Archive for December, 2010
Solving the MTA’s construction costs problem
Posted by: | Comments
Why does the Second Ave. Subway cost so much? The answer must be out there.
I started this site in late 2006 when it became clear that the Second Ave. Subway would receive a $1.3 billion infusion of federal funds that would finally get the project off the drawing board and onto subway maps across the city. By the time I got around to discussing the project’s timeline in March 2007, the MTA had pushed an initial opening date of 2012 back a year. The MTA had hoped to wrap up Phase 1 by 2013 before moving onto Phase 2 in 2014. Phase 3 was to begin in 2015 and Phase 4 in 2017 as the full line was to be ready by 2020. Well, you know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men.
As time wore on, the news got worse and worse. In late 2008, the MTA promised a 2015 completion date for SAS Phase 1, and in 2009, the authority had to push that date back again to 2016. Today, the authority continues to insist that the project will open in December 2016 even though the federal government anticipates an opening date as late as 2018 and costs as high as $5.7 billion.
The years have not been the only problem plaguing the Second Ave. Subway. In the early part of the 21st Century, Phase 1 of the subway was to cost $3.8 billion. Today, the MTA hopes to bring in at around $4.5 billion but had cut the third track to eliminate $1 billion from the project’s balance sheet. Six years out, the final cost of Phase 1 is no sure thing.
The Second Ave. Subway isn’t alone in this grand MTA venture. The Fulton St. Transit Center was supposed to open three years ago at a cost of $700 million, and now work won’t be complete in Lower Manhattan until 2014. It will cost $1.4 billion. Even the new South Ferry station, a relatively minor project, opened nearly 16 months late and $100 million over budget. That station has since sprung numerous leaks. This is project management at its worst.
So that’s my long-winded introduction to this evening’s news. As New York prepares for the holidays and people pack up, Barry Kluger, the MTA IG, has released a report — available here as a PDF — highly critical of the MTA’s capital construction management structure. The findings in the right are not a surprise. “The failure to complete mega-projects on time and within budget has raised serious concerns about how MTACC has managed these projects and indicates a need for more effective oversight from MTA,” it says.
The report itself is mostly mundane. Kluger talks about the interplay between MTA HQ, MTA Capital Construction, the MTA Board’s Capital Program Oversight Committee and the Independent Engineering Consultant brought on to advise the board on issues concerning the capital project. Essentially, too many cooks are in the kitchen, and project management and risk assessment efforts often get bogged down in the finer details of an overly bureaucratic.
Ultimately, Kluger’s report suggests fixes as exciting as delineating responsibilities, presenting reports in clear and concise manners and better setting expectations, priorities and evaluation criteria. For the MTA, this hardly groundbreaking news. In fact, Jay Walder urged Kluger to conduct this review, and the Authority has already begun to implement many of the suggestions the inspector general put forward to streamline mega-project management. If the agency can better assess risks, it can at least begin to understand why costs are on the rise.
For now, this MTA IG report is only the tip of an iceberg. As Kluger writes, “Upcoming work will explore other potential causes [of delays and costs increases], including those more fundamental and systemic in nature.” That’s going to be the meaty report. Why does it take so long to build a subway line in New York City? Why does it cost so much? As the MTA gears up to fight for money to close the $10 billion gap in its capital budget, those are questions the authority is going to need to answer. Better management might be a start, but it’s only just that.
Addendum: As Kluger’s report came out late on Wednesday, it has received a modest amount of media play from the usual suspects. In Transportation Nation’s coverage, Jim O’Grady claims that, of all the MTA projects, only the 7 line is on time and on budget. As I wrote just a few weeks ago, that’s simply not true. The line is a year behind schedule, and the only reason it’s ostensibly on budget is because the city axed an entire station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. — or close to half the project. That doesn’t strike me as a project that’s on time or on budget.
From the express tracks: The MTA Visitor’s Guide
Posted by: | CommentsThe New York City Subway map, it seems, is always controversial. At a talk two weeks ago at the Museum of the City of New York, designers past and present offered up their critiques, and I’ve burned many a pixel discussing elements of the current map.
Absent from the museum discussion though was Michael Hertz, the designer of the current subway map. Hertz, who says he never received an invite to the event and was not asked to speak, contacted me to offer up his defense of his subway map and his views on the controversial history of the map. What follows are his words and views (not mine). Part One of his piece ran on Friday, and I published Part Two on Monday. In Part Three presented here, Hertz talks about redesigning the map. Hopefully, his explanations will help illuminate the thinking behind the current subway map.

