Considering the snow, it's tough to say if the 14th St. station is above ground or below. (Photo by flickr user Jeffrey Keefer)

Snow stopped falling in the New York area nearly two days ago, and yet, the city’s transit network remains at less than full service. Buses are stranded; elevated subway routes are shuttered. Even as the commuter rail lines return to full service, New York City Transit is still trying to figure out what went wrong. After all, isn’t this the agency that’s supposed to be improving, non-stop?

For Wednesday, straphangers will find a system slowly returning to normal. The MTA continues to promise that crews are “continuing round-the-clock work to restore service throughout the system.” As of late Tuesday, the state of subway service was as follows:

Service has been restored with residual delays on the 5 to Dyre Avenue, the A to Far Rockaway, and the C, D, F, and G lines. Service remains suspended on the B and Q lines, the Franklin Avenue Shuttle and the Rockaway Park Shuttle. The L line is restored, operating in two sections: 8th Ave to Broadway Junction and Broadway-Junction to Rockaway Parkway. There is no N train service between the Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue Station and the Whitehall Street Station. New York City Transit expects to restore further service segments in time for the morning rush hour.

Despite assurances of an easier Wednesday morning commute, the Outer Boroughs are rife with dissent. For now, their anger is directed at city agencies and leaders. Take, for instance, this post on Sheepshead Bites. The Brooklyn-based blog notes that Mayor Bloomberg’s Manhattan street is perfectly plowed while streets in Sheepshead Bay are awash in snow. Buses cannot pass; cars are stranded; the subways aren’t running. This is city government at a stand-still.

Meanwhile, MTA officials are promising to figure out just what went wrong. Around Brooklyn, 250 buses remained stuck in the snow, and many of those were not equipped with snow chains. “We typically have not had difficulties with stuck buses with the types of buses we have today. The hybrid buses we use are typically able to get through the snow but for whatever reason this snow they didn’t get through. I’m not a snow expert to tell you why,” Jay Walder said. “We do need to look back. I’m not minimizing the fact that we have had a large number of stuck buses and we do need to look back.”

Based upon my conversations with those who have knowledge of the situation, it appears as though the MTA severely underestimated the extent of the snow. While Boston’s MBTA ran ghost trains to keep tracks warm and free from the snow, the MTA had to contend with stronger-than-expected winds and deep snow drifts. The authority did not call in snow emergency squads until roads in the city were nearly impassable, and the authority was simply not ready to respond to a blizzard of this magnitude. Forty-eight hours later, we’re still paying the price.

Soon — probably today — subway schedules will return to something approximating normal and buses will begin to run. The authority will look to improve its emergency response protocols, and we’ll remember the Blizzard of 2010 as we do the rainstorm of August 2007. The authority must seek to improve out of the aftermath of the last two days. It cannot do much worse.

The MTA can get plenty of satisfaction, according to internal polling. (Source)

Let’s try this one for size: The MTA yesterday released the results of its first-ever agency-wide standardized customer satisfaction survey, and while New Yorkers seem to make a sport out of hating the MTA, most riders seem to be satisfied with the state of their subway and mass transit survey. The results seem to belie reality on the ground, but when faced with a choice, New Yorkers may recognize the limitations of a vast system and their intractable demands.

The MTA didn’t share too much about methodology, but the authority says this survey represents the first time such statistics have been compiled “across the MTA family.” Customers were asked to rate the quality of service; MTA employees; on-board conditions such as lighting and comfort; information and communication; convenience, safety and security; home stations; and overall satisfaction. The commuter rail roads were deemed exemplary as as 93 percent of respondents say they are satisfied or very satisfied with Metro-North and 89 percent say the same of Long Island Rail Road. Overall, 18,000 people responded to the survey, and the results have margins of errors ranging from 1 to 4 percent.

Let’s drill down on the Transit results. The various presentations are all available right here. Initially, we see that the MTA used a 10-point sliding scale but grouped responses into four categories. Those who ranked services at 1 or 2 are considered very dissatisfied; 3-5 are simply dissatisfied; 6-8 means satisfied; and 9 or 10 lead to very satisfied customers. The presentation of the results, in other words, simplifies the scale.

