Archive for August, 2011
Editorial of the Day: On pointless comptroller reports
Posted by: | CommentsRemember that Captain Obvious report buried on a Sunday by Comptrollers John Liu and Thomas DiNapoli that highlighted how the MTA handles service changes and track work? It seems that some folks did not take too kindly to Liu and DiNapoli’s blustering attempt at a blatant headline grab. The Daily News’ editorial board, for one, found the report misguided and petty.
Here’s how they put it:
The press release trumpeted that the state and city controllers had conducted their first joint audit in more than a decade. Thomas DiNapoli (Albany) and John Liu (New York) had trained their collective investigative firepower on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, their highly paid publicity aides announced. Gee, they must have discovered something huge. Right?
No, not exactly.
The report released Sunday by DiNapoli and Liu was more like a junior high school research paper than a serious examination of the state of mass transit in New York City. Did you know that auditors visited 39 subway stations where service had been diverted for track repairs? And did you know, horror of horrors, that the transit authority posted no more than 20 signs in each station alerting riders to the disruption? Well, now you do, thanks to the crusading of DiNapoli and Liu, who want every straphanger to know whose side they are on.
While this is one of the oldest PR tricks in the book, rarely have two such high officials attempted it with such feeble results. It goes this way: Zero in on something that annoys riders, such as service disruptions for repairs. Then count up the numbers and look for anything that suggests the MTA is bollixing up the work.
The News, not exactly a friend of the MTA’s over the years, has a better solution: Focus on the big picture and show how “the MTA is struggling to complete necessary repairs and system upgrades without proper state funding.” The paper is probably being a little tougher on Liu and DiNapoli than they need to be, but their point — that nothing new comes out of the comptrollers’ offices — is one I’ve made before. All we hear about from them are issues the MTA has already vowed to address or institutional problems that transcend an audit.
Once upon a time, the Citizens Budget Commission explored how funding from Albany for the MTA’s capital plans had dried up over the course of the Pataki Administration. If DiNapoli and Liu want to make waves, they should conduct that forensic audit of the MTA’s books while looking at Albany’s support as well. Perhaps then they would find real savings and real reform rather than the complaint that stations which see a few thousand riders per day have only 20 service change posters instead of 50.
The signs of a customer-focused approach
Posted by: | Comments
The MTA's budget problems apparently rendered the rest of platform too expensive for this sign.
Throughout his abbreviated tenure as CEO and Chairman of the MTA, Jay Walder has tried to focus on customer service. Even as he was forced to preside over cuts in bus and subway service and numerous layoffs, Walder has ushered through some initiatives designed to improve the customer experience, and his successor should do even more. The system’s information presentation certainly could use the overhaul.
For Walder, three intertwined initiatives aimed at improving customer service are likely to be the high points of his two years at the MTA. The new PA/CIS system — colloquially known as countdown clocks — was in the planning stages long before Walder returned from London, but he pushed the project through. Now, riders along the IRT routes know when their trains are coming and how long they must wait. Similarly, a bus tracking system is in the works, and the authority’s overhauled website along with a new commitment to open data make it slowly easier for the public to find tools that make their commutes easier.
Yet, despite the increase in information, the subway system itself can be maddeningly obtuse to navigate. The signs — remnants of the Massimo Vignelli overhaul in the 1960s — haven’t been updated in decades, and teasing information out of them can be difficult. My personal favorite is the one at right above. For the sake of visual appeal, the MTA has shortened platform to “plat” on their “No Exit” signs. Someone unfamiliar with the system sure would be excused if they didn’t know what that meant.
Another personal favorite is this one from West 4th Street:
As a regular rider of the B and D, I know what this confusing array of words means. In an attempt to decipher the text in a missive on signs I published last March, I wrote: “The B train stops at W 4th St., except when it doesn’t, and then you can take the D and transfer to the Q at De Kalb Ave. Usually, the D train runs express and skips DeKalb, except during late nights when it runs local and stops at DeKalb. Good luck, too, determining when that “late night” period is or figuring out what to do for those 90 minutes after the B stops running and before the D makes its stop at De Kalb. Even the MTA’s website is helpless on that front.”
