Archive for View from Underground
Those of you who follow me on Twitter may have woken up on Sunday morning to something of a Twitter storm. I had, you see, come across this Post article on the fare hike in which a copy editor writing the headline called the subways “atrocious” (which has since been changed to “woeful”) and the intrepid reporter noted that service is “worse than ever.” Acknowledging that there are clear warning signs and less-than-reliable service these days, I wasn’t impressed by this article.
Today’s problems — as anyone who has lived in New York for longer than the five years the 20-something author from Newburgh, NY, has knows — is not nearly close to being “worse than ever.” Hop back in time to the late 1980s and early 1990s when train breakdowns were common and doors wouldn’t open. Jump back to the early 1980s and late 1970s when muggings were commonplace and track fires frequent. Jump back to the mid-1970s when the MTA briefly pondered cutting the L train entirely due to a cratering ridership and backlog of maintenance. That was literally worse than ever.
Perhaps it was unfair of me to come down so hard on a reporter for The Post. After all, it’s The Post, and I should expect nothing better. (It also led to a fantastically sarcastic reply from Joseph Cutrufo.) But the underlying problem with Gabrielle Grilli’s was just how wrong it was around the edges. She claimed that recent fares hike cover “only the raises of MTA employees” and warned that the MTA is going to cancel the Second Ave. Subway without explaining how that threat affects only future, unfunded portions and not the one currently under construction. It also has nothing to do with the fare hikes and everything to do with Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s lack of support for the MTA’s capital plan.
The overall issue with articles such as this one is that they are how the public gets its information. I have a dedicated but small readership, and The Post and The Times and The Daily News all reach more eyeballs than I do by an extremely high number. To see this type of coverage in our newspapers is discouraging, especially when these papers are supposed to serve as a conduit between the public and its politicians.
Grilli clearly tried to write something else. Her story wasn’t based entirely in fiction as a late-night release from the Straphangers showcased how certain elements of subway service are trending downward in recent years. Here’s what Gene Russianoff had to say:
This is the fifth subway, bus and commuter fare increase in eight years in the New York City area, leaving riders weary and angry. More hikes are planned. At the same time, service is suffering. Delays are on the rise throughout the system and crowding is at record levels.
The MTA also has a $15 billion gap for rebuilding transit over the next five years. If this shortfall stands, New Yorkers will likely lose many improvements for better service. This could range from fewer new subway cars and buses to the slow installation of countdown clocks alerting riders of train arrivals. It also could mean borrowing billions for these improvements, which would create more pressure on fares.
What riders desperately need are state leaders who will be powerful champions for funding decent transit. First and foremost, there’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, who appoints the MTA’s Board of Directors. Governor Cuomo should forcefully make the case for new transit funding. He can tell New Yorkers that the MTA fuels the State’s economy, conserves the State’s energy and promotes its environment. He should also press for progressive transit funding, like MoveNY’s fair tolling plan.
And here’s what he shouldn’t do: On one day, call the MTA’s capital budget “bloated” and on others use the system as a personal photo op. And on yet other days, raid hundreds of millions from dedicated transit taxes and use them for non-transit purposes. Cuomo’s leadership is key to winning a robust capital program. But the possible loss of critical rebuilding projects is a reminder of a painful truism: Never leave the subways without funding.
The MTA’s own board materials published in advance of Monday’s committee meetings lay bare this reality. Terminal delays on both weekends and weekdays jumped by around a third over the past year; trains aren’t arriving as regularly as they should; on-time performance is declining; and as rolling stock ages — even newer cars are reaching their teenage years — breakdowns increase slightly. All in all, things aren’t nearly as bad as they were or could be, but the system needs to be maintained, with money and attention and support, to avoid a future that repeats the past.
In something of a Catch-22, one of the reasons for these performance issues can be traced to recent record-high ridership with daily fares pushing past 6 million on a regular basis. The system simply isn’t currently built to withstand this many people. In essence, the subways are so popular that they are breaking down under the strain of too many people. For years, advocates have warned of the need to build for the future either through technological initiatives that can increase capacity on preexisting subway lines or through system expansion projects. Neither of these are far enough along to solve today’s problems, and it’s questionable if they can solve tomorrow’s problems before it’s too late.
