The Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced plans to move ahead with its institutional initiative information, a consolidation plan designed to eliminate institutional redundancies. Among the plans are agency-wide programs for Accounting, Human Resources, Payroll and Procurement processing that will save the agency $40 million (and, oh yeah, 240 jobs as well). Now if only the New York legislature would allow the MTA to consolidate the management of their seven divisions. Just imagine the savings potential there. [MTA HQ]
At the end of the day on Friday — always an odd time to make a major announcement — the MTA announced increased service at all times along the L and 7, their two favorite test lines. This move came in response to the subpar scores these lines received on their Rider Report Cards.
According to the report in CityRoom, the expanded service debuted this weekend. Basically, rush hour trains will run every 3.5 minutes on the L (service I could have sworn was implemented last month) with increased service across the board until midnight during the week and until 7 p.m. during the weekends. I guess the MTA hasn’t gotten the memo about Williamsburg’s being a popular weekend destination. The 7 will see more frequent service during rush hour and from 8 p.m. until midnight during the week.
The MTA will probably try to spin this as one of the benefits of the line manager system. However, as CityRoom and others have noted, the 7 and L are self-contained lines that, at no point, share tracks with another train. The MTA can add trains until the lines are at capacity here with the only costs coming from increased service. The same cannot be said of any other line in the system.
This move and the line manager system as a whole has prompted a wide range of responses from public transit experts. This weekend, E. S. Savas, a former first deputy city administrator and a professor of public affairs at Baruch, penned a very straightforward and well-written critique of the MTA’s line manager program. With the MTA’s pushing the increased service on the 7 and L right now, Savas’ piece is even more relevant. Allow me to quote at length:
To be effective and held accountable, managers of decentralized units require autonomy and authority, neither of which is possible within the city’s subway system. These managers will have to operate under the same civil service titles and regulations and the same constricting union agreements, use the standard subway cars and in almost all cases share the tracks. They will have little leeway to run more frequently or more regularly, or to operate longer trains.
There is no indication that the managers will be allowed to buy more subway cars or rebuild stations. Moreover, unless they control their own sections of the rail yards and their own car-maintenance and car-cleaning crews, they will have little influence over the condition of “their” subway cars. Only if the managers of the different lines exercise authority over these factors can one expect innovation, differentiation and competition; otherwise each manager could reasonably claim that he lacked control over crucial factors and could point a finger elsewhere…
Good managers could set higher standards and better schedules and procedures for cleaning, painting and making repairs, and follow-up to assure that the standards are met. They could improve signage and lighting and perhaps even install intelligible public address systems. They could emulate Tokyo’s stations, where advertisers create stunning displays that draw rave reviews and pay for station upkeep and more. Years ago the transit agency appointed station managers, but it is not clear what authority they have and what results they have achieved, or whether it was merely a public relations gesture.
As Savas sees it, the MTA is just installing a bunch of figureheads who will serve as a glorified level of bureaucracy. Maybe these managers will act as intermediaries between the MTA brass and Joe and Jane Straphanger. But in all likelihood, these managers will have the same impact as those station managers Savas mentioned. Each station has a manager, but no one really knows what that person actually does.
As I wrote last week, MTA CEO Lee Sander and NYCT President Howard Roberts are, in a way, staking their legacies on a move that should eliminate muddled middle management and replace it with a more clarified view of who is in charge of what in the subways. But for that to happen, the New York City subways need a lot more autonomy than they have or appear to be getting under this line manager plan.
We can celebrate much-needed and long-overdue service increases on the L and 7, but it seems that the MTA is just using those lines as guinea pigs. They can prop up the line managers with service additions and station beautification plans, if they wish, but in the end, the money, the resources and drive will be flowing from the same old MTA. We’ll just be left wondering if those line managers are truly worth it.
After the London Underground bombings in 2005, the MTA ramped up its emergency preparedness. One of their measures included putting around 100 workers in high-volume stations who were in charge solely of emergency procedures should a calamity befall the subway system.
Two years later, these workers have yet to be put to use, and with other emergency preparedness in place, the MTA wants to eliminate these 100 positions as part of their internal belt-tightening efforts. New York’s politicians, of course, will have nothing of it. We can’t cut emergency workers in a post-9/11 world, now can we? Well, I think we can.
