Author

Benjamin Kabak

In case of emergency, do not pull the emergency brake

by Benjamin Kabak January 20, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 20, 2010

To pull the emergency brake in a new subway car today requires some thought and some action. While the picture at right shows the pullcord simply dangling at the end of a subway car, today’s emergency brakes are incased in a box so that people don’t accidentally latch onto them as the subway car lurches forward.

But that’s not the only notable part of the emergency brake, that oh-so-tempting way to stop a train car. Rather, as Michael Grynbaum noted yesterday, in case of emergency, subway riders are not supposed to pull the emergency brake. As Grynbaum notes, the cards — often ignored by most riders — that discuss the emergency brake include Rule No. 1: Do not pull the emergency brake. Reminiscent of Fight Club, this makes little sense.

Grynbaum continues:

So what emergency, exactly, does this emergency brake refer to? The explanation, transit officials say, is simple. If someone gets caught between the train’s closing doors, or between subway cars, and is about to be dragged to an unenviable fate, pull the cord. The train will stop, possibly saving a life.

But in case of fire, crime or a sick passenger — in fact, any other situation that could fairly be described as an emergency — the cord should be left alone. Stopping the train between stations will make it harder for help to arrive. The explanation is on the agency’s Web site, albeit accessible only after several clicks.

“We think that it is clear,” said Charles Seaton, a spokesman for New York City Transit.

The Times transit writer goes on to speak to a few straphangers who have no idea when to use the emergency brake, and he highlights last fall’s Murder on the D Train as a prime example. Sensing an emergency, riders in the car where the murder occurred pulled the brake. Some people say that action helped catch the suspected killer while others say it delayed police response to the scene of the crime and trapped innocent bystanders in a car with a killer. Either way, it made sense even if Transit officials urged riders to eschew pulling the cord.

In the end, the problem, as a psychologist explains, is one of messaging. The MTA expects its passengers to read signs that explain the emergency brake when most people just assume that an emergency brake should be used in case of any emergency. In reality, people should pull the brake only when someone is in danger of getting struck or injured by a moving train car, but that changes the concept of the emergency brake to one with which we the straphanging public are not familiar.

And so we’re left right back where we started: In case of most emergencies, please do not pull the emergency brake.

Above: Emergency Break photo courtesy of flickr user adotmanda.

January 20, 2010 12 comments

MTA Economics Transit Labor

For Walder, labor costs an 800-pound gorilla in the room

by Benjamin Kabak January 20, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 20, 2010

When MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder pledged last Friday to reform the way the MTA does business, he stressed the redundancies inherent in the way the transit organization is set up. There are, he said, 92 different public phone numbers and five call centers fielding complaints from the public. Over 5000 workers perform administrative tasks, and many of those jobs overlap. “There will,” he said, “be layoffs.”

Since his speech on Friday, Walder has received qualified phrase from those watching. The Daily News urged every government official to strike a similar tone, and transit activists were equally enthusiastic about Walder’s priorities. “The speech,” Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign said, “was a candid assessment of the financial challenges the MTA faces and of the agency’s commitment to tackling them, such as lowering hundred of millions in administrative, inventory and overtime costs.”

At the time, Walder skirted around the issue of the MTA’s labor relations. “Our unions must be active partners,” he said but refrained from going into detail. After all, at a time when the MTA could least afford it, its largest union had just been awarded a three-year raise, and the agency’s decision to appeal the arbitration result had left many at the TWU bitter toward the authority.

Yet, some would prefer to see Walder, with proper political support, tackle the union and the MTA’s labor cost problem head on. Nicole Gelinas, who has made exploding pension costs her fight, is one of those people, and in yesterday’s Post, she offered up her take on the MTA’s cost problem:

Here are some specifics. The MTA spends $6.4 billion a year on current-worker wages and benefits. A unionized city transit worker earns nearly $94,000 a year, including more than $26,000 in benefits. The unionized commuter-rail worker earns even more — well above $120,000.

