Scratchiti will become more prevalent as the MTA scales back on maintenance costs. (Photo by flickr user rdcapasso)
Throughout the 1970s and into the early 1980s, New York City’s subways became a dangerous and unreliable system. As the city went broke and the MTA had little money, maintenance schedules slipped. Graffiti took over the system; trash filled the stations; and car breakdowns and track fires were a way of life.
Since then, the MTA has invested heavily in its rolling stock and maintenance programs. Recognizing that the MTA’s network is one of the — if not the top — drivers of the city’s economy, the authority has spent the last three decades ensuring that trains are graffiti-free and do not break down nearly as often and that stations are relatively cleaner than they once were to minimize track fires.
As the MTA looks to cut more services and employees, we could see the beginnings of a return to the bad old days. Yesterday, the authority announced a series of austerity cuts that will strike at the heart of the system. While I was taking an exhausting final, the authority heads briefed reporters, and Michael Grynbaum has the story. The MTA will eliminate nearly 1000 positions — some administrative and some maintenance-oriented — in an effort to save $115-$150 million. The authority will still face a shortfall of over $200 million that will have to be closed with a larger-than-anticipated fare hike next year. Grynbaum has more:
Hundreds of maintenance workers will be laid off, subway cleaning regimens will be reduced and officials will “let an additional amount of scratchiti occur on windows system-wide” under the plan, said Thomas F. Prendergast, the president of New York City Transit.
The cost-cutting measures are part of an agency-wide plan to close a $400 million budget shortfall, and subway riders will not be the only ones to suffer. Riders on the Long Island Rail Road will be packed into smaller trains on the weekend and occasionally in the morning rush. Football fans will have fewer options for train rides to games at the Meadowlands, and the Metro-North Railroad will place fewer customer assistants in Grand Central Terminal…
Inconvenience is another matter. One item on the chopping block is a program that created two dozen subway announcers, who alerted riders to delays and train progress over station intercoms. Officials said the program proved to be a poor investment.
Prendergast tried to assuage the fears of passengers who still remember the system as it was before the capital investments took hold. “There will be no degradation to safety and reliability,” he said.
Still, programs that improve the underground quality of life are being sacrificed in the name of economics. For instance, anti-scratchiti programs that appeared to be successful are being eliminated due to the expense. Now, the agency will, in the words of Grynbaum, “allow more scratches to accumulate before it replaces windows on trains throughout the system.”
Additionally, trains will be cleaned less frequently. As Heather Haddon of amNew York reports, cleaners will scrub trains only “at one end of the route — meaning a car can travel for more than three hours before it is scrubbed.” Unless New Yorkers make an effort to clean up, train cars will just be dirtier.
This is, of course, nothing short of a failure of politics. The MTA, created 42 years ago to isolate the subways from politicians, has always relied on state funding to break even, and as pension, benefit and debt obligations have saddled the MTA with ever-rising costs, politicians have simply stopped coming up with solutions. East River bridge tolls or congestion pricing with revenue dedicated to the MTA remain the most equitable and rational solutions. Yet, New York State politicians can’t see past their windshield perspectives to understand the role transit plays in the lives of countless millions of New Yorkers a day. The system will have to break down before it is rescued, and it is quickly heading that way.
Site Note: Apologies for the late start this morning. I had a long takehome final yesterday and fell asleep before I could get a post up. I’ll have another one later before the weekend service advisories tonight.
35 comments
No shock there. The buck stops with those controlling Albany and NYC and that is the Mayor and the democrats. Elect new ones if you dont like it.
You’re right, Pataki and Giuliani funded the subway generously.
I don’t know why people are so in denial about the fact that a bunch of Republicans — Bruno, Pataki, Giuliani and Bloomberg — got the subways into this mess in the first place. It’s true that the current crop of incompetent Democrats haven’t done much to try to get the MTA out of it, but Republicans through and through were responsible for the MTA’s taking on debt and the generous union contracts.
Is this the same person posting the same comment over and over again? Because the comments are nearly identical (and identically contentless, it’s not something we haven’t heard many times before).