It’s true, as the Straphangers and Riders Alliance have both pointed out lately, that Cuomo needs to step forward and be responsible. But we shouldn’t have this conversation without a look at the institutional flaws at the MTA. The agency is asking for $30 billion, and perhaps it’s bloated though not as Cuomo expects. His AirTrain proposal is more bloated than useful. Do they need this much? And why does everything cost so much and take so long? The MTA’s construction projects are more expensive and time-consuming than any other international transit agency’s work. They can’t automate lines or build new ones. They can’t even bring escalators, elevators and vent fans online in a timely fashion. Something needs reform just as something — the MTA and its subway system — needs proper political support.
Ultimately, contractor corruption and work efficiencies aren’t sexy. It’s easier for Gabrielle Grilli to highlight today’s service problems because she doesn’t know better just as it’s easy for people to bemoan the long lost W train or fetishize 1980s graffiti because they don’t know better. People who do know better though should come through with what’s needed: support, money and a real eye for reform. New York’s present and future depend on it.
For years, the MTA has tried to do away with station agents. Since they no longer sell tokens, their roles have been greatly reduced. They serve some nominal safety function as a deterrent against crime — though the fact that agents don’t leave booths limits this impact. Meanwhile, over the past seven years, as the MTA has cut costs, station agents have dwindled by 20 percent, and some stations that straddle wide avenues with no crossovers have no agents in sight.
Now, according to Pete Donohue’s latest column, the agency would like to do away with token booths entirely. The MTA wouldn’t fire the agents — at least no right away — but the MTA wants them out of their booths. Donohue has more:
The token booth clerk is going the way of the token itself. Metropolitan Transportation Authority chairman Thomas Prendergast is looking to redeploy token booth clerks who now spend their entire shifts inside locked cubicles.
“What we’re trying to do is move to a day where we are actually utilizing our employes in ways that are rewarding for them . . . but also provide a more needed service for us in the form of a customer service agent that would be able to be out and about in the station,” Prendergast said during a state Senate committee hearing on authority finances…
Now, the MTA is again thinking outside the booth. “We can all understand and agree, a visible presence of someone on the platform observing and seeing something going on and reporting on it is of value to the system, and that’s the direction in which we’d like to move,” Prendergast said.
But the MTA also is installing intercoms on platforms so riders can report things themselves. Stations are also being wired for cellphone service. And the MTA plans on introducing by 2019 “new fare payment technology” that could entail riders paying at turnstiles with their smartphones or bank-issued credit and debit cards. There were 3,303 token booth clerks a decade ago. There are 2,600 now. There will be far fewer in 2025.
In his piece, Donohue casts a skeptical eye on the idea. He compares it to the MTA’s plan late last decade to introduce those burgundy vest-sported courtesy workers who replaced shuttered station booths and were quickly dismissed when economic troubles hit. I can’t blame anyone for objecting, and we haven’t even heard from union officials yet.
The question that needs to be answered, though, is whether this is a feasible and good idea. The union, as I mentioned, will raise a stink. They’ve pointed to safety concerns in the past and don’t feel that station agents are equipped to handle face-to-face interactions with unruly passengers. But what do agents do? They sometimes know directions, sometimes will assist with damaged or malfunctioning MetroCards. But their impact is largely psychological. If they were eliminated, would the vast majority of subway riders even notice? I don’t think so.
For what I can assume are reasons of history, the G train stop at the southern end of the Marcy Houses in Bed-Stuy is stilled called Myrtle-Willoughby Avenues. There’s no reason for the Willoughby part of the name to survive as the southern entrances to this station have been out of use for decades. Willoughby and Myrtle run parallel there, and it is, sadly, impossible to enter the station on Willoughby Ave. The name lives on though because it’s literally on the wall.
On Sunday, I went for a walk through parts of Brooklyn that have seen a lot of change in recent years. From the ramen restaurant on Vanderbilt Ave. on the edge of the
Atlantic Yards Pacific Park development site to the upscale bread bakery at the corner of Bedford and Lexington Avenues, I strolled through neighborhoods that have seen ups and downs, have gone through social and political upheavals and are bound to evolve even more in the coming years. Twice, I walked past G train stations, and twice, I saw shuttered entrances. Had I kept walking a few more stops down the G train to Grand St. in Williamsburg, I would have one more entrance, closed since the 1990s.
