Second Ave. Sagas

Author: Benjamin Kabak

  • Holiday Nostalgia Train debut as weekend work affects seven subway lines

    Good luck. Do you plan to ride the subways this weekend? Well, to that I say good luck. Hopefully, you’ll have a better experience than I did at 11:45 on Friday night when I had to wait 30 minutes for a downtown Q train at Herald Square. During that half an hour, I saw three uptown Q trains pass — two bound for 57th St. and one for Astoria. I saw three downtown N trains pass (and, yes, should have taken one). No downtown Q and no announcement.

    When eventually the Q showed up, it was as crowded as a morning train and running local. Three stops later, an empty train deadheading back to Coney Island went zooming by on the express tracks. Via Twitter, Transit claimed this massive gap was the result of an earlier incident, but that didn’t pass the smell test. The MTA never sent out a text alert about an earlier incident and made no announcements. Plus, trains were running uptown but just not back downtown. Pure and simple, I was a victim of poor operations planning and an attempt to make excuses. It doesn’t fly in 2015.

    But I digress. Let’s instead focus on something more fun. Take the Nostalgia Train this weekend and throughout the month. Every Sunday, from 2nd Ave. to Queens Plaza on the 6th Ave. line, the old cars will run from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. It’s a lot of fun to hop a quick ride on cars that ran decades ago. And if that’s not your style, just take the C train instead for instant nostalgia. The Transit Museum will also be hosting a pop-up museum shop at 2nd Ave. during Sundays in December.

    Meanwhile, there are some service changes this weekend. None involve a 30-minute wait for the Q though (or the Q train at all) so oh well for me.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, December 4 to 6 a.m. Saturday, December 5; from 11:45 p.m.
    Saturday, December 5 to 8 a.m. Sunday, December 6; and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, December 6 to 5 a.m. Monday, December 7, downtown 4 trains run express from 125 St to Grand Central-42 St.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, December 4 to 6 a.m. Saturday, December 5; from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, December 5 to 8 a.m. Sunday, December 6; and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, December 6 to 5 a.m. Monday, December 7, downtown 6 trains run express from 125 St-Union Sq to Grand Central-42 St.

    • To 116 St, 110 St, 103 St, 96 St, 77 St, 68 St and 51 St, take a downtown 4 or 6 train to 86 St, 59 St, or Grand Central-42 St and transfer to an uptown 4 local or 6.
    • From these stations, take an uptown 4 or 6 to 59 St, 86 St or 125 St and transfer to a downtown 4 or 6.
    • Transfers at 86 St require an Unlimited Ride MetroCard.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, December 4 to 8 p.m. Saturday, December 5, Coney Island-bound trains run express from Jay St-MetroTech to 4 Av-9 St.

    • To Bergen St, Carroll St, and Smith-9 Sts, take the F to 4 Av-9 St and transfer to a Jamaica-bound F.
    • From these stations, take a Jamaica-bound F to Jay St-MetroTech and transfer to a Coney Island-bound F.
    • G trains do not operate between Church Av and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, December 4 to 8 p.m. Saturday, December 5, Jamaica-bound trains skip 169 St.

    • To this station, take a Jamaica-bound F to 179 St and transfer to a Coney Island-bound F.
    • From this station, use the Q2, Q3 or Q17 bus.


    From 11:30 p.m. Friday, December 4 to 8 p.m. Saturday, December 5, service is suspended between Church Av and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. A and F trains provide alternate service. G service operates in two sections:

    • Between Court Sq and Bedford-Nostrand Avs
    • Between Bedford-Nostrand Avs and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts, every 20 minutes
    • For continuous service, transfer at Bedford-Nostrand Avs
    • For Church Av, take an uptown A at Hoyt-Schermerhorn St to Jay St-MetroTech St and transfer to a Coney Island-bound F.
    • Coney Island-bound F trains skip Bergen St, Carroll St and Smith-9 Sts.


    From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Saturday, December 5, service operates in two sections:

    • Between 8 Av and Broadway Junction
    • Between Broadway Junction and Rockaway Pkwy, every 24 minutes
    • For continuous service, transfer at Broadway Junction.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, December 4 to 6 a.m. Saturday, December 5, Astoria-bound trains are rerouted via the Q from DeKalb Av to Canal St.

    • No Astoria-bound trains at Jay St-MetroTech, Court St, Whitehall St, Rector St, Cortlandt St, and City Hall. Use the 4 at nearby stations.
    • Transfer between trains at Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr, Canal St, or 14 St-Union Sq.


    • From 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday, December 5, 71 Av-bound trains are rerouted via the Q from DeKalb Av to Canal St.

    • No Astoria-bound trains at Jay St-MetroTech, Court St, Whitehall St, Rector St, Cortlandt St, and City Hall. Use the 4 at nearby stations.
    • Transfer between trains at Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr, Canal St, or 14 St-Union Sq.

