While MTA officials haven’t said much about the pending arrests or charges, union leaders are outraged that no one in management has been charged yet. “It’s astounding to us that the senior level bosses that orchestrated this entire charade, this entire issue that led to fraudulent signal inspections, have been untouched by the district attorney,” TWU President John Samuelsen said.

These arrests and any subsequent trial could be very explosive for the MTA. I’ll continue to follow this story.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Over the past year, we’ve heard a lot about how weekend transit ridership is on the rise. These days, with 5.2 million riders during a typical weekday, Saturday ridership at over 3 million is around 57 percent of an average weekday, and Sunday is at 45 percent. These numbers are on the rise, and some areas see constant traffic throughout the week. Let’s take a look first at the Saturday table. I omitted the Aqueduct Racetrack stop which gets 116 riders per weekday and a whopping 264 per Saturday.

Bedford Ave. with 19,979 Saturday riders as compared with 22,520 weekday riders just missed the top ten here, and Canal St. too sees over 40,000 on Saturday compared with 45,000 on a weekday. So what do we see here? Weekend destinations — such as Mets games and Coney Island — are popular, and tourist-heavy shopping and sight-seeing areas in Greenwich Village and SoHo attract riders as well. Strong ridership in Inwood was a bit of a surprise, but that likely is a result of a shuttered 1 train stop leaving only the A as a subway option in northern Manhattan. Metropolitan/Lorimer highlights how popular the L and G trains have become.

Next up, Sunday:

Sunday is obviously the lowest trafficked day of the week. Most people stay home and eschew subway travel. Yet, recreational destinations remain strong. The Mets are atop the list, and the AirTrain stop at JFK maintains its ridership figures as well. People head to the Beach in Brooklyn, and Williamsburg denizens and visitors seem to favor the subway as well. If Bedford Ave. or the G/L station a few blocks away seem perpetually crowded, well, that’s because they are.

I’ll release the full datasets later this week. For now, we have a solid set of numbers to chew on as subway ridership and weekend usage continue to test a system long accustomed to massive weekend changes. Everyone is riding the subways these days.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Below, are two tables that show the biggest declines in ridership over the weekend. Some stations — particularly those located in Lower Manhattan and Midtown East — are quite susceptible to a great weekend decline. These are popular destinations for the working commuter, and the neighborhoods clear out after the work week is over. We’ll start with Saturday.

I was surprised at first to see Hunters Point Ave. leading off this list, but upon further reflection, it’s clear that there is literally nothing there that would be open on the weekends. The decline at 5 Ave.-53rd St. is pretty extreme considering that MOMA is down the block, but clearly, the museum-goers aren’t taking the E train there on the weekends. Fulton St. is another station with a huge decline. The weekend numbers are still impressive, but that two-thirds drop is extreme, especially considering the expense of the Transit Center that will ideally attract more people during off-peak hours.

Now, Sunday. It’s an awfully similar chart, and even fewer people head to Fulton St. on Sunday.

The numbers for Wall Street are pretty amazing really. This 2/3 station with its tiny platform sees over 25,000 entries on a typical weekday but only 9400 over the two days of the weekend combined. No matter how much the city pushes residential life in Lower Manhattan, the Financial District has seemingly remained stubbornly immune to it. It’s just your typical urban business center from which the population vanishes at 5 p.m. on Friday.

Outside of the top ten, other notables include Grand Central, which sees a decline of 63 percent on Saturday and 72 percent on Sunday over a typical weekday. Even with a decline of over 100,000 riders, the station still sees 41,000 passengers on Sunday. Similarly, Bryant Park dips from over 50,000 per weekday to 20,000 on a Saturday and just under 15,000 for Sunday. Just something to chew on.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

In Queens — as in Brooklyn and the Bronx — key transfer points seem to be the most popular stations. These stops are also centrally located in some densely populated residential areas. Court Square will likely see a bump this year with the new complex.

In Brooklyn, the first two stations feed into the downtown area with jobs and housing. I expect Atlantic Ave./Pacific St. to move to the top of this list once the Barclays Center arena opens. If the rest of the Atlantic Yards project ever sees the light of day, it will far surpass Jay St. on the leaderboard. Beford Ave. has seen annual ridership grow by 2 million since 2007. That’s stunning growth.