I wish I had photographed the Willoughby entrances, but I didn’t think to snap a photo at street level and, mercifully, I had to wait only about 10 seconds for my G train to arrive. The photos on the Internet don’t do it much justice. You can see the now-deserted fare control areas on the Queens-bound platform. The photo of the street-level entrance on Wikipedia doesn’t do it much justice. The wood plans are looking much worse for the wear, and the staircase itself is jam-packed with trash. It’s a sorry sight indeed for a neighborhood that could use an additional subway access point.
I’ve discussed the closed entrances throughout the city and many of them are relics of another era, one where crime was rampant and declining ridership dictated that the MTA not use resources to keep auxiliary entrances open. In fact, at a certain point in time, the NYPD even asked the MTA to close high-crime areas — such as the passageway linking the Herald Square and Bryant Park stations underneath 6th Ave. — for the sake of public safety. Today, the fact that entrances along Queens Boulevard, in Park Slope and across the route of the G train remain closed seem more like stubbornness than policy.
We live after all in an age in which the MTA has engaged in a systematic elimination of station agents, when high entrance-exit turnstiles are the norm at various stations and where token booths live on in name and not function. Opening up closed entrances makes transit that much convenient as it reduces wait times and provides access points to areas that are a few blocks away.
A 2001 PCAC report once recommended reopening many secondary entrances not close to their stations’ primary entrances, but Transit has been slow to act. I’ve never had much success figuring out why. As the photo atop this post shows, some closed areas are used for storage, and although others would need repair and modernization work, this shouldn’t be cost-prohibitive. I’ve also been told that reopening old station entrances could trigger ADA requirements but haven’t received a definitive answer on whether that is indeed the case. It seems, in part, to be holding back the MTA at a few stations.
Spending money they don’t have on closed stations sadly won’t be a priority for the MTA right now. Yet, the presence of street-level structures reminds us that transit could be even more accessible than it is now, and the joy over the new L train entrance at Avenue A is indicative of the way New Yorkers crave access. Plus, Transit could right that nomenclature wrong. Call me silly, but shouldn’t he station that says Willoughby Ave. at least serve Willoughby Ave.?
As the MTA’s technology has improved, the amount of noise pollution in the subway system has gone up. While there’s only so much the agency can do to lessen the screech from metal-on-metal as subways bend around steep curves, the new rolling stock with its clear public address systems has led to a noted increase in announcements. We’re asked to be patient, sneeze into our arms, stand up, get out of the way, check ourselves, don’t block the door and say something if we see something. Much like some of those pesky delays, the sounds are seemingly unavoidable.
As 2015 dawns, though, the MTA is doing away with one source of easily avoidable noise pollution: The emergency exit doors with their ear-piercing sirens will be silenced. In effect, those doors are now simply exits as the MTA has finally caved to the reality of the flow of people out of subway stations that often do not have enough turnstile capacity to handle peak-hour crowds.
This move has been months in the making as the MTA has been slowly disarming the doors nearest station agents or simply opting against repairing failed alarms, but yesterday morning, WNYC’s Kate Hinds confirmed the news. “Our customers,” Transit spokesman Kevin Ortiz said, “have been quite clear in displaying their annoyance and letting us know that the alarms really were the number one annoyance for them as they travel through the system.”
Amusingly, as The Times’ Matt Flegenheimer noted, the MTA still maintains the rule that exiting through an emergency exit is against the rules, but enforcement is bare to nonexistent in this case. Straphangers routinely exit through these doors in full view of station agents and cops with no consequences, and that practice isn’t likely to change any time soon. Now, though, the blaring alarms will not greet customers trying to leave stations.
So what’s really going on here? The obvious is that, for years, the MTA has heard nonstop about the ineffectiveness of emergency exits from various rider advocacy groups. Straphangers didn’t care about the alarms and would routinely use the nearest — or least crowded — exit. So in one way, the MTA is simply giving in to popular opinion.
But there’s a deeper story here. First, the MTA is doing away with a source of noise pollution within the system and one that could be potentially damaging to the long-term hearing of station agents and other employees who were exposed to these sounds multiple times per hour. Second, this move can also be seen as one designed to improve station flow. As far as I know, the MTA is still working on plans to redesign station entrances. By removing the alarm, the MTA can study how people exit stations, and they’ll likely find that crowds optimize the emergency exits especially at stations with few other points of egress.
Ultimately, though, while New Yorkers generally welcome the New Year with parties, fireworks and a fair amount of sound, the end of the emergency exit noise is a welcome development. And now we know what we all assumed long ago: These emergency exits are simply just exist after all.
