Gov. Cuomo praised the MTA's new three-door articulated buses for their "European flair" and "Ferrari-like" design. The New Flyer-produced vehicles will hit city streets beginning next month.

Will technology-enabled buses or simply more frequent bus service attract more riders?

There is something so glaringly obvious about proclaiming frequent service as the main driver behind transit ridership growth that we often tend to overlook it when discussing adding riders. Yet, every now and then, it’s worth remembering the basic maxim of transit planning: Above all else, frequent, reliable service is the key driver behind good and popular transit networks.

Recently, it seems, the MTA has forgotten this truth. Despite massive growth in ridership, service increases have been incremental with, thanks to TWU work and shift selection rules, long lead times before the MTA can institute shorter headways. In return, the MTA has turned toward gimmicks to, as officials claim, attempt to attract Millennials to transit (even though Millennials are already major transit users). We’ve seen the MTA to discuss USB- and wifi-enabled buses, and we’ve heard MTA CEO and Chairman claim a long wait for a train is more tolerable so long as the station has cell service. As I said in March, this is lipstick on a pig.

Meanwhile, recently, in Boston, the MBTA had to scale back certain plans for the extension of the Green Line, a costly plan that involves no tunneling but with a scope that grew out of control. To regain control of a project out of budget, the MBTA cut ostentatious station designs with reduced footprints for headhouses and fewer escalators and elevators. These stops won’t be grand designs, but they’ll be functional with constant service. That, Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic recently wrote is what counts, and it’s worth looking at Freemark’s framing:

Given how reliant the people of New York City are on their Subway, an outsider just looking at ridership data might conclude that the system must be paved with gold, or at least its stations must be decent to look at. After all, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that the comfort of a transit system plays an essential role in encouraging people to abandon their cars and get on the train or bus. That’s why, some would argue, it’s so important to put amenities like USB charging and wifi into transit vehicles.

Yet anyone who has ever ridden the subway knows first hand that its success has nothing to do with aesthetics or access to luxury amenities. Stations are hardly in good shape, trains are packed, and cell service is spotty at best. People ride the subway in spite of these things; they ride it because it’s fast, it’s frequent, and it’s (relatively) reliable.

Too often, this simple fact is ignored by public agencies actually making decisions about how to invest. New York’s own $4 billion World Trade Center Transportation Hub—perhaps the world’s single-most expensive station—is evidence of that; rather than improve service frequency or speed, officials chose to direct public funds to a white monument that does nothing to actually ease the lives of daily commuters.

So be wary when Gov. Cuomo starts touting technology as the solution to the MTA’s woes. No amount of wifi-enabled stations, USB charging points or video screens will eliminate the fact that the MTA should be running more service and building out capacity. More frequent service is what makes transit appealing, and everything else is just a distraction from the real drivers of a better transportation network. We shouldn’t lose sight of that in an era in which the political discussion is dominated by technology rather than by service levels.

Comments (21)

Despite an ongoing MTA etiquette ad campaign, recent observers spotted an increase in manspreading.

As the subways grow more crowded, the way we take up space has garnered more attention. No one should care how we spread out, sit, or stand on a subway car that’s mostly empty, but when every square foot is precious, straphangers who take more than their allotted space come under the microscope. “Manspreading” was seemingly the 2015 word of the year in New York City as the unfortunate tendency of some riders to reserve space and take up multiple seats by spreading their legs became the Internet’s cause du jour. And now a Hunter College professor has taken a closer, observational look at subway etiquette.

The report — available here as a pdf — used observations across a variety of subway lines in both the fall of 2015 and the spring of 2016 to identify certain etiquette trends. Observers found manspreading to be a steady issue while door-blocking was more prevalent. Pole-hugging, another etiquette violation, wasn’t nearly as widespread, and riders eating made up only around 1/2 of 1 percent of subway passengers.

I found the passages on manspreading to be instructive. In the fall studies, observers found that 8.5 percent of seated male riders engaged on some form of manspreading, but this figure dipped to just 2.9 percent on crowded cars. “This finding suggests that manspreading is not a biologically-based phenomenon due to the body dimensions of males as some have argued,” they wrote. “Rather, its occurrence appears to be situational and depends upon the population density of the riders in the car.” In the spring, these totals jumped to 14.4 and 9.6 percent of riders, but the Hunter professors attribute this, in part, to a renewed focus on manspreading during the spring observations.