Nor is it just union jobs. The average white-collar worker at NYC Transit and Metro-North earns well above $120,000, too. And LIRR administrators beat them by a mile, topping $142,000 each. (Patronage, anyone?)
MTA labor relations aren’t white-collar vs. blue-collar — but everyone against the taxpayers.

The savings Walder laid out are worthy. But cutting, say, 10 percent from administrative personnel would yield just $90 million — a rounding error in the authority’s $12 billion budget. Saving 10 percent in union labor costs, on the other hand (including pensions over time), would yield a much heftier $546 million, because the union workforce is much bigger.

The MTA has long tried doing this in the cooperative “let’s work with our labor partners” way for years — and we’re still waiting for results. What riders need is for Walder to call for full support — from Paterson and the Legislature — for a full labor overhaul. Workers must pay more for health care, and future workers must pay more for pensions, saving hundreds of millions. (Instead, the new contract for subway and bus workers has them paying less toward retirement.)

Gelinas’ basic point is a sound one. From top to bottom, from management to track workers, from blue collar to white, the MTA’s compensation scales are crippling the organization. It’s bureaucratic flow chart makes no sense, and its willingness to give away perks have driven up labor costs in every sense. Cutting from MTAHQ will save some money, but the rising tide of pensions and health care costs will sink all ships.

So what is to be done? In this pro-labor city, it’s tough to tackle the unions. They enjoy public and political support, and workers’ rights shouldn’t be eroded as is. But as some point, the MTA will be unable to pay, and everyone — the riding public, the train workers, the desk jockeys — will lose.

January 20, 2010 41 comments

MTA Economics

Early state budget cuts MTA revenues by $104M

by Benjamin Kabak January 19, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 19, 2010

As the first step in New York State’s complicated budget process, Gov. David Paterson unveiled his executive budget for fiscal year 2010-11 this afternoon, and the news is not good for the beleaguered MTA. The Governor will, on paper, increase the overall value of subsidies by approximately $161 million from FY2009-10, but in real dollars, the MTA may be short $104 million in 2010.

Basically, it comes down to a matter of projections. When the MTA planned its 2010 budget and when Albany passed the funding plan earlier in 2009, state tax officials projected certain revenue totals for the MTA based upon estimated tax intakes. Now, the state is saying these revenue totals will be $104 million short, and the MTA will face yet another year of fiscal crises.

MTA CEO and Chair Jay Walder issued a statement this afternoon:

The proposed Executive Budget Governor Paterson presented today reflects a further deterioration in the tax revenues dedicated to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. This continued erosion of the MTA’s revenue base amounts to $104 million in this calendar year. We continue to be very concerned about the impact of current economic conditions on the revenues dedicated to the MTA, including the recently enacted payroll mobility tax. The continued uncertainty about the economy underscores the necessity of the course I’ve set for the MTA.

As I have often said, MTA must use every dollar that it receives from taxes, fares and tolls as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is why we are undertaking a fundamental restructuring of the way that the MTA does business. To that end, we have begun to dramatically reduce our administrative costs. We are renegotiating contracts with suppliers. We are re-evaluating how we provide service.

I know that the Governor and the Legislature are acutely aware of the MTA’s importance to the economy of the New York City region and the MTA’s positive economic impact on the rest of the Empire State. I appreciate that the Governor’s Executive Budget does not repeat the MTA cuts enacted in the Deficit Reduction Plan in December. During this budget process, we will continue to work with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance to better understand the issues related to the dedicated taxes that support the MTA.

Meanwhile, the restoration of some subsidies seems to be a victory for the MTA, but even that is just spin from Paterson. Paterson is proposing to fund just $25.3 million of a Student MetroCard, and while that includes a restoration of $18.9, that’s barely half of the $45 million the state contributed in 2008 and prior years. MTA officials say the agency can reap over $200 million by charging fares and expects that much from the state and city to continue the free student transit program.