  • A brief thought on having no approach to transit funding

    When Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced $8 billion in state funding for the MTA’s capital plan a few months ago, the proclamation came with absolutely no details, and a follow-up agreement between the city and state to end their feud and fund the capital plan similarly contained no details. We had no idea how the state would generate the $8 billion in new funding Cuomo had pledged to the MTA, and in the intervening months, no additional details have emerged.

    Will the money come from congestion pricing? (Unlikely.) Dedicated revenue sources? (I wouldn’t count on it.) Bonding? (Probably.) Either way, without tying the money into a source, Cuomo seemed to be promising a lot of dollars for downstate interests, and that, despite the economic realities of New York State, did not sit well with everyone else. Now the upstaters want their share. Is it a fair share or is just a money grab?

    Here’s the story from Binghamton’s Press & Sun Bulletin:

    New York will pay $8 billion over the next five years to fund the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, but upstate should have its own funding stream to fix roads and bridges, leaders testified Thursday.

    Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks and county leaders urged lawmakers to create a similar fund that would put the rest of the state on par with the downstate region for infrastructure upgrades. “Upstate residents deserve parity to this downstate investment so that all New Yorkers benefit equitably,” Brooks told the Assembly Transportation Committee headed by Assemblyman David Gantt, D-Rochester.

    Brooks, who is president of the state Association of Counties, said the state Department of Transportation has yet to release its five-year capital plan for road and bridge repair, leaving municipalities unsure what projects will get funded…For his part, Cuomo has vowed to get more infrastructure funding for upstate after the MTA deal was crafted between New York City and the state on Oct. 10.

    The MTA, which provides transit services to the city and its suburbs, including the Hudson Valley, had a $9.8 billion funding gap for its five-year, $32 billion capital plan. The state will pick up the bulk of the tab, with the city and MTA funding the rest. Cuomo agreed that more infrastructure spending is needed in upstate. The concerns from Brooks and other leaders follow similar calls in recent months from upstate officials over the need to infuse cash into the upstate infrastructure. “They’re right,” Cuomo told reporters Nov. 18 in Rochester. “We always fund transportation needs all around the state. We need to fund them downstate, and we need to fund them upstate. There’s no doubt about that.”

    This is a prime example of what happens when you promise money without identifying a funding source: Everyone wants a piece of the bottomless pie. With a rationalized transit funding policy, tied into revenue-generating schemes that promote transit and sensible transportation policies, it’s harder for everyone else to stick their hands in the state-sponsored cookie jar. That’s on Cuomo.

    Anyway, here’s the question I pose to you: We can’t be surprised by the upstate request, but what does it mean to give them “parity,” as Brooks has requested? An $8 billion expenditure on upstate infrastructure would equate to something along the lines of $30 billion within NYC based on economic strength and impact on the state on the whole. (Tangentially, should we also consider the new Tappan Bridge an upstate project?) A policy of investing heavily in roads may be good in the short-term for upstate’s struggling economy but where does that leave New York on the whole? Ultimately, it should drive Cuomo to come up with a rational transit spending and funding program. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  • For NYC’s transit deserts, Riders Council suggests ‘Freedom’

    As politicians have recently called upon the MTA to rationalize commuter rail fares for travel within New York City, an MTA watchdog group has issued a firm proposal to do just that, which, they claim, would cost the MTA only $3 million. It’s called the Freedom Ticket, and it’s an idea put forward by the New York City Transit Rider Council. They want the MTA to implement it first in the transit desert of Southeast Queens and later at all commuter rail stations that are at least 0.8 miles away from the nearest subway stop.

    The report — available on NYCTRC’s website — offers up a rigorous examination of potential fare combinations and routes with available capacity. According to their report, there are approximately 20,000 peak-hour LIRR seats available for riders from Southeast Queens, and Babylon, Long Beach, Far Rockaway, Hempstead, and West Hempstead trains could carry the load (in addition to ample space on trains to the Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn). By rationalizing fares — not to the level of a MetroCard swipe but in line with an LIRR monthly pass — the MTA could better serve these under-served areas.

    “Being able to use commuter rail within the City at a reasonable cost means real freedom for people in parts of the City that are underserved by transit. Freedom Ticket means real freedom for hundreds of thousands of city residents with some of the most difficult commutes in the city.” NYCTRC Chair Andrew Albert said.

    Essentially, the idea here is to offer the use of space on certain LIRR trains and free connections between the LIRR and other NYC Transit modes. At $215 per month, the ticket is still more expensive than a monthly MetroCard but slightly lower than an express bus pass. Travel times could be cut to Manhattan by around 40 minutes, and the addition of a transfer will allow for mobility within the city. Of course, this only works for those commuting to and from work; additional rides would incur an additional fee, something unlimited ride MetroCard users don’t worry about these days. Still, with savings of up to 50% and considerably shortened commutes, the offer would be well worth it for many.