Before we get into that, though, Pete Donohue from The Daily News has more on this story.
The posts at 20 key hubs are no longer needed because NYC Transit – the MTA’s bus and subway division – has improved subway station exits throughout the system, managers claim. “Panic bars” have been installed on locked swinging-door gates that lead to sidewalk stairwells.
Riders can unlock the gates themselves and no longer need token booth clerks to open them up, NYC Transit spokesman Charles Seaton said. The upgrades “add a significant amount of exiting capacity to the system,” he added.
In response, Peter Villone, chairman of the city council’s Public Safety Committee, claimed that the MTA is “jeopardizing the lives of their riders” because, hey, people might be slowed down by those HEET turnstiles which, Mr. Villone, were designed to facilitate rapid egress from subway stations. Common sense has a field day with the city council sometimes.
Now I know many people are wary about eliminating emergency response positions, and this cut would only save the MTA a few million dollars whereas better accountability with regards to the Student MetroCard program could save the MTA $71.5 million. But I think it’s a fine program to cut.
Do we really need 100 extra workers whose only responsibility is to be prepared for an emergency? No. Rather, the MTA should make sure that all of its employees are well versed in emergency response protocols.
It’s not hard to figure out which of the 20 key hubs are staffed. I’m sure Times Square, Penn Station and all of the other insanely crowded stops are on the list. These stations all have plenty of other MTA personnel working there, and these workers should be well trained in case of an emergency. Despite Villone’s calls, we the riders would be just fine in case of an emergency if we were taking instruction from MTA personnel already on the payroll rather than 100 unnecessary workers.
Kings County Supreme Court Judge Bruce Balter has ordered against the Transit Workers Union in their efforts to restore the automatic collection of union dues. The Union lost this right after the illegal strike in 2005, and despite the MTA’s siding on the side of the TWU, the judge would restore the collection without a promise of barring future strikes. The TWU plans to appeal. [amNew York]
When, in June, Gov. Eliot Spitzer nominated his friend and donor H. Dale Hemmerdinger to the MTA chair position, the New York State GOP Chair questioned Hemmerdinger’s credentials. While at the time many assumed Joseph N. Mondello’s statements to be typical partisan blustering, Hemmerding’s appearance last week in front of the State Senat Transportation Committee did absolutely nothing to assuage those fears.
To put it bluntly, Hemmerdinger, a big Democratic donor, made a complete and utter fool out of himself in front of the committee. He remained non-committal on the fare hike — a position he has maintained since June — but worse still was his admission that the extent of his transportation knowledge, as William Neuman reported in The Times, “began and ended with what he had picked up by reading the newspaper.”
Neuman has more from this seemingly disastrous committee hearing:
Asked what the state would do to handle more riders if New York City imposed congestion pricing, Mr. Hemmerdinger replied: “I only know what I read in the papers at this point.”
On his familiarity with the authority’s proposals for a fare increase: “I’ve looked at it as I’ve read it in the paper.”
On whether he had any new ideas that could help avoid a raise in fares: “I’m only on the outside. I can only read the paper.”
On the authority’s efforts to sell development rights to the Hudson Yards in West Midtown: “I don’t know anything about it beyond what I read in the paper.”
That’s comforting, but it’s not the end of the world. Bear with me here.
Now, I could understand that Hemmerdinger was attempting to put forth something of a populist face. “I’m not the transit wonk,” he’s trying to say. “I’m the successful businessman here to put the MTA’s finances in order.” But he failed. He came out sounding like an uneducated Democratic crony who received the nomination because of his close ties to Gov. Spitzer. A few passes through the easily accessible Fare and Toll and Capital Construction sections of the MTA’s Website could have done wonders for Hemmerdinger’s introduction to the subway-riding public last week.