I am not, apparently, alone. In his column this week on Sheepshead Bites, Allan Rosen delves into the world of confusing MTA signage, and he urges the authority to pay attention to customer complaints. On the same confusion regarding the B train, he writes:
Regarding signage, the IND provided timetables accurate to the half-minute at major subway stations informing passengers when trains would arrive. The MTA doesn’t wish to burden us with such details and has instead taken the path of simplicity. For example, a typical sign now reads “No B (in an orange bullet of course) Nights and Weekends.” Although useful information, what does one do at 10 or 11 p.m.? How do you know if you missed the last B train or not? I am all for simplicity and clarity, but sometimes functionality should override. While I think the IND went overboard by using half minutes, and that timetables on the stations are not really necessary today, the MTA at least should inform passengers on their signage when the first and last trains are due. “No ‘B’ before 6:20 a.m. or after 10:18 p.m., Mondays through Fridays” is far more useful information than “No ‘B’ Nights and Weekends.”
I’ve played the B train guessing game at West 4th St. before, and Transit never announces if B trains stop running or which train is the last to pass through the station. I enjoy a good mystery as much as the next person, but that is one time when I’d rather have the answer handed to me on a silver platter.
One solution is as Rosen proposes: Ask the customer. Find out which signs work and which do not. Find out what information a typical subway rider needs at various times of the day, and figure out how to deliver that information to the subway system. At West 4th St., for instance, clocks that had the wrong time in 2007 still don’t keep an accurate hour. If those could be used to notify customers of the last B train, they would be far more useful than they are today, and that is a type of customer service improvement the next MTA head should look to bring to the system.
Finding Walder’s replacement: A job description
Posted by: | CommentsI missed this gem when Jay Walder originally announced his resignation a few weeks ago, but as Gov. Andrew Cuomo has yet to name a successor, it’s still timely. From Little Littlefield comes a job description:
Wanted, politically savvy transit manager willing to preside over the gradual re-collapse of New York City’s transit system due to deferred maintenance while denying it is occuring, be publicly blamed for the consequences by those actually responsible (all of whom drive everywhere to parking spaces reserved for them by placard), and hated by the suckers who believe them. In exchange for decent pay, little work, and a fat pension.
The successful applicant is expected to live outside New York City in an undisclosed location, and not appear in public except during the first half hour of public hearings, during which elected officials castigate them for the very situation they created while the MTA head sits in silence. Among the key selection criteria are the willingness to not object to an assertion that a 20/50 pension enhancement wil cost nothing, the willingness to go on borrowing money the MTA cannot possibly repay, and the ability to make sure those affluent municipal bond holders and Florida residents get paid, no matter what. Any interest in actual transportation is optional, as most public services are optional as well. However, the ability to come up with cutsey distractions like shifting the transit map around to generate favorable New York Times press is always helpful. Apply to
Sheldon Silver and Dean SkelosAndrew Cuomo.
Larry might be slightly more pessimistic about the MTA’s physical future than I am. I believe we’re witnessing only the political and economic collapse of the transit system and not the physical collapse as well. Yet, this critique is right on the money, and it highlights how the next MTA head will be in a very tough position with little support and a future that does not look too bright.
Photo of the Day: Making progress at Fulton St.
Posted by: | Comments
The MTA and local politicians celebrated the opening of a new entrance at William Street yesterday. (Photo courtesy of New York City Transit)
As the MTA’s general capital future remains unknown, its funded projects are moving forward at a brisk pace. Yesterday morning, MTA officials and New York politicians gathered in Lower Manhattan to celebrate the opening of a new entrance at Williams St. that leads into the Fulton St. complex. Overall, the Transit Center is now more than 50 percent complete and on target for its 2014 opening.