    When the topic has come up in the past, the MTA has objected on the grounds that it will affect their bottom line. Forget the convenience of it; to the agency, unless it’s their idea, it’s all about the money. William Henderson, head of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA, came prepared. The council believes their proof of concept if implemented in Queens would cost the MTA $4.3 million (a pittance really) while generating around $1.5 million if 1000 new riders fill seats. At 3000 riders, the proposal draws even, and the NYCTRC even suggested that local NYC politicians have access to discretionary funding to help subsidize some or all of the costs. If these numbers bear out, it’s as close to a no-brainer as possible.

    Looking ahead, then, the NYCTRC believes this program could expand following completion of East Side Access (and Penn Station Access) when commuter rail would provide direct connections from Queens and the Bronx to both Grand Central and Penn Station. Then, the so-called Freedom Ticket should be implemented at all commuter rail stops that are at least 0.8 miles away from a subway. This would expand the program to a handful of stops in the Bronx.

    For its part, the MTA seemed more willing to entertain this idea than they have been in the past, but in a statement, the agency still stressed the need for a net-zero impact to their bottom line, the shortsightedness of which I covered last week. “It’s an interesting proposal to alleviate the concerns of some of our customers,” Adam Lisberg said in a statement, though it would certainly carry a financial impact for the MTA as well. We’ll consider it next year as we determine how to structure the next in our series of modest fare increases equivalent to the rate of inflation.”

    To access the full report along with all supporting documentation, you can download the PDF here.

  • New Capital Plan set to include open gangway prototype order

    Open gangways on the Berlin U-Bahn's U6. These so-called großprofil cars are spacious, and the design does wonders for passenger flow and crowding.

    A photo posted by Second Ave. Sagas (@secondavesagas) on

    When the MTA released its revised capital plan earlier this fall, a few tidbits caught my eye. Although I mentioned them via the Second Ave. Sagas Twitter account, I failed to write the follow-up posts. So let’s revisit these items, starting today with the promise open gangways.

    The concept of rolling stock with open gangways — articulated train sets — is one of those not-in-New York ideas we’ve come to know and warily examine over the years. The MTA has issued numerous excuses — tight curves, safety concerns that were valid 25 or 30 years ago — that seem to ring hollow, and every now and then, the agency nods at the idea of five-car sets with open walkways. The last serious consideration came in 2013 when the MTA’s 20-year needs document acknowledged the benefits of rolling stock with open gangways.

    For the MTA, a design with open gangways is a long overdue need. It’s an easy way to boost subway capacity by, as we explored earlier this year, around 8-10 percent per subway train without increasing the frequency of a line, and as anyone who’s ridden the rails at rush hour lately can attest to, any capacity increase would help. So what’s the plan? It is, of course, a pilot.

    According to the revised MTA 2015-2019 capital plan, the agency would purchase 10 open-gangway prototype cars with the $52.4 million expenditure allocated for 2016. For now, these prototypes are lumped in with the R-211 order that is supposed to start replacing the R46s over the next few years. It’s not yet clear where the MTA would run the open gangway prototype cars, how these cars would be designed or what the future holds for open gangways. When I last asked MTA officials about such a design, they told me that certain curves in Lower Manhattan may preclude running rolling stock with open gangways on all lines but that the MTA is committed to testing and, if possible, implementing a design with open gangways in the future.

    Whenever this topic comes up, the usual complaints and critiques arise. In a Times article in 2013, the generation that remembers the Bad Old Days worried about crime. “Remember the time when we were in the high-crime era and gangs were roaming through the trains?” MTA Board member Andrew Albert said to Matt Flegenheimer. “Everybody loved the locked end doors.” Subway crime, of course, is at all-time lows and shows no signs of any meaningful increase. It ain’t the 1980s any longer.

    Meanwhile, others have complained about disruptive buskers and the odors from homeless subway residents rendering half a train inhospitable rather than just one subway car. To this, I say it is New York exceptionalism at its finest, and we are not the special butterflies some would have us believe we are. These open gangways were standard operating procedure on the train lines I experienced in Berlin, Stockholm and Paris this past summer, and they worked great. Passengers could spread out through multiple subway cars, and the buskers moved on. Solving the homeless problem also shouldn’t prevent us from solving the more important capacity crunch, and as rolling stock comes up for replacement, eking out additional space via efficient design should be a priority.

    So do we dare get our hopes up? Only 10 of the next 950 cars the MTA plans to order through the next capital plan will feature open gangways, and those that come online over the next few years will be expected to last another four or five decades. In other words, it’ll be a while before articulated train sets become standard. But this is a start, and a start is more than what we’ve had in the past.