Of course, the subway literati are a bit dismayed by this development. SUBWAYblogger compared the situation to President George W. Bush’s disastrous appointment of Michael Brown to head FEMA; Gothamist notes how Hemmerdinger didn’t even display a limited understanding of the state’s ethics rules during his hearing; Streetsblog amusingly wondered which paper Hemmerdinger reads; and the good folks at Subchat noted that Peter Kalikow, the outgoing MTA chair, was another no-nothing candidate with political ties who wasn’t all that successful in his post.
Respectfully, I disagree with the concerned masses. Sure, it’s alarming to see a political appointee handle himself so poorly in front of a Senate committee. But in reality, it’s not Hemmerdinger’s role to set transportation policy at the MTA. His role — and it’s one for which he is aptly suited — is to pick up the financial pieces and make sure the money’s in order.
When Kalikow was in charge, he was the sole man at the top, serving as both CEO and Chair of the MTA. But Spitzer recognized the mistake in that arrangement, and Elliot “Lee” Sander, one of the nation’s leading transportation experts, has down a masterful job in his first few months at CEO of the MTA. He, along with New York City Transit President Howard Roberts, will set the transportation policy.
With these two exceptionally qualified men entrenched in their positions, the MTA doesn’t need yet another policy wonk in the upper echelons of management. Rather, as I said in June, they need a successful businessman with financial acumen to guide the Authority through what promises to be a few tumultuous fiscal years. We can cringe at his committee appearances this week, but he’s the right man for the guy, all things considered right now.
The New York City subways are not, by any stretch of the imagination, wheelchair accessible. While new stations and those undergoing renovations must adhere to ADA regulations, the subway system is replete with staircases old enough to be grandfathered out of automatic ADA compliance. Not everyone is happy about this.
Enter Michael Harris and the Disabled Riders Coalition. Harris, 23 and a recent grad of Manhattanville College, is the executive director of a coalition of disabled and non-disabled riders who are advocating for a subway system more accommodating to those in wheelchairs and those with other disabilities.
While Harris is constantly working to monitor ADA compliance and accessibility in the subway system, every few months an accident comes along that tragically thrusts the Disabled Riders Coalition into the spotlight. This week, when a train at Penn Station struck and seriously injured a woman in a wheelchair, was one of those times.
Here’s what happened, courtesy of Newsday:
A woman was struck by a train and seriously injured after the back wheels of her electric wheelchair got stuck on the yellow studded area of a Penn Station subway platform, police said yesterday.
The Manhattan woman, 52, whom police did not identify, had just gotten off a No. 2 train Sunday evening when she turned her head to see why her chair was caught, witnesses told investigators. As the train pulled away, one of its cars struck her head, then another car hit her wheelchair, catapulting her from the chair and into a column, police said.
While NYCT officials were quick to note that they “heard other things” as well as this account, the agency is investigating. Ironically, the yellow edge with the raised studs is designed to keep all riders — but notably those with vision impairments — away from the edge of the platforms.
On Monday, Harris and his group led a news conference to draw some attention to this matter. “I myself on numerous occasions have been hit by a train and just knocked to the side a little bit. Sadly, in her case, it was much worse,” Harris said to Newsday.
The MTA, meanwhile, has plans to make 100 stations wheelchair-accessible within the next 13 years. Right now, just 61 of the system’s 468 stations are accessible. All of the stations along Second Ave. will be fully accessible and ADA compliant.
Now, I understand that it takes a long time to install elevator systems that run from street level to the turnstile plaza to the tracks. I also understand that, in many cases, the areas around train stations are simply too built up to fit in an elevator without some serious negotiating by the MTA. However, I would have to believe that it’s possible to make more than 39 stations accessible in 13 years.
It’s not easy to modernize and bring a 100-year-old subway system up to speed on ADA compliancy. But it should happen sooner rather than later.
The Coney Island/Stillwell Ave. terminal uses solar panels on the roof as an alternative source of energy. (Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.)
Earlier this week, the MTA joined the growing chorus of environmentally minded political and corporate entities when it launched its very own sustainability initiative. By now, the details of the initiative and the members of the Sustainability Commission have proliferated throughout the regular news sources: Cityroom, Gothamist, New York 1.
On its surface, a green MTA represents a very smart political move in an era when our society is finally focusing on the environmental dangers we will be facing in the very near future. But there’s more to this announcement than meets the eye. More on that in a minute.