Interestingly, though, the Hunter observers spotted a problem the MTA has recently identified as a cause for delay. The study calls the phenomenon “disorderly exits,” and we know it more commonly as door-blockers. Riders will not get out of the way of open doors as straphangers attempt to enter and exit subway cars or those entering will board before everyone exiting has alit. Thus, passengers have to queue up to funnel through a confined space, and train dwell times at stations (and thus delays) are increased. In crowded cars, disorderly exits were observed during over 30 percent of peak rides this past spring.

The MTA has started an aggressive campaign of public address announcements aimed at reducing delays due to crowds, and I’ve worried this comes across as victim-blaming. Since the agency isn’t or can’t run enough trains to meet demands, they’ve taken to lecturing riders for delays that are kinda, sorta beyond the riders’ collective control. The Hunter study though suggests that perhaps riders on both sides of the doors are to blame for these delays. Some people can’t wait to run unto a train while refuses to clear the doors at busy stations. Delays mount one way or another.

It’s tough to draw sweeping conclusions from an observational study, but the authors offer up a few words of advice. They note, interestingly, that females are less likely to enter a subway car that’s relatively empty, and they have some words of wisdom on boarding. “If the subways are to run more efficiently and attenuate the frustrations of riders due to delayed trains,” they write, “then one priority should be to focus on reducing the incidence of disorderly exits.” Easier said than done, eh?

Comments (29)

A Saturday evening, Manhattan-bound Q train had no empty seats to spare. (Photo: Benjamin Kabak)

While working on a somewhat related piece tonight, I started collecting a series of numbers regarding the last few decades’ worth of subway ridership that I wanted to share. These numbers tell a story of a city that’s growing and a transit agency that’s going to struggle to keep up. They tell the story of planners potentially caught off guard and economics and construction timelines that are impossible to sustain. The numbers leave many questions up in the air, and I’m not quite sure what the next few decades will bring.

Let’s start in September of 1996. Right before MetroCard discounts were announced, the average daily subway ridership was 3.684 million. Four years later, in September of 2000, daily subway ridership hit 4.745 million. Last October, average daily subway ridership reached 5.974 million. So in the span of 20 years, the MTA saw, on average, 2.3 million more entries per day or an increase of nearly 66 percent. That is, simply put, remarkable growth. On an annual basis, in 1992, overall ridership was below 1 billion; in 2015, that total topped 1.762 billion.

On the other hand, in the intervening twenty years, the MTA has opened a new station, and that new station has been open only since September. The agency is currently constructing three more with the first substantial addition to the subway map in a generation set to open within the next seven months (give or take a few), but this seems like a woefully inadequate response to a system that would have felt downright empty in the early 1990s as compared with our packed trains at most hours of the day.

This is, in a nutshell, the capacity crisis that has gained recent headlines. As I wrote last week, there are few immediate solutions and most transportation proposals seem to be bespoke ones driven by outside interests. The Brooklyn-Queens Streetcar, for instance, is going to do diddly-squat to help a Bronx commuter find a few square inches of space or a Q train rider at 7th Ave. fit into a Manhattan-bound subway at 8:30 a.m. Bike share solves some of the city’s last-mile problems, and despite my annoyance with the attention on ferries, they can help around the margins. But when a good year for the ferry system means 1.2 million riders over the course of 365 days (or 20 percent of today’s total subway ridership), we’re really comparing apples to oranges.

Today, we’re living with the consequences of both deferred maintenance and a lack of foresight. At some point in the 1930s, for a variety of historical and economic reasons, New York City simply stopped expanding its subway, and a few decades later, the city stopped investing in regular upkeep. Thus, when the state took over, it had a backlog of maintenance and no money for expansion. Today, the subway still needs money for maintenance, but the MTA can’t expand fast enough or cost-effectively enough to meet demand. (In 2007, when the Second Ave. Subway broke ground, annual ridership was 1.56 billion — over 200 million less than it is now.)

So what happens? I’ve been beating the drum for open gangways for a long time, and it’s a solution the MTA needs to explore and adopt as soon as possible. It’s also imperative to find a way to build faster and cheaper. Many options are simply fingers in the dike of a flood of riders, and without a commitment to a high-volume, cost-effective expansion effort, the subways are going to be this crowded for decades to come. And what happens if ridership growth continues on its upward trajectory? That may just be a question without an obvious answer.

Comments (104)

Spend your weekend pondering the short-term fate of the L train or perusing some immediate solutions to the city’s transit capacity crisis. Else, you could check out a plan to provide discount transit fares to low-income New Yorkers. Or prepare for your weekend travel. The service advisories follow. As always, they come from the MTA and are subject to change without warning.

