Archive for January, 2010
Samuelsen, TWU to fight any layoffs
Posted by: | CommentsAs the MTA gears up to consider service cuts across the board, they will inevitably look to reduce staffing levels at all levels. Already, MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder has pledged to trim some of the management fat, and he may look to ask the transit agencies’ various unions to suffer through employee cuts as well. The TWU’s new leadership, though, has pledged to fight any layoffs. New president John Samuelsen has appointed his rival Curtis Tate to head up the TWU’s political action committee, and he vowed to unite a fractured union in the face of potential job losses. “Infighting has crippled us,” Samuelsen said to the Daily News. “I’m looking to unify the union and get ready to face off against the MTA and the threat of layoffs.”
This is, of course, a not unexpected result. After all, one of the union’s main roles is to defend its workers’ job. but it’s a rather confrontational one this early in the process. The MTA’s deficit is coming about, in part, because of guaranteed union raises over the next three years, and the agency is going to be cutting services — from subway and bus lines to personnel and everything in between — across the board. If the TWU is fighting, in the face of public discontent over service cuts, for every job, the average straphanger may not be too sympathetic to the union’s plight and will probably side with no one.
One day, the MTA and TWU will have to resolve their differences and come together for the best interests of both sides. A broke MTA won’t be able to pay its workers, and a union willing to fight to the death at every mention of bad news will find it tough to win allies.
The Doomsday Shuffle continues
Posted by: | CommentsYesterday morning, I noted how many who cover the MTA had made the faulty assumption that this year’s service cuts would mirror last year’s. Never mind that the agency had to find far less in savings this year. Never mind that the authority had a year to ascertain better cuts that would leave fewer rides stranded. Reporters who covered the MTA were intent on believing that this year’s cuts would simply be last year’s Doomsday plan repackaged.
Today, The Post proved my point. In article about the hiring of a new manager who will oversee the death of the MetroCard, Tom Namako notes that Z train and the Bx14 bus will probably be “taken off the chopping block.” Two Brooklyn buses — the B77 and B67 — will probably be rerouted to make up for cuts to the B75 and B69, respectively. Again, though, the MTA was legally required to pass a balanced budget last month, and any mentions to Doomsday cuts were simply out of convenience. It’s not a surprise that the MTA is looking at ways to save money that will impact as few riders possible, and by now, it’s clear that this year’s cuts, when they are eventually released to the public, will look far different from last year’s.
The costs of Second Ave. construction
Posted by: | Comments
Phase I of the Second Ave. Subway is one expensive project. Designed as a three-mile extension of the BMT Broadway line north from 57th St. and 7th Ave. to 96th St. and 2nd Ave., this route is, as SAS commenter Alon Levy has noted, the most expensive subway under construction. It’s budgeted at approximately $1.7 billion per kilometers while similar projects in Paris and Berlin have checked in at $250 million per kilometer and a London Tube extension cost $450 million per kilometer.
Over the last few weeks, I’ve tried to ascertain just why this subway costs so much. While New York is a very developed city and the MTA is digging through some very old neighborhoods, Paris and London have both been around for centuries longer than the Upper East Side. Labor costs are higher in the U.S. than they are in Europe but not by that much. Could it be utilities work? Design and engineering? A combination of everything?
I was at a loss until a few weeks when the MTA published a quarterly report about the Second Ave. Subway work with the most comprehensive budget presentations to date. The report is available here as a PDF, and the budget chart is on page 15. I’ll summarize the Current Budget here. Clicking the thumbnail at right opens a larger version.
First, the MTA tackles component design costs. The Environmental Impact Statement cost $11.6 million; PE & FP Engineering costs are projected to be $228.9 million; and the final design costs will be $192 million. The next few lines concern construction. So far, the agency has awarded $734 million in construction contracts with $2.7 billion in contracts still be awarded. Those figures constitute the bulk of the project costs but aren’t broken out further.