In the Bronx, with the courthouse up the hill and the Yankees across the street, the 161st St. station leads the pack. The remainder are key transfer points, job centers or major residential areas. I sense a theme.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

As Friday rolls around in New York, the city’s straphangers know that weekend subway service will be spotty, at best. Trains that should run local will go express, and trains that should run express might run local. Other trains may not run at all or head to some other train’s usual terminal. It’s confusing, and travel takes longer. According to a new report, the MTA isn’t particularly good at informing its customers of these changes.

One problem the MTA has struggled to combat over the years concerns signage. At a basic level, many New Yorkers simply do not read signs, and that’s a problem impossible to overcome. To fight that basic stubbornness or laziness, Transit instead bombards us with frequent in-car announcements concerning upcoming stops and rerouted trains. If a rider doesn’t know where the train is going, he or she is simply not listening.

But on a different level, the MTA has also battled an information problem. Although service advisories are posted online a few days in advance, the agency hasn’t quite hit the nail on the head when it comes to in-system signage. Transit’s latest iteration of its service advisory posters are more colorful and easier to read, but covering the system appropriately remains a challenge. According to a report released yesterday by the New York City Transit Riders Council, the MTA does not always post signage in every station as they promised, and old signage lingers long past its expiration date.

The Riders Council conducted their study over the course of a few weekends in October and November. They surveyed 48 stations 63 times from 7:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., and on the traditional letter grade system, the MTA would likely walk away with a D for its signage efforts. While Transit promised to hang signs near entrances and on platforms, only 64 percent of entrances featured signs, and just 60 percent of platforms hosted the posters.

With the London-inspired posters, Transit in 2010 also debuted new line-specific signs to be hung upon station columns. The Riders Council found that these signs were featured in just 55 percent of station entrances but on 72 percent of platforms. To make matters worse, five stations surveyed had no signage at all concerning service changes at that station. These included Nostrand Ave., Broadway Junction and High St. all on the IND Fulton Line in Brooklyn.

In terms of alternative access, Transit did not fare any better. The authority provided ADA-accessibility information in just 53 percent of stations surveyed, and only 71 percent of stations had signs that listed alternate routes for any straphanger combatting service changes. The Riders Council was not impressed. “Looking at the 48 stations overall,” the report says, “the level of compliance is mediocre at best.”

After noting that some stations featured only hastily-scribbled hand-written signs, the Riders Council issued some fairly obvious recommendations. The MTA must make a more concerted effort to post signs at every station and every entrance. “Riders need to be informed of all service changes prior to entering the station,” the report noted.

Interestingly, the Riders Council issued a call for faster installation of the MTA’s new digital Station Advisory Information Displays. Noting the flexibility and visibility of these 21st Century screens, the report urged the MTA to pick up the pace of installation and target areas that are both high traffic and likely to go through service diversions. “By installing SAID boards in the unpaid areas of stations, NYC Transit would provide riders with a predictable and reliable place to look for service advisories,” they said.

It’s hard to dispute any of these findings. While I recognize that the MTA can’t force its customers to read the signs, it must make the signs available and visible. Without the signs, riders must partake in a massively confusing guessing game that will leave them frustrated and delayed. They should be in every station, at every entrance and on every platform. Anything less is just lazy.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Now, that’s not surprising because Times Square is the center of the known universe. The rest make sense too. Interestingly, Queens, which has the third subway ridership by borough, has a station in the top ten while Brooklyn, the second most popular borough, does not. In fact, the most popular station in Brooklyn — Jay St./MetroTech — was just 26nd overall last year.

At the bottom of the list are a bunch of stations in the Rockaways, East 143rd St. along the 6 and 21st on the G. The last one sees just 1,123 per weekday and around 730 per weekend. I’ve always wondered why that station, so close to Court Square, exists. More with this data later.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Yet, despite its reputation, my personal experiences with the G train have been as expected. At rush hour, the train runs every 6-8 minutes and never more frequently. While I sometimes have to wait longer than I’d prefer, the G is a pretty regular train that generally adheres to its schedule. It shares track only with the F at its southern end, and thus, it doesn’t have to deal with too many delays caused by switching priorities. It’s convenient and relatively fast for a ride that would otherwise take too long or cost over $20 in a cab.

