Home Author
Author

Benjamin Kabak

MTA

Disabled riders file suit to overturn service cuts

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 19, 2010

Ten days ago, WNYC’s Alisa Chang reported on the stirrings of legal action from disabled riders who believed they were unfairly impacted by the MTA’s June service cuts. As legal services groups and disabilities rights advocates worked to prepare filings, the WNYC story served to put the MTA on notice of yet another legal challenge to their service cuts plans.

Earlier this week, three disabled riders along with two non-profit organizations — Disabled In Action of Metropolitan New York and The Brooklyn Center for the Independence of the Disabled Inc. — allegedly filed suit in federal court in Brooklyn, formally lodging a complaint against the MTA’s service cuts. The filing, which I cannot find on the Federal PACER and have been unable to get from Legal Services NYC or the two other named legal groups, is said to claim that disabled riders were disparately impacted by the service cuts. The plaintiffs have sued both the MTA and New York City Transit and are requesting a permanent injunction reversing the service cuts and restoring paratransit services.

When I track down the complaint, I’ll post it here. For now, we must rely on the the organization’s press release for details:

The lawsuit challenges city-wide service cuts implemented by the MTA and NYCT beginning on June 27, 2010, cutting eighty-nine bus lines. These service cuts have forced transit passengers either to travel a greater distance to an alternate bus route or to travel by subway rather than by bus. For Plaintiffs, however, both of these options are impossible, thus imposing a greater hardship on people with disabilities than on people without disabilities. And they cannot rely on the City’s already overburdened paratransit system – Access-A-Ride – because rather than ensuring that additional resources are devoted to Access-A-Ride in anticipation of the increase in demand occasioned by the reduction in bus service, the Defendants have instituted or approved significant cuts to the system. There are approximately 138,000 individuals approved for Access-A-Ride and disabled riders made 5.8 million trips on Access-A-Ride in 2008; the June 27th transit cuts are estimated to eliminate 26,000 trips on Access-A-Ride each year…

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit asserts that the Defendants’ actions violate both the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The ADA mandates that public entities may not discriminate against people with disabilities and may not deny them the benefits of services provided to people without disabilities. And the law makes it clear that it is “discrimination” for a public entity which operates a fixed route system to fail to provide paratransit services that are “comparable to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities using such system.” This includes response time, which also must be comparable, to the extent practicable, to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities. 42 U.S.C. section 12143(a) (2). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against a protected class by any program which receives federal assistance.

Without reading the pleadings, I can’t assess the plaintiff’s chances of success, but considering the contours of the ADA and New York City Transit-specific provisions, it will be tough for them to secure a permanent injunction that reverses the entire slate of service cuts.

Still, that won’t stop the lawyers from arguing the case. Jane Greengold Stevens from the New York Legal Assistance Group claims that the MTA must beef up its Access-a-Ride options if the cuts are not restored. “If the bus lines or even some of the bus lines are not restored,” Stevens said, “then they’re going to need to not only rescind the cuts to Access-A-Ride, but also actually augment it in order to meet the need created by the elimination of the buses.”

Even the borough’s politicians — the same ones who won’t provide money for the MTA to offer what they feel are adequate services for disabled riders — are getting in on the act. Councilwoman Letitia James hosted a rally in support of the lawsuit, and Brooklyn borough president Marty Markowitz voiced his beliefs. “Some of these routes may not be the most heavily used,” he said, “but they are absolute lifelines for riders with disabilities or who are elderly. There is simply no reasonable way for people with mobility and accessibility issues who cannot take the subway—especially considering many stations are not ADA-compliant—to get around with cuts to these vital bus routes and Access-A-Ride.”

As sympathetic as I am to the plight of the city’s disabled riders, this is not a lawsuit that will be easy to win.

13 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
TWU

A TWU postcard takes aim at Walder, again

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 18, 2010

As the MTA continues to look for ways to cut costs, the Transport Workers Union Local 100 is continuing to take jabs at MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder. As The Daily News’ Helen Kennedy reports today, the union will be distributing the above postcard later this week to mock for Walder for daring to go on vacation to his house in France after eliminating a few thousand jobs.

The postcard features a message on the back: “Heard the weather’s real hot and humid back in New York and that you’re packed in like sardines on the trains and buses because of all the service cuts. I’ll be back in plenty of time to push through the fare hikes.”

