Archive for February, 2010
Feb
19
Weekend ch-ch-ch-changes
Posted by: | Comments
Update (2:00 p.m., Saturday, Feb. 20): For the last few weekends, getting around the city has been far from easy. This week, for instance, riders trying to take the G at all or F from Jay St. to Church Ave. are confronted with some bed travel choices. The trip now involves taking a shuttle bus servicing the G this weekend and switching to another shuttle bus that services the F from Jay St. to Church Ave. The buses run fairly frequently and offer reliable service, but most people would rather not have to suffer through subway and bus rides for what is generally a one-seat trip.
As one might imagine, New Yorkers aren’t too happy about these constant changes. People are upset with the 7 line work in Queens and are despondent over the G outages in Brooklyn. That is, however, the cost of upgrading the system, and for other lines, it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Per a Transit press release, those passengers who rely on the A and C at Broadway/Nassau are in for months of pain as the Fulton St. project proceeds apace. Here are just some of the changes in place from now until July with more to follow:
- March 6 and 13 – The northbound A is operating via the F line between Jay and West 4th Streets; the southbound A will bypass Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau; there is no C service.
- March 19 – The A bypasses Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau in both directions; there is no C service.
- March 26 – Northbound A trains will stop at Fulton Street/Broadway Nassau; southbound A trains will be rerouted via the F line.
- April 3 and 17 – The northbound A operates via the F from Jay to West 4th Streets; the southbound A bypasses Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau; there is no C service.
- April 10 and 24 – Northbound A trains will stop at Fulton Street/Broadway Nassau; southbound A trains will be rerouted via the F line.
- May 1 – The northbound A operates via the F from Jay to West 4th Streets; the southbound A bypasses Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau; there is no C service.
- May 8, 15, 22 – A and C bypass Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau in both directions.
- May 29 – The northbound A operates via the F from Jay to West 4th Streets; the southbound A bypasses Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau; there is no C service.
- June 5 and 26, July 10, 17, 24, 31, Aug 7 and 14 – No A or C service at Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau, details to be determined.
Transit promised additional changes throughout the year as the need arises. Sounds like fun to me.
Anyway, you know how the rest of this works. The changes after the jump come to me from the MTA and are subject to change without notice. Listen to on-board announcements and read the signs in your local station. To see these changes in map form, check out Subway Weekender. Read More→
Feb
19
Preliminary ridership figures show 2009 as second busiest since 1969
Posted by: | CommentsIn its materials for Monday’s Transit Committee meeting (PDF here), the MTA Board has released its preliminary numbers for the 2009 ridership totals. Later in the week, I’ll offer a more complete look at the numbers, but the initial figures show a very popular subway system. Despite a down economy and high New York job loss totals, Transit’s overall farebox revenue total came to $3.1369 billion last year, just $2.1 million less than the agency’s final estimate. The average fare across subways and local buses came to a hair under $1.40, and Transit saw 2.31 billion trips in 2009, just 63.5 million (or 2.7 percent) fewer than in 2008 and the second highest total ridership since 1969. For all of the MTA’s troubles, 7.4 million people per weekday rely on the authority to get them around New York City, and as the agency fights for its fiscal future, that’s not a number we should ignore.
Feb
19
TWU roundup: A legal fight, bus mirrors and dirty stations
Posted by: | Comments
I’ve been sitting on a few TWU-related stories over the past week, and none of them are long enough to warrant a separate post. So in the grand style of the link roundups we post periodically at River Ave. Blues, I present a TWU link roundup.
‘Pushy’ conductor wins legal fight
Our first story comes to us from Pete Donohue. He reports that the New York Court of Appeals ruled that a subway conductor who was accused of pushing a passenger after a heated exchange of words in 2006 cannot be fired. The MTA had initially tried to fire Jack Grissett after he fired a homophobic slur at a passenger and then, in Donohue’s words, “‘forcefully’ put his hands on the man.” At the time, an arbitration panel had recommended a two-month suspension without pay, and the Court determined that the arbitration ruling should stand and that the MTA owes Grissett backpay as well. The MTA had won at both the Supreme Court and Appellate level.
While Donohue and his sources portray this to be an example of wasteful MTA expenditures on legal fees, I have a different take on it. It reaches more to the power of the unions and the MTA’s inability to fire its employees acts most workplaces would not tolerates. As PSAs throughout the system remind us, if a rider assaults an MTA employee, the penalty could be up to seven years in jail. Yet, if an MTA employee is found to be guilty of similar behavior, a two-month suspension is a sufficient punishment.