“We have reached yet another significant milestone as we move forward to complete what will become a landmark transportation facility,” MTA Chairman and CEO Jay Walder said. “Once complete, this complex will provide our customers with a more seamless experience at this major downtown hub. The Transit Center will improve travel for hundreds of thousands of daily commuters and Lower Manhattan residents and visitors while providing a modern and convenient retail location.”
The new entrance — located at 135 William St. — provides immediate access to the 7th Ave. IRT platform and the former Nassau St. stop on the IND. Next year, the MTA will open entrances at 150 William St. and 129 Fulton St. that will allow for similar improvements.
As part of this entrance, the MTA included a restored mural — seen below — and a gate from the McAlpin hotel. These items had previously been installed on the A/C/ station but were removed in 2009. The mural is one of six being refurbished for the Fulton St. Transit Center. It certainly looks nice. Whether it’s worth the federal expenditure remains in doubt.
Click through for a view of the Marine Grill mural. Read More→
Fare-jumping: A $31 million problem or an inconvenience?
Posted by: | Comments
One way or another, the MTA's turnstiles will earn some revenue. (Photo by flickr user Karen Foto)
Every few months, the MTA rolls out another report on the revenue lost to fare-jumping, and every few months, the same report leads to a bunch of outrage. How could the MTA give up so much fare revenue? Why aren’t more cops patrolling the stations? This is why we can’t trust the authority do anything properly. And over and over and over again.
This year’s story rings true to form. After finding that the MTA lost approximately $27 million to fare-jumpers in 2009, a report covering 2010 found $31 million in lost revenue due to fare-beaters in 2010. According to coverage of the report, fare-jumpers entered the system in 2009 18.5 million times without paying. That’s 50,684 per day, and cops handed out 120,000 summonses all year.
Per The Daily News, turnstile-hopping seems to be the rare case where crime does pay. As The Daily News notes, a fare-jumper who gets caught just once every six weeks would gain money. Six 7-day MetroCards cost $174 while the summons sets them back $100. This year, with the economy stagnant and the fares up over early 2010, the MTA estimates that’s 1.5 percent of riders jumped the fare as compared with 0.9 percent last year.
Pete Donohue had more on the MTA’s response:
The MTA said the report – presented at a transportation think tank’s conference this year – was not an official document. Average weekday ridership is about 5.4 million.
“New York City Transit takes fare evasion very seriously and is continually working with the NYPD on cost-effective strategies to combat it, such as targeting high-incidence locations and placing cameras in key areas,” MTA spokeswoman Deirdre Parker said.
She said transit cops have made 12,468 arrests for fare evasion this year, up 5.5% from the same time last year. Officers have issued 37,825 summonses to evaders this year, a 1.7% increase from the same period in 2010.
Whether or not there is an actual problem, police officers have called upon politicians to raise the fine. A 2009 effort to jack up fare-jumping penalties to $250 went nowhere in Albany, but NYPD officials want a renewed effort. “I think the state legislature should consider raising the fine,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said. “It would probably be a good idea.”
What would be a good idea though? Perhaps raising the fine makes sense. If the price is high enough to deter fare-jumping, then the penalty would be ideal. If, as the News says, jumpers get caught on average of once every 6-13 week, it would have to be a substantial fine.
Beyond that though, the MTA and the NYPD probably shouldn’t do much. While the pure numbers sound high — 18.5 million! — in percentage terms, they’re not. As even the News noted, only 1.5 percent of riders are jumping this year. For any business that’s more than an acceptable bleed rate, and it’s tough to tell how much extra revenue one police office at nearly $80,000 a year would net. Perhaps it would make sense, but perhaps it wouldn’t be the best use of police resources.
Basically, fare-jumping is a sunk cost for the MTA. It is the price of doing business in a system that can’t station a cop in 468 stations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A higher fine should temper the problem, but anything else is simply overkill.