Someone though is always trying to do something with the G train. It once ran to Forest Hills, and now it does not. It currently heads south to Church Ave., but even that sensible and useful extension is in jeopardy. A few petitions and some vocal politicians are working to ensure that the five-stop extension of the G train made necessary for the Culver Viaduct rehabilitation becomes a permanent one. My money — and hopefully the MTA’s — is on this movement becoming successful.

Yet, despite the bad reputation, the G is showing some serious signs of ridership growth. Take a look at its improvements in 2011 as compared with 2010:

That’s growth that far outpaces the overall 2.26 percent bump in annual subway rides. The stations that service Greenpoint, meanwhile, rank in the top 44 of all Brooklyn subway stations, and Carroll St. and 7th Ave., shared with the F along the Culver line, witnessed jumps of over 15 percent as well. It’s hard to isolate out the number of F riders there as opposed to those waiting for the G, but the line is becoming popular.

So what is the MTA to do? Nothing shows the G train’s increased popularity more so that a late-night wait at Metropolitan Ave. as the platform fills up. Nothing shows the G train’s problems as the mad dash people make to reach the center of the platform as the short train zooms by. The two concerns, then, as noted yesterday in this space, focus around transfers and train length. The MTA, if it won’t increase the frequency of the G train, should lengthen the train sets.

The authority must also ascertain what impact a heavily utilized G train will have on transfer points. After all, most people are taking the G to get to another subway line that connects with Manhattan (although some use it to reach Court Square in Queens or the Pratt campus in Brooklyn). As ridership increases, those transfer points will see crowds swell as well.

Once upon a time, the G was the butt of all jokes, but it’s shedding this reputation. It’s not quite yet overcrowded but as its areas grow, ridership will continue to climb. Maybe it’s time to pay attention to the IND Crosstown line, that little G train that could.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

At the time, the M was useful mostly for Wall St. workers and civil servants. It offered a direct line to One Centre Street and the courthouses at Foley Square, and it provided for a stop right near Wall Street. It had its core riders but never gained much traction even as the areas it serviced in Queens and Brooklyn grew. It’s usefulness was limited by the need to transfer. To get to Midtown required a transfer to a crowded F train at Essex/Delancey, and most straphangers were content to take the L, a generally more direct and reliable train.

In mid-2010, amidst a budget crisis, that all changed. To save dollars, the MTA axed the rush hour extension of the M train to Bay Parkway, killed the V train, gave the bullet an orange make-over and re-routed the M to snake through midtown and to Forest Hills via the Chrystie St. Cut. A few vocal groups were unhappy with the cut. They feared less frequent service at Second Ave., once the V’s southern terminal but now only an F stop,. Too, the commuters from Middle Village to Lower Manhattan bemoaned the need for a transfer.

Yet, the possibilities for the new M train seemed promising. It would deliver a one-seat ride from rapidly growing residential neighborhoods to the core job centers in Manhattan. It would alleviate some pressure on the L train and would make use of existing and underutilized infrastructure. It seems to be a hit.

Late last week on Subchat, a well-connected poster unveiled the 2011 station-by-station ridership figures. Transit has yet to publish this information on its website, but the numbers are available. As ridership climbed over 2 percent in 2011 to over 1.6 billion, the stations along the Myrtle Ave. Line showed the most growth. Take a look:

Across the board, those numbers are astounding. If the system showed such growth, it would quickly become far too crowded for the service levels. By and large, Subchatters noted that the growth likely came from people who are switching from the L train to the M due to the promise of a one-seat ride. In fact, the L train stations closet to the M — Halsey and DeKalb — showed less growth than other nearby L stops. Some of the increase too comes from new riders.

