Archive for MTA Absurdity
When it comes to transit oversight, New York’s illustrious City Council is all bluster with little bite. The Mayor has the option to name appointees to the MTA Board, and New York City Transit operates under the auspicies of the MTA — a state agency. So when it comes to oversight, City Council members can haul MTA officials before them for a tongue-lashing, but they can’t actually do anything. On Wednesday, this impotence was in full display in all of its sheer absurdity.
This tale of woe begins on Wednesday morning with some truthful comments from MTA Chairman Joe Lhota or, alternatively, in the mid-1950s when the city punted on transit issues and funding. Council members, responsible only for statutory and contractually obligated parts of the MTA budget, receive myriad constituent complaints, but as Lhota noted to reporters during the monthly board member, they can’t really do anything about it. And if it’s one thing New York City politicians hate to hear, it’s how they can’t do something about what their voters consider to be a problem.
With trash in the news and New Yorkers complaining about the condition of their subway stations, Council Member Peter Koo told the MTA that he wanted to institute a letter grading system for subway stations based on cleanliness. Now, New Yorkers are quite familiar with letter grades. Even though the Department of Health’s restaurant inspection system doesn’t understand the subtlety of food preparation, the letter grades are everywhere. Some people won’t eat in restaurants with B’s or C’s; others figure that if the place is open, it passed an inspection.
Koo wants to bring that exact system to the subway, and his co-Council members love it. “Do you guys have a budget to clean the stations?” Koo asked “Or we haven’t delivered our message?”
James Vacca, the Transportation Committee chair who apparently cannot understand the differences between a restaurant and the subway, embraced the idea immediately. “I would like every station rated,” he said. “We rate the restaurants and every takeout place. Why can’t we rate stations on cleanliness, rats, water, garbage, graffiti?”
Why can’t we, indeed? Perhaps, it doesn’t make sense because food preparation and consumption are not the same as travel. Perhaps it doesn’t make sense because we’re beholden to one subway stop. We’re not going to walk a half a mile to find a slightly cleaner subway station. Perhaps it doesn’t make sense because what you see is what you get in the subway. I can see grime, trash and rats. I don’t need to be told that they exist. As one straphanger said to The Wall Street Journal: “They are relatively clean. Who needs a rating? If it has a ‘D’ grade, a failing grade, are you going to not stop there?” Other riders professed to care about service frequency above all else.
After the hearing, some transit watchdogs pretty much scoffed at the idea while the Straphangers issued a half-hearted call that “maybe the council should fund” such an idea. Maybe indeed. The MTA refused to issue much more than a collective sigh while William Henderson of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee shrugged it off. “I’m not sure it provides a whole lot of additional information that riders don’t already have by being there,” he said. “In an environment where resources are strained, I’m not sure that’s exactly the path to take.”
One City Council member who seemed to grasp the absurdity of it all offered up an actual use for such a grading system. While still requiring the MTA to foot half the bill for this misguided and useless idea, Domenic M. Recchia, head of the Finance Committee, suggested that such a system would allow council members to better determine if discretionary funds should go toward subway station cleanliness. Think of it as a halfway house toward an adopt-a-station program I’ve mentioned on and off over the years.
But let’s pause for a second and figure out what’s really going on here. Why would the Council even be in such a position to bloviate? It wants “accountability” from the agency on why it needs a fare hike next year — something the authority has provided in droves — and the MTA wants more funding from the city. As the latter won’t happen, the Council decided to do all it could do to mock the authority in public. Hence, letter grades for the subway system.
The City Council will never embrace taking responsibility for New York City Transit. It doesn’t want the financial or political headaches that come with such control. And so we are left with a situation where the Council will not provide proper oversight or the money the MTA needs to clean their obviously dirty stations. We just get bad — and silly — ideas.
An ex-con who once stole $10 million from the MTA and served jail time for the payroll scam was hired by an MTA contractor to again oversee payroll, this time on the East Side Access project. It’s an “only in New York, only involving the MTA” story uncovered this weekend by The Daily News, and it underscores the challenges an agency the size of the MTA faces in an industry with few checks and balances.