Union leaders responsible for this card, including TWU President John Samuelsen who, like Walder, makes a six-figure salary, want to whip up rider anger at Walder over the cuts. “Jay Walder is completely out of touch with average, everyday working New Yorkers who don’t have country houses – or the unmitigated gall to take a three-week vacation in the south of France in the midst of drastic cuts,” he said to Kennedy. “I personally believe that transit riders are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that their mass transit has been hijacked by millionaires.” Pick your poison: hijacked by millionaires or hijacked by labor.

I understand what the TWU is hoping to do with this card. They want to somehow suggest that Walder’s salary is the root of all evil and that the house he and his family purchased with the money he made while at Transport for London and McKinsey should preclude him from running a transit system. The truth is far more uncomfortable for labor.

Right now, John Samuelsen has failed his constituents. While trying to impinge on the credibility of the MTA chiefs, he has presided over a period of nearly unprecedented job loss for TWU members. Instead of taking the political risky but necessary step of working with transit advocates or with the MTA to secure alternate means of funding for station agents and constant service levels, he has gone for the public ploy of protecting the TWU’s members, and that ploy isn’t getting anyone anywhere.

For now, this battle over nothing will continue to take up headlines and time. It will lead to animosity between parties that should be working together against a state hellbent on transit policies that don’t adhere to common sense. It is, in a word, counterproductive.

I want to support a sensible labor union. I don’t want to see jobs eliminated and the subways less secure or clean. I want to see the TWU use its might for the good of public transit in New York City. That hasn’t happened yet as the TWU leadership seeks to secure its position atop a union still reeling from the 2005 strike. No matter how this battle plays out, the riding public will continue to lose until the two sides can reach a ceasefire and fight together for the better of everyone.

68 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Economics

In the suburbs, an uphill battle to overturn the payroll tax

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 18, 2010

As the summer has dragged on, an MTA payroll tax revolt has slowly developed in the suburban counties that ring New York City. Nassau County has filed a suit to overturn the tax, and the future of the levy has become a campaign issue in some of the far-reaching areas that see only minimal MTA service. Even though Gov. David Paterson shifted the bulk of the tax burden to New York City denizens, these suburban dwellers want their transit service but not the costs associated with it.

In The Wall Street Journal today, Andrew Grossman offers up an overview of the tax revolt. He reports that Suffolk County will file a brief in support of Nassau County’s lawsuit but also stresses how the payroll tax now accounts for $1.3-$1.5 billion of the MTA’s $12 billion budget. Without it, the MTA is sunk. “It was either that or let them raise fares 35 or 40%, cut service dramatically,” Jim LaCarrubba, campaign manager to payroll tax supporter Sen. Brian Foley, said. “To just say you don’t like it and have no solution on how to fix the problems, it’s not being genuine to the public.”

Republican challengers such as Lee Zeldin highlight the flaws in the opposition’s argument. He though claims the MTA could save $1.3 billion simply by cutting administrative costs and raising fares, but a fare hike to cover such a great deficit would be in excess of 25 percent. Other State Senate hopefuls are more willing to consider East River bridge tolls, but most simply want other people to pay for their services. “Out here on the East End of Long Island people rely a lot less on” the LIRR, Zeldin said. “That’s why there’s so much resentment.” The challenges to the payroll tax, as Grossman reports, have very slim chances of legal success.

5 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA TechnologyView from Underground

A long wait with information-less info boards

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 18, 2010

Let me tell you a story about my ride home from Bowling Green on Tuesday night and the MTA’s ability to bring new technology into the fold. The story begins at around 10:30 p.m. when I alighted from the Staten Island ferry and made my way to the 4 train. I was riding a familiar route — from Bowling Green to Nevins St. on the 4 and then from Nevins to Grand Army Plaza on the 2 or 3 — that should take 15-20 minutes. Instead, it took 40.

I didn’t have to wait long at Bowling Green tonight, and after a minute, the 4 arrived. We sped through the Joralemon St. tunnel and left Borough Hall quickly. Right before pulling into Nevins St., though, the train came to a stop, and I saw the red taillights of a 3 pulling into the station on the local tracks. Barring a kind conductor, I knew we’d miss the 3, and as the 4 finally pulled into Nevins St., the 3 was pulling away.