Same IP address; different commenter name. If it happens again, I’ll block the IP address.
Ben, get a grip pal…this happened under democratic watches..The buck stops here..have you heard of that phrase before?….Bloomberg and Guliani are barely republicans BUT THEY ARE NOT IN POWER!!!! The buck stops with the current folks in charge. PERIOD. George Bush and George Pataki are not in office anymore. You sound like Obama wanting to blame everyone under the sun without looking in the mirror.
If the incompetence was worse under the GOP, how the hell is electing Republicans to replace the current crop of Dem leaders going to make things better?
I don’t particularly care to discuss what George Bush and Obama have to do with the MTA. (Short answer: Nothing. This is a local issue through and through.) And I don’t need to defend my record bashing Democrats because you can just search through the site archives for that. Here’s my short take: The current Democrats are to blame because they’ve done nothing to help. The formerly in-power Republicans are also to blame because they’re the ones who cut hundreds of millions of dollars in state (Pataki) and city (Giuliani) subsidies to the MTA. They’re the ones who decided it was smarter to fund a capital plan through debt that is now coming due than to pay the bill then. We can’t just what they did, but the MTA didn’t wake up one morning in debt. They’re also to blame, and that’s just an undeniable fact.
I have to say…I’ve gotten on train cars that have had graffiti inside the car and even for this stoic straphanger….it adds a real sense of unease. I really hope we don’t slip into the bad old days…
I don’t believe that either congestion pricing or East River tolls would help the MTA in the long run. Yes there would be an initial infusion of cash preventing a few cuts, but in the long run it would be the same old story. “We need more money.”
Those of us old enough to remember the the 1970s will not be fooled again by poilticians claiming this is the solution to adequate transit funding. Back then the claim was, “let us double the TBTA tolls from 25 cents to 50 cents, giving the extra quarter to the subways, and the MTA’s problems will be solved. So what happens? Too much goes to the rails instead of the subways and buses, so the TBTA tolls must rise to $1.00. We all know what happens next, they keep rising until they are now $5.50 each way and it is still not enough for the subways.
As soon as congestion pricing or East River tolls would be implemented, the administrative expenses would be higher than forecasted and revenues below estimates with a neglibile effect on congestion, but a negative effect on the City’s economy, necessitating that it be doubled within one or two years. Also, what assurances do we have that the same politicians who reduced the MTA’s subsidy won’t shift a portion of congestion pricing / East River tolls to the general fund, shortchanging the MTA. None.
The MTA needs to get its house in order and run itself more efficiently and stop wasting money. Why have three separate GPS studies over the last 15 years, the second one costing $14 million, have still not yielded any results to help run the buses on schedule instead of several at a time and then a large gap. This even happens on buses scheduled 20 minutes apart. Sometimes you have to wait 45 minutes. That is just one small example. There are dozens more.
There may be no guarantee that congestion pricing will “save” the subways, but it’s certainly more likely to help than wishing the MTA will fix itself. If you want the MTA to be fixed, tell the politicians you vote for and who control it to do something meaningful to help.
I did write a long letter last year to my Assemblyman last year with suggestions and didn’t even receive a response. When I insisted on knowing why I was being ignored, he apologized claiming he does not have adequate staff to respond to every letter.
Last week I spoke on the phone to another assemblyman in Albany for about 15 minutes. I told him of where I believe the MTA acted improperly, and then asked him why the State cut so much of the MTA subsidy necessitating such drastic service cuts. He responded with two reasons: 1) because of the State deficit; and 2) because as he said it, “because no matter how much money we give the MTA, they just waste it.” I had no answer for that.
The problem with the MTA is that there are not enough checks and balances, and that they can do whatever they please. If they acted responsibly, it wouldn’t matter. But all you have to do to see they are not is to study their service cut booklets.
One, look at the disparity between the cuts made by NYC Transit and those made by MTA Bus. MTA Bus cuts were not nearly as severe because of the City subsidy. That money needs to be spread around so future cuts are made equitably.
As a second example, look at their decision to eliminate the X29 versus an alternative to cut only half the service. It carries 540 passengers daily over 18 trips during rush hours. That averages out to 30 passengers per bus, not full, but not miniscule either. Then look at their direct cost per passenger to operate it: $8.13. If service was cut in half, that cost should also be cut in half to $4.07, below the $5.50 fare currently charged, and average passenger loads would increase to about 60 per bus, assuming passengers were willing to travel 15 minutes earlier or 15 minutes later. It would be logical to make such an assumption since in most other cases where service is being reduced or eliminated, the MTA is not forecasting any loss in patronage either.
So what could be their logic in eliminating the route entirely? That it duplicates the Brighton Line? It always did that so why then was it established in the first place? Because ridership dropped 41% in the last five years? Well couldn’t the elimination of midday ridership have accounted for that?
Now compare express bus ridership by MTA Bus. All MTA Bus Express routes have fewer than 30 passengers per bus, yet most of those services have been retained. Some weekend service carries as few as four passengers per trip, yet those are also being retained. And the MTA expects us to believe that these cuts have been made equitably causing the least impact on the passengers? Don’t even get me started on what they are doing to the local routes.
The MTA must start behaving honestly and responsibly, and yes, they should fix themselves or the politicians put measures into place that would force them to. Until then, I am not willing to let them have more of my money in terms of increased taxes, tolls or congestion pricing.
What do you think they’re doing with these administrative cuts and savings? What about their restructured capital plan? Your solution seems to involve letting the MTA – and transit in New York City – fail before giving them more money. That’s an outcome the city, state and nation simply cannot afford.
At this point, the remaining $200 million gap begins to be a problem of of MTA management’s own making. If you’d rather see the nation’s largest transit system deteriorate than tap available stimulus money, , and can’t bring yourself to price your product reasonably consistent with the price of everything else in New York, how in the world are you the right management team to call the shots at the MTA?
Oh, I see, it’s never management’s fault. It’s always the fault of the TWU, the same TWU that rescued the authority’s budget back in the day, by completely rebuilding the Redbird generation of rolling stock on a shoestring.
I’m not sure what the TWU has to do with the administrative cuts and savings. It seems clear that the MTA is going to whittle down its administrative budget to the bear minimum, announce a slightly larger-than-expected fare hike for 2011 and then use stimulus funds to cover the gap. I don’t support that move much, but it doesn’t involve the TWU and neither I nor BrooklynBus mentioned the union. You did.
Fair enough. I got a litle carried away and digressed. Sorry.
I’m not even sure all your facts are correct. Which Redbirds did the TWU “completely rebuild?” Some minor work may have been done in-house, but I seem to recall all the Redbird overhalls being contracted out to Morrison-Knudsen. Also, the union insisted on overhauling 110 R-42s in-house and the work performed on those cars turned out to be inferior to the cars of the same class that also were contracted out to M-K.
I just spent 30 minutes writing you a very detailed response to your question, then suddenly it all just vanished when I was rereading what I wrote. I hope I can remember everything.
I won’t comment on their restructured capital plan because I am not familiar with it. I also agree that we cannot afford to let the MTA and transit fail. The State never should have made such drastic cuts, but I think they were trying to send the MTA a message to get their house in order which hopefully they are now doing.
In answer to your question, administrative cuts and savings are a good idea if they are correctly done. They have announced cuts to I believe 684 administrative jobs but so far all the ones I have read about are union jobs where either service or maintenance are impacted. I have not seen the details of cuts for non-unionized administrative employees which also need to be made. Will any of those be real cuts or just cuts through attrition as in the past? But even those cuts must be made properly, which requires a lot of time and effort, not simply by looking at an organization chart. (It seems that every few years, there’s another reorganization, and that also wastes money. Why institute the line managers and then get rid of them because the President has changed?)
Work needs to be equalized among managers so some do not get away with working only three hours a day while others are forced to stay ten hours a day to keep up with their workload. Managers who merely pass work down to their employees and back up the chain of command contributing nothing in the process need to be eliminated. You don’t need employees with high-level titles and salaries performing work that can be accomplished by someone in a lower pay grade. Why is the MTA holding off on a proposed 10% pay cut to administrative employees, when NJT is cutting salaries? I’ve found that the MTA pays about 30% higher salaries for comparable work by employees in mayoral agencies.
I don’t have that much faith that the administrative cuts will be properly made judging from how some of the service cuts were sloppily made merely by looking at a map to judge walking distances, some times erroneously. The MTA tends to take the easy way out, rather than doing the job the correct way.
The MTA has been around for over 40 years, so why did they first now announce plans to consolidate administrative functions of LIRR and MNR? Several years ago they acquired the former privately operated lines and now operate two distinct units, MTA Bus and NYCT. Will it also take them 40 years to consolidate administrative and planning functions of these two agencies so that MTA Bus does not operate express routes with as little as four people per bus trip, with most routes not exceeding 30 passengers per bus trip, while NYCT discontinues routes with an average of 30 passengers per bus trip because it is not deemed high enough?
When the MTA had a surplus, money was not reinvested to improve the health of the bus system by modernizing routes to attract riders. Instead they were busy devising future service cuts to help destroy the system. They rejected every single service improvement proposed by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Riders Council in their three-year comprehensive study from 2003 to 2006. The MTA needs more than money to solve its problems. They need to treat their employees fairly and reward good work, not just reward those with the proper connections. The lower level employees care about improving the system. Those on top think only about the bottom line and that has to change.
They announced the plans in the late 1990s. Various not-invented-here proponents, mostly from Long Island, mothballed the idea on flimsy grounds: the labor agreements are different, the on-time performance is different, the railroads serve two different regions, etc. The State Senate’s Republicans were part of this crew, so the proposal never went anywhere.
Even so, the LIRR and MNR were placed under the MTA umbrella prior to 1968 when the NYCTA was also included, so it still took 30 years for the idea to even be proposed, not exactly quick.
Your assumption is not logical at all. Ridership is sensitive to frequency. Cutting bus frequency from 15 to 30 minutes involves such a drastic length in wait that it would definitely result in lower ridership. Cutting train frequency from 6 to 8 minutes would reduce ridership, but not as much: the worst-case wait is still only 2 minutes longer. Most of the service cuts are of the 6-to-8 variety, so it makes sense to assume unnoticeable changes in ridership, but that doesn’t mean every cut would result in the same passenger behavior.
You are correct. Ridership is sensitive to frequency, but in this case since there is no other express bus alternative, I don’t think it would be that sensitive.
But how come you didn’t criticize the MTA for making that assumption in all the routes they cut? Show me where they are showing revenue loss. They show unrealistic alternatives no one would ever use for virtually every cut proposed, and assume no ridership or revenue is lost.
If an express bus seats 27 and you are postulating an average loading of 60 per bus if service is cut in half. That means that people will be standing and will soon desert the service; let alone people giving up on the route because it does not come often enough.
People would switch to the local buses or drive.
I’m not criticizing the MTA because so far its service cuts seem to be based on realistic ridership numbers. I attacked the late night cut of the M66, which has fairly busy late-evening and early-night ridership; but then the MTA published data showing it’s among the least-ridden late-night bus lines. In general, I criticize the MTA for things it’s clearly bad at, such as cost control, while relenting on things on which its track record is good, such as designing minimally painful service cuts or projecting ridership.
“People would switch to the local buses or drive.”
What are you talking about? People use express buses to go to Manhattan. Local buses from Brooklyn don’t do that, and certainly won’t after the disconinuance of the B39 and B51.
Most express bus users cannot afford to drive into Manhattan. I would think that a few might switch to the train, but the majority would just stop making the trip, hurting the economy.
The MTA’s ridership numbers may be realistic, but the key to proving the cuts are minimally painful is to present the data so that the process is transparent and the reasons for their selections obvious. This has not been done.
Nowhere do they show you how their net annual savings was derived for each reduction; i.e. number of anticipated lost passengers, if any. So we do not know how efficient any of the cuts are. You can conceivable have a change where most of the operating cost savings is wiped out by revenue loss if it even was estimated correctly, since some of the routing alternatives given are not at all realistic.