From 11:30 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 5:00 a.m. Sunday, May 8, 1 service is suspended in both directions between 137 St and Wakefield-242 St. Take ac trains, M3, M100, and free shuttle buses. For service between 137 St and 168 St, use free shuttle buses or the a at nearby c stations. Transfer between buses and a trains at 207 St. For service between 168 St and 191 St, use M3 or free shuttle buses, or use the a at nearby stations. For service between 207 St and Wakefield-242 St, take free shuttle buses. For Dyckman St, use M100 bus (free shuttle buses overnight) to/from the Dyckman St a station.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 7:30 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Woodlawn-bound 4 trains run express from Grand Central-42 St to 125 St.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 7:30 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Woodlawn-bound 4 trains skip Astor Pl.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6 to 7:30 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, 5 trains are suspended in both directions between Eastchester-Dyre Av and E 180 St. Free shuttle buses operate all weekend between Eastchester-Dyre Av and E 180 St, stopping at Baychester Av, Gun Hill Rd, Pelham Pkwy, and Morris Park. Transfer between trains and free shuttle buses at E 180 St.

From 7:45 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Sunday, May 8, 5 trains are suspended in both directions between E 180 St and 149 St-Grand Concourse. 5 service operates every 20 minutes between Bowling Green and 149 St-Grand Concourse. For service between E 180 St and 149 St-Grand Concourse, take the 2. Transfer between 2 and 5 trains at 149 St-Grand Concourse. As a reminder, 5 trains from Manhattan skip 138 St-Grand Concourse. Transfer to the 4 at 125 St.

From 3:30 a.m. Saturday, May 7 to 10:00 p.m. Sunday, May 8, 6 trains are suspended in both directions between Pelham Bay Park and Parkchester. Free shuttle buses operate between Parkchester and Pelham Bay Park, stopping at Castle Hill Av, Zerega Av, Westchester Sq, Middletown Rd, and Buhre Av. Transfer between 6 trains and free shuttle buses at Parkchester.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Bronx-bound 6 trains run express from Grand Central-42 St to 125 St.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Bronx-bound 6 trains skip Astor Pl.

From 3:45 a.m. Saturday, May 7 to 10:00 p.m. Sunday, May 8, 34 St-Hudson Yards bound 7 trains run express between 74 St-Broadway and Queensboro Plaza.

From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, May 7, to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, A trains run local between 125 St and 168 St.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Inwood-207 St bound A trains run express from Canal St to 59 St-Columbus Circle.

From 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday, May 7, and Sunday, May 8, C trains are suspended in both directions between 145 St and 168 St. Take the a instead.

From 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday, May 7, and Sunday, May 8, 168 St-bound C trains run express from Canal St to 59 St-Columbus Circle.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Norwood-205 St bound D trains run express from 36 St to Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr.

From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, May 7 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, D trains stop at 135 St in both directions.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6 to 7:00 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, World Trade Center-bound E trains run express from 71 Av to Queens Plaza.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, World Trade Center-bound E trains skip Briarwood and 75 Av.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer bound E trains skip Spring St and 23 St.

From 11:30 p.m. Friday, May 6 to 4:30 a.m. Monday, May 9, F trains are suspended in both directions between Coney Island-Stillwell Av and Church Av. Free shuttle buses make all station stops between Coney Island-Stillwell Av and Church Av. Consider using the D, N or Q between Coney Island-Stillwell Av and Downtown Brooklyn or Manhattan.

From 11:30 p.m. Friday, May 6 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer bound F trains run express from 4 Av-9 Sts to Jay St-MetroTech.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer bound F trains skip 14 St and 23 St.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Church Av-bound F trains skip Sutphin Blvd, Briarwood and 75 Av.

From 11:15 p.m. Friday, May 6 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, G trains are suspended in both directions between Church Av and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. A and F trains provide alternate service.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Manhattan-bound N trains run express from 59 St to Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Brooklyn-bound N trains skip 49 St.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, Brooklyn-bound Q trains skip 49 St.

From 6:30 a.m. to 12 Midnight, Saturday and Sunday, May 7 and May 8, Manhattan-bound R trains run express from 71 Av to Queens Plaza.

From 6:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, May 7 and May 8, Manhattan-bound R trains run express from 59 St to Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr.

From 11:45 p.m. Friday, May 6, to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, May 8, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, May 8 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, R trains are suspended in both directions between 59 St and 36 St. Take the N instead.

From 6:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, May 7 and May 8, Downtown R trains skip 49 St.