It was 10:43, and I wasn’t happy to miss the 3. I wanted to get home, but I assumed the next local train wouldn’t be far behind. After all, trains run frequently down the 7th Avenue line. When I glanced at the countdown clocks, I knew we were in trouble because the next local train wasn’t due to arrive for 20 minutes.

So I waited, and I stewed. While I understand the culture of on-time performance that pervades the MTA is a strong one, customer service should, as I’ve written before, be a priority. Customer service means that, at 10:45 when no local will be arriving until after 11 p.m., the 3 should be wait an extra 30 seconds for a connecting express train at a popular transfer point.

As I sat for 20 minutes, I had ample opportunity to reflect on how utterly in the dark those of us waiting were. Because Nevins St. is a leak spot for cell service, I could check Twitter but saw no reports of problems along the West Side IRT routes. Instead, six 4 express trains, including the one I was on, passed us in 20 minutes. Transit opted to make none of those trains run local, and we the customers were left sitting on a platform for far longer than we should been.

While I waited, I took note of how utterly devoid of information the brand-new, $171-million Public Address/Customer Information Screens were. Instead of announcing why the trains were delayed or telling us that the first local train to arrive would in fact run express from Atlantic Ave. to Franklin St., the PA/CIS signs were generally stuck on this screen:

As the picture makes clear, nothing about the sign is helpful. On the one hand, there’s a train in the station, but the sign says the next train is two minutes away. On the other, it’s simply scrolling the same rote message about suspicious activity in the subway system that gets rammed down our ears every five minutes. In fact, this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed the PA/CIS system stuck on this message. A few weeks ago, the signs at Grand Army Plaza sufferd from the same fate; it was stuck on the police message and neglected to note that trains were entering, leaving or approaching the station.

When not stuck on the train message, the information given by the boards was simply inaccurate. Take a look at this shot I grabbed as a train pulled into the station:

Unfortunately, for those of us waiting, the 2 train was indeed 17 minutes away, but the next 4 was much closer. In fact, three 4 trains filed by during the 10 minutes seen here. The PA/CIS board last night had nary a clue, and again, this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed these problems. On July 31, the signs at Nevins St. were frozen. The top line read “1. Woodlawn 4 0 min.” while the bottom line said, “System Under Test.” Even as trains entered and left the station, the sign wouldn’t display the correct train information. Sometimes, it would flash to the correct information but would again cycle back to the frozen frame even as a 4 was note zero minutes away.

For now, Transit can and has claimed that the system is still undergoing tests. When I asked a few weeks ago during the July heat wave about countdown clocks that had been turned off, Transit officials told me that the extreme underground heat had them worried about potential damage to equipment. Shutting them down seems to be a makeshift solution at best, and that doesn’t explain away the buggy behavior.

Across the globe, transit systems as old or older than New York City’s have used countdown clocks for decades, but the MTA is still struggling to get its PA/CIS project in order. Still, the customers seem like an afterthought, and tonight, as I waited for a Brooklyn local train and then waited some more and then finally got home 45 minutes after swiping in at Bowling Green, I understood why people don’t think the MTA is truly going their way.

25 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fulton Street

A Transit Center grows at Fulton St.

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 17, 2010

The foundation for the Fulton St. Transit Center as seen from above. (Photo: Peter Kaufman/Ink Lake)

The MTA announced today a milestone at the site of the future Fulton St. Transit Center. Both the underpinning for the Corbin Building and the foundation for the Fulton Street Transit Center are complete, and progress remains on pace for a 2014 opening of the long-awaited complex.

“We have reached a significant milestone by completing the foundation of what will become a landmark transportation facility,” Michael Horodniceanu, president of MTA Capital Construction, said. “Anyone who has had to navigate the myriad of ramps, stairs, and confusing signs at Fulton Street understands the importance of providing our customers with a more seamless experience at this major downtown hub. The Transit Center will improve travel for hundreds of thousands of daily commuters and lower Manhattan residents and visitors while providing a modern and convenient retail location.”