The MTA Travel Guide helped spur on a redesign for the subway map.
I first met John Tauranac, when he was newly hired by MTA about 1974. At the time I was working on the first official bus maps of the city’s five boroughs, driven by the the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the subsequent oil embargo.
He began working on an MTA Visitor Guide which was to include a subway map in atlas form. MTA and Tauranac directed that this new map be geographic in style and to exact New York City scale. This was the pendulum winging the other way — all the way from the Vingelli map — and when assigned to the project, I began by cookie-cutting pieces of the NY City Planning Commission’s borough street maps and the so-called ‘stick map’ (single line street grid) to see how many pages would be required to fit the whole city’s subway station diagram. I was able to figure out the number of spreads we would need for the book but I soon realized that it would be far too large and would not work on one single sheet of paper. It could never be considered a ‘prototype’ for a new subway system map for public distribution. It might, however, have been used as the 46″x 59″ station wall map, but any new map we would develop should look the same and must be useable in all sizes.
At this time we were locked in to the Unimark color coding for the service disks and were trying to avoid so many colored lines down Manhattan which forced the very distortion we wanted to cure. So we opted for a single line in a single color: bright, red Pantone 185 (the same color we currently use for the 7th Av Line ). I think it worked fine in this atlas format but comments arose from all over, demanding some system of color coding for an eventual (one-piece) system map.
The Vignelli map was still the official MTA map, and at about this time, Arline Bronzaft, a psychology professor at Lehman College and Steve Dobrow, professor of engineering at Fairleigh Dickinson University, began to make their voices heard in the press, radio, and inside the towers of MTA and TA administrations. They felt that the riders’ inability to utilize the map satisfactorily and the consequent public opposition to the severe abstraction of their city was justified. Bronzaft was probably the single, most vocal and respected force, moving what was to be the 1979 map into the realm of reality. A world class expert in the effects of noise in the classroom and public venues, she was tireless in her efforts to push a new, more useable map closer to fruition. She was virtually the ‘Mother’ of the new map-to-come and was one of the first appointed to the TA’s (not MTA) Subway Map Committee under Passenger Services Executive, Fred Wilkinson.
There is a common misconception, perpetuated in print and in the blogs that this was an MTA committee, formed in the Spring of ’76, with MTA personnel aboard. This is not at all what happened. There were no MTA employees on board in November 1975 when the committee was formed at TA Headquarters, 370 Jay Street, Brooklyn, in the 12th floor conference room. There were TA employees, transit advocates from outside, and me. When the Mark Ovenden/Peter Lloyd book on Subway Maps of New York is out in 2011, many of the myths and erroneous information that now prevail will be addressed and should be permanently rectified.
The MTA was included only after the authority agreed to fund and administer my contract rather than deal with the lumbering and lengthy procurement provisions necessitated by the TA’s rulebook procedures, which would only slow the progress. Since my MTA contract for bus maps was still in force, there would be no problem in amending it or drafting a new one with the same provisions for this new work.

The prototype for the new subway map included red track routes and the Unimark-designed multi-colored subway bullets.
It was at this point, that MTA decided that there must be some MTA presence on the committee. Dean McChesney, John Tauranac and Kevin Doherty were then brought in. The fact that a new member, Joe Korman from the TA, was added to the committee late in 1977, confirms my notion that it was still a TA committee under Wilkinson as much as two years into its creation. The MTA folks, as well as I, had never heard Korman’s name before, so how could he wind up there unless he was a TA/Wilkinson appointee? Only after Fred Wilkinson left the TA, in the fall of 1977 for a top job at American Express, that the committee became an MTA entity and began meeting at MTA Headquarters in Manhattan, under Tauranac, the new chairman.
We prepared drafts for a new map with one color, red Pantone 185, for brightness and legibility of the track route but still used Unimark’s color coding for the route bullets. We tested it along with Vignelli’s among two groups of high school students. On Long Island we chose Sanford H. Calhoun High School (Merrick), the school my kids attended, and in Brooklyn, John Dewey High School, where Arline’s daughter attended.
The Dewey High students were generally subway savvy, but upon interviewing them and reading their comments, I, for one, was very disheartened. It seemed that about eight-to-one, the students preferred Vignelli’s map. But after all the test scores were tabulated, our new map, minus route-color coding actually engendered better results in spite of their very pronounced preferences.