Bus mirrors inadequate, says drivers
According to a Heather Haddon report in amNew York, a few express bus drivers say that replacement mirrors are inadequate and could put pedestrians at risk. Union leaders claim that the MTA’s decision to replace broken mirrors with “a more affordable model” is a flawed one because the mirrors do not allow drivers to see people on the streets or those running for the bus. While Transit officials say the mirrors “meet or exceed” safety specifications, one bus depot in Brooklyn fielded 20 complaints last month alone.
With funds tight, station cleaning shifts go unfilled
For the last few years, the MTA has threatened to eliminate station cleaning crews as a way of saving money. The current setup, Transit officials have claimed, is an inefficient use of manpower. Now, TWU leaders say that cleaning shifts are going unfilled. According to another Heather Haddon article, Transit has let cleaning shifts go unfilled when workers call in sick. She writes, “On a Monday earlier this month, 138 cleaning shifts had vacancies, with less than a fifth of them getting filled through overtime, according to transit documents.”
For the MTA, this is one way to save on overtime pay, but for the rest of us, we’re left with stations dirtier and grimier than usual. Meanwhile, despite promises from MTA heads to improve station cleanliness, the agency plans to save $6 million by eliminating 83 cleaners this year. Perhaps those naming rights deals should resemble Adopt-a-Station plans instead with the money going toward cleaning efforts.
Feb
19
From Chicago, a lesson in station naming rights
Posted by: | Comments
As the MTA struggles to close an ever-widening budget gap, the authority is bent on maximize its revenue sources. If the agency, the argument goes, can find ways to tap out its self-generating revenue streams, the city and state might be more willing to help close the remaining gap. As laughable as the latter part of that line of reasoning sounds, the MTA is at a point where it cannot ignore potential money-making schemes.
Enter the argument for station naming rights. Last June, after being rebuffed by the Mets and Citi over a station naming rights deal in Queens, the MTA secured an annual payment from Barclays to append a corporate moniker to the Atlantic Ave./Pacific St. stop. The Barclays Center will one day rise above that busy Brooklyn station, and when the Nets’ new arena opens, the station will be called some permutation of Atlantic Ave./Pacific St./Barclays Center. Whether the corporate name will come first remains to be seen, but the MTA will enjoy 20 annual payments of $200,000 for these rights.
For the MTA, these naming rights deals are forging new ground, and the authority hasn’t formalized publicly how the station names will be structured. Straphangers need the geographic indicators that now mark stations throughout the system, but beyond that, does anything go? Perhaps the MTA could take a cue from the Chicago Transit Authority. In the Windy City, the CTA is in straits as dire as our own MTA, and the agency, as The Sun-Times recently reported, is looking to pursue an aggressive naming rights sales pitch.
Mary Wisniewski spoke to Philip A. Pagano, the head of the CTA, about the naming rights deals. “There may be a real interest by businesses located along our stations to get advertising,” Pagano said. The example he gave was of a nearby hospital. Perhaps that institution would pay for the station name. What sticks out, though, is Pagano’s insistence that every station would retain its so-called traditional name to go along with the sponsor’s branding. In New York, then, for instance, 34th St./Herald Square — already a freely branded station even if that brand is defunct — could become 34th St./Herald Square/Macy’s.
It seems nearly inevitable that transit agencies will resort to station names and that traditionalists will bemoan the corruption of, well, tradition. On the one hand, it’s jarring to hear and see something along the lines of Times Square/42nd St./Disney. On the other, since Day 1, the part of the subway not devoted to travel has always been about advertising. In fact, August Belmont’s original contract for the operation of the IRT lines allowed advertising as long as it didn’t interfere with “easy identification of the stations.”
The only drawback though is the amount of money the MTA could realistically expect to see from these naming rights deals. The Atlantic/Pacific stop is the 29th most popular one in the system, and for that, the agency drew in just $200,000 a year, chump change in the face of an $800 million budget deficit. As much as I believe naming rights to be an inevitable evil, I have to wonder if it’s worth it for such a pittance. Sometimes, tradition deserves to win.