This news is, in no small sense, a vindication for many transit activists who had urged the MTA to make use of the Chrystie St. Cut for years. The service change, which just made sense even absent the need to preserve money, has become quite popular, and it’s one that should have been made years ago. Because of the fixed nature of rail tracks and the glacial pace of system expansion, the MTA is limited in ways it can meet shifting demographics and commuting patterns. Using the Cut is one of those ways, and it’s been a success. Now if only the authority would restore rush-hour along 4th Ave. in Brooklyn. Perhaps the J or Z could be put to such use.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Without minimizing the loss of life — 33 percent of those hit by trains died — this isn’t exactly a problem screaming out for a solution. Still, earlier this week, New York City Transit President Tom Prendergast once again spoke out in favor of platform doors. “The primary reason is safety, ” he said. “The second is environmental control and the third is to have a better means of getting the train into the station, doing the loading and unloading, and getting the train out of the station.”

We’ve been down this road before. In fact, it was just last February when Prendergast first proposed platform doors (as long as they didn’t have to pay much), and everyone and their uncles grossly overreacted. Now with, in the words of The Daily News, “terrifying” accidents taking a “sharp leap” upward, the doors are back.

I’ll say what I said last year: If the MTA can implement platform doors while keeping expenditures low, great. They’ll keep people and trash out of the tracks while allowing for more temperate platforms. But the cost of implementing such a plan, let alone the practicalities at a time when door spacing on various rolling stock models has yet to be fully standardized, could be astronomical. And at that point, the costs far, far outweigh the benefits.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Throughout the city, a decade or so the IND overbuilt to accommodate everyone who could ever ride the subway, the original IRT platforms were expanded to fit ten-car trains and many more people. As a casualty of the expansion program, some stations — 18th and Worth Sts. on the East Side, 91st St. on the West Side — were shuttered due to their proximity to nearby stops, but with more spacious platforms and long trains, those closures were a necessary trade-off.

Today, ridership has once again approached levels that warranted such an expansion. While the automobile and the general state of decay saw ridership drop from the late 1950s to a nadir in the 1980s, the MTA has seen a steep growth in usage over the recent years. That growth has not been confined to weekdays either, as historical ridership patterns have dictated, and now authority officials are trying to find ways to alleviate overcrowding along certain lines at all times of the day.

Yesterday, MTA Chairman Joe Lhota went to Albany to talk transit funding, and he spoke about a rough idea to expand subway stations in order to keep pace with demand. It is doubtful that trains would be lengthened, but the authority can make some access improvements to stations, particularly along the overcrowded L line, that could improve service. These little changes could go a long way toward improving the transit experience.

Pete Donohue of The Daily News had a bit more:

With the subways bursting at the seams, the MTA needs to expand stations in the century-old system, authority Chairman Joseph Lhota said Thursday. Lhota singled out the L line as an example of an overcrowded route that requires alterations to accommodate a meteoric rise in ridership due to industrial areas transforming into bustling residential neighborhoods. “Today, it’s the fastest growing line,” he said.

Stations in neighborhoods like Williamsburg were built with just one or two entrances, “whereas if we knew it was going to be residential as it is today, we would have three or four entrances,” Lhota said. “So, you’re seeing tremendous crowding on stations that are unbelievably narrow. We’re going to have to spend capital programs to expand those stations.”

It’s fairly easy to see where the MTA could include station entrances along the L. In Manhattan, a back entrance at the First Ave. stop that better serves Avenue A and points east would help alleviate uneven boarding patterns while cutting down commute times to the subway. In Brooklyn, stations east of Lorimer St. generally have but one entrance that leads to passenger bunching along the station. Even outside of the L, I see such behavior at 7th Ave. on the Brighton Line (which has a shuttered second entrance) and Grand Army Plaza. New entrances would help better disperse the crowds.

Of course, there is one giant problem: These types of system expansion plans cost money, and money is something the MTA has little of. The current capital plan doesn’t allow for such construction efforts, and the MTA may have to satisfy ADA requirements if it starts work on some of these stations. Thus, adding new entrances would not come cheap.

Still, it’s an idea worth considering. Better station access won’t help increase the frequency of trains or allow for longer car sets, but straphanger distribution can help ease the loads. Maybe those back cars wouldn’t be so empty if they were closer to the station entrance points.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.