First, what’s the MTA doing? Take it away, press release:
The Sustainability Commission will develop a master set of recommendations that will help reduce the ecological footprint of MTA operations and capital programs and minimize the impact of the MTA on ecosystems in the MTA region and Northeast Corridor. The commission will cast a wide net, looking at everything from energy use and waste management to transit-oriented development and green, high-performance buildings.
Part of the commission’s mission will be to identify sustainability initiatives that have both environmental benefits and financial benefits. These financial benefits can take a number of forms, including cost savings from the use of new technologies or revenue from an agency’s green venture.
Among your typical “How can we reduce our carbon footprint?” questions, the MTA will tackle is this interesting one: What role can the MTA play in promoting smart-growth strategies and transit-oriented development? Of course, MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander extolled the virtue of this very worthwhile program. “This is a unique moment both globally and here in New York, with more and more people focused on sustainability and living greener lives,” Sander said. “As we advocate for a sustainable future based on increased transit usage, the MTA is doing its part to make sure our transportation network operates as sustainably as possible.”
But while cleaner-fuel buses, energy-efficient stations like the Coney Island terminal pictured above, and the use of wind power in some facilities are all well and great, the MTA is already doing more than we realize for the environment in New York City. The MTA, by virtue of its public transportation mission, is already a very green organization.
New York City Transit shuttles around millions of people every day. These millions could just as well clog up the air with exhaust for their cars if they chose to forgo commuter rail, buses or subways in exchange for the singularly American experience of driving in 38 hours of traffic per year. Without the myriad buses and subways, New York City would be a cesspool of pollution, and the best example of a dystopian New York City can be found in the smog of Los Angeles.
I certainly will applaud the MTA for taking a green initiative. Clean-air buses, like those in, for example, San Francisco, more subway service, green bus rooftops: These would all serve to make our city environmentally more healthy, and I look forward to reading the Commission’s recommendations come Earth Day 2008. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the MTA is already green. So keep riding those subways. The city’s air and your lungs will thank you later on.
When it rains, it pours, especially along the flood-prone Queens Boulevard lines. (Photo by flickr user chrisj)
As the MTA and the City of New York begin the long process of addressing systemic problems that came to light during last week’s subway flood and subsequent system-wide outage, economists studying climate change say New York and other urban areas should brace for more floods in the future.
An article at LiveScience delves into the issues cities with aging infrastructures face as the weather becomes harsher. Andrea Thompson has more:
The likely intensification of extreme weather events from global warming could mean that urbanites have more events like last week’s subway flooding in New York City to look forward to in the future.
The flooding and subsequent paralysis of New York’s subway system—from nearly 1.5 inches of rain falling in just an hour—raised concerns about the subway system’s infrastructure and the fate of the infrastructures of coastal cities worldwide in the face of extreme events that could become more frequent in our warming world.
“This is the kind of thing that we probably will see more of,” said Kathleen Miller, an economist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who studies the effects of climate change on society.
Thompson goes on to detail the problems New York will face as its infrastructure nears the end of its practical life. Ilan Kelman, a postdoc fellow at NCAR, said the city should invest heavily in its infrastructure for the 21st century because the drains and tunnels, some built as early as the mid-1800s, just can’t handle storms of increased intensity.
Of greater concern to me was MTA spokesman Mike Charles’ comments. In response to a question about the MTA’s factoring climate change, Charles told Thompson, “It’s too early to say on that… they’re not ignorant of it, but it’s so speculative at this point.”
Now, I recognize that global warming has somehow become a political issue. It’s damaging to admit that — gasp — the climate is changing and that human actions are largely responsible for the change. But that’s the reality of the situation. The IPCC has long since concluded this, and the evidence is all around us. Right now, the MTA can’t afford to wait on global climate change. If they do, just expect more and more subway flooding until it becomes cost-prohibitive to address the problems.
Someone somewhere needs to step it up in response to global climate change. Can it be the MTA?
Every subway rider has his or her own vision for a better subway system. (Click here or on the image for guypak’s full version.)