After that line item, the chart delves into some detail. The agency is keeping $122.7 million on hand for contingency awards and will pay $96 million for control center modernization. In-house Transit labor will cost $33 million, and $70 million will go for an engineering force account. Phase I has a $6 million artwork budget and a $292 million real estate acquisition fund. Insurance policies will cost $172 million, and the agency has a reserve of $160 million. The total project cost checks in at $4.451 billion, but the agency has also added another $816 million in estimated financing costs. The final price tag: $5.267 billion.
So now we have the numbers, but we still don’t have the “why” of it all. We don’t know what costs so much and how the MTA could realize savings that would put the budget for the Second Ave. Subway in line with similar projects around the world. The ambiguous construction costs — $3.4 billion — are clearly an issue, but where does those construction costs go?
If I had to guess, I’d say the bulk of the costly work involves installing the tunnel boring machine launch box and relocating numerous utilities. Real estate acquisition amounts to nearly five percent of the project, and in the end, everything just adds up. That doesn’t mean that the MTA can’t save costs.
When New York built its first subway route, the Interborough Rapid Transit Company bid a cool $35 million in 1900. That amounts to less than $1 billion in today’s money, and that route stretched from City Hall to 145th St. and Broadway. Then, the subways reached through some emptier neighborhoods and employed cut-and-cover just below surface level. Yet, the connection into Brooklyn through some populous neighborhoods cost just $8 million, insanely cheap by today’s standards.
The Second Ave. Subway is deeper than the IRT and is being built in an era of high costs. As unsatisfying an answer that is, it simply might be the reason for the costs: It just costs more. But can the city really sustain three more phases of multi-billion-dollar construction or will we be left with just a portion of the Second Ave. subway? Time, obviously, will tell.
With new website, MTA opens all scheduling data
Posted by: | Comments
The MTA this afternoon launched its redesigned website, and while this technological innovation drew headlines earlier today, the real story is one of data. With the new site, the MTA made its scheduling data free to the public. Developers and riders alike now have nearly instant access to the agency’s schedules, and the number of mobile applications and novel online uses of this data should expand exponentially now.
“One of my first priorities when I came back to the MTA was to improve the way we communicate with our customers,” MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder said. “We have completely overhauled the MTA’s outdated website format by putting the customer first with clear, easy-to-find information to help navigate our transit system.”
For most users, the obvious changes are user-friendly, visual and for the better. Front and center is a real-time service status information box with updates on service across the subways, buses, commuter rails and bridges and tunnels operating by the MTA. These updates will tell us if the lines are operating with “Good Service” and any unexpected “Delays,” “Planned Work,” or “Service Changes” will link users to the service advisory.
The home page is, while still a little cluttered, simply easier to navigate. The Plan & Ride box is in the upper left corner with options to use the MTA’s own TripPlanner as well. The maps are easy to find, and the links on the left side have been selected to provide those who surf with the proper guidelines. The Accountability and Transparency section has been overhauled too, and it will grow tougher for politicians to claim that the MTA is not providing information to the outside world. The MTA too has fully embraced social media and social networking.
The Straphangers Campaign praised the new site for just these innovations. “Its revamped website makes it easier for riders to plan their trips and avoid delays, for the public to keep track of what the agency is doing and for those working to develop new computer applications to make life easier for riders,” Gene Russianoff said in a statement.
Behind the scenes, though, much of the website content remains the same. It’s easier to find, for example, the Second Ave. Subway project page, but the presentations, updates and documents are still thrown together in a somewhat organized list. In a way, it reminds me of that 2008-era line about putting lipstick on a pig. Still, we shouldn’t scoff at the organization and streamlined navigation options on view in the menu bar. The new site adds structure where before there was little.
The real story though is how the MTA, with one flip of the switch, has gone from being the largest transit agency in the nation with no open data to being the largest in the nation providing free access to scheduling data. “While the new Resource Center will launch with existing service and schedule data, the intent over the longer term is to identify and make available other data about the MTA system and its operation,” the agency said in a press release. “That should lead to new and exciting apps that will provide improved information for customers.”