While Governors Christie and Cuomo continued to show their true transit colors, we ended 2014 arguing about the best use for a long-abandoned right-of-way in Queens. As the MTA quietly celebrated 110 years of the New York City subway system, they finally opened the Fulton St. Transit Center while the 7 line didn’t open. Sen. Lanza continued his assault on SBS lights while the Senate waited until June to confirm Tom Prendergast as MTA CEO and Chair. Oh, and the R train reopned after Sandy repairs wrapped early. It was not a dull year.
So what’s next? In a way, 2015 is year of waiting. If all goes accordingly to plan, in less than two years, we’ll be riding the Q north from 57th and 7th Ave. all the way to 96th St. and 2nd Ave. So the next 24 months will represent the home stretch — if the MTA can open the project on time. But there’s much to anticipate for the year ahead.
1. Fare Hikes. You would hardly know that fare hikes as just a few months away as the biennial increases hardly seem to rile up New Yorkers any longer. The hearings over the last few weeks were sparsely attended, and even the outrage seems muted. We’ll find out if the base fare goes up and the bonus sticks around or if the bonus goes while the base fare stays. It’s hardly a huge choice, but it is yet another fare hike. It arrives this spring.
2. The 7 Line. When will the 7 line open? Will the 7 line open? The MTA had hoped to open the extension in February, but recent reports indicate that it may be more likely that April is the revenue service start date. The inclined elevators and fire alarms remain an issue, and the line will not open until 14-16 months after Mayor Bloomberg’s photo-op/faux-ribbon cutting ceremony.
3. Sandy Recovery. The MTA will be closing the Cranberry St. Tunnel this year for Sandy-related repairs, and the work will force weekend service changes for A and C train riders. The F train’s Rutgers St. Tunnel is further down the line, and the most inconvenient work on the 2/3’s Clark St. Tunnel and L train’s tubes loom. I’ll be discussing the Sandy Recovery efforts in depth at the Transit Museum in late January.
4. The Future of the MetroCard. Will 2015 be the year the MTA starts to roll out its next-gen fare payment plans? Some MTA sources have indicated to me that new pilots involving a smart card of sorts may be on the horizon. Watch this space.
5. Capital Plan. How could we enter 2015 without a nod to the capital plan? Somehow, someway, Albany is going to have to address that huge funding gap, and the MTA needs to get the money to ensure the system can meet growing demand and record high ridership. It’s going to involve uncomfortable conversations about spending priorities, details for Phase 2 of the Second Ave. Subway and perhaps the Move NY plan.
So stick around; it’s never boring around here. And have a happy and safe New Year.
It can be instructive to chart the history of complaints about the New York City Subway as an indication over how we as New Yorkers feel about the system. From old rolling stock to the lack of air conditioning to track fires to delayed trains, broken doors, and rampant crime to service infrequent enough to meet demand to annoying announcements to rude behavior, we can chart the downfall and comeback of the subway nearly as neatly as the recent huge spike in ridership does. The MTA’s new ad campaign focusing around courtesy certainly belies a system with few overarching problems other than reliability. Crime, in other words, isn’t even a concern.
When an Ebola outbreak hit New York City, the MTA had an image problem on its hands. The long-standing campaign urging manners on the subway told people that “courtesy is contagious,” and, well, that caused some concern. The campaign was quickly dropped, and the MTA picked up specific quality-of-life issues. The latest posters and placards target etiquette in a time of 6 million daily riders — a number achieved six times in October alone.
“Courtesy is always important but it takes on an added significance as transit ridership continues to increase,” said NYC Transit President Carmen Bianco. “The simple act of stepping aside to let riders off the train before you board can trim valuable seconds from the time a train dwells in a station while removing a backpack makes more room for everyone. These acts serve to speed the trip while increasing the level of comfort.”
The new ads focus on do’s and don’t’s of subway rides. Part of me feels that this is the latest in the MTA’s long line of announcements that are excoriating riders to do something. Be patient. Check yourself. Don’t do this. Do that. But on the other hand, it’s part of a push to make riders more aware of the fact that 5,999,999 other people are also cramming themselves into a subway car.
The attention has focused around the manspread issue. Emma Fitzsimmons, with some help from Johnny T., explored the issue in The Times this weekend. But other no-no’s include nail clipping, pole-hogging, door-blocking and one set to debut in 2015 that states “Pole Are For Your Safety, Not Your Latest Routine.” The do’s urge riders to let others off, take off that bulky backpack and offer seats to elderly, disabled or pregnant riders. One urging straphangers to “keep the sound down” on headphones is a welcome addition.
Ultimately, these quality-of-life issues aren’t the most pressing for the MTA. They can help make our rides less tolerable, but they don’t expand the system or guarantee funding for modernization initiatives. Still, it’s telling that these are among the key issues facing the MTA and its riders. We should perhaps always be so lucky. After all, as the ads say, courtesy counts.
If this foul-mouthed can figure this out, the rest of us should too, and it’s far better than being told, as we once were, that courtesy is contagious. I particularly enjoyed the puppets’ “Showtime!” routine at around the 45-second mark.
I’ll have more substantial material over the weekend. As a preview, check out David W. Dunlap’s excellent exploration of everyone’s favorite $4 billion subway station. There’s a lot to unpack in that piece, including a kicker that seems to indicate Santiago Calatrava tried to go back to the Port Authority for even more money when his designs fell short of expectations. As you can imagine, I have lots of thoughts on that piece, and I’ll share them soon.
When it comes to proper subway behavior, I have Very Strong Opinions about things. I’m not a big fan of the “Showtime!” troupes who sweep folks out of the way on crowded subways to perform acrobatic feats that are often more feet than anything else (though I did see a good pole routine on a semi-empty train a few weeks back). I also believe that healthy adults with backpacks should them respectfully at their feet, and riders should generally take up the right amount of space without doing anything too disgusting or personal in public.
So when I heard about a wedding on an N train on Friday, I raised a quizzical eyebrow. Maybe it’s because I’m amidst planning my own wedding (or at least my fiancée is), but I find myself unable to grow too skeptical of a wedding. And as far as minimizing impact to other riders, this one was perfect. The bridge and groom were married on a Manhattan-bound N train at 3:30 p.m. on Friday afternoon of Thanksgiving Day weekend. The bride boarded the train at 36th St., and they performed the ceremony while crossing the Manhattan Bridge. That’s a low-traffic time on a low-traffic route.
The groom summed up this zany idea. “We’ve been through a lot. Good times, bad times, and a lot of the good times have taken place on the train,” Hector Irakliotis said. “Confessions of love, reconciliations, goofy, ridiculous conversations — the whole spectrum. In New York, you spend so much time on the train, we thought why not?”
As Gawker noted, it’s exceedingly easy to answer Irakliotis’ rhetorical question, but the bride’s reason is enough to melt anyone’s heart. “I’m originally from Ukraine, and each time we’d come back here, I’d say to Hector, ‘It doesn’t feel like home until I see the skyline as we’re crossing the bridge.’ And he remembered that. He planned it out specifically so that we’d see the skyline as we were married,” Tatyana Sandler said. Hopefully, we won’t be flooded with copy cats, but as many of my Twitter followers noted, a beaming bridge is far more preferable to a flying foot landing on a straphanger’s nose.
I’m traveling for business this week and will check in when I can. I don’t anticipate any breaking news but, with the subways, you never know.
A fundamental question that isn’t often considered about New York City’s transit network concerns the adequacy of current service. Is a transit network that is essentially the same as it was in 1970 sufficient for New York City in 2014? Even if we flip ahead to 2020 when the 7 line extension, presumably, will be open, and the first phase of the Second Ave. Subway, presumably, will be open, not all that much will have changed over the past 50 years. Other than the advent of the MetroCard, improvements have been around the margins.
Very few things that are so integral to our everyday lives last five decades without change. Now, we can’t overlook new rolling stock and around $70 billion of investment in the region’s transit network, but we also can’t grow complacent. Complacency — or outright complaint — has led to where we are now. The MTA is reviled, and worse, the MTA’s forward progress seems to involve hauling a two-ton rock up a steep hill.
Nothing proves this point quite like the MTA’s Reinvention Commission report. I spoke earlier this week on my disappointment with the commission, and on Tuesday — two days before Thanksgiving — at 5:30 p.m. in a blatantly obvious attempt to bury a much-anticipated report that wound up saying very little, the MTA released the final draft. From the image on the cover of the sun setting on New York City to the fact that the report skirts the very issues that are fundamental to reinvention, the thing was designed to be good P.R. that’s ultimately ignored.