All in all, this is yet another transit funding mess. Last year’s funding package hasn’t delivered the funds lawmakers promised, and the MTA is left dangling from a fiscal cliff with no Richard Ravitch to step in and save the day.

January 19, 2010 6 comments

Asides TWU

MTA to appeal year three of TWU arbitration award

by Benjamin Kabak January 19, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 19, 2010

According to the Daily News, the MTA is giving up on part of its appeal of the TWU arbitration award while keeping another part of it — the third year of raises — alive. Pete Donohue reports that the MTA will honor two-thirds of the arbitration award, and TWU workers will now enjoy a retroactive four percent raise for 2009 and a four percent raise in 2010. The agency, however, will seek to have an appeals court overturn the third year of raises which guarantee a 3.5 percent increase in 2011. The agency will also seek to quash part of the award that lowers employee contributions to health care and raises the MTA’s obligations. According to Donohue, this decision to pay will cost the agency approximately $100 million this year.

As expected, labor union leaders were none too pleased with this development. John Samuelsen contined to bluster about this appeal and said that workers, who are getting eight percent in raises in a bad economy and at a time when few private-sector employees are enjoying raises, aren’t happy with the news. Still, if MTA Chair and CEO Jay Walder is serious about cutting costs, addressing the MTA’s rising tide of labor and pension obligations must be a part of that effort. The workers won’t like it, but the agency will continue to be hindered by those costs without some sort of compensation reform. More on that later.

January 19, 2010 15 comments

Staten Island

Fare-collection at SIR’s Tompkinsville starts Wed.

by Benjamin Kabak January 19, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 19, 2010

Since the MTA eliminated fare-collection agents on the Staten Island Railway as a cost-measure in the 1990s, the agency has seen its SIR-related revenues dry up. That will change tomorrow when the agency begins collecting fares at Tompkinsville as part of a $6.9 million program designed to turn around the SIR’s money-losing ways.

For years, the SIR has been unique among the city’s transit options. The MTA has collected fares at only the St. George Ferry Terminal and the Staten Island Yankees’ ballpark stops. Tompkinsville is but a half-mile away from the northern end of the line, and many customers are more than happy to hoof to avoid paying the fare. The MTA launched this project in 2008 with an eye toward completing it during the summer of 2009, but tomorrow — a few months late — the free ride will end.

As part of the Fare Collection Project, the agency has beefed up the Tompkinsville stop. Riders will now have a station house in which to wait as well as turnstiles to serve as the fare gates, cameras for safety and enforcement efforts, and fare vending and communications equipment. The agency says this move is expected to bring in approximately $702,000 annually, a 15 percent increase in total SIR fare revenue and will cut the estimated $3.4 million in operating losses incurred on Staten Island by more than 20 percent.

Staten Island residents looking to evade the fare could still choose to walk yet another three-quarters of a mile to the Stapleton stop. If a 25-minute walk from the ferry terminal is a better use of your time than simply paying a fare that is, at most, a $2.25 MetroCard swipe, then, time isn’t always money.

January 19, 2010 10 comments

Subway History

Dreams of taking the N to LaGuardia

by Benjamin Kabak January 19, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 19, 2010

The Fiorello H. LaGuardia Airport in Queens is one of the nation’s most infuriating urban airports. It is so close to midtown and Manhattan’s Central Business District that a commuter in a hurry could make the trip in 30 minutes. Yet, it’s so far away because congestion frequently creates trips to Queens that last an hour and 30 minutes. The only public transit option to the airport is a packed and slow bus that, on a good day, goes from 125th St. and Lexington to the airport in a half an hour.

Over the last few decades, city officials have become quite intimate with the problems plaguing LaGuardia, and many have tried to fix it. The N train, whose northern terminus is less than three miles away from the LaGuardia terminals, is so tantalizing close to the airport and yet so far away.