When completed, the $1.4 billion transit center will vastly improve the Lower Manhattan transit experience for over 300,000 daily customers. Both street access and station navigation will be vastly improved, and the upgrades include better circulation and reduced overcrowding for the A/C platform as well as a new underground concourse that will connect the R at Cortlandt St. and the 4/5 at Broadway with the PATH Hub and the World Financial Center. The completed transit center will also feature 25,000 square feet of new retail.

With the foundation complete, the MTA will now began to build up the center itself, and in a few months, the structure will begin to peak above the blue construction fence. In the press release touting this milestone, the MTA praised Skanska, the contractor, for keeping the project on time. Of course, original plans called for the then-$750 million transit center to open in late 2009. “On time,” then, is all relative.

16 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BronxService Cuts

At the Barretto Point Park pool, fewer visitors after the cuts

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 17, 2010

As one of the myriad service cuts implemented by the MTA this service, the decision to cut the Barretto Point Park Pool shuttle for a savings of just $100,000 looms large. The MTA launched this bus in 2008 and ran it for approximately 11-12 weeks every summer, shuttling pool-bound swimmers from the 6 at Hunts Point Ave. to the pool. With no shuttle, the pool attendance has plunged.

In Metro this week, Carly Baldwin explores the numbers. As of August 11, only 22,473 people had visited the pool this year, down from 29,807 last year. Considering the heat we’ve had and the relatively dry summer, a 25-percent drop in attendance is very unexpected. Those who run the pool, however, are pointing fingers at the MTA.

“It’s been almost the hottest July on record. Numbers should be up,” Adam Liebowitz from the Point Community Development Corporation said to Baldwin. “In previous summers you had to wait on line 20, 30 minutes before you could go in. But now I’ve heard the lines are gone. It’s obviously because of the lack of public transportation.”

On the surface, the MTA’s numbers seem to warrant eliminating the shuttle bus. After all, they say, only 120 people took the route during the week and the weekend average was just 340. But over the course of the 73 days the shuttle ran last year, that added up to nearly 14,000 pool-bound travelers. Now, unless these Bronx denizens want to risk a 30-minute walk from the subway or an 11-block walk from the Bx6 through an area known for prostitution, the swimming pool if off limits. Is the $100,000 saved over the summer worth it?

17 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Assembly rep Colton denies MTA funds, then bashes it

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 17, 2010

Fourteen years ago, the 47th District in Brooklyn elected William Colton, a Democrat, to to serve as its Assembly representative. His district includes Bensonhurst, Gravesend, Bath Beach, Dyker Heights and Midwood, transit-heavy areas that depend on numerous subway lines and bus routes to connect it with the rest of New York City.

Colton’s district is a minority in New York City in that more than 50 percent of his constituents are car owners. According to stale numbers, 46.1 percent of households in District 47 do not own cars while 53.9 percent do. However, only 3.2 percent of drivers head into Manhattan’s Central Business District from Colton’s area while 31.2 percent of workers take transit to that CBD. Still, Assembly representative Colton can join the long and growing list of Albany representatives who are happy to bash the MTA with one hand while taking the agency’s money away with the other.

Colton’s comments come to us from the Brooklyn Eagle in what appears to be a press release. The Assembly rep is upset about the elimination of numerous station agents. “The MTA has been going down a dangerous path of reducing front-line personnel to a minimum,” Colton said. “Leaving booths in portions of major stations closed inconveniences people from all walks of life, including the elderly, disabled and other persons needing assistance. Closing these booths, some of which are the only booths serving a station entrance, is a disgrace.”

He continued with a typical rant about the MTA’s service becoming akin to that offered in the 1970s when track fires, massive delays and rampant problems were the norm. With new rolling stock and an investment into the physical plant of the subways, no comparison less apt. “It’s time to look at reorganizing the MTA into an agency which is focused on improving transit and increasing service, not raising fares and cutting service. If we fail to change course, we risk our subway degrading into a crime-ridden, unreliable service such as existed in the 1970s.”

The MTA is doing everything Colton accuses it of doing, but for someone who has shown no willingness to support transit, his moralizing rubs me the wrong. Colton, who claims that the MTA is “failing to meet the public need for safe and reliable public transit,” has been nothing but bad for transit. In 2008, despite the make-up of his district, he didn’t support congestion pricing and couched his opposition in populist terms. At the time, he said that the city’s “real goal of the proposal is to provide a new revenue source from the middle class and working poor.” Never mind the fact that middle and working class residents simply do not own cars or, if they do, do not drive into Manhattan’s CBD during the congestion pricing hours. Never mind the fact that these residents would stand to benefit from investments in transit.

