Even when empty, the middle seat on the MTA’s commuter rail cars looks unappealing. (Photo via flickr user roboppy)

Metro-North this week announced new schedules that go into effect on Monday. By and large, the service changes are minor with a few peak-hour trains eliminated and a few late-night trains combined into local routes. The MTA is also threatening to run shorter cars in order to save on money, and as such, the agency put out an amusingly-worded statement yesterday.

“With this schedule change, the number of cars on select trains will be reduced wherever possible to save money on propulsion costs,” it read. “These changes will be made to meet our standard occupancy rate for our trains, which we monitor carefully. Initial reductions will occur on the Hudson and Harlem lines. This means there may be fewer seats available on your train, but there will be adequate seating. You may have to move to another a car for a seat, or you may want to consider sitting in that middle seat.”

That middle seat. The phrase itself is so full of contempt, and the MTA finds it necessary to urge riders they might want to consider that unappealing and unwanted piece of property. Please, take the reject seat; it’s your only hope for a sit during a crowded commute.

The hate for that middle seat is obvious. Particularly on Metro-North and LIRR trains, the middle seat is a cramped nothingness in between two seats with arm rests and an aisle or window, the sheer sign of luxury. Just as no one wants to sit in the middle of a three-seater on an airplane, so too do few want to sit on that slippery third seat on a commuter train. Our sense of personal space is violated, and our sense of societal proprietary suffers. People just should not be thrust into such awkward interactions with strangers.

This straphanger has solved the subway's middle-seat problem by taking up those surrounding it.

That middle seat problem though isn’t one unique to the commuter rail cars. In the subway — particularly those trains running R46s and R68s — the middle seat rears its ugly head. In those cars, the three seats flush with the train wall nearest the doors are highly problematic. Designed for people with rear ends significantly smaller than your average New Yorker’s, the bucket seats dictate that three people should fit with no problem, but in reality, three people can fit only if the one in the middle doesn’t mind getting shoved in the ribs or sat upon by those sitting in the outside seats. There ain’t no such thing as personal space for the unlucky SOB stuck with that middle seat.

So we’re stuck with middle seats, and an agency that must remind its riders that, when train cars are crowded, instead of standing, it’s acceptable to “consider sitting in that middle seat.” Just be wary of what happens when you sit down; the people next to you might not appreciate being the bread of that commuter sandwich.

Photo at right via flickr user moriza.

Nearly one year ago, I reported on Metro-North’s desire to build a station near Riverside Park on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. The station, eyed for 60th St. as part of Extell’s Riverside South development, would have provided for access into both Grand Central and Penn Station and could have served business, such as CBS, along the Far West Side and Lincoln Center.

While Metro-North is still looking to develop a stop on the West Side, the location at 60th St. is off the table, according to a report in The Journal-News. While the agency still plans to open a stop at 125th St. and Riverside, the authority the MTA no longer has the option to open a station at West 60th St. because development is too far along at the Extell site. Instead, the authority will explore sites at 72nd or 57th Sts. as alternate possibilities.

Metro-North Vice President of Planning Robert MacLagger spoke with Ken Valenti of the suburban-focused Journal-News to discuss the railroad’s plans, but right now, those at Metro-North seem divided over the focus of the station. MacLagger imagined Manhattan residents using the stop to commute to their jobs in Westchester, but Metro-North spokesperson Marjorie Anders believed that more suburban commuters would take the trains to their city jobs or evenings out in Manhattan.

Meanwhile, MTA reps and Extell developers have engaged in a bit of a back-and-forth over the death of the 60th St. project. MacLagger noted that the buildings were, in the words of Valentin, “built too close to the tracks to allow for a station to be built there. ” Those planning Riverside South disagree:

The Riverside South Planning Corp. worked first with Trump and more recently with the project’s current owners, Extell Development Co., to insure that the project complements the area. Paul Elston, chairman of the Riverside South Planning Corp., faulted Metro-North for missing the chance to request that accommodation be made for the station as Extell built over exposed tracks. “If they had acted two years ago, it would have been a slam-dunk,” he said.

Anders said Metro-North had told Elston two years ago that a site he pushed for, between 59th and 61st streets, wouldn’t work because the tracks curved too sharply. The Trump Organization did not respond to repeated requests for comment. An Extell spokeswoman did not return calls.

Jeffrey Zupan, the RPA’s senior fellow for transportation, questioned whether there would be enough demand for trains at the station. He expressed doubt that there would be the market for suburban-bound commuters that Metro-North expects. “There’s just not a lot of job concentration,” around the suburban stations, he said.

So what’s going on here? In a way, it sounds similar to typical MTA delays and in-fighting that have marred many of their expansion efforts. Extell had to move ahead with its construction at Riverside South while the MTA couldn’t come to terms on either a purpose or location for a West Side Metro-North station. Either way, the agency says it will select a site by the summer and begin the planning process. Some day, we’ll have Metro-North access along Manhattan’s West Side whether we need it or not.

Then-MTA head Lee Sander, left, with Mayor Bloomberg, Jorge Posada and Brian Cashman during the May unveiling of the Metro-North Yankee stadium stop. Photo by Benjamin Kabak.