Walder echoed these sentiments. “We need to get out of our own way and instead get out in front of the data sharing revolution,” said Walder. “By making access to our data directly from our website, we are encouraging the developer community to do the work we can’t to create apps that benefit our customers at no cost to the MTA.”
To accomplish this release of data, the MTA and Google worked together to redefine Google’s Transit sharing parameters. The data has been released in the new General Transit Feed Specification format and should provide developers with their own playground for transit data. For more on this story, check out coverage The Civic Hacker. They run down the good of it, the areas the need work and the next steps.
“Google applauds the MTA’s efforts to open up their route and schedule data to all app developers,” Joe Hughes, lead developer of GTFS at Google, said. “Transit agencies around the world are finding that open GTFS data means more and better apps for transit riders, at no additional cost to the agency.”
For an agency long used to being the butt of punchlines concerning transit data, this new website is a true step in the right direction. As customers get used to the changes, the MTA’s developers will have to respond to feedback and criticism. Only then will we know for sure if the agency has embraced technological innovation, but today’s reveal was a good step in the right direction.
New MTA Website goes live
Posted by: | CommentsThe new MTA website is now live. I’ll have a full report on it when I’m through my current class shortly after 4 p.m. Stay tuned for more. Updated: The full report is now available right here. [MTA.info, SAS' take]
A $214 million negotiating tactic
Posted by: | Comments
Since the MTA announced plans to cut the Student MetroCard program, I’ve written extensively about the various aspects to this threat. We’ve explored the politics of the cuts and the mathematics behind the impending death of free student rides. Last week, Assembly rep Richard Brodsky promised to fight for student funding, and today we learn just how much it will take to save the program.
According to an article in today’s Daily News, the MTA will need $214 million from the government to maintain free student MetroCards. This total covers the entire cost of the program in 2009 dollars to the MTA as shown in this graph and would represent a significant contribution to the MTA during an era in which the state and the city have both pulled back on subsidies to transit.
The News reports that the MTA will scrape the program if the city and state do not fund it in its entirety, and recent comments by MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder support that sentiment. “It’s my aspiration that children in this city should be able to ride free to go to school,” he said last week. “It’s up to the state and city to put together a funding package to allow that to happen.”
In Albany, Gov. David Paterson has said he will unveil a new budget with more money for student travel within the next two weeks. Can we really expect the cash-strapped state to find $208 million more than they pledged for 2010 for student travel? After all, just under two months ago, the state cut its student subsidies from $45 million to $6 million, and so far, the city has been awfully quiet on the student travel front.
In the end, I’m left with the same position I’ve held since the beginning. It is unpopular for the MTA to threaten free student transit, and it will create more ill will toward the embattled authority. But the political response to this move from the elected officials in Albany shows that the MTA played the right card. No one has been able to justify foisting the expense of student travel on the transit authority, and politicians are scrambling to find the dollars for it. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the state and city come up short, and when they do, the MTA will have to decide who should pay: students through a half-price fair or the rest of us through a series of inconvenient service cuts. I know what I’d choose. Do you?
Waiting for the official list of service cuts
Posted by: | Comments
When the MTA threatened to implement its Doomsday budget a year ago, the cuts — as this PDF shows — were substantial. The agency planned to do away with the W and Z trains, roll back the M to Bay Parkway, shutter some Lower Manhattan stations and generally reduce headways all around. Buses had a it worse with 26 scheduled for a flat-out elimination while numerous others would see weekend and late-night service reductions or cuts.
A year ago today, the agency held its first of eight planned public hearings on the service cuts, and the situation looked dire. The MTA had to close a budget gap of over $1.2 billion that, at one point, was rumored to increase to nearly $1.8 billion. Albany, meanwhile, was stalling on a proper funding package. In a real sense, the situation in 2009 is far from that facing the MTA today in 2010.
This year, the MTA is attempting to close a budget gap much smaller. By all accounts, the gap is between $300-$400 million. It could, if the MTA so chose, easily be covered by a small fare increase, but the agency promised Albany it would not raise fares again until a planned 2011 adjustment for inflation. The body politic could not stomach three or four consecutive years with fare increases. Yet, the media has made the mistake of assuming that last year’s Doomsday budget is the same as this year’s.