Categories : Service Advisories
Comments (2)
The MTA has published two proposed plans for the L train shutdown.

The MTA has published two proposed plans for the L train shutdown.

One new to New York could be forgiven for believing as though L train riders are the only people to ride the subway or be inconvenienced by long-term construction work. For six months, the entirety of the focus of news coverage of the MTA’s Sandy recovery efforts has revolved around the L train, and while L train shutdown fatigue may be settling in three years ahead of the planned work, with so many daily riders, ahead of tonight’s public meeting, the drumbeat will only grow louder as the MTA has unveiled their potential options for the work.

Before I delve into the details, it’s worth noting that, no matter the MTA’s ultimate outcome, many L train riders have easy access to alternative routes. Every one traveling near or to the east of Broadway Junction can access the J, A and C trains (or even the 3 train), and those who live in Bushwick and the southern parts of Williamsburg can get to the M. The G, with all of its flaws, provides a connection to Queens, and the MTA has expressed a willingness to improve G train service and lengthen G trains during any L train work. Other routes will be more crowded and trips will be slower, but along with a bus lane across the Williamsburg Bridge, the infrastructure is in place to handle the L train shutdown. In other words, it’s not nearly as bad as the dire predictions of doom and gloom make it out to be.

The duct banks that line the Canarsie Tube will have to be rebuilt entirely.

The duct banks that line the Canarsie Tube will have to be rebuilt entirely.

That said, it’s not pretty. By itself, the L would be the 10th busiest subway system in the United States, and a prolonged shutdown will lead to disgruntled commuters. To that end, the MTA is officially consider two options. Gone is the idea, pushed foolishly by Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, of work only on nights and weekends. Besides a potential seven-year timeframe under that approach, MTA officials determined that, per The Times, the “complex work could not be done in such a narrow window.” WNYC notes that air quality concerns foreclose the nights-and-weekends approach. The MTA also has said that building a new tunnel is too costly and time-consuming to be a viable option.

So what remains is either an 18-month total shutdown of the Canarise Tunnel or a three-year partial shutdown which would see service reduced to around 20 percent of its current volume. In each case, the MTA would run L trains between Rockaway Parkway and Lorimer Ave., but the three-year plan would create a gap in service between Lorimer and Bedford Avenues. Meanwhile, J and Z trains would operate as local and M train service would be increased. The agency would lengthening G trains to bolster capacity, and the MTA plans to work with the city to increase East River ferry service. The MTA has also expressed a willingness to establish bus-only lanes across the Williamsburg Bridge which I have long believed to be key to an alternative service arrangements. In the event of a partial tunnel shutdown, L trains would continue to run under the East River but only approximately 4-5 times per hour in each direction.

The top map shows the effects of a three-year one-tube closure, and the bottom shows alternate routes for an 18-month shutdown. (Click to enlarge)

The top map shows the effects of a three-year one-tube closure, and the bottom shows alternate routes for an 18-month shutdown. (Click to enlarge)

Publicly, the agency hasn’t expressed a strong preference for one approach or another, and officials say they want to hear out the concerns of the community of L train riders before making a final decision. But in comments to the press, MTA CEO and Chairman Tom Prendergast seemed to indicate which way the winds are blowing. Emma Fitzsimmons reports:

After receiving input from residents and businesses, the agency plans to decide which option to pursue within three months. Asked whether he would rather close the whole tunnel at once, Mr. Prendergast said the agency was committed to hearing from the community before making a decision. But he noted that when people learned more about the plans, they often favored a full closing.

“I think there is an ‘Aha’ moment they have in their minds, like, ‘Geez if it’s only one in five people you can carry, maybe it would be better to have two tracks,’” Mr. Prendergast said in reference to closing the tracks in both tubes, the more efficient of the two options.

I’ve advocated for 18-month total shutdown. Get in and get out quickly seems to be better for the neighborhood that three years of frustratingly insufficient service.

Meanwhile, along with word of the potential approaches to the closure, the MTA released photos and a B-roll video of current conditions in the Canarsie Tube. You can see the footage below, and the MTA stressed that the tunnel remains safe. That said, despite protestations that trains will have run for six years before work begins, the MTA says it has no choice. “A collapsed duct bank could derail a train, and the worst place to be with a derailed train is in an under-river tunnel,” Prendergast said to reporters. “The longest distance between emergency exits is in the under-river tunnels.” That is, of course, the worst case scenario but one that inches ever closer to reality.