Feb
18
Inforgraphic of the Day: How Americans commute
Posted by: | Comments
Via Infrastructurist and Martha Kang McGill comes this snapshot of urban life in America. McGill took census data to illustrate how people in various cities across the country commute to work, and while Houston’s red is reflected in tales of traffic jams and pollution, New York’s blue is a soothing reminder of our need for a vibrant subway system. No other city in the country approaches New York City’s reliance on public transit just as a means of commuting to work, and the state and city should remember that as they prepare to let the MTA’s coffers run dry. (Click the image to enlarge. It’ll open in a new window.)
Feb
18
On Student MetroCards, the Assembly Dems fail
Posted by: | Comments
Updated 5:05 p.m.: When it comes to New York State’s legislative bodies, the Assembly generally has a better reputation than the inept Senate. Sheldon Silver has his caucus largely under control, and the Assembly can, with a few major exceptions, pass the legislation it needs to pass. Yet, when individual members of the Assembly start to speak out, boy, does the Assembly start to look bad.
Today’s Stupid MTA Statement of the Day comes to us from Richard Brodsky, Jeffrey Dinowitz and Linda Rosenthal. Brodsky, head of the committee that oversees the state’s public authorities, has sent a letter to the MTA Board criticizing the authority for its “decision to put students and families out as a pawn in the struggle to increase City and State funding.” He continued: “Simply stated, we ask that you immediately withdraw the threat to student fares.”
The Gotham Gazette has seen the letter and provides an excerpt sure to boil your blood:
“While the MTA asserts it needs $214 million in additional state and city aid to preserve the program, the actual cost of free and discounted student fares is close to zero. We reject the MTA’s assertion that the program must be valued at the ostensible lost revenue, and point out that state and city funding for the program actually exceeds the cost of providing the service.”
It is irresponsible economics — and flat-out wrong — for Brodsky to say the cost of free fares is “close to zero.” As I explained when City Comptroller John Liu brought up this same spurious argument, free doesn’t mean no cost. The MTA has to staff more trains and clean up more stations. They have to pay the costs associated with 133.4 million people a year entering the system for free, and that is not something that carries a price tag “close to zero.”
Meanwhile, Dinowitz and Rosenthal leaped into the fray with statements that are simply inexplicable in their absurdity. Dinowitz proclaimed the MetroCard Cuts to be “disgusting and immoral,” and Rosenthal called the move “shameful.” That’s right; members one of the state bodies responsible for approving a budget that striped state funding of student transit have the audacity to slam the MTA for its unwillingness to pay nearly $200 million of money that it doesn’t have for free student travel. When I last I checked, the MTA was a transportation authority and not a school bus provider.
The people who are truly “disgusting and immoral” and also “shameful” are these very same legislatures in Albany who control the purse strings. These are the people who have shot down congestion pricing and East River Bridge tolls, the people who don’t fight for dollars for the MTA and just slam the MTA when its economics go sour. These are the people we vote to represent us and who fail at that task in so many ways.
No politician has yet to explain why the MTA should foot the bill for student transit. The politics of asking a transit agency to cover for the Department of Education, the city and the state do not make sense. As Aaron Donovan, an agency spokesperson said in December, “Nowhere else in the United States is the public transportation system responsible for the costs of transporting students to school. In other municipalities throughout the country the local government will provide that transportation free of charge, and in most cases, provide a fleet of yellow buses.”
Yet when faced with the political and economic reality of student travel, the state Assembly representatives are more than willing to eschew any sense of responsibility toward the city’s students. It’s far easier and politically palatable to scapegoat the MTA than to accept the blame for failed economic and education policy initiatives.
This morning, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio flyered some major subways stops in an effort to convince New Yorkers to call upon Albany to fund student transit. He, at least, has the right idea in mind, but as Brodsky, Dinowitz and Rosenthal have highlighted today, those efforts will come to naught. Albany has simply become a wall standing in the way of New York City’s transit present and future.
Feb
18
The C Train blues
Posted by: | CommentsWith apologies to Duke Ellington for the headline, it seems as though some Transit riders were stymied by the MTA’s last-minute IND midweek service changes. When the snows came last week, Transit had to postpone a major service change along the Central Park West lines north of 59th St., and after a three-day weekend, the agency decided to announce the changes late on Monday afternoon. Despite getting the word out to news outlets throughout the city, the Daily News notes that many C train riders simply didn’t get the message.