Immediately, we see that 95 percent of riders are either satisfied or very satisfied with the countdown clocks. It’s hard to imagine anyone being dissatisfied with the efforts to bring real-time information underground, but I guess five percent of people prefer the time-tested method of peering wistfully into an empty tunnel.

On an overall basis, 71 percent of riders were satisfied with subway service, and 77 percent were satisfied with the line they use most often. That result seems to bolster the theory I set forth yesterday: Straphangers grow attached to their favorite train lines. In terms of service quality, 83 percent of people were satisfied with subway travel times while only 65 percent were satisfied with wait times. The MTA expects that real-time train arrival information will boost that figure, but I believe that until riders never have to wait for trains, they won’t be fully satisfied with service.

Next, we examine the information and communication totals. Clearly, riders enjoy having more info at their fingertips, but we start to see some sample size and selection bias concerns. Only 103 subscribers responded to the survey over email alerts, and these were, by and large, the satisfied customers. The placement of maps in the system, always a hot topic, drew some criticism.

The authority didn’t score too highly when it came to non-automated sources of information though. Only 69 percent of riders rated notices of service changes at least a six on the MTA’s scale, and only 56 said on-board announcements were clear. Only 62 percent found the availability of pocket maps satisfactory. While the MTA’s system is more complex than, say, London’s, the lack of a small pocket map is noticeable.

By and large, customers are happy with the rolling stock, and since so much of it is new, they ought to be. Where the authority is lagging though is in the cleanliness department. Only 68 percent were satisfied with car cleanliness, and just 64 percent say the stations are clean enough. That latter total seems far too high to me.

Interestingly, after nearly a year of debate over the role of station agents, straphangers didn’t say the subways seemed unsafe. Concerns were most pronounced after dark though as 80 percent say they feel personally secure before 8 p.m. but only 60 percent feel the same after 8 p.m. I’ll withhold judgment until we have another year’s worth of data to assess, but I can’t imagine those figures moving too far in either direction.

Even as we might cast a skeptical eye toward it, MTA officials were quick to promote the good news in this data dump. “This has obviously been an extremely tough year for our transit system and for our customers, but the survey results show that our customers appreciate the improvements we have been able to put into place, like countdown clocks,” MTA Chairman and CEO Jay Walder said. “This survey demonstrates the importance of improving service where we can in cost-effective ways.”

I found the most amusing part to be the customer suggestions though. Riders want more predictable travel times, cleaner stations and more real-time information. They also want shorter wait times, fewer delays, less crowding during rush hour and the Easter Bunny to arrive. What they don’t want to do is pay for it, and therein lies the great contradiction. Whether these numbers accurately reflect a generally acceptable level of satisfaction with the subways or whether the MTA is simply patting itself on the bank in a time of bad news matters little without the funds.

Take a listen to this 17-minute clip from The Brian Lehrer Show. Featuring Gene Russianoff and Transportation Nation editor Andrea Bernstein, the clip features Lehrer grilling his guests on the MTA. Ostensibly designed to explore how transit policy and the MTA shaped the election for governor, the focus was nominally on abolishing the MTA. Who should have control? What should the proper transit management agency be?

In one sense, the clip is infuriating. The callers to Lehrer’s show are angry and uninformed. One caller suggests privatization, seemingly ignoring New York’s subway history. Another calls in outraged over the MTA’s contract with Accenture. She claims the MTA is paying the consulting firm $150 million for “just $25 million in savings” and goes unchallenged when she says that everyone is just making up the idea that the MTA has saved $50 million. In response, Russianoff doesn’t offer up a correction. He just says this shrill attitude in which facts are ignored embodies “the irate sense of the riding public” — a public less interested in reality than outrage.

But on the other hand, Bernstein, Russianoff and Lehrer bring up some very valid points. They never quite get around to answering the questions put forth in the first few minutes of the segment, but during the campaign last week, they didn’t need to determine yet whether or not Cuomo should abolish the MTA. “I think it’s satisfying to riders this image of ripping apart the MTA and shredding it to pieces. The reality is that whoever is the governor already has a tremendous amount of influence. They appoint the chairman and a total of six votes on the board. They have the power of the budget,” Russianoff said. “This kind of change” — placing the MTA under the control of the governor — “It’s just not the change that’s needed.”