  • ‘Mayor de Blasio Promotes Smoother Ride on Lexington Ave. I.R.T.’

    The mayor, shown here not actually having a press conference, didn't really celebrate a subway project today. (Illustration)
    The mayor, shown here not actually having a press conference, didn’t really celebrate a subway project on Monday. (Illustration)

    With apologies to Michael Grynbaum…

    A few months after moving into Gracie Mansion, Mayor Bill de Blasio approached his transportation commissioner with a question: How do we fix the Lexington Ave. I.R.T.?

    An undulating, unloved subway route underneath the East Side, the Lexington Ave. I.R.T. has long been known for overcrowded subway cars, slowdowns and delays. “I certainly experienced it constantly,” Mr. de Blasio, who commutes to City Hall from the Upper East Side of Manhattan, said on Monday. “It just wasn’t in an acceptable state of repair for the greatest city in the world.”

    Now the mayor, along with 1.3 million other travelers who take the subway line each day, is set to enjoy a smoother ride. An $8.5 million [Ed. note: Ha!] revamp of the subway line from 125th Street to the Brooklyn Bridge will be completed this week, with city officials billing the achievement as the subway line’s first end-to-end overhaul since its completion in 1918.

    Mr. de Blasio, at a ceremony on Monday, stood on the platform at Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall as 4, 5 and 6 trains zipped along the tracks, rustling his orange windbreaker. “This was always a bad route in terms of crowds, delays, etc.,” the mayor said, although he noted that his personal “subway from hell” remained the R train, “which is still burned into my memory.”

    A onetime railfan, now accompanied on the subway by a police detail, the mayor said he recalled his days looking out the front window fondly. He was also asked if his own travels had helped make the Lexington Ave. I.R.T. a priority in a new citywide transit improvement effort. “I’ve certainly experienced it,” the mayor said. “But, again, we’ve heard complaints about this one for a long, long time.”

    * * *

    Meanwhile, back in de Blasio’s New York, here’s what this article about the mayor’s press conference earlier on Monday actually says, under the headline “Mayor de Blasio Promotes Smoother Ride on F.D.R. Drive”:

    A few months after moving into Gracie Mansion, Mayor Bill de Blasio approached his transportation commissioner with a question: How do we fix the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive?

    An undulating, unloved route along the East River, the F.D.R. Drive has long been known for potholes, slowdowns and backups. “I certainly experienced it constantly,” Mr. de Blasio, who commutes to City Hall from the Upper East Side of Manhattan, said on Monday. “It just wasn’t in an acceptable state of repair for the greatest city in the world.”

    Now the mayor, along with 150,000 other travelers who take the road each day, is set to enjoy a smoother ride. An $8.5 million revamp of the drive from 125th Street to the Brooklyn Bridge will be completed this week, with city officials billing the achievement as the road’s first end-to-end resurfacing since its completion in 1966.

    Mr. de Blasio, at a ceremony on Monday, stood on the safe side of a guardrail as traffic zipped along the drive, rustling his orange windbreaker. “This was always a bad road in terms of potholes, bumps, etc.,” the mayor said, although he noted that his personal “road from hell” remained the Cross Bronx Expressway, “which is still burned into my memory.”

    A onetime Ford Escape enthusiast, now driven around by a police detail, the mayor said he recalled his motoring days fondly. He was also asked if his own travels had helped make the F.D.R. Drive a priority in a new citywide repaving effort. “I’ve certainly experienced it,” the mayor said. “But, again, we’ve heard complaints about this one for a long, long time.”

    * * *

    This is not to say that de Blasio shouldn’t focus on the management side of his job, and after I took a few recent trips down the F.D.R. Drive in recent months, it was clear the road needed some work. But imagine — just imagine — if the mayor had the same pride in fixing subway issues and restoring the grandeur of the subway system to its proper place in the New York City transportation hierarchy.

    About the F.D.R. on Monday, de Blasio said, “I certainly experienced it constantly. It just wasn’t in an acceptable state of repair for the greatest city in the world.” There’s no small amount of irony in that statement.

    Lately, I’ve grown very frustrated with the 6 train. It’s slow; it’s crowded; it suffers from uneven headways and bunching. I’ve certainly experienced these problems constantly, and the 6 — local service along our city’s most crowded trunk line — just isn’t in an acceptable state of repair for the greatest city in the world. Imagine if the Mayor cared that much but about the subways — and everyone else’s ride to work — instead of just his own.

  • Whither those B Division countdown clocks?

    A few weeks ago, I first linked to The Atlantic’s lengthy piece on New York City Transit’s technological woes. At the time, I examined the trial and tribulations of bringing communications-based train control online and highlighted how the MTA’s current approach is both impossible to sustain and inefficient in its execution. It is the classic story of a large and conservative bureaucracy unable to adapt to technological change, let alone a fast pace of adaption.