Greg Smith had the story:
Since November, Jimmy Roemer has helped manage the payroll at the MTA’s biggest construction site — the $7.3 billion East Side Access tunnel that will someday link the Long Island Rail Road to Grand Central Terminal. He’s had prior experience managing payroll at another MTA work site — though perhaps not the kind of experience the MTA would want.
A decade ago, Roemer participated in a brazen conspiracy to steal $10 million from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s massive renovation of its headquarters in lower Manhattan. He spent some of the spoils on a waterfront lodge he named after the Frank Sinatra song “Summer Wind.”
As he pleaded guilty to six counts — including fraud, obstruction of justice and tax evasion — in 2003, he explained how managing the payroll allowed him to routinely inflate workers’ hours and bill for workers who did not exist. This is precisely the job he’s held for the last six months: determining how many workers are needed each day and signing off on time cards for Dragados-Judlau, which has $1.1 billion in MTA contracts at the East Side Access tunnel.
Following the revelation, every party pointed a finger elsewhere. The MTA blamed Dragados-Judlau. “He was hired by the contractor, and we don’t pry into their hiring methods,” authority spokesman Adam Lisber said to The News. “We have a very robust system for checking the fitness and responsibility for all of our contractors, and it is on them to do the work the way we expect. We don’t sit down with their payrolls and examine everybody on it.”
The contractor’s representative, meanwhile, had a different explanation for the grave oversight. “Honestly, it wasn’t that big of a deal to me at the time,” supervisor Sean Clevenstine said. “He told me he was convicted, he told me he did time, he told me he paid restitution. I never got into the particulars and the specifics because it was, to me, I was filling a union position with a union employee.”
Roemer, who helped funnel money to the Genovese crime family and still owes the MTA $200,000 in restitution, has been removed from his post and declined to comment to The News. The incident itself is a black eye for Dragados-Judlau and reflects poorly on the MTA too. That said, the authority isn’t exactly in a position to run background checks on every single employee hired by its various contractors. Considering the number of contractor employees working on MTA projects, such a process would be exceedingly cost and time-consuming.
Still, something broke down somewhere. Dragados-Judlau seems to have only the barest of checks in place, and they seemingly rely on the honor system. Clevenstine’s comment concerning a union man filling a union position speaks volumes on the state of play (although Roemer will soon be a former member of Local 14, according to recent reports). If the contractors can find a few good union men for those union positions, they have no need to go that extra mile.
The MTA, meanwhile, has no checks in place. They could provide contractors with a list of people convicted of a fraud similar to Roemer’s. Considering convictions for these crimes are relatively uncommon, such a list should be easy to put together, and it would behoove the authority to figure out a way to achieve this end. After all, this revelation looks bad, especially on a project that’s already delayed and over budget for a whole mess of reasons.
Ultimately, this news strikes me more as business as usual than any such great revelation. It’s a crooked business with only a handful of powerful contractors bidding on each MTA project, and they need to come in under their competitive bids. The process failed here as it has so many other times in the past.
As Transit tries to make its garbage collection problem go away, news coverage of the effort has found a comfortable narrative: The debate focuses around rider behavior and Transit services. As a forum on Thursday, Transit president Thomas Prendergast said the trash can-free pilot has been a success. MTA workers have found the stations without trash cleaner while the MTA hasn’t had to deal with as much trash.
Yet despite this early success, riders aren’t happy even as they’re complying with the new rules. “They’re are a lot of people that think it’s backwards and that it’s not what we should do. So, we haven’t been able to change their mind from a perceptual standpoint. But from a behavioral standpoint, we have,” Prendergast said.
Perhaps, then, these riders have taken their cues from rider advocates. Speaking at the same forum, Straphangers Campaign head Gene Russianoff explained how he feels trash cans are a no-brainer. “It’s a service to your customers to give them a waste paper basket,” he said. Should the MTA be able to provide both garbage cans and subway service for its passengers? As I wrote a few weeks ago, it’s a question that reaches the fundamental core of the MTA’s role. Likely they should be able to offer both, but customers seem to respect the station environment more if there are no trash cans. If I have to pick one, I’m opting for a cleaner station with no trash cans over a dirtier station with such a can.
Every now and then, the MTA puts forward some zany idea that they call a “pilot program.” Sometimes, those programs involve scaling back service during minor holidays; sometimes, those involve replacing wooden benches with stainless. Recently, the MTA has tried to combat garbage through a rather counterintuitive pilot program: They removed all garbage bins from a station platform.