Last week, in his “Why Train” segment, NBC 4’s Andrew Siff posted just this question. “What about the train to LGA?” asks Siff. In a one-minute piece, he mentioned how, 12 years ago, city and MTA officials were heavily invested in a plan to extend the N to LaGuardia, but in the face of other pressing transit needs and widespread community opposition, the agency eventually shelved this much needed link to LaGuardia.

So what then were the plans that engendered widespread community outrage and still cause politicians to chime in now and then, nearly a decade after the MTA discarded the idea? Let’s hop in the Wayback Machine and explore some Giuliani-Era transit developments.

The plans to extend the N to LaGuardia first came to light in 1998 as city officials recognized the need to build better access to the airports. As part of a $1.2 billion package with funding coming from the MTA, the Port Authority and the city, Giuiliani put forth a plan to build an airtrain to JFK and extend the subway to LaGuardia. The JFK line — built over preexisting rights-of-way — survived. The LaGuardia plans, obviously, did not.

The first and biggest problem the city faced in Queens came about because of the proposed routes. The preferred route would have extended the N along 31st St. north onto Con Edison’s property at the edge of Astoria and then east along 19th Ave. to the Marine Air Terminal. The MTA also considered an eastward extension along Ditmars Boulevard, a plan to reroute LaGuardia-bound N trains from Queensboro Plaza through the Sunnyside rail yard and along the eastern edge of St. Michael’s Cemetary to what Newsday called “elevated tracks parallel to the Grand Central Parkway.” A barely-acknowledged fourth route would have seen trains head east via Astoria Boulevard.

On the surface, these plans seem no worse than building the Second Ave. Subway through densely populated neighborhoods on the East Side. In Queens, however, the MTA would have had to build a spur line off a pre-existing elevated structure, and all of the plans called for the train to LaGuardia to run above ground through significant portions of Astoria. So while airport access ranked tops amongst Queens residents transit expansion wishlist, no one wanted to see Astoria further scarred by elevated structures.

The Daily News termed the opposition response NAMBYism — Not Above My Backyard — and nearly every single Queens politician opposed the idea. Some preferred the Sunnyside alternative, but at the time, NYCDOT said plans to widen the Grand Central Parkway would interfere with the train proposal. Others called upon an extension from Long Island City to skirt the borough from 21st St. along the East River to the airport. Still others preferred a longer Willets Point extension of the LIRR to the airport.

Peter Vallone exemplified the opposition. “Extending the elevated track will cause unnecessary hardship to residents and businesses in the area,” the City Council member said in 1999. “The MTA wants to go their way, not our way.”

In the end, despite opposition, political support for the plan from City Hall continued well into the 21st Century. With the backing of Mayor Guiliani and Queens Borough President Clare Shulman, the MTA’s 2000-2004 Five-Year Capital Plan included $645 million for the LaGuardia subway link, and even though a $17 million planning study was the project’s only expense, in late 2002, Mayor Bloomberg threw his weight behind the LaGuardia extension as a key post-9/11 revitalization plan.

Finally, in mid-2003, the Queens communities won the battle as the MTA announced plans to shelve the airport extension. With money tight after 9/11 and Lower Manhattan on the radar, then-MTA Chair Peter Kalikow said that the agency’s attention had turned to the JFK Raillink from Lower Manhattan, another plan that never materialized, and that the agency was prioritizing the 7 Line Extension, the East Side Access Plan and the Second Ave. Subway over the LaGuardia N train extension. “LaGuardia is a good project, but you have to prioritize,” Elliot Sander, then at NYU, said. “In terms of political support from City Hall, Albany and Washington, it’s moved back in the queue.”

And so in the end, we sit here in 2010 with the same travel options to LaGuardia as we have always enjoyed (or suffered through). The M60 remains the best public transportation option, and the MTA is in no position to take another crack at sending the subway to the airport. Oh, what could have been.