Michael Hertz is the designer of many transit maps, illustrated airport directory maps and other wayfinding devices around the U.S. He designed the 1979 NY City Subway Map and has handled all of the revisions since. In 1976 he was awarded this design contract after creating five borough bus maps, and a Westchester bus map that were praised by the press and the public.
On being surprised by the fare hikes
Posted by: | Comments
There are enough words on this sign to make Polonius proud.
In eight days, the MTA is going to raise fares. They’re not eliminated the unlimited cards or capping the number of rides one may take in a seven- or 30-day period, and although you and I know this, not everyone in New York is aware of the impending change.
For a piece in amNew York, Theresa Juva tracked down straphangers who had no idea of the structure of the impending fare hike or, in some cases, that the fares were even going to go up. One person she interviewed still believed the rides would be capped. While it’s likely that Juva interviewed more than a few people who knew about the fare hike, that she found so many uninformed or misinformed New Yorkers speaks volumes. But about what?
On the one hand, it speaks volumes about the attention New Yorkers pay to the subways. By and large, they don’t pay any. They still think the MTA had two sets of books, and they’re largely ignorant and willfully so of the goings-on underground. Even though we all feel the effect of subway cuts and fare hikes, too many people fail to educate themselves. Furthermore, when the MTA tries to use its own signage space to communicate with writers, newspaper editorial boards turn those efforts into absurdly stupid controversies that shouldn’t be controversial at all.
But on the other hand, the failure is one of signage. Look at that fare hike sign. I found that one in Rockefeller Center as thousands of harried commuters rushed past, and it’s enough to make a graphics designer cry. The MTA has hung up signs that are chock full o’ words, and it’s impossible to discern info quickly and easily from the signs. The fare hike might be coming, but the inability to decipher signs on the go is a failure not of the public but of customer service.
Musings on the transit strike five years later
Posted by: | Comments
In 2005, straphangers across the city had to contend with no subway service for three days. (Photo by flickr user JUgoretz)
December 2005 was supposed to be a banner month for the MTA. In an effort to live down the now-discredited claim about two sets of books that convicted felon and then-Comptroller Alan Hevesi had espoused two years earlier, the authority handed out discount fares to regular straphangers and tourists alike. The holiday fare program, deemed neither a success nor a failure, is a relic of a financially secure past, but the end of December in 2005 saw the city’s first transit strike in 25 years. We’re still living with the aftermath of that strike today.
December 22 — today — marks the five-year anniversary of the end of that transit strike, and then, as now, few people could tell you which side won. In 2005, the TWU claimed to be victorious. “In the face of an unprecedented media assault, the average New Yorker supported the TWU and blamed the MTA for the strike,” the union said in a statement. But leaders faced criminal sanctions, and the TWU lost its mandatory dues provisions. The union was the driving force of the strike and left the MTA with no alternatives. Today, current President John Samuelsen is trying to rebuild a union still awash in bitterness and in-fighting caused by fallout from the strike.
With history as our guide, we can see today how the strike and its impact is still felt in the way New Yorkers view the MTA, and perhaps the union was right. While few New Yorkers would say they supported the TWU’s efforts to lower the retirement age to 50 and the qualifying years to 20, most are still content to blame the MTA for the strike. At the time, riders expressed their disgust with the situation through obscene messages graffitied onto MTA signs, and when the strike ended, everyone just wanted to ride the rails again.
Currently, the MTA suffers from a credibility gap. Straphangers immediately assume that whatever the MTA is doing costs too much and takes too much time. The authority is beset by bureaucratic waste, and its attempt to make every dollar count have not led to an increasingly positive public perception. The MTA is far from the worst authority in New York state, and yet it has a reputation that proceeds it.
That reputation stems directly from the transit strike. For three days at the height of the holidays, the MTA and the TWU engaged in what can artfully be described as a pissing contest. The TWU knew its strike would not pass legal muster, and the MTA knew the public would not respond positively to three days without mass transit. Yet, the authority knew that it had to dig in on certain issues to keep costs down, and the TWU tried to make a stand. The public didn’t care who was right, who was right or what would benefit them in the end. They just wanted their subways back.