When the MTA first announced this pilot in October, it seemed to represent the final hurrah of the Walder era. It was an idea that would spring from someone with a McKinsey background, but Joe Lhota vowed to continue it, pending the outcome. For a little while, at least, 8th Street on the BMT Broadway line, a station heavily trafficked by NYU students and East Village-bound revelers alike, would feature no trash receptacles.
Initially, those watching the MTA were skeptical. Some believed the authority should add more trash receptacle to combat station litter. Others accused the authority of making the trash someone else’s problem. Those who would not just litter even in the absence of a trash can would be focused to carry their refuse out into the streets. The city wouldn’t notice less litter, but the MTA wouldn’t have to deal it.
As the press expressed skepticism, a funny thing happened on the way to trash can: The MTA noticed that litter did not increase at the targeted station, and the authority is taking out less garbage from these stations. Pete Donohue had a bit on the reaction to the program:
The MTA launched a publicity campaign to alert riders, and now many straphangers discard their trash before entering those stations or hang onto it until they encounter a receptacle at the next station or on the street. Cleaners have been bagging less trash from platforms and tracks at the two stops — Eighth St. on the N and R lines in Manhattan, and Main St. on the No. 7 line in Flushing, Queens, transit officials said.
Last week, some riders admitted they were surprised that their stations didn’t turn into the Fresh Kills landfill. “I was against it at first, but I think it has worked well,” Peter Liteplo, 63, a credit union manager from Brooklyn, said at Eighth St. last week. “I thought it would create a lot of junk, but it looks better.”
…Considering the amount of garbage the MTA hauls from the subway — 14,000 tons a year — exploring any option that could reduce the burden is worthwhile. And since it’s working, the authority should expand the pilot — not junk it. Maybe the MTA should cite security concerns as the reason for the move. The Port Authority removed garbage trains from its much smaller system after the 9/11 terror attacks more than a decade ago. The London Underground removed bins long ago because of bombing campaigns by the Irish Republican Army to end British rule of northern Ireland.
But it’s even simpler than that: The MTA could frame this discussion as one about its role. The authority is not a trash-collection agency, and if straphangers bring their garbage underground, the MTA necessarily becomes a trash collection agency. They have to devote track space, personnel hours and monetary resources toward cleanliness and litter collection. But without trash cans, if passengers are bringing their garbage with them either to stations with trash receptacles or to the nearest street level can, the MTA won’t have as much trash to collect.
Lately, a bill in Albany to ban food underground has gained headlines. Senator Bill Perkins wants to cut back on items in the subway that attract rodents. Perhaps though the simpler solution is to remove the vast majority of trash cans. By centralizing trash collection, the MTA can better remove garbage from the system while spending less on something that isn’t a core service, and if trash moves above ground, well, that’s why the city has a Department of Sanitation. Sometimes, it seems, those ideas that seem the craziest end up working better than we expect. If only all thinking on subway operations were as creative as that.
Now that the MTA has made public its plans to replace its wooden station benches with metal ones, the authority must also figure out how best to dispose of the old wooden ones. As these benches will be considered surplus materials, they will, reports The Daily News, be available for sale for $650 each. “Get set to enjoy the ambiance of the New York City transit system,” Mike Zacchea, Transit’s assistant chief operations officer, said.
According to Zacchea, the MTA has pursued this path with its benches in the past. A few years ago, when the authority replaced some of the more weather-beaten wooden seats, they sold them for around $600 each, and this time around, these will be priced at $650, bed bugs not included. “They’re sort of iconic,” Zacchea said. “They’ve been around a long time. They’re massive. I can see them sitting in a back yard being weathered for a couple more years and serving as a conversation piece.”
If any of you plan to buy one, please take a photo of this “iconic” bench at its new home. I’d love to see how an interior decorator approaches this one.
The New York City Transit Rules of Conduct present an entertaining document for those with the patience to wade through a whole bunch of legalese. It is, for instance, a violation to play to music in the subways other than that “listened to solely by headphones or earphones and inaudible to others,” and straphangers may not “cause annoyance, alarm or inconvenience to a reasonable person or create a breach of the peace.” Clearly, these are rules that aren’t enforced more often than they are.