Finally, MTA officials confirmed that the shutdown would allow for new entrances to be constructed at both the Bedford and 1st Ave. stations to improve station access and passenger flow. The agency has not discussed the possibility of using a full 18-month shutdown to build tail tracks west of the 8th Ave. station, a move many transit advocates see as vital to improving L train service and line capacity.

The fun starts tonight with the first of two public meetings. Details are here, and I would expect a raucous and irate crowd. But the L train is just one part in a complex transportation network. Everyone will get through it. Read More→

Categories : Superstorm Sandy
Comments (99)
Gondolas, now a thing. (Photo via East River Skyway)

Can we not with this again?

I have a few more thoughts rattling around my head on the heels of yesterday’s exploration of crowded subway conditions. In particular, it’s worth discussing briefly a few other ideas around the margins of New York City’s transit capacity issues and whether or not these ideas solve, exacerbate or simply skirt the problem. So let’s discuss three proposals that won’t address the capacity crunch and one that will.

1. Gondolas East River Skyway. Remember that ridiculous gondola plan from late 2014 in which a real estate executive proposed an East River gondola system connecting Williamsburg with the Lower East Side? Thanks to the looming L train shutdown and DNA Info’s willingness to respond to a pitch email, it’s back in the news. Dan Levy wants to spend $135 million of private money to construct two stops in Williamsburg and one near Delancey St. He claims by running 40-person cars every 30 seconds, he could shuttle 200,000 people over the East River during the L train shutdown, but the math doesn’t work. The vast majority of subway ridership arises during peak hours, and even if Levy’s plan can be achieved, the most the gondolas could in an hour is 4800 passengers, a far cry from peak hour L train ridership. Plus, gondolas simply dump passengers into the subway at another point down the line, and thus, capacity problems are not resolved.

2. Ferries. I have lots of thoughts on ferries and none particularly positive. The mayor is sinking a lot of money and time into his five-borough ferry system (air pollution concerns be damned), but its returns will be marginal. It’s great for people who live and work near the water and don’t mind paying an additional fare for another mode of transit. It may won’t be totally useless, but it’s not a panacea. For $180 million, the city could do more to help improve freedom of movement for many more.

3. Brooklyn-Queens Streetcar. Does this take people from where they are to where they want to be? Not really, if you drill down on the plan. Plus, a large percentage of riders will be looking to transfer to the subway anyway, thus adding riders or simply shifting them around. Again, for $2.5 billion, I would expect more.

So what’s the solution that could be implemented quickly and at a reasonable cost? It’s all about that bus.

By investing in better bus routing and better bus infrastructure (including a massive rollout of pre-board fare payment, dedicated lanes and signal prioritization), the city could bolster a means of transportation that can add capacity to the core network and get people from where they are to where they want to be. Despite campaign assurances, de Blasio has dragged his feet on expanding Select Bus Service, and while buses have a reputation as an underclass means of mobility, a robust network can help move everyone. Buses will, by necessity, be a big key to moving people during the L train shutdown, but turning a pair of Manhattan avenues into dedicated bus-only lanes should happen sooner rather than later. Restructuring routes to include more cross-borough options would be a big help as well. Yet, buses seem to get the short shrift in conversations concerning capacity. That attitude should change.

As a postscript, I would note that bikes too can help, but I see this as a scale issue. You would need far more robust bike infrastructure from lanes to parking to alleviate capacity concerns. A few hundred people biking won’t make the subways emptier.

Comments (54)
Open gangways are a standard way to increase capacity without running more trains. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

Open gangways are a standard way to increase capacity without running more trains. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

To say the subways are crowded these days is to state the obvious. Average weekday ridership hit 5,650,610 last year, up by 9.5 percent since 2010, and despite constant service changes and complicated re-routes, combined weekend ridership is up by nearly 11 percent over the same time period. As daily rides where we all stand shoved against people and doors and poles trying to find some amount of space attest, the trains are bursting at the seams.

In today’s Times, Emma Fitzsimmons explores the overcrowded subway system. Her focus is generally on safety concerns, and although the overcrowding is a symptom of larger funding issues and lack of general support for transit investment, we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss safety concerns. After all, even if people aren’t falling off subway platforms, if riders feel unsafe, it will affect how they view and use the transit system. Thus, at key choke points — on the Lexington Ave. line, narrow platforms at Bleecker St. and Union Square and an overall lack of space at Grand Central come to mind, people worry about safety whether or not reality reflects those fears. (The numbers do not show any uptick in crowd-related injuries.)

In terms of solutions, Fitzsimmons offers up a glimpse at an agency struggling for more space:

But the subway infrastructure has not kept pace [with increasing ridership], and that has left the system with a litany of needs, many of them essential to maintaining current service or accommodating the increased ridership. The authority’s board recently approved $14.2 billion for the subways as part of a $29.5 billion, five-year capital spending plan.

On the busiest lines, like the 7, L and Q, officials say the agency is already running as many trains as it can during the morning rush. Crowds are appearing on nights and weekends, too, and the authority is adding more trains at those times. The long-awaited opening of the Second Avenue subway on the Upper East Side this year will ease congestion on the Lexington Avenue line. Installing a modern signal system, which would allow more trains to run, is many years away for most lines.

When the MTA’s timelines are put forward in terms of “years” and “decades” and even something as simple as a 2-mile subway extension takes 10 years to build, relief is not exactly on the horizon. Yet, from where I sit, there are at least three steps the MTA should take immediately to address capacity concerns.

1. Open Gangways. One of the biggest missed opportunities of the last 15 years involves the MTA’s rolling stock designs. Since 2000, the MTA has seen nearly 4000 new subway cars enter service, and none of them were designed with open gangways, a feature standard in subway rolling stock throughout the world. As I wrote last year, open gangways can lead to a 10 percent increase in capacity without adding a single extra trainset, and while the MTA in 2013 acknowledged the need for articulated trains, the upcoming R211 order includes just one ten-car prototype. It’s not clear if the MTA has the option to add more open gangway trainsets to the R211 order, but not doing so would be a costly mistake for decades to come. This generation of rolling stock is likely to be in service until the late 2060s or early 2070s, and missing the opportunity to expand capacity now will burn us for generations to come.

2. Speed up CBTC installation. This is of course easier said that done, but recent reports have shown how it will take the MTA decades to fully modernize the signal system. CBTC would allow for modest increases in capacity, and prioritizing these efforts — whether through full line shutdowns over concentrated periods of time or other initiatives — should be an agency priority.

3. Just run more trains. As Fitzsimmons detailed, the MTA says it can’t run more trains on perennially crowded lines. For some, that’s due to routing choices — the Q is chock full of choke-points — and for others, such as the L, terminal capacity constraints come into play. Part of the MTA’s capital plan should involve expanding capacity through investments such as tail tracks at 8th Ave. and other minor upgrades that can net big results. For lines that aren’t maxed out, the MTA should just run more trains. But there’s a catch: An aggressive rolling stock retirement plan and a delayed Bombardier order has left the agency tight on available trainsets. Thus, just running more trains, in the short term, isn’t a practical solution even if it is the more obvious answer. Meanwhile, trains are operating at slower speeds, especially along crowded routes, and that too limits the agency’s ability to run more trains and clear out crowds.

Where we go from here isn’t particularly clear. You’re not in danger of falling into the tracks due to crowded platforms, and the MTA doesn’t need to resort to temporary platform closures as London does or subway pushers as Tokyo does. But relief isn’t exactly around the corner. Crowded commutes with packed cars running later into the evening and earlier in the morning are just a way of life until the MTA has the funds available to engage in an aggressive push to increase capacity. For now, though, we ride as we always do: crammed into a subway car, hoping for the best.

Comments (85)

Whenever the MTA raises fares — a biennial occurrence for the foreseeable future these days — the price increases if often called a regressive tax. While the fare hikes are generally applied across the board, these increases have a larger negative impact on those from lower economic classes as it takes out a larger percentage of their incomes. If public transit is supposed to equalize the way we New Yorkers get around the city and access job centers, schools and everything else the city has to offer, constant fare hikes should, at a certain level, be a policy concern.

Lately, as the MTA has been forced to balance its budget on the backs of its riders (rather than, say, through some sort of congestion pricing or tolling plan), anti-poverty advocates have focused on transit fares as a point of concern. A few weeks ago, the Community Service Society of New York in conjunction with the Riders Alliance released a report [pdf] with some sobering numbers. Approximately 1 in 4 New Yorkers simply cannot afford to pay transit fares and thus are very limited in their potential job searches. Meanwhile, low-income New Yorkers who are more heavily reliant on transit than their richer neighbors spend a disproportionately higher percentage of their incomes on transit.

The study traces how certain transit benefits programs aren’t set up properly. While the MTA’s fare structure is set up to reward frequent travelers, only 18 percent of low-income riders are buying 30-day Metrocards, mostly because they cannot afford the initial outlay of $116.50. So they end up paying more over the course of the month — either through weekly purchases of the 7-day card (which adds up to a pro-rated $132.86 over 30 days) or through pay-per-ride cards. Additionally, tax breaks for transit usage often do not reach low-income riders. Here’s how the report puts it:

While the tax deduction for monthly MetroCard passes can save higher-income New York City families over $600 per year, the deduction is worth less to lower-income families who face lower tax rates. In fact, some families with lower earnings who are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) would actually be worse off if they were to enroll in commuter benefits.

The pre-tax commuter parking benefit also yields higher tax savings to relatively more affluent suburban commuters who claim both the transit and parking allowance (e.g., those who drive to a commuter rail station). Most of the neediest commuters, however, do not own cars and benefit from the parking deduction; they are also more likely to live in New York City and rely on the MTA, allowing them to claim less than half of the $255 transit allowance for monthly MetroCard expenses. The pre-tax commuter benefits program offers considerable savings to many middle- and upper-income commuters. The cost to the state of New York of a tax subsidy such as this is the forgone state and city income tax revenues. Between the commuter benefit tax subsidy, half-price MetroCards for the disabled and elderly, and discounted monthly passes that are not affordable to low-income families, substantial public resources are being used to subsidize transit fares without reaching the majority of low-income families.

An estimated 800,000 riders would be eligible for a half-price fare for poor New Yorkers, saving those who opt to participate up to $700 per year.

The solution, the group argues, is a half-fare discount plan, such as those currently available for seniors or students, targeted at poor New Yorkers. The CSS argues that those eligible number around 800,000, and they would save approximately $700 a year in transit costs. The CSS estimates similar eligibility and participation rates as food stamps and believes the program would cost approximately $194 million in lost farebox revenue. It is worth noting as well that other cities, including Seattle, San Francisco and London, have already embraced some form of discount fares for low-income riders.

“Economic mobility and transit affordability go hand in hand. To get to work, pick up your kids from school, go to the doctor, to do almost everything you need to do in New York City to survive requires riding the subway or bus, “ David R. Jones, President and CEO of the Community Service Society, said in a statement. “Yet one-quarter of the city’s working poor often cannot afford bus and subway fare. The MTA should be available to everyone in our city, not just those with credit cards in their pocket who can afford a monthly pass, but to those with a few bucks in their pockets who are struggling to take care of their families and get ahead.”

The supporters of the plan haven’t pitched this is an idea the MTA should drive; it is, after all, something that will have to be made available to transit riders with a corresponding increase in MTA funding to offset the potential lost revenue. But so far, over two-thirds of New Yorkers surveyed have expressed some level of support for low-income fare subsidies. How the city and state could pay for this program is up for debate. The CSS argues for a share of some fare tolling/congestion pricing revenue, but everyone will have their hands in the pot. A surcharge on taxis, including Uber and Lyft rides, is mentioned in the report as are gas tax hikes, a so-called “millionaires” tax or direct budgetary contributions. It certainly warrants a robust public discussion. In our current climate, with lackluster support from transit from both Albany and City Hall, can this become an argument over economic fairness and livability in New York City in 2016? It should be.

Categories : MTA Economics
Comments (55)

Earlier this week, I took a look at how Gov. Andrew Cuomo is exerting his influence over the MTA, a state agency. Over at Mobilizing the Region, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign’s blog, Nadine Lemmon picked up this thread. She writes of the fact that three of the city’s four appointees to the MTA Board haven’t been confirmed even though the Senate has been sitting on their nominations for nearly a year:

[The Senate] finished the session without taking a vote on any of Mayor de Blasio’s picks — David Jones of the Community Service Society of New York, City Council Transportation Chair Ydanis Rodriguez, and Tri-State Transportation Campaign Executive Director Veronica Vanterpool. Now, almost a year later, the city’s representatives are still waiting in limbo.

New York City is supposed to have four of the 17 seats on the MTA board. Today, the city has one active voting member: Polly Trottenberg, the city’s Transportation Commissioner. John Banks and Jeffrey Kay — still technically on the board — are holdovers from the Bloomberg administration. The other seat has been vacant since early 2015 when former Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall quietly resigned from the board after just a few months.

The missing representation is especially problematic when you consider that over 93 percent of the MTA’s ridership is on New York City Transit subways and buses, the MTA Bus Company and Staten Island Railway. The counties served by Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road have as many votes as New York City, but those systems account for less than 7 percent of total ridership. New York City Councilmember Jimmy Van Bramer thinks the city ought to have not only a full four-person slate, but the majority of the MTA’s board seats. Nobody can fault the Senate for wanting to do their “due diligence,” but how can 10 months not be enough time to vet a handful of appointees?