Today, the TWU is still bitter over the outcome of the strike, and current union leaders think their relationship with the MTA is at an all-time low. “If it was starting to change,” Samuelsen said of his union’s cooperation with the MTA, “Jay Walder’s coming to town has only intensified the average worker’s disdain for the MTA.” Only the TWU head could proclaim to hate his bosses and get away with it without explaining the why of it all.
The next few months could be telling ones for the MTA and the TWU. The union’s contract is up again, and after three years of doling out arbitration-awarded raises while its balance sheet went south, the MTA is prepared to toe a hard line. The authority doesn’t want labor costs to rise over the next two years, and in fact, the authority can’t afford to have labor costs rise over the next two years. Its leaders are prepared to toe a hard line over the next year.
And so five years after the transit strike ended, the city hasn’t progressed much. The MTA and TWU are still at odds, and labor relations might be even worse than they were in 2005. The riding public doesn’t care to apportion blame. They’re not sympathetic to the TWU’s cause, and they’re still skeptical of anything that comes out of MTA HQ. We won’t have another transit strike in the future, but these are rough times indeed for the MTA, for the TWU and for the seven million New Yorkers who rely upon New York City Transit to get around town everyday.
Transit marks 100th IRT station with countdown clocks
Posted by: | CommentsWhen New York City Transit announced plans to install countdown clocks at 75 stations along the IRT numbered routes this year, most MTA watchers scoffed at the lofty goal. The MTA has long had problems bringing technology innovation to its 105-year-old system, and other subway systems had been enjoying the benefits of countdown clocks for decades. Well, today, the authority announced that it has exceed this goal by 25. When the countdown clock at Houston St. on the 1 went live this week, it was the 100th installed in 2010.
No longer will riders impatiently tap their feet while seeking out the dim glow of an advancing train piercing through the darkness of a tunnel. “For years, transit riders in other cities around the world have been looking at digital signs to know when the next bus or train is coming,” MTA Chairman and CEO Jay H. Walder said. “But in New York, we were left peering down a subway platform looking for headlights. We’re changing that and improving our customers’ experience one station at a time.”
The MTA anticipates that the full rollout along the numbered lines will be completed by mid-2011. At that point, the authority will assess ways to bring this technology to the B Division lettered lines. “This is all about providing information to our customers who may see similar systems in other locations and ask, ‘Why not here?’ Well, we asked ourselves the same thing and we are now moving briskly ahead with this project,” NYC Transit President Thomas Prendergast said in a statement. Even as the MTA faces precarious financial times, it’s good to see forward progress.
Memo to Cuomo: Hands off transit money
Posted by: | CommentsAs New York State prepares to welcome its new governor with a massive budget crisis, Transit advocates are ramping up their efforts to secure supposedly dedicated funding. After watching state tax revenue fall $500 million short of projections and yelling loudly from the sidelines while the legislature reappropriated — or is this misappropriated? — $143 million in transit funding last year, a group of transit advocates, good-government organizations and labor unions sent a letter yesterday to Andrew Cuomo urging him to protect transit dollars.
“What could be more basic to good governance than keeping the promise to taxpayers and transit riders that dedicated transit funds be spent for the sole purpose for which they were enacted?” the letter asks. “One quarter of the state’s workforce relies on mass transit to get to work.”
The organizations pushed the impact the cuts have on riders. “Twice in the last year, the Paterson Administration has raided funds dedicated solely to transit and taken a total of $160 million for other purposes,” it reads. “The diversion of dedicated transit funds in the fall of 2009 directly triggered the worst transit service cuts in memory. These included axing 36 bus routes; eliminating 570 bus stops; killing all or parts of three subway lines; and burdening millions of city and suburban riders with greater waits, more crowding, extra transfers and longer trips.” These crippling service cuts come on top of the third fare hike in as many years.”
Essentially, this letter lays the blame on the feet of, well, everyone. Gov. Paterson in fact proposed taking the transit dollars while state tax assessors woefully overestimated revenue figures. In fact, for 2011 already, the MTA expects $292 million less than originally anticipated.
Now, it’s time to renew calls for a transit lockbox in New York City. There’s no reason why dedicated funds can’t remain as such, and as long the state has the option to take the money, transit funding will always be at risk. “These taxes were enacted for a specific reason: to help pay for subway, bus and commuter operations and transit capital projects,” the letter says. “As a matter of principle and practice, the dedicated funds should continue to serve those purposes.”