Over at Pedestrian Observations, Alon Levy has printed his very thorough examination of just why this report is so underwhelming. You should read his piece; there’s no reason for me to rehash his (or my) arguments. Instead, I want to look at three ways in which the MTA must be reinvented. I don’t the answers as to how — that’s a question above my current pay grade. But these are issues that have to be addressed for NYC to grow, and shockingly, it’s not all about a steady revenue stream.
1. The cost is too damn high. It’s been repeated everywhere for years, but the MTA’s construction costs are too high. For the amount of money they’ve spent on rather piddling subway extension north on 2nd Ave. or west to Hudson Yards, other countries build massive systems. The MTA’s construction costs are up to ten times higher than they should be. Why? Don’t ask the Reinvention Commission; they’re content with urging the MTA simply to “get the right work done faster and cheaper.”
2. Challenge the GCA … and the unions. A committee brought together by a politician isn’t about to go after two of the stronger interest groups in politics, but two of the main drivers behind the MTA’s high costs are contractors and labor. Someone with political capital will have to go after these two groups in order for the MTA to drive down its costs. Cuomo could have done that four years ago, but those were two interests that helped him gain office in the first place.
3. It all takes too long. Ask the MTA how long until we get countdown clocks at B Division stations, and the answer is, as it has been since 2011 or 2012, “three to five years.” Ask the MTA about a MetroCard replacement and the answer is still unclear. Figure out why it’s going to take over eight long years to build 2.5 miles of subway tunnel and three new stations along Second Ave., and you could win some sort of award. It’s been nearly 11 years since the MTA issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Second Ave. Subway. Does that mean what we plan today won’t see the light of day until 2025? Considering that we as a city are barely planning anything, that’s not a good sign.
Start there; reinvent something. Otherwise, nothing will change.
Earlier this year, in an attempt to save face on his lack of transportation policy, Gov. Andrew Cuomo appointed a who’s who of global transit experts to the so-called MTA Reinvention Commission, and then, nothing happened. The commission met a few times, but the meetings were underwhelming. Then as Election Day came and went, nothing arrived from the panel. It seemed as though Cuomo didn’t want the report to discuss MTA financing ahead of Election Day.
Now, though, the report — or at least an early draft of it — is out, and well, it’s boring. Dana Rubinstein got her hands on it, and you can read the thing at Capital New York (PDF links: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3). Here’s Rubinstein’s take:
The resulting report suggests that the M.T.A. continue to do some things it’s already doing (make its subways more resilient in cases of flooding, partner with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to improve access to the region’s airports), and some things it’s not…If the commission’s prescriptions occasionally border on underwhelming—it recommends, for example, that the M.T.A. remove the word “bus” from Select Bus Service to distinguish it from its less-sexy bus counterparts—the report’s description of purpose is strongly worded…
The M.T.A. underpins a New York metropolitan region that “accounts for 60 percent of the population of the state and 80 percent of its tax base, and contributes nearly 10 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product,” the report says.
“Yet despite the value of the system that enables this success, even a cursory glance at peer regions around the world makes it clear that New York is significantly under-investing in its public transportation infrastructure,” it says. “The past is not prologue to the future: if New Yorkers want to continue to live in a world class region they must envision and develop a world class transit system.”
What’s Select Bus Service without the bus? Select Service? That makes no sense to anyone unfamiliar with the transit network, but I digress.
As Rubinstein notes, and as the report clearly details, the commission wants the MTA to continue its capital expansion plans, respond to the challenges of climate change, develop a next-gen fare payment system, build real BRT and, uh, do something about funding. What that something is what the commission punted on, and therein lies the problem.
Reinventing the MTA means answering very hard questions about funding schemes, transportation equity and who’s paying for and using what mode and how. It’s also about pushing politicians to take ownership over the MTA — which is a creation of the state — and it’s about building support for transit from all constituents who use it and their elected representatives. Sometimes that may mean angering smaller, more vocal constituent blocks to deliver something more beneficial to many. That’s just the reality of it.
Here, we have a commission of big names running away from the problem. It’s not clear, and probably never will be, if someone above them torpedoed the politically challenging aspects of transit support, but what we have, unsurprisingly, is a commission tasked with someone grand and delivering an obvious message on a small scale. It’s a reinvention commission that itself needs reinventing.