While TSTC has a good point here, there is a bit of a rub: One of the mayor’s MTA appointees may not be eligible to serve. In February, the Daily News reported that Rodriguez, as an elected official to City Council, may have a conflict in serving on the MTA Board. He can’t owe a fiduciary duty to both the MTA and his elected constituents, and it’s not clear if his nomination can go forward. While the fate of Rodriguez’s role on the MTA is up in the air, Cuomo’s people claim they have asked the mayor to re-submit his nominations for the board, but de Blasio hasn’t done so yet. So the MTA is again a pawn in a pointless game between the mayor and the governor in which New Yorkers lose. Take that for what you will.

Meanwhile, we have service advisories to cover this week. Click through for the details. Read More→

Comments (3)

England is looking at reactivating hundreds of miles of deactivated rail lines. (Via Wisbech Rail Reopening Campaign)

A few days ago, an interesting article from The Economist caught my eye. It has a dateline of Wisbech, a small East Anglian town with a population of around 31,000 that’s around 40 miles north of Cambridge and around 100 miles north of London. There’s no real particular reason for anyone not from Wisbech to know Wisbech exists, let alone visit it, but there it is, a quintessential-ish British small town.

What draws our attention to Wisbech is something that isn’t there and hasn’t been since the 1960s. That missing something is passenger rail service. Wisbech has a right-of-way that would connect to Cambridge, but it hasn’t seen service since 1968 when a report by Richard Beeching, head of British Rail, called for a massive reduction in service by approximately one-third. Since then, Wisbech has hit troubled times economically.

But now, there is movement afoot in England to reverse these historical wrongs, and that’s where The Economist comes in. Take a read through this short article. I’ll excerpt the key parts:

Yet Wisbech, like many towns cut off from the rail network, is now expecting great things. In recent years several hundred miles of railways around the country have been restored. As roads clog up and urban house prices climb, commuters, environmentalists and local politicians are pushing for more old lines to be re-opened. Some 200 proposals have been put forward, says Andrew Allen of the Campaign for Better Transport, a lobby group.

It is a remarkable new trend. After the war, many thought that roads would rule and rail would go the way of canals. When Milton Keynes, a new town, was built 55 miles north of London in the 1960s, it was deemed not to need a station. One was at last opened in 1982. In 2015 6.6m journeys started or ended there. Traffic on other restored lines has boomed, too. The track that re-opened in 2015 from Edinburgh to the Borders expected 650,000 journeys in its first year. Half a million were made in the first five months.

The process of re-opening is laborious. Feasibility studies take years. But with rail journeys doubling in the past two decades, Whitehall now realises it may be easier and cheaper to add rail capacity this way than through pharaonic projects such as HS2, a high-speed link north from London, set to cost over £45 billion ($64 billion).

It is the growth of Cambridge, 40 miles to the south and a centre for high-tech, that has provided the impetus for re-connecting Wisbech. A new station is opening at the Cambridge Science Park and it is hoped that the old line to Oxford will be restored by 2024. The Wisbech rail link would halve travel time to 40 minutes. Cambridge has lots of jobs and Wisbech has cheap houses (the average price is around £150,000 compared with £398,000 in Cambridge), with a recent local plan proposing 10,000 more. If the link goes ahead, the government would meet most of the £100m cost.

As The Economist notes, Britain’s rail restoration efforts would roll back under 20 percent of the so-called Beeching Cuts, but it’s a movement that’s gaining grassroots support in small towns such as Wisbech throughout the country. For minimal investments, Britain can increase rail capacity and solve congestion issues that are plaguing the nation.

I can’t help but turn my gaze toward the LIRR’s Rockaway Beach Branch — the so-called QueensRail — or the ever-gestating Triboro RX plan. At a time when subway extensions cost over $1 billion per station and take the better of a decade to go just a few miles, reactivating rights-of-way that are no longer in service can be a cheaper, faster way to better transit, and England is proving a particularly fertile proving ground for this approach.

Over the past few decades — even over the past one decade, it often seems — attitudes to rail and transit have shifted dramatically within New York City. The subways are in fact too crowded, and even a modicum of relief is years, if not decades, away. So our rights of way that aren’t used should be preserved for rail use in the future and considered for rail reactivation now. Giving up them would be a mistake with which future generations of New Yorkers would have to live forever. Isolated areas in Queens shouldn’t turn into our own versions of Wisbech.

Comments (35)
Page 6 of 532« First...45678...Last »