January 19, 2010 93 comments

7 Line Extension Asides

At Hudson Yards, waiting for Related

by Benjamin Kabak January 18, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 18, 2010

As workers continue to forge ahead with the 7 line extension, the new stop at 34th St. and 11th Ave. remais on target to open in 2013, but will there be anything above ground besides the Javits Center? That’s long been the hot button question surrounding the city’s efforts at developing the Hudson Yards land. This weekend, Crain’s New York tried to answer it. The business trade took a look at six key projects, and among them are many transit-related developments. Moynihan Station and Atlantic Yards have garnered the headlines, but what of the Far West Side?

As Crain’s reminds us, February should witness a major milestone in the future of this project. That month, Related’s first $43.5 million payment of its $1 billion deal with the MTA is due after the two sides agreed on a one-year extension in 2009. “We’re working diligently with the MTA and expect to meet the deadline,” a company spokeswoman said to Andrew Marks. Meanwhile, others with vested interests in the area believe something will happen but not until after the 7 line opens. “The opening of the subway means that something will get built there,” Jon McMillan, whose company TF Cornerstone Inc. owns development rights along West 37th St., said. “Once we’ve got the 7 line here, it will be, ‘If you build it, they will come.’”

In the past, I’ve called the 7 line work the Subway to Nowhere because of the costs and nature of the project. The city dropped plans — which factored heavily into Mayor Bloomberg’s PLANYC proposal — to build a stop at 41st St. and 10th Ave. where residents actually need subway access and are banking on substantial development to make this costly subway extension worthwhile. Still, if developers in the area are optimistic, that’s reason for hope for Manhattan’s last frontier.

January 18, 2010 17 comments

Arts for Transit

Inside a new terminal, an ‘Overlook’ to evoke the outdoors

by Benjamin Kabak January 18, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 18, 2010

At ground level at the new Atlantic Ave. Terminal, Allen and Ellen Wexler’s “Overlook” inspires an outdoor pause. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak.

Grand train terminals have long been prime people-watching areas. The buildings are alive with those who scurry to and from trains, those who are waiting for friends and loved ones to arrive, those counting down the minutes until they can head home and those simply enjoying a public space. Stepping back to observe the pace of life in motion is one of the pleasures of commuting life.

A few weeks ago, the MTA finally cut the ribbon on its new terminal building at Atlantic Ave. in Brooklyn. Over budget and past deadline, the new building garnered praise for its airy inside and state-of-the-art facilities. Inside the terminal, at ground level but overlooking the lower level is the MTA’s latest Arts for Transit installation, and it is evocative of that people-watching tradition of train terminals.]

Early last week, I took a tour of the building and spoke to the artists behind the “Overlook,” a granite-and-glass installation that brings a sense of calm and tranquility to an otherwise busy building. It is, in the words of Allen Wexler, half of the husband-and-wife team behind the piece, supposed to represent “the intersection between nature and city” in an urban environment.

The artists, pictured above, talked to me about their design process and the inspiration for the piece. The two of them worked closely with John di Domenico, the architect behind the new terminal building, to construct something that would seem both natural for the terminal but also unique for the space. It is a site-specific installation meant to evoke a scenic overlook at a national park, and it transforms the upper level into a spot for simply watching urban nature.

The Wexlers took images of national park overlooks and came up with a fractal computerized design. Each granite panel is connected to the others via straight lines to turn this into what the artists called “a pxilated iconic scenic overlook.”

“We sought to create the experience of viewing an urban public space as if it were a nature setting, using granite tiles mathematically pixilated to create nooks and crannies similar to those found in rock walls,” Allan Wexler said. “Our public work seeks to engage the people who use the space, creating a rich experience that resonates over time.”

In the end, the MTA hopes that their new installation creates a meeting space at the station as well. With over 25,000 LIRR passengers and 31,000 subway travelers passing through the new terminal each day, the “Overlook” is ready to become a local landmark. “This vantage point was created as a collaborative effort combining our design that placed the wall between two sweeping stairways and the artists’ vision of morphing that structural wall into an outcropping of rocks,” di Domenico said.