In countless stories and reports, those covering transit have talked about Doomsday cuts as though they are back. They mention subway and bus route eliminations as though the MTA will just graft last year’s plan onto this year’s problem. At the start, I too was guilty of this sin, but I’ve realized that the MTA has a different plan in the works. Yesterday, we looked at how the V train could be replacing the M train in north Brooklyn, and today, MTA sources reveal another change to the 2009 Doomsday service cuts.
According to the Daily News, some local bus routes originally believed to be on the block may be spared. Says Pete Donohue:
The Bx34 in the Woodlawn section of the north Bronx and the B25, which runs through East New York, Fort Greene and Brooklyn Heights in Brooklyn, are among the local routes that will be saved under the revised plans, sources said. The Bx10 in Riverdale and Norwood also gets a reprieve, sources said.
But while transit officials have decided to spare some local bus riders, other commuters will be affected, sources said. Additional express bus routes – the most expensive to operate – are likely to be targeted for elimination. Most express buses run between Staten Island and Manhattan.
Donohue’s report seemingly jibes with the story about the elimination of the X32. Although that bus — and many other express offerings — was originally slated for the chopping block last year, the MTA seems to have a more refined approach to the service cuts and adjustments. Instead of trying to do the most to save a lot of money, the agency is looking at cost-effective approaches. That very same X32 is a great example. Between Labor Day and the end of November, that bus carried just 50 people per day at a per customer cost in excess of $50. Even with the Express Bus fare, the MTA is simply bleeding money on those rides. Why keep that bus route and similar ones to it in service?
Right now, we’re simply left waiting. The MTA was legally required to pass a balanced budget in December, and the approved then featured numerous service cuts carried over from last year. By now, though, it’s clear that the agency will revamp its proposed eliminations, and until then, we should reserve judgment on their respective impacts. We know late-night bus riders, express bus customers and some straphangers will be left out in the cold, but we don’t know which ones that will be quite yet.
For East Side Access, a new Grand Central entrance
Posted by: | Comments
A new entrance to the catacombs of Grand Central Terminal will open in Sept. 2011. (Rendering courtesy Metro-North)
In a sense, the East Side Access Project is New York City’s forgotten big construction effort. While the Second Ave. Subway construction is disrupting street traffic and residential life along the Upper East Side, the East Side Access work continues daily far below the surface of the city. Slowly, the benefits of this project will soon be coming online, and Metro-North announced yesterday the construction of a new entrance to Grand Central Terminal as part of the East Side Access work.
This new entrance, set to open in September 2011, will extend the Grand Central entrance options north to 47th St. The street-level access point will be on the side street between Lexington and Park Avenues in the building at 245 Park. The new entrance will feature an escalator from the street to the 47th St. cross passageway and a staircase from the street to the platform shaed by Tracks 11 and 13. Right now, the east end of the 47th St. cross passageway has no outlet.
“This new entrance will be a tremendous benefit to both current Metro-North customers and future LIRR customers by providing a fifth northern means of ingress and egress to the trains,” Metro-North President Howard Permut said in a statement.
“This entrance is an example of how construction can be staged so that customers can enjoy incremental benefits as each element of a project is completed,” MTA Capital Construction President Dr. Michael Horodniceanu said.
Currently, the 47th Street cross passage runs directly below street level from Lexington Avenue to Madison Avenue and has staircases that lead to every train platform on the upper level of Grand Central. From that passageway, commuters can use two walkways to reach the 45 St. cross passageway and connect to all lower level platforms. With these options, those who work north of Grand Central save, according to Metro-North, up to 15 minutes of walking time.
As crews work to build this new entry way, Tracks 11 and 13 at Grand Central will be out of service. The MTA must extend Track 13 south due to the loss of space to escalators and stairs on the northern end of the platform, and to keep a platform 10 cars long, a southern extension is necessary. Metro-North began this work yesterday, and it is due to cost $14 million over the next 20 months. When the East Side Access work is completed in 2016, the LIRR concourse will connect to the 47th St. passageway as well.