His finest moment came when he levied this claim, using what I would call reverse logic to take apart congestion pricing:

In fact passage of this plan will almost guarantee a large fare increase because whatever monies which are given to the MTA will not be used to pay for public transit improvements but instead will be used to collateralize borrowing which will result in higher future interest payments which public transit users will need to repay with higher fares. Therefore it will not encourage people to use cars since use of mass transit will be almost as expensive. The congestion fee will impact on those with low and middle incomes and will have little impact on the wealthy who will simply use it as a business deduction.

Colton did not stop in 2008 or start bashing the MTA yesterday. Earlier this year, he called for the authority to inform community boards of changes to station staffing levels and has, as Cap’n Transit noted, called for eliminating waste and corruption. He also voted for removing $143 million in earmarked money from the MTA’s coffers late last year.

The problem with Colton’s position is the noise. The MTA should be more willing to talk about the safety impact of cutting station agents. MTA leadership has engaged in an extensive effort to cut waste at all levels. But the MTA can’t fund station agents without money, and Colton is just one of many who has worked to undercut the MTA’s funding streams. He hasn’t approved measures — such as congestion pricing — that the majority of New Yorkers support, and he voted to take away earmarked dollars. His left hand is criticizing the MTA for actions of his right, and that cannot stand.

29 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Metro-North

Double-decker trains, bar car changes in Metro-North plans

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 16, 2010

Changes to the bar car layout have commuters up in arms. Click the image to enlarge.

Don’t mess with Metro-North rider’ bar car. That’s the message they’re trying to send to the commuter railroad as it gears up for a new rolling stock purchase. It might be a message that fails on deaf ears though as the agency is planning to introduce a newly designed bar car as well as double-decker trains on some of its more popular routes.

The seven new bar cars will be put in place along the New Haven Line and are part of a $226-million, 300-car order of new rolling stock. The design, though, has raised some eyebrows among the bar car regulars as Andrew Grossman reports in the Wall Street Journal:

They’re worried, though, about the proposed design. It includes three rows of seats, four banquette-style tables and three round tables in the middle of the car. That will leave far less standing space than on the current set of cars. “We want to stand around and talk, and not be sitting in tiny little groups of four,” said Terri Cronin, the vice chair of the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, which has been surveying passengers about the new designs…

Bar cars—or cafe cars in the language of the railroad—are one of the few parts of the railroad that actually make money. They generated over $500,000 in profits last year. “It’s like a big group party,” Ms. Cronin said. “You end up talking to all these people you never would have talked to if you were sitting in all these little social pods everywhere.” Ms. Cronin and other passengers say they don’t want to get stuck in small groups at tables. They’d rather mingle. Ms. Cronin said that’s how she’s met business contacts and made good friends in the bar car.

Officials from Metro-North and the Connecticut Department of Transportation, which pays for the cars, say they’ve shown the designs to focus groups, where some riders had complaints similar to Ms. Cronin’s. But the railroad is trying to squeeze as many seats as it can out of the bar cars, since the new passenger cars each have nine fewer seats than the ones they’re replacing. “It’s an ongoing balancing act,” said Judd Everhart, a spokesman for the Connecticut transportation agency. “We’re trying to maximize seating wherever we can, while at the same time providing the convenience of the cafe cars.”

The new bar cars won’t hit the rails until 2012 at the earliest, so Ms. Cronin and her drinking buddies have a few more years of socializing before the small groups take over their hallowed drinking grounds. The beer will always be cold.

Meanwhile, in an effort to combat overcrowding on the Harlem and Hudson Lines, Metro-North is looking into double-decker train cars, Michael Grynbaum of The Times reported today. The two-level cars, he says, cost the same as the standard ones and can fit 33 percent more passengers. These cars, which would enter service in 2015, would be designed to fit the clearance at Grand Central.