A thought on density, development and transportation in Flushing
Posted by: | CommentsFor the first time since 2003, a non-Manhattan subway stop has cracked the MTA’s list of ten busiest. The folks in Flushing are patting themselves on the back as their station is the tenth busiest in the system. In fact, with this on-again, off-again popularity comes politicians who want more more more. In a profile of the 7 line’s eastern terminus and the area around it, Crain’s New York spoke with some politicians who want to “capitalize on their station’s exalted status.”
Both City Council reps and Community Board members want to see the MTA invest in the station. They are requesting a larger mezzanine space, bathrooms and a new look for the Flushing-Main Street LIRR station which is just a block away. “We have the potential to become the Penn Station of Queens,” Peter Koo, the City Council representative from the district, said.
It’s all well and good to want better transit, but as Stephen Smith noted on Twitter, that commitment should come with some urban policy changes. As Smith said, “If Flushing wants ‘the Penn Station of Queens,’ it should be forced to accept some upzoning.” Right now, development around the Flushing terminal isn’t primed for transit-oriented development. Buildings are stunted, and the area has too much parking. It’s a gateway to eastern Queens, but it should also become a beacon of TOD at the end of the 7. Only then could it become the “Penn Station of Queens.”
Between Cuomo and Walder, a lukewarm embrace
Posted by: | Comments
For two years, Jay Walder was literally and figuratively the center of attention at the MTA. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)
The week of Jay Walder has continued into August as civic leaders and politicians are still coming to grips with Waler’s departure. The biggest news came from a Times article published on Saturday that illuminated Walder’s motivations for leaving.
As I’ve heard from the beginning, much of the impetus behind the MTA CEO and Chairman’s decision came about because of money and circumstances. The MTR offer simply overwhelmed his current MTA salary, and he had grown tired of politicians who would use the MTA as their personal whipping boy without offering political or fiscal stability. But our new Governor, who hasn’t embraced transit and never warmed to Walder, had much to do with it as well.
Michael Grynbaum and Christine Haughney report:
Jay H. Walder, chairman of the embattled Metropolitan Transportation Authority, traveled to Albany earlier this year seeking help for a transit system in peril. Mr. Walder, a kid from Queens who rose to the top of his field and harbored big ambitions for his state, was not unlike the man he had hoped to see: Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.
And he did see him. For a moment.
Mr. Walder was meeting the governor’s staff at the Capitol when Mr. Cuomo walked in. The governor greeted Mr. Walder, then promptly turned his attention to his director of state operations, Howard Glaser, with whom he spoke for several moments before departing, said two people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Cuomo and the man in charge of the biggest mass transit system in the nation did not meet in person again, suggesting a lack of interest by Mr. Cuomo that irked and discouraged Mr. Walder, several officials said.
The Times notes that Cuomo was “caught…by surprise” by Walder’s departure and “had no plans” to replace him before his term expired. Yet, still, Cuomo reportedly shunned Walder and has garnered more headlines for his collection of muscle cars than he has his support of transit.
During his campaign last year, Gov. Cuomo vowed to stand behind the MTA. “I believe the governor should be accountable for the MTA,” he said in October. “These authorities that are often nameless and faceless–I understand the theory behind an authority. I also understand the theory behind accountability. In a situation like the MTA. I think that people have the right to know who’s in charge, who’s responsible and I think it should be the governor of the state.”
Now, Cuomo can put his money where his mouth is, and he will have some fight on his hands. The Times has urged him to avoid naming a political friend as head of the MTA and urged him to find someone who will “provide the best service for 8.5 million commuters.” Crain’s New York suggests two women for the job: either Karen Rae, currently with the Federal Railroad Administration, or Polly Trottenberg, assistant secretary for transportation policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation who once worked for Senator Chuck Schumer.
No matter who Cuomo picks, the next MTA head will have to negotiation with the labor unions, deal with fare hikes and debt levels and confront a system that must move forward with its capital plans as money grows ever tighter. It’s an unenviable job, and the number of people qualified to take it are quickly dwindling. Soon, Cuomo will have to name a replacement. For now, though, we’ll continue to find out just how the governor’s lukewarm embrace of the MTA head helped push him toward a decision to depart.