Also, the negative impacts are grossly underestimated in some cases. They talk about an average passenger having an extra five or ten minutes added to his trip, when in fact for some, there would be a three-quarter mile additional walk. Some routes are eliminated such as the B39, although there are standees at times. They also don’t show if the alternate routes proposed have the capacity to handle additional riders or if more service would be needed on those routes, which has not been factored in.
And since when are they good at projecting riders? Previous service cuts have never yielded the anticipated savings because no loss of ridership was projected when service decreased. Similar if any proposed extension is submitted to the MTA, it is evaluated only as to operating costs. The assumption is that no new riders will be attracted, which is totally unrealistic.
Finally, unlike in the past, when service discontinuances resulted in new three-legged bus transfers, none are being proposed as a result of these cuts. So, in addition to having to take extra buses, you are now faced with having to pay an additional fare. For example, you are told that as a result of the B48 shortening, you should take the B49. What if you are transferring to the B48 from any number of crosstown routes? It will now cost you two fares to transfer to the B49. There is much to criticize regarding these cuts.
The local buses connect to the subway. The subway gets people to Manhattan.
The data is already presented. I don’t have a link right now, but you can find it on Cap’n Transit’s blog: the MTA publishes ridership numbers for each route, broken down based on day of the week, as well as revenue/cost ratios.
Your “it’ll hurt the economy” statement is normative, not factual. Many people will not take trips if the X29 frequency is halved. Overall it should be a net money saver because of the route’s operating costs. More people will not take trips if the route is eliminated; this will again save costs.
You can’t assume zero reduction in ridership out of a route elimination and at the same time criticize the MTA for assuming zero reduction in ridership.
First of all, your first comment shows ignorance on your part because many express bus users cannot walk stairs and are not even capable of using the subway in the first place. Would it be more efficient if they used Access-A-Ride or got taxi vouchers instead? Of course not.
Where did I assume “zero reduction” in ridership? I stated that a few riders would be lost but that it would not be that significant, and that halving the service would almost double the route’s efficiency, certainly a better solution than eliminating the route entirely.
If MTA Bus used the same standard for express bus elimination, (30 people per bus), all their routes would be eliminated! The most efficient MTA Bus carries 24 passengers per bus trip! So how in the world could you justify eliminating a route carrying 30 passengers per bus trip? Just because the City subsidizes MTA Bus Routes? Something is very wrong with that picture.
Your last statement is also very curious. “More people will not take trips if the route is eliminated; this will again save costs.”
That is exactly the MTA’s way of thinking. So let’s eliminate every bus route in the City and the MTA will not have any deficit running the buses. That is what they are trying to do very slowly. First cut off one end of the route. That decreases the routes usability so less people will use it. Then cut service in half because there are fewer riders. Then you eliminate the route entirely because it is no longer needed. Are you sure you don’t work for the MTA?
They’re capable of riding local buses and changing, or of riding jitneys and dollar vans.
“If service was cut in half, that cost should also be cut in half to $4.07, below the $5.50 fare currently charged, and average passenger loads would increase to about 60 per bus, assuming passengers were willing to travel 15 minutes earlier or 15 minutes later. It would be logical to make such an assumption.”
This assumption is hardly your worst – the assumption that everyone pays full fare is – but it’s pretty bad on its own.
The MTA’s way of thinking is that it needs to plug a hole in the budget without state aid, and for political reasons X% of the plugging has to come from service cuts rather than from getting rid of assistant conductors. Given the required amount of service cuts, the MTA’s trying to design the least painful cuts.
I’m not saying the MTA isn’t wasteful, etc. But telling it to change is like talking to a rock- it won’t do anything. If your assemblyperson can do no better than “they waste any money we give them” without proposing any ways to reform the MTA then I suggest you vote for someone else, because s/he is ignoring his/her responsibility. If you think the MTA as it is has no accountability then you have to change the system, and as far as I know that’s the responsibility of the state government.
First of all, it wasn’t “my assemblyman” to told me that. My assemblyman was the one who wouldn’t even respond to my requests to place more controls on the MTA. for example, not permit them to change their guidelines without legislative approval. Why even have guidelines to determine service levela if all you have to do is relax those guidelines to permit additional cutbacks?