I’ve long beaten the drum for a transit lockbox, and in the coming months, I should have more on the MTA’s financial relationship with New York State. Protection and support for transit is long overdue, and as this letter with its 30 signatories shows, support is growing. When will the state act?
After the jump, a full copy of the letter. Read More→
Does the MTA have a liability problem?
Posted by: | Comments
The 1991 derailment north of Union Square led to justify lawsuits but not all accidents are as cut-and-dry as that one.
Every now and then, accidents involving the MTA make their ways into the news. Last week, we heard the horrific tale of a man crushed by the platform extenders at Union Square, and over the weekend, a disabled man lost control of his wheelchair and ended up in the tracks. Earlier this year, the MTA lost a $7 million judgment in a case in which the jury found a bus driver at fault in an collision with another vehicle. Eventually, the legal bills mount up.
In his column in the Daily News yesterday, Pete Donohue highlights the MTA’s liability gap. He found that, in many cases, the authority is losing to plaintiffs who were at fault. The piece leads with the story of one Dustin Dibble who fell onto the tracks while “drunk as a skunk,” lost his leg to a train car and won a $2.3 million judgment against the MTA. While plaintiff’s attorneys who are willing to take on these cases may carry some of the blame, Donohue highlights how open-ended liability costs the cash-strapped authority. He writes:
There’s no shortage of culprits behind the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s constant cash crisis, which translates into fare hikes, service cuts and dirtier stations for riders. And somewhere on that list are boneheads who have no one but themselves to blame for being in the path of a subway train – as well as their opportunistic lawyers.
The state Legislature also deserves mention. The MTA has asked for a law clearly stating the obvious: Someone on the tracks because of their own recklessness shouldn’t be able to sue when a motorman doesn’t manage to stop a 400-ton train in time. The Legislature has failed to act. So, the lawsuits keep coming.
In one recent case, a 30-year-old man riding a bicycle on a subway platform crashed into a column and careened to the tracks, where he was struck. In another, a vandal filed a lawsuit after getting hit in a tunnel; he was trespassing to spray-paint graffiti. While the MTA wins a majority of such cases, it can take years of motions and appeals, all of which take money and effort better spent elsewhere. When it loses, the payouts are big – millions of dollars because of the severe nature of injuries.
Donohue sums up the morality behind Dibble’s case. The now-26-year-old deserves “sympathy – but not a seven-figure payday at riders’ expense,” and it sounds as though the state courts agree. The Appellate Division tossed out the $2.3 million award earlier this summer, calling it “utterly irrational.” The law firm of Smiley and Smiley plans to appeal, and the MTA’s legal bills will mount.
But how big of a problem is it? Earlier this year, the MTA released some statistics concerning its legal cases. In 2009, those injured filed 2720 claims against Transit, and only 216 of those went to trial. The agency won 65 percent of those trials, and since 2005, the agency has a similar percentage of the 870 cases to go to trial. Still, NYC Transit paid out $244.8 million in injury claims from 2005-2009 or close to $50 million annually. The bills mount up.
Tort law and personal injury law certainly has its place underground, and riders need protection from the MTA’s potential negligence. But at some point, straphangers have to take personal responsibility. While a jury may find a graffiti artists who wandered into the tracks to tag an abandoned tunnel contributorily negligent, the MTA can’t operate efficiently if it expects to find people illegally in its tunnels. The state should indeed grant the authority this protection. After all, more riders would benefit from the cost savings generated by looser liability standards than would suffer the consequences of their careless acts.
From the Express Tracks: Massimo’s Metro Maps Milanaise
Posted by: | CommentsThe New York City Subway map, it seems, is always controversial. At a talk two weeks ago at the Museum of the City of New York, designers past and present offered up their critiques, and I’ve burned many a pixel discussing elements of the current map.
Absent from the museum discussion though was Michael Hertz, the designer of the current subway map. Hertz, who says he never received an invite to the event and was not asked to speak, contacted me to offer up his defense of his subway map and his views on the controversial history of the map. What follows are his words and views (not mine). Part One of his piece ran on Friday, and Part Two follows. Hopefully, his explanations will help illuminate the thinking behind the current subway map.

Massimo Vignelli's diagrammatic map still inspires discussion nearly forty years after its debut.
Afflicted with a confirmed case of chronic Europhilia and after seeing Milan’s subway graphics, MTA Chairman Dr. William Ronan was duly impressed with the Vignelli/Noorda team. Surely, this was the impetus for their being hired.