    Let’s dive back into the piece and explore the countdown clock conundrum. As you may recall, James Somers initially set out to write about why only the A Division subway lines — the numbered routes — have countdown clocks while the B Division trains — the lettered lines — do not and will not for the foreseeable future. He also wants to understand why the A Division countdown clocks arrived years late. It is, he writes, “the story of a large organization’s first encounter with a large software project.” As you can imagine, it hasn’t gone particularly well for the MTA.

    First, Somers notes that Automatic Train Supervision, the project that allowed the MTA to introduce countdown clocks on the A Division, is a subset of CBTC, and had the agency better coordinated and understood technology, they wouldn’t have spent 14 years installing an interim solution. The story goes south from there:

    A post-mortem by the Federal Highway Administration details how from the start, an agency which had had little experience with large “systems” projects tried to wing it. For instance, the consulting firm tasked with developing the project plan never made a list of requirements, didn’t talk to the workers who would be maintaining the system until after it was designed, and left vague instructions for large chunks of work—specifying, for instance, “similar functionality to what is currently available”—that later became the focus of drawn-out contract disputes.

    The MTA thought that they could buy a software solution more or less off the shelf, when in fact the city’s vast signaling system demanded careful dissection and reams of custom code. But the two sides didn’t work together. The MTA thought the contractor should have the technical expertise to figure it out on their own. They didn’t. The contractor’s signal engineer gave their software developers a one-size-fits-all description of New York’s interlockings, and the software they wrote on the basis of that description—lacking, as it did, essential details about each interlocking—didn’t work.

    Gaffes like this weren’t caught early in part because the MTA “remained unconvinced of the usefulness of what seemed to them an endless review process in the early requirements and design stages. They had the perception that this activity was holding up their job.” They avoided visiting the contractor’s office, which, to make things worse, was overseas. In all, they made one trip. “MTA did not feel it was necessary to closely monitor and audit the contractor’s software-development progress.”

    The list goes on: Software prototypes were reviewed exclusively in PowerPoint, leading to interfaces that were hard to use. Instead of bringing on outside experts to oversee construction, the MTA tried to use its own people, who didn’t know how to work with the new equipment. Testing schedules kept falling apart, causing delays. The training documentation provided by the contractor was so vague as to be unusable.

    The MTA’s attempts at bringing the ATS system to the larger B Division faltered three times during the first decade of the 21st Century, and instead of trying to speed up the pace of installation of the CBTC system which would, as an ancillary benefit, introduce countdown clocks systemwide, Transit is again looking at a piecemeal solution. Again, it’s not working.

    As we now know, the MTA doesn’t anticipate completed the installation of the Integrated Service Information and Management system on the B Division before 2020. An original deadline of 2017 was deemed unrealistic, and the delay in capital funding pushed this project back to the next five-year plan. And here’s the rub:

    The problem is that the project has slowly taken on a bigger and bigger scope. The minutes of a 2012 Capital Program Oversight Committee meeting reveal that initially, the project’s focus “was to provide Train Arrival Information in stations.” Several service incidents, including a winter storm, drove the MTA to “re-focus project priority to provide centralized service-monitoring and information… followed closely by customer information.”

    It is growing to look more and more like ATS. A request for proposal as recent as six months ago—back when funding looked more secure—called for a 77-month software contract to build out a sophisticated Rail Traffic Management System as part of ISIM-B. That piece of the project is envisioned as a complex centralized “expert system” that would allow operators to quickly diagnose service problems and would intelligently suggest ways to work around the disruption. It is, in a word, ambitious. And ambition is the death knell for big software projects. It’s what made ATS such a quagmire in the first place. It is, one suspects, why funding for countdown clocks has been cut from the latest capital plan: The rest of ISIM-B costs too much. It costs too much because it is trying to do too much. The consequence being that for five or six years, customers will hardly see anything get done at all.

    At this point, Somers comes up short on a solution. He properly cites to BusTime, the MTA’s greatest software success story, as an example that the agency has had a few people at various times with the ability and trust to do something in-house. But those involved in the original creation and implementation of BusTime have long left the MTA, and Jay Walder, the CEO who was willing to give BusTime a shot, was forced out over his apparent lack of political savviness in dealing with both Albany and the TWU.

    So what comes next? Certainly not countdown clocks on the B Division trains any time soon, and certainly not much faith that the MTA can execute complex technology upgrades in a timely or efficient manner. The MetroCard replace is on tap and could suffer from the same fate. Meanwhile, everything is years late and millions of budget. When it’s going to take the better part of a century to bring CBTC to the entire subway line, in the end, do we have any real hope that, without a top-to-bottom organizational overhaul, the MTA can execute on projects that are standard throughout the world? I’m not sure anyone really likes the answer to that question.

  • The MTA doesn’t care about costs except when it does

    In response to the Riders Alliance’s call to improve transit access to LaGuardia Airport by rebranding the Q70 and eliminating its fare, the MTA came down hard against the idea. Despite the Riders Alliance’s contention that a fare-free service would likely generate more ridership, and thus more revenue, for the MTA, the agency opted to highlight the potential affect on its bottom line such a free service would have. Cost estimates ranged from a few hundred thousand to tens of millions, and while officials stopped short of uncategorically dismissing the idea, they might as well have.

    “One-fourth of riders do not come from the subway and don’t use the free transfer, and thus we would lose money on one out of every four customers under their plan,” Transit spokesman Kevin Ortiz said to me in a statement. “If ridership would continue to grow on the route to the level they claim, we would have to add service, and that costs money. And where would we find the buses?”

    Where would the MTA find the buses? Well, that must be the costs MTA spokesman Adam Lisberg had in mind when he later said on Twitter that the agency is “generally opposed” to ideas that “would cost the MTA tens of millions” of dollars. It’s hard to believe increasing service from every 12 minutes to every 10 for a few hours a day would have that much of an effect on the MTA’s budget, but that was the party line earlier this week.

    Meanwhile, it wasn’t the only time the MTA, or its surrogates, relied on an argument over token amounts of money to reject a rider-friendly initiative. Earlier this week, Governor Andrew Cuomo vetoed a measure that would have upped MetroCard transfers on certain routes from one per two hours to two. The measure had bipartisan support, but Cuomo claimed it foisted an unfunded $40 million expense onto the MTA’s shoulders. “The bill,” he said in a veto message, “does not provide any funding to account for this expense. Such funding decisions should be addressed in the context of the state budget negotiations.” The MTA urged those riders who need the extra transfers to buy unlimited ride cards instead.

    For the MTA, this recent attention to dollars lost around the edges of its $13 billion annual budget — a half a million here, $40 million there — is hardly a new development. The MTA’s operating budget has, for years, run on razor-thin margins, thanks in part to capital debt payments, and the agency has recently focused on penny-pinching when it comes to operations, often at the expense of rider-friendly initiatives. Costs matter.

    Meanwhile, just a few weeks ago, the MTA secured $28 billion for its capital projects, and boy do costs not even come into consideration here. The MTA is currently building, along the East Side, the world’s most expensive subway and, underneath Grand Central, the world’s most expensive commuter rail terminal. The 7 line extension was the world’s second most expensive subway, and the Fulton St. Transit Center’s $1.4 billion price tag looks low only because the WTC PATH Hub across the street costs nearly three times as much. Meanwhile, future phases of the Second Ave. Subway are likely to cost even more, and no one at the MTA is decrying these dollar figures which are orders of magnitude higher than a free shuttle bus to the airport.

    It’s hard to say that the MTA cares about construction costs. Outwardly, there’s been very little effort to get them under control, and project costs inch higher and higher with each passing year. Securing the dollars is a fight, and the money goes further everywhere else in the world. Government regulations, interest group politics, local NIMBYism, bad labor practices and plain old corruption seem to all play into the MTA’s costs, but no agency officials have claimed to lose money on capital expansion projects.

    Ultimately, then, it seems that the MTA cares about money only around the margins. Usually, they don’t; sometimes, they do. And those times seem to implicate benefits for riders. This strikes me as a rather uneven response from an agency with so many customers that should be trying to attract more. If anything, it’s hypocritical and exhausting.

  • Riders Alliance calls upon MTA to eliminate Q70 fare to improve transit to LGA

    To better serve LaGuardia, the Riders Alliance has proposed eliminating the fare on the Q70 and rebranding the bus as a shuttle to the airport. (Image courtesy of the Riders Alliance)
    To better serve LaGuardia, the Riders Alliance has proposed eliminating the fare on the Q70 and rebranding the bus as a shuttle to the airport. (Image courtesy of the Riders Alliance)
    When it comes to creative measures aimed at growing ridership while encouraging car-free attitudes in New York City, the MTA hasn’t moved much beyond the Unlimited MetroCard and the so-called one-fare zone. It’s been nearly 20 years since the MTA introduced the MetroCard transfer, and while ridership has skyrocketed since then, the agency hasn’t experimented much with fare policies. Outside of the express buses, New York City Transit’s buses cost the same as a subway ride, and every subway ride costs the same. It’s easy, but it’s also lazy.

    The Riders Alliance — with an eye toward an easy upgrade — wants to begin to push back on this idea. In a report released today, the advocacy group (of which I sit on the board) called up on the MTA to eliminate the fare on the Q70, thus making the bus ride between LaGuardia Airport and Jackson Heights or Woodside free. The group contends that the MTA wouldn’t lose money with the move — and based on a modest projected growth in ridership, could possible capture more revenue from those going to and from the airport. Additionally, the group has called upon the MTA to better brand the Q70 as specifically for airport travelers while increasing reliability and upgrading service. The ideas are new-to-New York but hardly revolutionary and deserve more than just a cursory glance.

    “Transit access to LaGuardia shouldn’t be New York’s best-kept secret,” John Raskin, Executive Director of the Riders Alliance, said. “It should be intuitive and simple. Turning the Q70 into a free LaGuardia subway shuttle is a cost-effective improvement that could revolutionize how New Yorkers get to the airport. It’s not a billion-dollar project; it’s a free project with billion-dollar returns.”

    Raskin is of course referring to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s multi-billion-dollar plan to build a poorly-routed LaGuardia AirTrain. The Riders Alliance feels their bus proposal would alleviate the need for an AirTrain in the short term, but it’s not just about finding a better way to build a more direct and cost-efficient AirTrain. It’s about providing a better transit solution for LaGuardia-bound travelers overall.

    The crux of the report rests on the fact that 90 percent of the Q70 ridership is already transferring to or from the subway (85%) or LIRR (5%), and thus, the MTA has already captured that revenue. In essence, nearly all riders are already riding the Q70 for free, but everyone pays in dwell time, a major criticism for Q70 ridership. (In fact, if anything, eliminate the fare just to cut dwell times on the Q70 would be well worth it.) Were the bus to be free, the Riders Alliance contends, even an increase in transit usage by just one percent of all LaGuardia Airport travelers would cancel out the free bus and in fact make the MTA money. Whether the subways could fit another 200,000 passengers is another question.

    But this isn’t just about making the bus free to increase ridership in the short term. While some are skeptical of initiatives that seem like a short-term move designed to get more people on transit (rather than on implementing changes that lead New Yorkers to choose a car-free, transit-heavy lifestyle), the Riders Alliance report takes a longer view as well. The group has called upon the MTA to run the Q70 with headways no longer than 10 minutes while providing either a dedicated lane for the bus or allowing drivers to optimize their route based on current traffic conditions. Doing so should make the free bus not just the easy choice in the short term but the right choice in the long term as well.

    Additionally, the report notes that current Q70 service isn’t particularly well-suited to appeal to LaGuardia riders. In addition to inconsistent headways and routing that suffers from the whims of surface traffic, signage doesn’t encourage use. The buses do not include information regarding departure terminals and signage at the airport can’t even get the fares right. MetroCards aren’t available for purchase at the bus stop, and those unfamiliar with the New York City bus network wouldn’t easily determine that the Q70 provides a quick connection to the subway. The bus is, in fact, labeled as a bus to Queens rather than a bus to the subway or the LIRR, and neither the MTA nor the Port Authority have signage that clearly indicates what this bus does. In fact, a quarter of airport travelers surveyed said they didn’t know and couldn’t tell that the Q70 was more a shuttle to transit rather than a local bus through Queens.

    To that end, the Riders Alliance have proposed rebranding the bus so that it’s clear where this bus goes and how it goes there. Without a fare and with more frequent service and better advertising, the bus can be a key link to the airport rather than something those in the know take out of convenience. It’s a new idea for New York City but hardly one so radical that it can’t work. As Joe Sitt, head of the Global Gateway Alliance, said, “A clearly branded, free airport subway shuttle is a low cost solution that would provide LaGuardia’s 27 million passengers with a 21st century access link, and with plans to modernize LaGuardia underway, the time to act is now.”

    For its part, though, the MTA threw cold water on the plan. Transit spokesman Kevin Ortiz said the agency “wholeheartedly disagree[s] with the premise that this could all be done at no cost to the MTA. First of all, one-fourth of riders do not come from the subway and don’t use the free transfer, and thus we would lose money on one out of every four customers under their plan. If ridership would continue to grow on the route to the level they claim, we would have to add service, and that costs money. And where would we find the buses? Also, what’s to say that all this would do is shift a portion of riders from the M60 to Q70? At the end of the day, there is simply zero evidence that making it a free shuttle would increase ridership on subways to the point it would make the shuttle self-sustaining.”

    Is this is simply a case of “we-didn’t-invent-it”-itis that plagues New York City, legitimate pushback or a combination of the two? Either way, this is a plan whose feasibility is worth pursuing.

  • Coming Monday: Riders Alliance to call for free Q70 service

    Later on today, the Riders Alliance, along with the Global Gateway Alliance and other NYC advocacy groups, will issue a report and hold a press conference calling upon the MTA to eliminate the fare on the Q70 bus. Their proposal would streamline and clarify access to LaGuardia Airport while increasing the number of airport travelers using a transit connection. The group contends the idea could be implemented immediately and would likely improve the MTA’s bottom line. It’s an intriguing idea and one completely foreign to New York City.

    Due to an embargo on the report, I can’t say much more now about the initiative, but I have a full post ready to go when the embargo is lifted at noon today. Be sure to check back then for the details and fine print regarding this plan. Needless to say, it’s one that deserves full consideration (if not a fast implementation). Can the MTA embrace an idea that so outside the box for the agency? We’ll find out soon.

  • A subway map Kickstarter and weekend work on 12 subway lines

    A photo posted by Second Ave. Sagas (@secondavesagas) on

    Earlier this week, the Transit Museum hosted a panel discussion on the history and look of the New York City subway map. It was the second such event in a month, and it seems that the field of map design is undergoing something of a renaissance, especially in regards to our map. From the pre-Vignelli days to the current John Tauranac-inspired version that you can’t actually use in the subway system due to its absurdly large size, we could (and have) discussed map preferences for posts on end. Perhaps, soon I’ll revisit the topic.

    In the meantime, Peter Lloyd, a historian with a specialty in the New York City subway map and its various iterations, is trying to raise funds for a multi-volume book detailing the history of our subway map. With only a few days left in his Kickstarter campaign, he’s a bit short of his goal. Check out his proposal here, and consider if it’s a worthy endeavor. I’m a sucker for subway map histories, and I hope his book can see the light of day.

    Meanwhile, we have weekend changes to discuss. There’s a map for those — hosted by the MTA at the Weekender site. The descriptions follow.


    From 11:30 p.m. Friday, November 20 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, 1 trains are suspended in both directions between 14 St and South Ferry. Take the 23 trains and free shuttle buses instead. Free shuttle buses provide alternate service between Chambers St and South Ferry.


    From 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, November 21 and from 9:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Sunday, November 22, 1 trains run every 16 minutes between 137 St and Van Cortlandt Park-242 St. The last stop for some trains headed towards Van Cortlandt Park-242 is 137 St.


    From 3:45 a.m. Saturday, November 21 to 9:00 p.m. Sunday, November 22, Van Cortlandt Park-242 St 1 trains run express from 215 St to Van Cortlandt Park-242 St.


    From 11:30 p.m. Friday, November 20 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, 2 trains run local in both directions between Chambers St and 34 St-Penn Station.


    From 6:30 a.m. to 12 Midnight Saturday, November 21 and Sunday, November 22, 3 trains run local in both directions between Chambers St and 34 St-Penn Station.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, November 20 to 7:30 a.m. Sunday, November 22, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, November 22 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, Crown Hts-Utica Av bound 4 trains run express from 14 St-Union Sq to Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall.


    From 4:00 a.m. Saturday, November 21 to 10:00 p.m. Sunday, November 22, Woodlawn-bound 4 trains run express from Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall to Grand Central-42 St.


    From 6:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Saturday, November 21 and from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday, November 22, 5 trains run every 20 minutes between Eastchester-Dyre Av and Bowling Green. Eastchester-Dyre Av bound 5 trains run local from Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall to Grand Central-42 St.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, November 20 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall bound 6 trains run express from 14 St-Union Sq to Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall.


    From 6:45 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday, November 21 and Sunday, November 22, Mets-Willets Point bound 7 trains run express from 74 St-Broadway to Mets-Willets Point.


    From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, November 21 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, A trains are suspended in both directions between Euclid Av and Lefferts Blvd. Free shuttle buses provide alternate service and operate between Euclid Av and Lefferts Blvd, stopping at Grant Av, 80 St, 88 St, Rockaway Blvd, 104 St, and 111 St. Transfer between trains and free shuttle buses at
    Euclid Av and/or Rockaway Blvd. A service will operate normally between Inwood-207 St and Eculid Av, and between Rockaway Blvd and Far Rockaway every 20 minutes.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, November 20 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, E trains are rerouted via the F in both directions between Roosevelt Av and W4 St-Wash Sq. Free shuttle buses run between Court Sq-23 St and 21 St-Queensbridge, stopping at Queens Plaza.


    From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, November 21 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, E trains run local in both directions in Queens.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, November 20 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, F trains are suspended between Coney Island-Stillwell Av and Kings Hwy.


    From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, November 21 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, F trains run local in both directions in Queens.


    From 11:30 p.m. Friday, November 20 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, N trains are suspended in both directions between 36 St and Coney Island-Stillwell Av. N trains are routed via the D line in both directions between 36 St and Bay Pkwy-95 St, the last stop. DR trains and free shuttle buses provide alternate service. Free shuttle buses operate between 36 St and Stillwell Av, making all station stops. Transfer between R trains and shuttle buses at 59 St.


    From 11:45 p.m. Friday, November 20 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, November 22, and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, November 22 to 5:00 a.m. Monday, November 23, 36 St-bound R trains stop at 53 St and 45 St.