It is, for these reporters and commentators, about the trust the public puts or does not put in the authority. “It’s so easy to hate the MTA, but if you look nationally, New York has a great transit system. You can get anywhere. You can go 24 hours a day,” Bernstein said. “Yet people just hate it. It’s so easy to hate. I think the next governor, regardless of who controls or how it’s financed, is going to need to address this.

Lehrer’s show isn’t the first mention of a complete overhaul of the MTA. I explored the authority’s uncertain future yesterday afternoon, and one of the commentators featured in that piece questioned the need for the MTA as currently imagined. “I think the governor’s going to have to recognize that the M.T.A. was designed to solve specific problems back in the ’70s, and it’s done it fairly well, but it’s reached the point where it can no longer afford the programs that it needs to have in place based on the funding sources that it was originally thought to have, so he has to deal with that,” Robert Paaswell said. “He has to deal with the [question], What should an M.T.A. look like? Do we need this incredibly complex organization?”

The MTA came out of a time of fiscal unrest when the transit system in New York City needed a better managing body to set fare policy. The Triborough Bridge Authority was placed under the purview of the MTA to both oust Robert Moses from power and ensure that toll revenue was funneled back into transit. But the commuter rails were foisted on the MTA as the private entities that owned and operated them slipped into bankruptcy. Layer upon layer, the MTA took on a larger bureaucracy and financially-burdened assets.

Today, we enjoy the illusion of a regional rail system, but we don’t actually have that system. Fare payment modes are different across New York City Transit, the LIRR and Metro-North. Schedules don’t have to be coordinated because Metro-North and the LIRR have different terminals within the city. Employee skillsets are different due to both union work rules and the technical differences between the rail and subway lines. Only the map and the ability to cross-honor fares in the event of an emergency lend an aura of unity to the system.

So then is the MTA defunct? Should Jay Walder, a qualified transit technocrat with a solid background in management consulting, tear it down only to build it back up again but this time leaner and meaner? Russianoff, Bernstein and Lehrer didn’t supply a clear answer, but it’s hard to say the MTA shouldn’t be completely restructured. Unfortunately, it’s tough to do that on the fly while meeting the demands of 8 million daily transit riders, and I certainly don’t have the knowledge or expertise to offer up even a sketch of what the replacement agency would be.

Still, Bernstein’s point is one that bears repeating, and it’s one that Andrew Cuomo, a candidate elusive on transit but who wants to exhaust every internal financial cut before identifying new funding sources for the MTA, should embrace. Regardless of how he exerts his control or finances the authority, Cuomo must restore public confidence in those running the subway system. Only then will it enjoy the political and financial support it needs.

Update (2:24 p.m.): An earlier version of this article contained reference to an Accenture report that was not, in fact, a report. It was a pitch from Accenture to the MTA given back in December 2009. The post has been updated to reflect this view.

In late December 2009, as part of its efforts at renegotiating its preexisting contracts, the MTA worked with Accenture, a management consultant firm, to assess the structure and operations at the authority. During its pitch, Accenture noted, based on its past experiences, that the MTA had been rife with cronyism, bureaucratic overmanagement and downright laziness. For anyone paying attention, it was not a surprise, but with Accenture’s guidance, the authority was able to identify over $700 million in internal savings.

Heather Haddon, now at The Post, has got a hold of the pitch, and she highlights the areas Accenture planned to target, including:

• Promoting people based on “friendship and familiarity,” rather than skill.
• Failing to differentiate between top-quality employees and the bottom of the barrel. At times, employee evaluation is weak or nonexistent, and it is very hard to lay off bad apples, according to sources.
• Wasting a “huge” amount of time by appointing underlings to discuss issues when only executives can make decisions. At Long Island Rail Road, for example, the organizational chart includes layers of confusing titles, and administrators often aren’t up to speed with what other managers do, transit sources said.
• Being stuck in the past and lacking any “demonstrated desire” to do better.
• Suffering from a “horde” mentality that sparks protracted turf fights, with bureaucrats scuffling over limited resources.

Those who keep a close eye on the goings-on inside MTA Headquarters echoed the results of this report. “Things don’t get improved, or the decisions just don’t get made,” William Henderson, head of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA, said to The Post. “There is a lot of inertia.”

From my own experiences researching and covering the MTA, I’ve seen many of these problems in action. The authority, for instance, does not have its past budgets in digitally-readable format. They instead keep hard-copy reports on file but seemingly have to put analytic reports showing budget changes over time together by hand. The stories of bureaucratic in-fighting and turf battles are endless.