Comptrollers’ audit blasts MTA service changes
Posted by: | Comments
To help weekend crowds combat route changes, the MTA redesigned its service advisory signs last fall.
The MTA is losing millions in poorly-planned weekend track work, and the agency is not doing an adequate enough job in providing alternate routes or information on service changes, a new report issued jointly by Thomas DiNapoli and John Liu says. The State and City Comptrollers’ report claims that the MTA wasted over $10 million over three years as trains were not placed back in service as work wrapped early. Furthermore, a sampling of projects found significant cost overruns as well.
“When the MTA fails to manage its service diversions properly, it’s more than an inconvenience; it’s a waste of taxpayer money and it derails local businesses,” DiNapoli, the state comptroller, said. “Our audit found that MTA’s service diversions are increasing in frequency and leaving taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars in cost overruns. The subway system is showing its age, but the MTA has to do a better job managing all aspects of these diversions, from rider notification to budgeting.”
The report — the first one issued jointly by the two comptrollers’ offices in some years — landed yesterday, and it was but another salvo in the barrage aimed at the MTA’s track work. Earlier in July, weekend service changes drew headlines when The Times noted how growing weekend ridership at some stations and along some lines has led to disgruntled passengers. The MTA subsequently promised to study weekend service along the L, but this new report seems to show how one study won’t be enough.
The details of the report are fairly unsurprising. Basically, the MTA’s track work is a mishmash of GOs that often aren’t recorded properly, aren’t communicated to the public properly and cost to much. For instance, the report found that that Transit spent just $228,000 in 2010 informing its 2.3 billion riders of service diversions while the Long Island Rail Road spent over $740,000 on its 81.9 million riders. At randomly selected stations, auditors found 20 signs instead of Transit’s alleged 50 and did not find signs at street level, in subway cars or on platforms in many instances. Furthermore, while Transit has a policy that calls for newspaper advertisements, they ran just twice out of 50 sampled diversions.
On the efficiency front, the findings were even worse. Servuce diversions increased in number between 2008 and 2010, and those lasting for more than a month rose from seven to 57. More damning though were the allegations of poor time management that cost the MTA upwards of $10.5 million and its passengers countless aggravations. Says the report: “Transit often reroutes riders’ trains even when no work is taking place. When asked for the General Order Worksheets that track time spent on each diversion, Transit management could only provide auditors with 29 of the 50. Of those 29 diversions, work started late on 28 and stopped early on 21. Unproductive work time ate up anywhere from 10 to 27 percent of the time trains were diverted, though there was no cost mitigation.”
“Sadly this confirms the nagging suspicion of riders, residents and business owners alike, that subway service is taken down more than necessary,” Liu, the city’s comptroller, said. “The MTA must understand that the City never sleeps and weekend service is neither ancillary nor expendable. We expect the MTA to maintain and repair the tracks, while keeping disruptions to a minimum.”
The two final areas studied showed similarly poor findings. In a study of 15 diversions and 12 contracts, the comptrollers found that four of these contracts were over budget by $26.6 million. Furthermore, shuttle buses are seemingly employed without regard for the ridership numbers. Transit officials generally could not explain how estimates were used to determine shuttle bus demand, and the only estimate they could provide was six years old.
For its part, the MTA issued its usual statement on weekend work. “Due to the 24-hour, seven-day-a-week operation of the subway system, planned service diversions are necessary in order to perform maintenance and capital work,” the authority said. “We make every effort to minimize customer inconvenience by coordinating work — performing multiple jobs in the same area so that we do not have to go back again. However, some projects are extremely involved, requiring several shutdowns.”
Still, in a response to the comptrollers’ report, Transit acknowledged its shortcomings. DiNapoli and Liu issued five recommendations. They include better outreach on service changes; closer monitoring of expenditures; a push to restore subway service as soon as possible; and a renewed attempt to better assess shuttle bus demand. Simple changes could go a long way toward making off-hour and weekend travel much, much less inconvenient for millions.