According to Kate Nocera and Pete Donohue, Transit workers manning the system on Tuesday weren’t prepared for widespread ignorance of the last-minute change. Signs on the platforms did not reflect the temporary service patterns, and major stations did not feature additional MTA personnel instructing straphangers of the changes. Conductors on some E trains made announcements but not, says the Daily News, at stations where riders would usually be able to transfer to the C. As a result, many riders were simply unaware of the problems they would face.
What is comforting, though, is Transit’s willingness to accept responsibility for the lack of information. In an era in which Jay Walder, the new CEO and Chair, has pushed for transparency and accountability, Transit took the blame. “This was a last minute addition to the diversion schedule but there’s no excuse for not having the proper information out at affected stations,” agency spokesman Paul Fleuranges said. “We can and should do better and we will.” Fleuranges’ statement doesn’t get at the fact that people in the subways often simply disregard the signs even when they’re up, but that’s a topic for another day.
Feb
18
Years late, REBNY throws support behind 7 station
Posted by: | Comments
The fourth post in Second Ave. Sagas’ history arrived on November 29, 2006. In it, I reported the news that the planned station along the 7 line extension at 41st St. and 10th Ave. might be axed due to rising costs. It was the first we heard of any change in the city’s plans, and over the next few years, the MTA and New York City engaged in some good old fashioned political wrangling. Even Sen. Chuck Schumer threw his hat into the ring. After the MTA shot down a proposal from the city to go 50/50 on the station, the two officially killed the planned stop on September 19, 2008, a good 17 months ago.
In the intervening months, I’ve checked in on the progress underneath 11th Ave. as the tunnel boring machine slowly makes it way toward Times Square. I’ve written extensively on the need for a stop at 41st. and 10th and the folly of building the extension without even a shell of a station. Transit advocates and those plugged into the urban planning community understand the need for the station now and if that’s not feasible, then at least provisions for a shell. Building nothing now would ensure nothing in the future because the costs will be just too high.
Yet, until just last week, we had few vocal allies in this fight. The people who needed the station and stood to benefit most — the real estate owners in Hell’s Kitchen and the residents there — were silent until last week when Mary Anne Tighe, the head of the Real Estate Board of New York City, spoke out in favor of the stop. Now, suddenly realizing that this station won’t exist, Tighe and REBNY are preparing to throw their weight behind a public campaign to urge the city to build something at 41st and 10th Ave. Where were they two years ago?
Charles V. Bagli profiled their efforts in The Times yesterday. The group has launched a new website/online petition called Build the Station and hope to use the same lobbying prowess that resulted in the federal government’s decision to move the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial in this subway oriented effort. “We think it should have two stops,” Steven Spinola, president of REBNY, said. “There is substantial growth already taking place near 10th and 41st. For them to quietly let the station evaporate, without anyone telling anybody, is a mistake.”
Based on Bagli’s story, REBNY is going to push the feds for money to fund this station, but it sounds as though REBNY is nearly too late to make a difference:
The station’s status is not exactly news, however. City and transit authority officials say that the station was eliminated from the plans more than two years ago, and it was not a secret. There were newspaper articles and protests by elected officials, including Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representative Jerrold Nadler. The city and the authority did retain an “option” with its construction contractor to build the second station, but that expired in September 2008.
For now, the plan is to continue to cut a tunnel from 34th and 11th to the current No. 7 terminus at Times Square. The tunnel will pass by 41st and 10th, where the second station was to be built…
Mr. Spinola said developers like Joseph Moinian and Larry Silverstein and tenants in some of the new towers on 42nd Street had long understood that the station would be built. The board, in fact, is so eager to see plans for it resurrected in these financially trying times that it says local landlords may be willing to provide some cash, say $50 million of the $800 million cost.
As Bagli notes, unsurprisingly, some developers care more about this station than others, and Related, the company trying to purchase the land rights atop the Hudson Yards, just wants its promised stop at 34th St. and 11th Ave. completed.
Many have long urged real estate developers to get involved, and the idea that those who stand to benefit the most should pay for some of the infrastructure improvements is not a new one in the public discourse. It has, however, often been met with contempt by landowners who don’t want to pay for improvements that won’t be realized for years down the road. If REBNY can truly convince someone, anyone, to fund this station, it would be a minor miracle. But then again, if the Moynihan Station can draw in $267 million for a bunch of staircases, why can’t this station, one in the path of oncoming construction and trains, get the money?
The city, of course, remained as obstinate as ever. “A 10th Avenue station might sound nice,” a spokesman for the mayor said to Bagli, “but the MTA and state budget problems are well known, and the city is in no position to step in to pay for that, too.”