Massimo’s 1972 map, still the all-time Number One in classiness and esthetics — and its recent 2008 update — embody the same problems which prompted MTA to go for a new look back in 1975 (in our 1979-2010 map and updates). Unfortunately, Massimo was a victim of the zeitgeist that hovered over New York City in the early 70s. Crime, graffiti and filth were a great disincentive for traveling around the city by subway, and when riders did venture forth, they wanted to be as close as possible to their above-ground destination, since everyone has an above-ground destination.
Vignelli’s map so distorted the positioning and spacing between stations, streets and landmarks that the uninitiated rider could not trust it to assure that he was where he wanted to be. Everyone instinctively knows that no city could ever be constructed with a 45-, 90-, and 135 degree-only street grid, and this created a mistrust and public objection. Also, because Vignelli had to deal with an already existing color coding used in the Unimark signage program a few years before, he had no choice but to use 17 different colored lines running down the avenues of spindly little Manhattan Island. This instantly forced the geography into an unreality with which visitors and inexperienced riders apparently felt uncomfortable.
Another impediment to working out a really viable system was the lack of state and federal funding for transit related programs, which eliminated the possibility of implementing another part of Massimo’s plan: the development of station-mounted local Neighborhood Maps to orient the rider to his actual street destination. We were much luckier in the eighties when with adequate funding and an MTA administration that favored good passenger relations, we were able to develop 83 large maps of New York City neighborhoods, replete with points of interest, landmarks, parks and more.
Of course this still would not have aided Massimo’s map in the planning of a trip from home or other non-subway venues. I used his map for seven years with no problem and had a little pleasure every time I opened it and studied it until it was so tattered that I had to pick up a fresh one. I had another advantage by seeing the map really close-up due to the fact that I worked on updating this map in one of its latter iterations. The absence of actual mechanicals to effect the revisions gave me the opportunity to work on the actual films and get an understanding about its construction.
I think the Unimark Signage System was exemplary, white-on-black or black-on-white, with Standard or Helvetica. None of this mattered too much because they had developed a true, unified system, not present in earlier subway signage. I appreciated it all the more when I was contracted to create a new sign manual, using the new ‘trunk-line’ color coding. Noorda and Vignelli’s previous work gave me a great starting point.
We had another advantage in that some of us were thinking ahead to possible issues regarding signage color problems when budgets were in place to do a new signage program and we discovered one significant one: Pantone ink colors v. colored glass ‘beads’ melted onto porcelain enamel panels. The red violet we chose for the 7 line could not be matched satisfactorily to the colors available in porcelain. We opted for Pantone Purple, a better choice for this situation with a close equivalent in porcelain.

These neighborhood maps were originally part of Massimo Vignelli's unified system design. Hertz was able to implement them in the 1980s. (Click to enlarge)
Another advantage was the availability of funds for this massive system-wide signage changeover as well as MTA’s initiation of the series of 83 wall-mounted Neighborhood Maps encompassing every station, still there and updated periodically. This is one of Massimo’s regrets about the implementation of his own program.
Still another advantage comes to mind: We were retained to draft the full-sized shop drawings of station signage for all stations being renovated by the TA in-house. We also supervised the shop drawings of station signage done by architects retained by outside engineering firms that had station renovation contracts. Were we luckier than Massimo in having our signs placed correctly? Yeah, right! The installation crews seemed to hunt down the worst places for signs per some corollary to Murphy’s Law.
An example is the entry and exit signs over the turnstiles in one of the 7 line stations, where within a week after being carefully placed and installed, another crew came in and covered them up with Off-Hour Waiting Area signs, being installed by a different crew under another contract.
But back to Vignelli: Together with his wife and partner, Lella, the Vignellis have secured their rightful place in the Pantheon of greatness in American Design. His map will surely live on as the best example of this mapping methodology, surpassing Beck and London and all the other cities around the world where Beck’s offspring have emerged. Perhaps with circumstances going a little differently, Massimo’s map might still be improving the look of our subway system today.
Next: The 1974-1979 MTA maps
Michael Hertz is the designer of many transit maps, illustrated airport directory maps and other wayfinding devices around the U.S. He designed the 1979 NY City Subway Map and has handled all of the revisions since. In 1976 he was awarded this design contract after creating five borough bus maps, and a Westchester bus map that were praised by the press and the public.