The conductors that you meet each day
Posted by: | CommentsOver at his Ink Lake blog, Friend of Second Ave. Sagas Peter Kaufman has up a post on the various styles of subway conductor. Riffing a famous picture of Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach, Kaufman highlights the three personalities of those in charge of getting passengers onto and off the trains while keeping to a demanding schedule. The Good is one who “opens the doors promptly at the station, and doesn’t shilly-shally when closing. If someone on the platform hesitates, their decision is made for them. The doors are closed, and the train is on its way.” The Bad are those who are overly considerate. These are the ones who allow passengers to just catch the train, but as Peter writes, the delays can add up to make trips 15 percent longer than scheduled. The Ugly are those who “try closing the doors even as people are still exiting the train, let alone anyone boarding.”
I’ve seen them all, and in a way, Kaufman’s simplified view of conductors really nails it. Of course, sometimes the Bad are held hostage by riders holding the doors, and sometimes the Ugly are just trying a bit too hard to keep their trains running on time. A good conductor will have his or her timing down just right, and for those people running to make the train, well, there’s always “another one directly behind us.”
Service changes could lead to Chrystie St. Cut use
Posted by: | Comments
As the MTA adjusts the planned service cuts to better meet customer demands, a novel use for the Chrystie St. Connection between the IND and the BMT at Essex and Delancey Sts. may be in the cards. According to a few message board posters and now Heather Haddon’s “transit sources,” the MTA may adjust the route of the V train to subsume the current M route out to Metropolitan Ave. This new route could alleviate some pressure on the L line and provide an indirect one-seat ride from parts of Brooklyn and Queens that just aren’t that far apart.
Over the last few days, I’ve been checking in on some of the message board chatter concerning the upcoming service cuts. Last week at the NYC Transit Forums, frequent poster Zman started a thread about a potential merging of the M and V lines. He said:
The TA is considering eliminating the M and sending the V to Metropolitan Av via the Chrystie St Cut if the doomsday cuts aren’t head off at the pass. This would mean that the V could only run 8 car trains. This could start in late June.
Logistically it would be a little difficult unless they took some of the 60 foot SMEE’s that are mothballed and put them back into service, or if ENY has enough 4 car unit 160′s to cover service since 46′s can’t run on the Williamsburg Bridge. For passengers though, this sounds like a good deal.
It’s in the talking stages and nothing is official yet.
Subchat picked up the news a short time later, and the subsequent discussion has been rather lively. Today, amNew York, citing only “transit sources,” joins the chorus. The M is scheduled to be scaled back from its current peak-hour run into South Brooklyn through the Montague St. tunnel and along the BMT Fourth Ave. and West End Lines, and this rumored cut would, in effect, kill the line.
So how would this work? Transit would run eight-car sets along the V from Forest Hills along its current route along the IND Queens Boulevard line via the 53rd St. tunnel to the IND Sixth Ave. line. After stopping at Broadway-Lafayette, the train would then take the Chrystie St. Cut, shown in in this track map, to the current J/M/Z BMT Nassau St. stop at Essex/Delancey Sts. The V would then run over the Williamsburg Bridge and up to Metropolitan Ave.
In a way, this makes sense. Once the M is scaled back from its southern extension into Brooklyn, the train will operate mainly as a spur to Metropolitan Ave. with peak-hour service to Lower Manhattan. Here, Transit would replace that M service with a line that serves Midtown. Although some Lower Manhattan-bound riders would have to transfer to the J, those heading to Williamsburg and points east could take a one-seat ride on the V and, ideally, avoid the L.
Right now, Transit and the MTA are still working to formulate a plan for the service cuts, but when everything is finalized later this year, we could see some changes to the subway map. I wouldn’t be surprised to see revenue service restored to the Chrystie St. Cut as long as the numbers work out.









