the price. We’ve heard a lot about the authority’s plans to cut transit service, and today, the MTA will announce a sweeping set of personnel cuts designed to save $50 […]
[…] When the MTA announced this revised slate of service changes, the authority trumped them as more efficient cuts. While bus service would be the hardest hit, the authority said it tried to eliminate service only […]
Is the N Train going to run express starting june 28 20010 monday between Canal Street Manhattan and 59th Street 4 Avenue Sunset Park Brooklyn
Whomever said the G is always empty, stand at the passageway to the E and V at 23rd ely station/Court Square G. The moving walkways are always out of service, old and disabled people have to walk through a 50 to 60 yard tunnel to the E,V stairs. If the brilliant minds at the MTA would extend the G to Queens Plaza 1 more stop we would not have to walk through this passageway. In the winter a cold wind blows right in your face as you transverse this tunnel. The walkways when working only go 1 way, they used to rotate the directions. Now it is only to the E,V. The current repair on 1 walkway is from 3-12 to 7-15 2010. The walkways can’t handle the load of people. Many people traveling into Queens Malls will have to get off at Court Square (G) walk through the tunnel to the E,V and then transfer to a local at Queens Plaza or Roosevelt Avenue to get to Woodhaven Blvd Queens Center Mall. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. Other transit systems have diverted federal stimulus money to pay their debts. MTA refuses to. Peter Knox said the MTA is expanding without paying it’s other bills is correct. You don’t buy what you can’t afford. And Yes to the other writer who said the R will be extra CROWDED. The MTA is one of the worst run business I have ever seen. Most of their board members don’t use mass transit. Mass transit will not be for the masses if they get their way. Where is Mayor Bloomberg who promised in his campaign to take on the MTA. SILENT AS USUAL, THAT”S WHERE.
[…] the MTA announced what I termed its efficient slate of service cuts in January, the train line eliminations and bus route restructurings earned headlines while a […]
[…] at the end of 2009 that required the agency to implement cuts in 2010, and the cuts ran deep. As I detailed at the time, Transit eliminated two subway lines — the V and W trains — rerouted the M, pared back […]