Every few months, a thread such as this one pops up on the Straphangers Riders Diaries board or on Subchat. One person proposes the ways in which the New York City subway system could be extended to be a more inclusive system.
In the future MTA system linked above, the 7 goes beyond Main Street in Flushing and the F extends past its eastern terminus in Jamaica. The V journeys through a now-neglected part of Queens before meeting up with the A out to Far Rockaway. The 2 extends to Kings Plaza; the G permanently stops at Church Ave. (instead of its current planned temporary excursion into Kensington); the A runs a cross-Bronx line; and the N and W finally deliver subway riders to LaGuardia Airport.
While this map doesn’t include F/V express/local service in Brooklyn or the West Side extension of the 7 train, the 28 new stops would address many of the inadequacies of the current system, which, mind you, hasn’t been extended in over 80 years. Meanwhile, as we New York transit buffs dream of a future, plans for expansion seem noticeably off the table.
For the last few days, the MTA chiefs have been trying hard to justify a fare hike (and some pols think the MTA should just ask for more money from Albany). But in all of the talk of fare hikes, nary a word has been uttered about expanding subway service. Sure, the Second Ave. subway is under construction, but what about the rest of the city? At a time when the mayor is trying to push for fewer cars and better public transportation, more rail service is exactly what this city needs.
As a model for its expansion plans, New York City should look no further than London. While its taken more than 10 years to get this project off the ground, London Transport announced plans last week for the long-anticipated Thameslink rail project. The project will deliver more comprehensive commuter rail service through London. This includes a 300-percent increase in the number of trains reaching center London and an increase in the number of seats available during peak hours by 14,500.
The article contains a kicker that should ring some bells with New Yorkers:
Network Rail says the Thameslink upgrade is needed because 70% of all rail journeys begin or end in London and the south east and London’s population is projected to grow by nearly one million people in the next 20 years.
Those numbers sound suspiciously similar to Mayor Bloomberg’s estimates of the projected increase in New York’s population over the next 23 years. In London, the British are addressing projected population growth by preparing for it now. In New York, we’re sitting idly by while politicians whittle away the one good plan — congestion pricing — that would have boosted funds available for public transportation infrastructure. We’re not even considering increasing LIRR or Metro-North service either.
So as the fare hike debates heat up and the congestion pricing debates heat up, New York should turn to its sister city in the UK for inspiration. After 80 years of pining for a Second Ave. subway and a JFK Raillink, I would hope that the city would have learned its lesson. Planning now for the future seems obvious to me. Maybe we just need a reminder.
It’s all Hemmerdinger, all the time, this week at Second Ave. Sagas. After news about his appointment and news about cranky GOP leaders, we’ve got news about everyone’s favorite MTA topic: the possible 2008 fare hike.
Hemmerdinger, not yet officially the new MTA chair, hasn’t taken a stand on the potential fare hike looming on the horizon. To this, I say, “Duh.” Hemmerdinger isn’t going to give state legislators any reason to block his nomination; why would he make himself the least popular man at the MTA before his first day on the job? He also won’t lie and say that a fare hike is avoidable when it seems clear one is heading our way.
The Daily News has more:
Dale Hemmerdinger, the head of Atco Properties and Management, an international real estate company, said he’d have to delve further into Metropolitan Transportation Authority matters – and be confirmed by the state Senate – before he could offer an opinion on whether an increase is warranted.
The fare is only part of the equation, he said. Government subsidies pay for much of transit operations. “In terms of whether it’s fair or not, the idea is to keep it as affordable as possible, and that’s determined by how much in subsidies there is coming in…,” he said.
Hemmerdinger’s recent experience with transit policy suggests that he will be in favor of a fare hike in the near future. Last year, he was head of the MTA’s Citizen’s Budget Commission, an external audit group that urged the MTA to raise fares in order to meet its operating budget.
For me, the issue of a fare boils down to one point: If the MTA raises the fares, then they should be willing to provide better service. They should provide more trains an express options when tracks are available. They should make sure the money is pumped back into the system in a way that benefits riders.
While Hemmerdinger for now has to politick his way to the MTA chair position, when his job is more secure, I would expect a fare hike. Maybe that fare hike won’t be a bad thing either.