New MetroCard math on the fly
Posted by: | CommentsOnce upon a time, when the subway fares were $2 per swipe and the MetroCard pay-per-ride bonus a convenient 20 percent, calculating the number of rides to buy was a piece of cake. Twenty rides would get you 24, and it all cost just $40. Today, though, good luck with that math. Rides now cost $2.25 with a 15 percent bonus on purchases of $8 or more, and for the uneven amount of $15.65, straphangers get eight rides — or $18 — on their cards. It’s only going to get more confusing in ten days.
When the MTA raises the fares on December 30, the math remains obtuse. The base fare will be $2.25 with a seven percent bonus on purchases above $10, and as amNew York details this morning, it’s tough for riders on the fly to figure out that a purchase of $35.75 will lead to a total of $38.25 or 17 rides or that $39.95 will get you $42.75, the equivalent of 19 rides. “It’s was hard before to come up with an even number when using the bonus, and it’s harder now,” Gene Russianoff said to the free daily.
The solutions are simple. First, folks planning ahead can always use the MetroCard Bonus Calculator already updated with the new fare info. But for those who arrive at a MetroCard Vending Machine without a number in mind, the MTA should provide a cheat sheet. The MVMs offer an option to purchase even dollar amounts, but I’d rather buy an even amount of rides with the appropriate bonus. That would be a step in the right direction for customer service relations.
At renamed stations, a confusion of old and new
Posted by: | Comments
In-station signs, but not a change to the map, announce the new name at the former Broadway/Nassau station.
When the MTA renamed the system’s 32nd most popular stop and combined it with the 286th to create the new Jay St./MetroTech station, they hosted a ceremonial ribbon-cutting replete with reporters, video cameras and local politicians. When the authority renamed a platform at the system’s tenth most busiest station, they hung up a sign. Today, as maps and announcements remain a jumble of old and new, confusion rules the day for straphangers bound for both Fulton St. in Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn.
The confusion, says Theresa Juva of amNew York, came about because the MTA “stealthily renamed” the Fulton St. station. “If you are tourist and you are looking on your map for Broadway-Nassau after Chambers Street and you don’t see it — you’re going to Brooklyn,” Andrew Albert, head of the NYC Transit Riders Council and non-voting MTA Board member, said to her.
Juva attended the Riders Council meeting last week during which members bemoaned the change, and she spoke with council members and MTA officials who explained the confusion:
Riders council members fumed at a meeting Thursday that the MTA changed the station name without public notice and hasn’t changed subway maps. Council member Trudy Mason complained that the maps should have been changed before the holidays. “Tourism is one of the biggest industries in New York, and people are traveling and they don’t know where they are going,” she said…
An MTA spokesman said the agency changing the name to Fulton Street to help riders having the same name for all sections of the hub, which includes six lines. The change was made as part of the $1.4 billion Fulton Street Transit Center project, spokesman Kevin Ortiz said. “Having a single, common station name for all platforms in the complex would simplify passenger way finding and travel directions and reduce passenger confusion,” he said.
He added that new maps are being printed and conductors are clarifying for passengers.

The current map still features old station names.
The problem is one I’ve harped on quite a bit this year: It’s a customer service issue, and it’s easy to see how people could be confused. First, the map on hand in stations doesn’t have a mention of the new station names, and while conductors have been told to announce the changes, the FIND displays haven’t been updated yet. Meanwhile, the online subway map hasn’t been updated while route maps for the A, C, F and R have been changed.
If you’re trying to find your way around, the problem is just as bad. The MTA’s own Trip Planner has been updated, but a user inserting directions into the widget on the authority’s home page will be redirected to Google Maps where the station names haven’t yet been updated. Someone unfamiliar with the system looking for Nassau St. could end up on the G train at Nassau Ave. or on the A until they realize their mistake.
Ultimately, this confusion strikes at the heart of the purpose of a station name. I know where to go and what new station names are, as do most readers of Second Ave. Sagas. But for those who are in town for the first time and relying on the subway, a switch-over can be challenging. If anything, the MTA should have printed new maps before the name changes went into effect so that the maps were ready for users last week. For now, it’s a confusion of tourists.
Of course, some New Yorkers couldn’t care less what the stations are actually called. As Jason Kutch said to amNew York, “I still call it Broadway-Nassau. I was born and raised here. I know where I’m going.” Not everyone does though, and that’s the problem.