For the New York Yankees, the first season in the team’s new stadium ended in grand fashion. A week ago, the team captured the franchise’s 27th World Series Championship with a victory at home. As part of the new infrastructure supporting the stadium, Metro-North began train service to the area, and the transit agency says that it too had a season for the ages.

According to numbers released by the agency, 6009 people — or 12 percent of the total stadium attendance — took Metro-North to Yankee Stadium for Game 6 of the World Series. That record day capped a season well within the projections, and Metro-North officials were pleased with the ridership levels and revenue streams from the new station. “Overall, for the first season, the results are very good. It is a big success,” Howard Permut, president of Metro-North, said.

Long a part of the plan to use construction of a new Yankee Stadium to help aid in the revitalization of the South Bronx, the Metro-North stop was nearly discarded when the MTA and the City could not agree to a funding plan. In May 2007, two years before the projected opening date, though, the City agreed to pay $38 million in construction costs as long as the MTA footed the bill for the other $53 million. The Yankees, prime beneficiaries of the station, contributed nothing.

In late May, the station opened for service, and as the Yanks’ successful baseball season wore on, the station grew in popularity. For weekday games, ridership averaged to 2900 people per game. During the weekend, that number reached 4000, and prior to the playoffs, the single most popular game was the Saturday, August 8 affair against the Red Sox. Approximately 5600 fans took Metro-North to that game. During October, the station’s popularity hit its peak. For the eight playoff home games, Metro-North averaged 4800 riders per game.

Amidst these numbers, Metro-North officials all but guaranteed the future benefits of the Yankee Stadium stop. “The success of this station is assured as more and more people try the service,” Permut said. “Those who have left their cars behind are generating very positive word-of-mouth evidence that the railroad is safe, easy, fast, reliable, and beats driving and parking.”

Yet, despite these assurances, these ridership totals are lower than initial projections. During the build-up to the station’s opening, Metro-North documents believed that between 6000-10,000 fans per game would flock to the commuter rail station. Although Metro-North officials blame a rainier-than-usual summer and the fact that the Yanks rarely sold out their stadium as causes for their low ridership totals, I’m willing to chalk that up to Year One. Fans were not aware of this new option, and as word-of-mouth spread, more left their cars at home and turned to the trains.

Still, the real test for the Metro-North stop at the country’s most transit-accessible baseball stadium will be next season. Coming off of a World Series title, the Yankees will again draw between 48,000-50,000 fans per game, and the station should see ridership figures approach that projected average. With just 100 riders per day passing through the station on non-game days, more Yankee fans will have to turn to the station for it to meet projections.

Even with these numbers, though, the station is providing revenue for Metro-North. The agency drew in approximately $200,000 in advertising and expects to net another $10,000 in vending machine sales. And that is good news for the cash-strapped MTA.

Around once a year, the ill-conceived plans to build, well, something out to the Stewart Airport in Orange County make headlines, and every year, I ask for that money to spent on more worthy projects. (See 2007 and 2008.)

The Stewart Airport issue is once again back in the news, and again, I’m inclined to speak out against it. This time around, the story is about the short list of potential options for this airport connection. Judy Rife writes:

A short list of options for improving bus and rail service to Stewart International Airport and New York City has emerged from the 106 suggestions that Metro-North and the Port Authority have been mulling for the past year.

Still in the running are a new rail link between the airport and Metro-North’s Salisbury Mills station, bus service between Stewart and Salisbury Mills as well as Metro-North’s Beacon station and New York City, and bus service between the airport and new or expanded park-and-rides in a roughly 45-mile radius.

Out are such ideas as ferry service between Newburgh and New York City — the trip would be too long, involve too many transfers and be unreliable in bad weather. A new rail link between the airport and Beacon didn’t make the cut because of environmental impact and cost. And light rail or automated guideways between the airport and train stations lost out to more flexible and much cheaper buses.

That study nearly $4.67 million, and right now there, it seems as though there is no more cash in hand for further movement. The rail link, by the way, would probably cost upwards of $1 billion. Meanwhile, with Airtran out at Stewart, passenger volumes are poised to hit an all-time low and could sink lower. Talk about no return for an investment.

Right now, I’m not the only one who is no fan of this project. Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic examined the issue today and walked away with the same conclusions:

The airport is quite far away from the city’s population centers and will therefore have difficulty attracting crowds from the city; the airport’s current offerings of flights to just five destinations — Philadelphia, Atlanta, Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, and Detroit — indicate that a serious increase in demand there from locals is unlikely over the next few years. Few commuters are going to be willing ride the 90 minute plus train between Penn Station and the airport, so why is this link a priority? It certainly doesn’t seem likely to cut down on air congestion.

Let’s imagine that the $1 billion existed to build this project, unlikely enough considering the MTA’s dismal fiscal situation. Wouldn’t it make more sense, from the perspective of improving transit, to spend it on desperately needed projects such as the Second Avenue Subway? People in Orange County — population 350,000 — may want more transit, but so do the roughly 350,000 people who live in East Harlem and the Upper East Side, and the latter group, to say the least, is far more likely to use public transportation than the former. Certainly, cheap express buses should be considered, but a rail link seems completely unnecessary.

That about says it all. I’m all in favor of bringing more mass transit to the upstate counties that are underserved by the state’s public transit options, but we should do so in a cost-efficient way. This airport rail link may have been a good idea a few decades ago, but right now, it’s time to scrap those plans.