Now, while the same standard applies to just about every rule Transit has put forward, now and then, cops do decide to enforce the rules. One of those rules — 1050.7 (10) — concerns straphanger behavior on subway seats. No person, the rule says, may “occupy more than one seat on a station, platform or conveyance when to do so would interfere or tend to interfere with the operation of the Authority’s transit system or the comfort of other passengers.” The next part bans passengers from “plac[ing] his or her foot on a seat on a station, platform or conveyance.” To violate that one is to commit a crime that can lead to an arrest.
Arrests, as I’m sure most passengers know, are few and far between. In fact, even a summons for such behavior is rare, and we’ve seen countless people both take up more than their fair share of space or prop their feet up late at night on an empty train. Personally, I don’t condone such behavior. It’s inconsiderate of others who must later sit in that seat and inherently selfish, but as crimes go, it is nearly victimless.
Yet, leave it up to the NYPD to over-enforce such a rule. As Joseph Goldstein and Christine Haughney of The Times reported this weekend, violators of such minor offenses have faced inexplicable arrests and nights in jail simply because they put their feet up on a subway seat. The write:
Police officers handed out more than 6,000 tickets for these violations in 2011. But a $50 ticket would have been welcome compared with the trouble many passengers found themselves in; roughly 1,600 people like Mr. Peppers were arrested, sometimes waiting more than a day to be brought before a judge and released, according to statistics from district attorneys’ offices.
In some instances, passengers were arrested because they had outstanding warrants, or did not have photo identification. Some arrests were harder to explain, with no apparent cause other than the seat violation. In at least one case, the arrest led to deportation.
It is not clear why [William] Peppers [who spent 12 hours in jail] was not just given a ticket. He had an arrest record that dated back three decades and involved firearm possession, robbery and the sale of crack cocaine; in 2009 he was released from prison, where he has spent much of his adult life. But he and his lawyer said there was no warrant for his arrest.
In interviews, public defenders who represent many of the passengers arrested say their clients tend to be among the working class, often kitchen workers who are exhausted as they begin or end long shifts at Manhattan restaurants…In a recent decision, a Brooklyn judge, Noach Dear, dismissed the case of a man cited for taking up more than one seat on an A train at 3:10 a.m. on Dec. 24. “There appears to be a disconnect between the code’s goals and its enforcement,” Judge Dear wrote in his decision. He said that he and other Brooklyn judges had found these arrests happened “late at night or early in the morning when subways are generally at their least crowded levels.”
Citing the controversial “broken windows” theory, NYPD officials claim targeting these quality-of-life offenders keeps the subway system safe. “One of the reasons that crime on the subways has plummeted from almost 50 crimes a day in 1990 to only seven now is because the NYPD enforces violations large and small, often encountering armed or wanted felons engaged in relatively minor offenses, like putting their feet up, smoking on a platform, walking or riding between cars, or fare beating,” Paul Browne, an NYPD spokesman, said.
Still, off the record, cops claim that supervisors push them to “bring in one collar” per month. Oftentimes, violators do have outstanding warrants, but now some otherwise innocent defenders are fighting back. One diabetic who wound up in jail secured a $150,000 judgment against the city when cops denied him access to insulin. He was arrested for putting his foot on a seat in order to inject himself with his insulin. Another has filed a suit because police detained him on grounds of an outstanding warrant when such a warrant did not exist. A third had his case dismissed on a promise of good behavior after he was arrested when he dozed off and his leg “leaned on the empty seat next to him,” says The Times.
As I read this story over the weekend, the one word I kept returning to was “overreaction.” It’s important to maintain, as one of those endless automated announcements reminds us, an orderly and clean subway system, but doing so while violating the civil rights of others and basic common sense seems a bit over the top to me. Perhaps such a violation should carry a fine, but to arrest people for putting their foot on a seat in an empty subway car at 2:30 a.m. isn’t what these Rules of Conduct are about.
As Wednesday’s Winter Solstice draws nigh, snow is on the MTA’s mind. After last winter’s disastrous December blizzard that left subways stranded and buses buried, the MTA has put in place a new plan to better combat the snow. The plan at first appeared to be an attempt to cut off criticism, but now we hear a different side of the story: According to a report released Monday by the MTA Inspector General, the authority was woefully unprepared to handle the snow last year.
The report, available here as a PDF, does not paint a very flattering picture of the MTA. It is as though the transit agency had never understood what a slow, wet and heavy snow could do to the city’s roads. Ancient and out-of-date communications systems failed, common sense seemed to disappear, and the authority had no plan to rescue passengers.
Barry Kluger’s report, all of which has since been accepted by the MTA and incorporated into the authority’s new winter weather preparation, assess the response through tales of stranded buses and slow-moving subways. The MTAIG’s office spoke with transit managers, customers and rank-and-file workers who were tasked with moving people throughout New York City as the snow fell.
The first section of the report deals with the Department of Buses. In both cases, buses in Brooklyn were stranded for upwards of eight hours as Bus Command Center personnel told drivers help would be arriving in a “while.” Even after the drivers and passengers were rescued, the buses remained on the road for another 36 hours. “At the time of the Blizzard,” Kluger writes, “there was no plan for providing assistance to passengers taking shelter in snowbound buses.”
One major concern the IG’s report noted with respect to buses concerned tracking. Essentially, the MTA has no sure way of finding out where along the routes its buses are. If the radio system — built in 1991 and set to last for 15 years — is functioning, they can manually locate buses, but until BusTime is online throughout the city, guessing remains a major part of the equation. To that end, Kluger’s office strongly urges the MTA to replace its bus radio and amend its practices to allow drivers to use personal cell phones in the event of an emergency. The report paints a dire picture of MTA communications equipment:
The existing radio system was installed in 1991 and was originally intended to have a useful life of 15 years. Buses stated that a “new Bus Radio System is scheduled for 2018 in the Capital Program,” 12 years beyond the useful life of the existing system, and that “in the interim, Buses shall continue to secure parts to maintain the system in a state of good repair.” However, such maintenance will be very difficult at best because the current radio system is no longer supported by the manufacturer and maintenance personnel are already cannibalizing radios for parts. Also, it is not clear from our interviews why beneficial use will not be achieved until 2018. Thus, according to the current schedule Buses will have to rely on the existing – already outdated — radio system for the next seven years.”
Finally, the IG found that bus dispatchers could not stop buses from heading out into the storm. Says the report, “The AGMs at all three depots told us that they were aware that a large number of buses that left their depot were becoming snowbound because of the storm. Yet all three said that they continued to dispatch vehicles from the depot because they lacked authority to make any adjustments to service – even to keep additional buses from certainly getting stuck.” Although the MTA has amended its operating procedures, common sense should have made this a moot point a year ago.
Beyond the bus system, the Inspector General’s report also noted a failure of communication, long a bugaboo with the MTA. Despite advances in public address announcements and customer information signs, the MTA is woeful at communicating timely and useful information to its riders, and last December, it did no better with its external communications. The IG found, for instance, that it took between 4-24 hours for updated routing information to hit the MTA’s website while subway delays were equally ill-reported. The authority simply did not adequately prepare its customers for disruptions.
Next, the MTAIG took on the subways as well. A pair of trains along the A line in the Rockaways drew headlines as straphangers were left stranded in trains with doors frozen shut as the connection between the train and the third rail iced over. Field supervisors could not stop trains from attempting to ride over the Broad Channel bridge even as conditions become treacherous. Semi-autonomous local command centers should address these problems.
Finally, the report cast a skeptical eye on the MTA’s weekend preparations. As last winter’s storm hit on a weekend, the MTA’s top brass had already decided on an operating path. Trains would run as scheduled according to the Plan Level determined on Friday at 11 a.m. The authority would not in fact be in a position to update that plan until Monday. According to the MTAIG, “not enough employees are available on such [weekend] days to
implement a higher Plan Level.” Thus, the MTA needs “contingency action plans that enable flexibility and expediency over these weekend days and holidays.”
Ultimately, the short report paints a pretty alarming picture of MTA operations. As I mentioned, the MTA had seemingly never planned for a weekend snow emergency and did not allow for the use of common sense in operations. Luckily for riders, the authority has essentially responded to all of the Inspector General’s complaints and has said it will adopt each of the recommendations this winter. Plus, the authority has ordered a set of new snowblowers (that, for some reason, won’t arrive until 2013). So far, though, we haven’t had a chance to validate those claims, but winter is almost here. The snow will soon follow, and our transit network will be put to the test again.
Back in 2007, the early days of Second Ave. Sagas, I had the chance to write two stories about pigeons. In one, Transit had just lost a $6 million lawsuit filed by a plaintiff who had injured himself by slipping in pigeon droppings. In another, the authority had instituted a new plan along the Flushing line to make the elevated structure less hospitable to pigeons. Now, these flying creatures back in the news with vengeance.
According to one Queens representative, the MTA has been negligent in its attention toward pigeons. At the 74th St. station along Roosevelt Avenue, Transit has created a public health problem by allowing pigeon poop to build up. “The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has neglected its legal responsibility to clean the pigeon poop,” Councilman Daniel Dromm said. “We have complained about it and they still haven’t come out to clean it. They promised they would [on] Monday, November 28, but they didn’t. This is a serious case of neglect and abuse of the Jackson Heights community. They have been a bad neighbor. One has to wonder why they continue to ignore Jackson Heights when it is one of the busiest stations in the whole transit system.”
For its part, MTA officials say the station is cleaned every other week, but pigeons are incorrigible. “We do clean it, but the pigeons come right back,” a spokesman told The Queens Courrier. This is one of the difficult situations that we don’t have a solution to. From what I’ve heard it is pretty awful. It is disgusting, but we do have a pigeon problem throughout the city and we try different things in different place. We will just have to keep trying until we find a solution.” Sounds lovely.
In Washington, DC, escalators that bring passengers up from the depths of the Metro caverns are seemingly a necessity. No one wants to hike up the 204 feet from the platform at Woodley Park to Connecticut Ave. at street level. Yet, these escalators are often plagued by outages as one or another break down frequently. In New York, it’s much the same story.
Over the years, the MTA has had a love-hate relationship with their escalators (and elevators too). They love to build them and tote their usefulness, but they hate to oversee the repair process. Creaky elevators get stuck; escalators — never broken because they just become stairs — wind up in the purgatory of the repair process; and even staircases are somehow out of service for longer than they should be.
Even worse, according to a report published today, are the escalators and elevators that lead into MTA areas but are controlled by private owners. Throughout the system, there are 23 privately-owned escalators and 10 elevators that serve 13 stations throughout Manhattan and Queens, and although the owners are contractually obligated to maintain these access points, according to the MTA Inspector General, the MTA often fails to notify owners of outages and does not enforce these obligations. In one case, in fact, the MTA waited nearly three years to notify a property owner of an escalator outage.
According to Barry Kluger’s report, the problem is one that often plagues large bureaucracies. “No one individual or department within the MTA or NYC Transit has overall responsibility for ensuring compliance with easement agreements,” he wrote. “Each seems to minimize its responsibility and role. This apparent void in leadership and oversight has led to inadequate agency practices and procedures.”
Essentially, the problem is one of oversight. The agreements between the MTA and the private owners require the owners to maintain their escalators and elevators upon notice from the MTA. Yet, no one person at the MTA is in charge of giving that notice, and numerous departments have tried to pass along these duties to others. As Kluger relates, the Transit Elevator & Escalator Department, the Transit Station Environment Department, the MTA Real Estate Department, the MTA General Counsel, the Transit Department of Law and the Transit Office of Government & Community Relations all have responsibilities in the field, but none have sole ownership of the issue. There is no shared list of out-of-system egress points, and there is no efficient system for sharing information related to outages.
Thus, when the escalator at the 53rd St. station on the East Side went out in September of 2008, it took until April of 2011, after countless articles and news stories, for the MTA to inform the property owners of the outage. This, says, Kluger is a process that needs to change. “MTA and NYC Transit must work cooperatively and creatively to resolve out of system property issues expeditiously, utilizing all appropriate tools at their disposal, including self-help, and leveraging New York City partnerships and resources, for the benefit of the riders.”
To solve this problem, Kluger issued a series of rather simple recommendations. The authority must report these private-property outages on its website, and it must pick one lead department which will be in charge of enforcing maintenance agreements. The agency should also report quarterly statistic to the MTA Board so that the board and public are informed of the state of repairs. For its part, the authority accepted these recommendations and appointed the Real Estate department to head up all enforcement and maintenance efforts with regards to these privately-owned escalators and elevators.
Still, Kluger had strong words for the MTA in his report, and the authority will have to show that these internal changes are leading to actual improvements. “The public has been seriously disserved by the inordinate amount of time that privately-owned and maintained escalators, which help move passengers at some of the busiest stations in New York City, have been out of service,” he said. “While this disservice is largely the result of private owners not meeting their obligations, a share of the fault belongs to the MTA and NYC Transit, which
have not effectively managed their own responsibilities regarding this ‘out of system’ equipment.”
Last night, I took a quick look at the burgeoning brouhaha over Apple’s Grand Central lease. According to some source dug up by The Post, a few real estate folk believed the MTA didn’t get as good a deal as it might have for a space that’s tough to lease. Today, the story has exploded, and I am reminded once again how difficult it is to find comprehensive coverage of actual transit issues in the New York media.
As we join this story already in progress, as The Post report spread yesterday, everyone grew agitated. In the evening hours, Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal’s office sent out a press release. The Manhattan representative is outraged — OUTRAGED! — by the lease. She wants a hearing.
“It is totally unacceptable that the MTA would essentially give away some of the City’s most coveted and expensive retail space in Grand Central Terminal to this new Apple store. The cash-strapped MTA has the potential to receive millions of dollars in revenue, which would help to reduce the burden on beleaguered straphangers who have seen fares increase and services decrease over the last several years,” Assemblymember Rosenthal said. “Given the potential infusion of capital, I cannot fathom that the MTA would allow the Apple store to take such a large bite out of the Big Apples’ coffers.”
Rosenthal didn’t stop there. She had even more to add. “The State has a vested interest in the MTA’s revenue streams,” she said. “As a member of the New York State Assembly Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions Committee, I call upon the committee to hold a hearing to investigate any impropriety that may be involved with this deal. If the MTA passed on an opportunity to make much-needed capital in a year when they have a projected $6 billion budget shortfall, the State and the public have a right to know.”
Who votes for these people anyway? Of course, she’s not the only one making a mockery of the process. New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli expressed similar sentiments and pledged yet another investigation. “This is a prime property and I intend to make sure that the MTA hasn’t given away the store,” he said in a statement.
It would probably pain DiNapoli and Rosenthal to look into this before opening their mouths, but this is a ridiculous situation over which these two should not get bent out of shape. In economic terms, the MTA doubled the revenue they’re getting from the Grand Central balcony space. Metrazur’s lease, which ran until 2019, called for $250,000 in rent. Apple paid $5 million to the restaurant and is paying $2.5 million for structural accessibility improvements and at least $1 million a year for the next ten years.
Meanwhile, the space itself is hardly “prime property,” and it certainly isn’t the city’s “most coveted and expensive retail space.” Since it is in Grand Central, it is subject to stringent historic preservation regulations. Thus, it is ideal only for a restaurant or a retail space such as an Apple Store that requires minimal work or branding above the sightlines. That is, after all, why the MTA received just one bid for the space during the RFP process. Considering the up-front costs of buying out the lease and the need to spend on infrastructure, no one else would have been willing to front the dough while paying the rent.
It sure would have been nice to secure a percentage deal on the space, but the MTA wasn’t earning revenue from Metrazur in such a fashion either. When all is said and done, the authority anticipates drawing in $180 per usable square foot from Apple while much of the space will sit idle due to the space and preservation limitations. If only our politicians could understand that.
Still, reality has never interfered with Albany. As the state siphons off transit funds and refuses to address a capital budget gap, Rosenthal and her colleagues are content with cheap shots and faulty inferences. “At a time when the MTA is cutting service, rolling back the maintenance of its subway stations and worst of all predicting a new fare hike, it is outrageous that they did not make the most of this opportunity,” Rosenthal said yesterday.
Earning more money from a new lease — albeit less than many would prefer — has nothing to do with rolling back maintenance or pre-planned fare hikes that are designed to track cost-of-living and inflation increases. The MTA made a lot out of a tough situation. Nothing that happened in Grand Central is as outrageous as Rosenthal claims, and if she spent as much effort and spilled as much ink worrying about the city’s true transit problems instead of this farce of an issue, straphangers would be better off for it.