Feb
17
MTA slowed by old office computer technology
Posted by: | CommentsOver the years, one of my major themes here at Second Ave. Sagas has been the MTA’s love/hate relationship with technology. When it comes to technological innovation and adaptation, the MTA has seemingly been mired in the early 1990s, and in fact, the Regional Plan Association just profiled the MTA’s technological woes in its latest Spotlight on the Region. Only over the last few months with MTA CEO and Chair Jay Walder leading an increased push for better service and customer relations has the agency embraced newer transit technologies. Still, the agency can go only as far as their operating system can take them, and to that end, Heather Haddon reported in amNew York yesterday, the agency has some work to do.
According to transit watchdogs, old software and inadequate Internet connections are plaguing work at MTAHQ and interfering with basic tasks. Based on information Haddon received, the MTA is stuck with Microsoft applications from 2003 or earlier and have trouble with large-scale tasks. Work assignments take four months longer to generate than they should, and the MTA has run into legal sanctions when data has been lost due to computer errors. Meanwhile, Internet bandwidth is so scarce at the officers that the Internet slows to a crawl everyday.
In the end, Walder recognizes these institutional problems. “These are things we have to find out how to be more nimble about it,” he said. Yet, the problem remains the money. It costs a lot to upgrade computer equipment, and I know plenty of businesses still trying to rely on computers that are pushing seven or eight years of age. Better technology at the office will lead to a more efficient and streamlined operations, but can the MTA afford to get there in the first place?
Feb
17
Along the B division, a cheaper countdown clock
Posted by: | Comments
At 145th St., old signs are used to test a new real-time technology. (All photos courtesy of New York City Transit)
As Jay Walder settles into his role as the MTA’s newest CEO and Chairman, he has pushed the MTA to deliver more real-time train information. For an agency long criticized for its inability to adapt new or not-so-new transit technologies, Walder’s desire for more information has challenged the agency to come up with new solutions to old problems.
Lately, that focus has been on delivering better train arrival information to customers. Generally, aspects of transit technology that make commuters’ rides less stressful — such as countdown clocks — have been slow to come to New York. Yet, the agency is now engaged in a $200 million project to bring those countdown clocks to the A Division stations — that is, the city’s numbered subway stations. As these plans came to light in the fall, Transit could not commit to bringing the same technology to the lettered lines that make up the subway’s so-called B Division routes.
Recently, though, with a little innovation, the agency has debuted a poor man’s version of countdown clocks at some B Division stations. At a cost of just $20,000, six stations along the A and C lines in Washington Heights and Harlem will participate in a trial program that uses preexisting technology to bring real-time train arrival information underground. However, because the technology isn’t nearly as advanced as that deployed along the A Division lines, riders will receive less detailed information than the signs currently in place in the Bronx provide.
According to an agency press release, this makeshift system uses previously installed electronic signs in some stations and basic audio announcements at others to give customers at 181st, 175th, 168th, 163rd, 155th and 145th Sts. a few minutes’ notice of incoming trains. At 181st and 175th Sts., only audio announcements will be available while at the other four stations, screens will provide arrival information as well. Riders will now how many minutes and how many stations away the next trains are.
Unlike the A Division system which receives information via Automatic Train Supervision software, this simpler system relies upon the MTA’s old signal system’s track circuits to keep abreast of train movements. As of now, the technology can provide only information on a specific track and not specific trains as ATS can do. For instance, as the pictures demonstrate, the signs will say only that a train is arriving on the express or local tracks. For stations served by one line only, this won’t lead to much confusion, but where two or more routes share the same track, the signs will be somewhat less helpful.
“This is another part of the initiative to offer real time train arrival information to our customers, but here we are going about it in a different manner using existing infrastructure rather than waiting for the installation of an entirely new communications system,” NYC Transit President Thomas F. Prendergast said. “We looked at the equipment that was already in place and we have designed a pilot that responds to Jay Walder’s call to find affordable ways to make customer improvements as quickly as possible.”
Another benefit of this system is its cost. As The Daily News reported, this pilot cost just $20,000 to install, a mere fraction of the $200 million A Division price tag. A system-wide roll-out would of course cost more, but this pilot offers up substantial savings to a problem deemed intractable a few months ago.
After the jump, more pictures of the new signs at 145th St. Read More→