Metro-North says these two lines are “nearing capacity” out of Grand Central Terminal, and a bi-level car would allow for expansion without increasing train frequency. The city’s other commuter rail lines — the Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit — have been running double-decker cars since 1998 and 2005 respectively, and commuters love them for the space and the upper-level views. “Customers love them for a number of reasons,” New Jersey Transit spokesman Dan Stessel said to Grynbaum. “They are quieter, and you have more leg room. It’s been overwhelmingly positive.”

8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesSubway Cell Service

Where the cell signals leak in

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 16, 2010

As the MTA has once again renewed its vow to bring cell service and wifi underground, many have wondered if constant connectivity is truly good or if the yammering masses will slowly drive us all insane. I’ve long been of the belief that cell access on platforms only won’t lead to louder waits. The subway system isn’t a quiet and peaceful arena today, and the vast above-ground portions have long had cell service. Riders along the elevated routes haven’t become boorish on their phones.

Today, Heather Haddon and Katherine Lieb unveil the secrets of underground cell service and highlight those stations that already have cell access either from street-level grates or from nearby landmarks. Nearly four dozen of the 277 underground stations have service at some point or another. The list, available on amNew York’s website, includes 30 IRT stations, many of which aren’t very far below ground, and a handful of the oldest BMT stops along the R. Only a few IND stops have service because they were built relatively deep underground. Nevins St. in Brooklyn has long been my favorite transfer point between the East and West Side IRT lines because of its stellar cell service.

15 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

The way New Yorkers want to ride

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 16, 2010

For the last few weekends and into September, service along the various IRT routes will not run as normal. From midnight on Saturdays until 5 a.m. on Mondays, 2 trains will not run into the Bronx, terminating instead at 137th St./City College, and 3 trains won’t run at all. To replace the 3, 4 trains will run local in Brooklyn. For two popular subway lines, this work is creating a lot of headaches.

In The Post on Saturday, Tom Namako wrote about this so-called “weekend chaos” and got some excellent straphanger-on-the-street quotes. While most of the IRT riders are resigned to their long, slow shuttle bus fates, one person’s attitude in particular struck my as indicative of the way New Yorkers relate to the subway system and necessary work. The emphasis below is mine.

“I live in Bed-Stuy, and I take care of my elderly parents in The Bronx, and I go to church in The Bronx,” Ernestine Ortiz said to Namako. “The shuttle buses are all right, but the train is way more convenient — when it’s running. It just gets you where you need to go faster. Can’t they find another time to work on it — like just late at night?”

I’m sure Ms. Ortiz is a very friendly woman, and it sounds as though she’s a very devoted daughter. No one, of course, likes to see their weekend routines interrupted, but her approach is one we all share. It goes a little something like this: I know the MTA has to do subway work; I know this work has to take place over regular hours; but please only do subway work when it doesn’t inconvenience me.

Nothing bothers New Yorkers quite like a commute interrupted. I know that my trip from Park Slope to City Hall should take around 20 minutes, and when a train is delayed at, say, Bowling Green because of a sick passenger down the line, we get irritated. “Why is this happening on my commute? Why doesn’t the sick passenger simply not board the train in the first place? Why am I the one who has to suffer because of the MTA’s need to do work?”

This attitude reveals the inherent problems with a 24-hour subway system and the way New Yorkers rely on it. We don’t want service changes when we want to travel because we need to travel at set times. We have to get to work; we have to get to our families; we have to get from Brooklyn to the Bronx in less than two hours. That’s where the subways come in. The great system underneath our city streets transports people relatively quickly through a dense urban environment that cannot support cars for every resident. For a low price, I can get from Point A in Bed-Stuy to Point B in the Bronx without worrying about gas, insurance, parking.

Of course, people dislike the MTA because it often seems as though fates underground conspire against us. If we travel anywhere during the weekend, our trips are delayed because of work. Late-night construction isn’t the answer, as Ms. Ortiz would like, because the Transit crews need a more concentrated period of time during which to work. Plus, the service changes will always interrupt someone’s travel. It could be me or it could be you. To Ms. Ortiz, it might seem as though the changes hurt her, but to someone else, a different set of changes will be equally as bothersome.

So work will go, and the city’s love/hate relationship with the subway system will go on. We want it to run reliably; we need it to run reliably; we know what level of investment must go into it to run reliably. But when push comes to shove, please make sure the service changes impact someone else’s commute.

27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts