Buses

Once upon a time, the glory days of late 2007, the MTA had high hopes for a battery-powered bus with a turbine engine from DesignLine. The authority ran a test bus throughout the fall and ordered a small series of five in 2009 for a pilot. At the time, these vehicles were in the running to be the bus of the future, and in late 2009, the public voiced its approval. Alas, it is not to be.

For the past few weeks, I’d heard rumblings that the DesignLine bus pilot had failed, and Transit today confirmed the news. They summed it up in a statement:

“Based on testing that was conducted on DesignLine buses from August 2009 through December 2010 it became clear that the 30KW turbine engine did not provide enough power to operate in regular passenger service in a multitude of conditions. A larger 65KW turbine was fitted on a test bus but after extensive testing in service operation, it proved to lack an acceptable level of reliability for NYCT passenger service. We will return the five buses that were in Evaluation Service and all monies that were given to DesignLine will be refunded to NYC Transit.”

So much for that.

A new state comptroller's report questions the MTA's bus inspection efforts. (Photo by flickr user Stephen Rees)

The MTA has an inspection problem. As the investigation into falsified subway signal reports is ongoing, Thomas DiNapoli, New York State’s comptroller, released an audit yesterday damning the MTA’s bus inspection efforts. According to the report, nearly half of the MTA’s bus fleet has not been properly inspect, and the costs for these less-than-complete inspections are astronomical.

“New Yorkers aren’t getting what they pay for when it comes to bus service,” DiNapoli said. “Other cities across the nation spend much less on maintenance and get better results. The MTA needs to step up bus maintenance performance and bring down maintenance costs.”

The audit, available here as a PDF, paints a rather bleak picture of bus inspection efforts. For instance, of a random sample of 23 buses from various depots, 584 of the required 1255 inspections over a two-year time frame were “not performed on time, were not performed correctly, or were not performed at all.” Additionally, the engine inspections required for hybrid buses at 48,000 and 96,000 miles were not conducted on any of the 17 hybrid buses selection.

The news gets worse. Buses at 18 of the MTA’s 29 depots did not reach their performance goals. For instance, at one depot the mean distance between failures clocked in at 3581 miles while the target was 4674 miles. A whopping 52 percent of depots saw their buses break down well before scheduled maintenance intervals.

DiNapoli looked at costs as well. The report says: “The maintenance cost per bus mile is another measurement that is used in the evaluation of a maintenance program’s effectiveness. We compared this measurement at the MTA and eight other metropolitan transportation agencies in 2008, and found that the MTA’s maintenance cost of $5.53 per bus mile was at least 64 percent higher, and as much as 199 percent higher, than the cost at the other eight agencies. We question whether it is necessary for the MTA’s bus maintenance costs to be so much higher than the costs at other comparable transportation agencies. We recommend that the MTA identify the reasons for this discrepancy and develop a plan to reduce its bus maintenance costs, which exceed $770 million in 2008.”

Ultimately, DiNapoli’s office recommends a series of items that seem almost banal by comparison but strike at the heart of the problem. DiNapoli recommends better communication and monitoring of bus inspections; better enforcing standards for mean distances between failures and improving those numbers; and identifying ways to save money on the ridiculously high costs of bus maintenance. It’s up to the MTA to identify and control those costs.

In reply, the MTA essentially agreed with DiNapoli’s findings. While they questioned some of the technical aspects of the bus reliability measures and the focus on mean distance between failures as a benchmark, the authority admitted that their costs are simply too high. “The MTA agrees that our bus maintenance program must deliver both reliability and cost effectiveness,” agency COO Charles Monheim wrote. “During the past year, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to reduce bus maintenance costs, and we will continue to seek further improvements while minimizing the impact on customer service.”

In its response, the authority alleged that the unique nature of New York’s bus system leads to these high costs. Because bus utilization is up to four times higher in New York than in other cities and because buses operate at low speeds and along routes with “poor road conditions,” they suffer a higher degree of wear and tear than similarly situated vehicles in other cities. Furthermore, because the MTA’s labor costs are nine to 122 percent higher than the other systems cited in DiNapoli’s report, the costs add up.

DiNapoli’s findings certainly aren’t comforting. Our buses seem to be taxed heavily, and it costs too much to maintain them. Shirking on inspections only serves to put passengers in harm’s way, and that’s bad news for everyone.

Nearly two years ago, Edwin Thomas, a bus driver along the B46, was stabbed to death by a passenger who refused to pay his fare. It took over a year for the MTA to being a driver partition pilot program, and the unions have been pushing the MTA to improve bus driver safety in the interim. Today, we learn that the MTA will expand the number of bus equipped with surveillance cameras.

Beginning in the spring, Transit will begin to install cameras in 400 Manhattan buses, and by early 2012, the system should be up and running. According to the authority, “video surveillance is viewed as a vital element of [its] ongoing effort to maintain a safeand secure transit network for customers and employees.” They system, which will cost $9.75 million or $17,900 per bus, has been created by UTC to serve as a “visible crime deterrent.” It will assist law enforcement efforts and aid in the prosecution of criminal activity aboard buses.

The system carries a relatively high price tag because of its complexity. The system will include “multiple interior cameras and DVR functionality.” The images will be transmitted the the nine bus depots around the city where equipment can analyze the images and perform diagnostic checks. The authority tried to implement a similar system four years go but the contractor went out of business.

“Throughout the country video surveillance has clearly been shown to deter criminal activity on transit vehicles, and we also believe that it will be extremely valuable in investigating accident injury claims,” NYC Transit President Thomas F. Prendergast said. “This type of system will go along way towards ensuring the security of out customers and employees.”

Union leaders praised the move. “Our bus operators are assaulted three, four times a week across the city. I think cameras are a deterrent,” TWU head John Samuelsen said. He also requested that the city “beef up the police presence on buses.”

If this initial trial is successful, the MTA can exercise an option in the control for another 1150 cameras. Those would be installed in “high-crime routes” in the outer boroughs.