For its part, Accenture has urged the MTA to trim its administrative structure and eliminate numerous middle management positions, cut overtime spending and freeze some discretionary expense accounts. The MTA, who paid Accenture $3 million for the consulting treatment, has already enacted numerous cost-saving suggestions. Earlier this year, the Accenture ideas had saved the MTA $202 million and now the authority says they will realize savings of $381 million and $525 million annually going forward, increasing to $750 million.

With these savings in hand, implementing them will take some time. Consolidation and work-rule efficiencies have begun, but offices need to be modernized while redundancies ironed out. No CEO likes to tell his employees that they’re unnecessary, uninspired or extraneous. Yet, if Jay Walder is to earn the public’s and Albany’s trust, he must continue to push for Accenture’s recommendation reorganize. He came from McKinsey; he hired Accenture; and now he’s acting on it. The future of public transit in New York City may depend on it.

Despite a raging fire yesterday afternoon, Metro-North restored full service by the evening rush hour. (Photo via WTNH)

Say what you will about the MTA’s management structure. Carl Paladino, for one, called it “corrupt and bloated” while touring Manhattan island. Yet, the authority’s constituent parts certainly know how to keep their trains running.

For three hours yesterday afternoon, Metro-North’s only point of access for trains into and out of Manhattan and the popular Grand Central Terminal was a fiery inferno. A transformer explosion set fire to the wooden pier until the 138th St. Lift Bridge across the Harlem River, and for nearly four hours from 11:45 a.m. to around 3:30 p.m., the bridge burned. Officials feared damage to the structure, but Metro-North ran regular rush hour service to and from the city.

For governing officials, this Metro-North fire raised the fears of another great infrastructure collapse. Just a little under a month ago, a fire near Jamaica, Queens knocked out service on nearly every Long Island Rail Road line, and it took the MTA nearly a week to restore full service. A few years ago, in 2005, a fire in a Chambers St. signal room raised fears that service on the 8th Ave. IND would be slowed for years. Service was back up to speed within weeks.

In discussing the aftermath of the 138th St. Lift fire, Andrew Siff as NBC New York asks if the MTA has an infrastructure problem. “When you don’t do as much maintenance,” Bill Henderson, head of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA, said to Siff, “things start to happen, and that’s what we’re concerned about.”

Another long-time critic of the MTA, New York City’s Comptroller John Liu, voiced similar concerns. “The MTA has a difficult job,” he said. “The system is over a hundred years old, more investment needs to take place with regard to keeping the infrastructure up to date.”

Of course, with funds stretched, the MTA can’t pour millions into infrastructure upgrades as often as it would like, but it benefits in other ways from the care of its forefathers and smart planning today. Particularly with regards to the subway, the MTA’s current systems have built-in redundancies that allow operations at high capacity levels even in the event of an emergency. Not all of its signal systems for the 8th Ave. line, for instance, were arrayed in the storage closet that caught fire in 2005. When the Twin Towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, the ability to switch trains from various local tracks to the express lines allowed Transit to run trains to nearly every part of the city.

For Long Islanders, the fire in August exacerbated the problems with a poorly designed system. Because nearly every train out of Penn Station bound for points east has to route through Jamaica, one fire could knock out the system. But for Metro-North, the same does not hold true. Had the fire destroyed part of the 138th St. Lift, the MTA could have used the new Yankee Stadium stop as a terminal. Although doing so would strain capacity on the Manhattan-bound 4, B and D trains, the new station was designed to serve as a de facto terminal in case of an emergency in Manhattan. Redundancies, in other words, are necessary to keep a system moving.

Unfortunately, as money grows scarce and costs rise, redundancies are among the first to be eliminated. As the MTA builds part of the Second Ave. subway, plans have shrunk the new line for four tracks to three to two, and the Second Ave. Subway would be one of the few parts of the system in which no bypass or express option would be available in the event of stalled train or more serious emergency. These redundancies aren’t a luxury; they’re a necessity that helps the MTA meet the demands millions of people place on its 24-hour transit network daily.

The MTA may have a problem with aging infrastructure, but that problem could be worse in 30 years when we realize we haven’t spent wisely on new infrastructure. The older parts of the system just might age better.