If telling the MTA to change is like talking to a rock, then perhaps now is the time to break it up.
Now you’re talking.
Sorry – I meant seats 57, not 27
Aren’t the over-the road buses 45 feet long? I thought they carry more than 57 seated passengers. But even if 57 is accurate, I think it would be safe to assume that a few would leave the service anyway because they wouldn’t want to wait longer, which would mean that the buses would all be full assuming even loadings which is probably not the case anyway, so yes a few might desert the service because they wouldn’t want to stand.
I don’t think passengers should have to stand in an express bus, but years ago it wasn’t that uncommon for this to be the case. Anyway, I don’t see what the problem would be from the MTA’s point of view because a fuly seated load would be the most efficient service they could run. So the question becomes, why would you want to discontinue such a service which is what they are doing?
Also, costs could be further reduced by storing the buses somewhere in Manhattan as opposed to running them back to Brooklyn empty which is what I think they are doing now. Between the rush hours, there is capacity at all the depots in Manhattan and we are talking about a maximum of nine buses, so why couldn’t this be done if it isn’t done already?
To Alon Levy:
The system will not me reply to your response of 5/10 – 10:23 AM, so I will reply here:
“ They’re capable of riding local buses and changing, or of riding jitneys and dollar vans.”
Okay , so now you are promoting illegal transportation services. Besides, I am not aware of any jitneys or dollar vans making long distance interborough trips, or should they just use taxis at $50 a pop because that’s at least what a taxi trip costs from central and outer Brooklyn to Midtown. That is also MTA thinking. Why should we provide the service at a loss when private enterprise can do it at a profit?
“Zero Reduction in ridership”
I also stated, but it must have been in another forum, that a few passengers probably would be lost. Okay, but let’s say you are correct and that a significant amount of express bus riders pay a reduced fare that is not subsidized by the City and State, and the MTA would still lose money on this route if it were to remain in service, does that mean that this cut makes more sense than others not being proposed? All Express buses operated by MTA Bus carry less passengers per trip than the X30 being discontinued and are being retained except for a few.
“The MTA’s trying to design the least painful cuts.”
Maybe so. But trying is not good enough. That is exactly what they must do (in addition to eliminating waste) and they are not doing it. The service cut process must be transparent and it is not. Their booklet is full of distortions, non-realistic assumptions regarding alternatives and inconsistent logic. To give you just one example, they initially proposed to eliminate a portion of the B4 full-time. In their revised submission, they have restored partial weekday service, but not weekend service. If you closely look at the numbers and compare both books, initial and revised, you would see that there would have benefitted more people and cost them less, if they chose to restore weekend service instead of weekday service. Their only possible rationale for choosing weekday service over weekend service, assuming that one of them had to go, is that weekday trips are essential but weekend trips are discretionary. Responsible planning does not allow assumptions such as that, but would have required a passenger survey. In fact, planning policy dictates that passenger traffic counts be used to determine schedule changes, but origin-destination surveys be used to design and eliminate routes. No O/D surveys were performed in making these changes.
Please don’t tell me that those surveys cost money that they can’t afford. Yes they do. But maybe they would have that money if Howard Roberts didn’t waste thousands of dollars on “Bus Rider Report Card Mail-in Passenger surveys” several years ago, which only proved that riders gave most of the bus routes a “C” grade. What else was learned from that experience?
Finally, no indication has been given that three-legged transfers will be given to bus passengers now requiring a third bus to complete their trips, a policy in effect for over 60 years. It seems like these riders will now have to pay a double fare for this inconvenience. And please don’t play the MTA games by asking me to show you how many passengers would be affected, or state that if it were a problem, riders would have mentioned it at the public hearings. Maybe they didn’t mention it because the MTA said nothing about possibly changing their policy. They will only find out if they discover additional money being deducted from their MetroCards if they bother checking at all.
The MTA needs to be responsible and I am afraid they have not acted responsibly. If they truly were interested in the least painful cuts, that is the first statement they would have made at the public hearings, that no one would have to pay an additional fare as a result of the cuts.