Hanging above the ticket area, the waiting room and two grand staircases, it’s bound to become the terminal’s prime people-watching spot as well.

After the jump, a slideshow of scenes from the new Atlantic Ave. Terminal. Click on any of the photos in the post to enlarge.

January 18, 2010 1 comment

Service Advisories

Service changes, some more temporary than others

by Benjamin Kabak January 15, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 15, 2010

For the weekend, there’s a lot going on, but before we jump in, there are a whole slew of major advisories that deserver our attention. Here we go.

First up, the G train. For the next four weekends, there is no G train service. Instead, free shuttle buses will operate between Queens Plaza and Jay St. Transit is urging customers to take the R or E instead. The work: switch replacement at Bedford-Nostrand, asbestos removal at Greenpoint Ave., fan plant replacement at Jackson Ave. and various other track maintenance projects.

Next up, the Rockaways. The first part of the Rockaways rehab project was supposed to start wrapping up this week. But delays! The Far Rockaway-bound A platforms at Beach 67th and Beach 44th Streets are scheduled to reopen as planned on Monday, January 18, 2010, but the Manhattan-bound platforms at Beach 105th and Beach 90th Sts. and the Far Rockaway-bound platform at Beach 25th St. won’t open until Monday, January 25.

On the other side, the project is delayed a week as well. The Manhattan-bound A platforms at Beach 25th, Beach 44th and Beach 67th Sts. will close for rehabilitation on Monday, February 1, 2010. The Rockaway-bound platform at Beach 90th and Beach 105th Sts. are still on schedule to close on February 15. Despite this complicated timeline, this work affects relatively few commuters as the Beach stops on the Rockaways are among the least used stations in the system.

Finally, the Brighton Line. This work affects the Q as well. Anyway, on Monday at 5 a.m., the Brighton Beach/Coney Island-bound platforms at Ave. U and Neck Road will reopen. The Manhattan-bound platforms will close for a year. Trains will continue to bypass Aves. H and M until the Fall, and all Brighton Beach-bound B trains will make all local stops.

And now the weekly stuff. As always, these weekend changes come to me via the MTA. They are subject to change without notice. Remember to listen to on-board announcements and check the signs at your local subway station. The Subway Weekender map is available here. Click through for the full list of planned changes.

January 15, 2010 6 comments

Buses

A plan for the East Side SBS, but the wrong one

by Benjamin Kabak January 15, 2010

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 15, 2010

Here come the Select Bus Service route plans. Here comes the BRT controversy. As MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder pledges to speed up the city’s buses, the two transportation agencies have seemingly settled on a design that, while progressive for New York City, leaves much to be desired.

DOT unveiled the new plans last night at a meeting of the First Avenue/Second Avenue SBS Community Advisory Committee, and the agency’s presentation is available here as a PDF. The story I want to tell is best express through the liberal use of pictures and excerpts from the slides. Click any picture for a larger image. Let’s dive in.

The basic premise of the 1st Ave./2nd Ave. Select Bus Service is one of adaptation to changing neighborhoods. The route starts in the cramped and densely populated Lower Manhattan area, shoots up past residential neighborhoods in the East Village and Murray Hill, navigates its way through an overly congestion midtown and settles in for a ride up through the Upper East Side and Harlem. Along the way down Second Ave., it must also contend with some massive subway construction efforts, and DOT has included bike lanes in any street overhaul as well.

To combat these problems, the simple and best solution would involve physically separated bus and bike lanes from South Ferry to 125th St. Cars would lose a lane, and businesses would have to get creative with deliveries. But travel times would be markedly improved, and buses would no longer be subject to the whims of surface traffic and dense midtown congestion. Instead, DOT and the MTA have proposed three different alignments for the various neighborhoods, and each will require major enforcement efforts to keep bus lanes free and buses moving.

January 15, 2010 31 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts