MTA

I’m going to do something I don’t do too often in this space: I’m going to rant about the way the MTA handles train transfers at stations with island platforms. Here we go.

On Tuesday, when I was on the way back to Brooklyn from work, I took a B from West 4th St. to DeKalb where I would switch to an M or R to take me to Union St. and my gym. Usually, it’s a pretty quick ride; during rush hour, I can get a B to DeKalb or a D to Pacific St. and the M/R trains usually show up after a few minutes’ wait.

Tuesday was no exception. As the B pulled into DeKalb, the R train was sitting across the platform with the doors open seemingly waiting for connecting passengers. The B did its usually crawl into DeKalb, and we sat for a beat before the doors open. The entire time we sat there, the R had been posed, doors open awaiting passengers.

When the doors to the B finally opened, the doors to the R slammed shut. All of us waiting for that train — the Bay Ridge-bound passengers and the folks looking for stops in between — were denied our connection. It was an inexplicable move by the MTA. Why bother holding the doors to the R open just to close them when the passengers on the B finally decamp from their train?

A few minutes later, an M showed up to whisk us south through Brooklyn, and I was soon at Union St., the incident largely forgotten for most of the people who were stymied by the R. I however couldn’t help but think about that R train. How many times have we seen this happen? Whether it’s at Broadway and Lafayette on the BMT IND or W. 72nd St. on the IRT, trains will routinely close their doors right as a train on the adjacent platform pulls up. Frustrated passengers are left staring at lights receding down the tunnel while their desired transfer heads off into the distance.

It wouldn’t be too hard to or too inconvenient for train operators to hold their doors and extra 10 or 15 seconds at major transfer points. It wouldn’t throw off the train schedules, and it wouldn’t create back-ups in the tunnels. It would create good will and positive feelings from other passengers, and that is something the MTA could sorely use these days.

When the MTA, in December, announced plans to add more line managers and, seemingly, another layer of bureaucracy to an overburdened agency, I noted that the leadership were staking a lot on this program. Meanwhile, the transit experts did not believe the program would succeed because the line managers wouldn’t have the necessary autonomy.

Well, the line managers have been in place on the 7 and L lines for a few months now, and the results are slowly trickling in. So far, we’ve seen a mixed bag of improvements. The MTA likes to tout their ability to finish the 7 line work this winter ahead of schedule as a sign that the line manager system is working. However, favorable weather did as much to speed up the work as anything else.

On the public front, the MTA is pushing hard to stress the importance of a program about which the public should still be skeptical. The latest look at the line manager comes in the form of a lengthy piece on ProgressiveRailroading.com. Jeff Stagl, the magazine’s managing editor, goes in depth on the line managers, and his work leaves me with many of the same questions I had coming in. An excerpt:

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority agency’s subway division has a “stovepipe” organizational structure that’s poorly integrated because each department functions as a silo, says [NYC Transit President Howard] Roberts. As a result, the world’s second-largest subway system by size and third-largest by ridership is slow to identify and rectify operational shortcomings. For example, it might take a year to repair a broken speaker in one of NYCT’s 468 stations because it takes time for a work order to be drawn up, wind its way through several departments and continue changing hands, says Roberts.

So, he’s trying to decentralize NYCT to create a management structure that functions in unison — and with less bureaucracy — to speed decision-making and work processes.

“The scope of the system is staggering,” says Roberts. “We’re reorganizing to reduce that scale.”

The article then goes on to detail the ways in which the MTA is trying to get in touch with its customers and how the line managers should make things better. But I foresee a bureaucratic challenge: While Roberts says the MTA is trying to reduce scale, the plans call for line managers on 22 subway lines who will report to group managers. Who knows how far up the chain managers will run, but this just seems like a reorganization of the current system rather than a complete overhaul.

Bits and pieces of the story stick out as well. Faced with cleanliness problems, the MTA attempted to rectify a poor situation. Supposedly, one person was responsible for cleaning five stations in an eight-hour shift. By adding 313 cleaners, NYCT now has 1430 on staff and, thankfully, they “changed cleaning processes so one employee isn’t responsible for numerous stations.” But with over three times as many cleaners as stations, mathematically, NYCT could allocate three cleaners each to spend eight hours cleaning one station each day. The subway system certainly doesn’t appear as clean as it should by my count.

Institutional problems such as these will continue to plague NYCT and the MTA until a better system of horizontal integration occurs. We can continue to add more and more line managers, but does that solve or exacerbate a problem of bureaucracy? Stagl’s piece is well worth the read to see how the MTA plans to solicit more rider feedback, and the agency should be applauded for these efforts. But the changes that grow out of the feedback don’t seem to cut it quite yet.

The Regional Plan Association loves this idea. (Image from the MTA)

Toward the end of Elliot Sander’s State of the MTA speech yesterday morning, one of the MTA Capital Construction employees sitting near me turned to his friend and laughed off Sander’s “Network Expansion Options” presentation. “It’s good to be a planner,” he said, with a chuckle, of the MTA CEO and Executive Director’s proposed 40-year expansion plan.

It was a very knowing chuckle. The suits at MTA Capital Construction understand reality. They know what it takes to attempt to build three stops on a new subway line, let alone an entire branch that cuts through three densely-populated boroughs. They know that in the MTA’s first 40 years, the agency hasn’t added much in the way of subway lines to a city that badly needs them. What would make the next 40 years any different?

For the better part of an hour, Sander spoke about the MTA’s last 40 years, its current state and the next 40 years. He put the future on display. “Today, we stand at a crossroads,” he said. “We can take a business-as-usual approach to how we run the MTA, completing the projects that are currently underway and continuing the State of Good Repair program. Or we can set our sights higher. We can complete the projects underway, continue the State of Good Repair program and press on to give the region the network of mobility it needs to be competitive with its global peers.”

For the most part, though, the speech held few surprises. Sander talked about the latest $29.5-billion, five-year capital plan; the fare hike and planned service upgrades; and the potential impact the congestion fee may have on transit.

He routinely stressed using the city’s vast public transit network to remain a competitive 21st Century city. “Today’s MTA is positioned to…become the best in class of large public transportation agencies in the world,” he said. “New York is locked in a competition for brainpower and capital with places like London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Paris. We cannot settle for a second-rate transportation network.”

Sander also called upon the government to invest in mass transit in New York and throughout the country. “Next year, we will have four tunnel-boring machines operating to expand the subway and regional rail systems. Sounds impressive?” he said. “Right now, Shanghai has 90 such machines at work on rail and other projects…Our biggest global competitor, China, spends 9 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure.Meanwhile, the United States spends less than 1% of its GDP. That is unacceptable.”

But the real Holy Grail of his speech came as he started speculating on the MTA’s 40-year future. As the illustration up top shows, Sander did not hold back imaging a vastly different and improved subway system:

The Second Avenue Subway can act as a trunk line for new service to West Harlem, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx…Consistent with the vision for a Lower Manhattan rail link, imagine the Second Avenue Subway running south to Lower Manhattan, then going under the East River to downtown Brooklyn and on to Jamaica, Queens, via the Long Island Rail Road’s Atlantic Avenue Branch, with a connection to the AirTrain to JFK.

Second Avenue can also provide a Manhattan route for a new service in Queens, running through the 63rd Street tunnel relieve overcrowding on the Queens Boulevard line.

After completion of East Side Access and Second Avenue, the wave of investments that need to be made in the next 25 to 40 years should rely heavily on the MTA’s diamonds in the rough: underutilized or dormant freight and commuter rail rights-of-way that can be transformed into subway lines; and lightly used middle tracks on subway lines that can be used for new express services…

In one scenario, the extension of the Second Avenue Subway I described could connect to new tracks within the right of way of the LIRR Main Line between Jamaica and Port Washington Junction. We can also utilize the Rockaway Beach right-of-way to provide new transit access from the Main Line corridor to southern Queens and the Rockaway Peninsula.

We need to take a close look at the Regional Plan Association’s circumferential subway line, which would convert the lightly used Bay Ridge freight line into a subway service that would run in an arc from southern Brooklyn to Queens to the Bronx.

In the Bronx, we have at least two opportunities to give customers faster, more direct connections – something planners call “right-routing.” We can extend the D train north and east to connect with the 2 and 5 trains at Gun Hill Road for more direct connections between the central Bronx and Manhattan’s West Side…

The MTA network’s 55 miles of underused middle track on elevated subway lines also represent a tremendous opportunity that we must exploit. These lines, primarily in Brooklyn and the Bronx, might enable additional express services to be operated, shortening travel times between these boroughs and the Manhattan core.

In the end, Sander’s plan is ambitious, and as the builders noted, it sure does make the planners sound pretty good. But will it be a reality? Can it be a reality? The answer to the second question is yes; the answer to the first question is maybe.

The City needs the projects Sander is selling here, and someone needs to step up and take the reins. It’s one thing to talk vaguely about subway expansion and the need for more lines. It’s another thing entirely to do what Sander is doing and putting forward plans that could revolutionize and modernize New York’s subway and public transit system.

For too long have the city and state leaders allowed the MTA to eke by on next to nothing. While Sander’s plan may be unrealistic, it takes a visionary to move things forward, and as the MTA sits on the precipice of its next 40 years, today’s speech made me think that Sander is the right man for the MTA at the right time.

As he said near the end of his speech, “As the MTA goes, so goes the region.” Now, let’s see what he can do.

The subways are crowded from any height. (Photo by flickr user allen81)

Subway riders, according to figures released by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, is at a 56-year high. As anyone who ever rides the trains could tell you, the subways are indeed crowded.

The MTA’s own press release fills in the details:

The efficiency, value and convenience of MTA New York City Transit’s network of subways and buses drew 2.3 billion riders last year, the highest annual ridership since 1969 and an increase of 2.7 percent or 60.1 million trips over 2006. Over the past five years alone, NYC Transit’s annual ridership has increased 6.1 percent. On average, weekday ridership was a combined 7.4 million, a 2.1 percent gain over 2006. Weekend ridership – Saturday and Sunday combined – also showed impressive gains up to 7.7 million, the highest annual weekend ridership in more than 35 years…

Subway ridership of 1.56 billion accounted for more than two-thirds of NYC Transit’s ridership, and was the highest annual subway ridership since 1951. Subway ridership jumped 4.2 percent or 63.6 million trips from 2006. Weekday subway ridership in 2007 averaged more than 5 million, the first time it has done so since 1952. In 2007, average weekend subway ridership was 5.1 million, an increase of 6.3 percent or 304,000 trips from 2006 and the highest weekend ridership in over 35 years. Annual subway ridership increased 10.6% from 2002 to 2007.

The L train, serving rapidly gentrifying and expanding neighborhoods in Williamsburg and points east, saw the highest growth with an eight percent increase in passengers.

Meanwhile, the MTA used this announcement to highlight the need for adequate funding for the subway’s future. With annual ridership constantly increasing and showing no signs of slowing down, officials called for sufficient money for infrastructure. “The continued investment in new subway cars and buses is not going unnoticed by our customers who are responding by increased usage of our system,” MTA NYC Transit President Howard Roberts said. “These historic ridership gains do, however, point out the increasing need for additional funding for continued infrastructure upgrades.”

On the other hand, Gene Russianoff, lawyer at the Straphangers Campaign, noted that supply is not keeping up subway demand. “The good news is people are flocking to the subways. The troublesome news is they are not keeping up with enough service,” he said.

So there you go. If the subways seem crowded, it’s because they are. And if this sounds familiar, well, just check out the news from February about 2006.

Earlier this morning, I introduced the Permanent Citizens Adivsory Committee’s annual report by examining their critique of New York City Transit. Let’s take a peak at what the PCAC had to say about the folks upstairs at the MTA>

The Good

The PCAC runs through the typical list of good things at the MTA. They are very high on the expertise and people skills that MTA CEO and Executive Director Elliot “Lee” Sander has brought to the job. After past leaders proved their inability to do much (cough cough Peter Kalikow cough cough), Sander has indeed been a blast of fresh air. The Committee also praises the MTA for its ambitious capital construction program, the first steps toward regional transportation integration, and their willingness to improve their emergency preparedness in the wake of the August 8th floods.

Where my opinion differs with the PCAC is in the realm of Website building and the presentation of information. The PCAC — whose own Website is, in a word, ugly — praises the MTA for their “information accessibility” and its Website. While the public workshops were steps in the right direction, I had a mixed reaction to it. The moderators weren’t the best, and it was tough to tell if the MTA officials were truly listening.

As for the MTA’s Website, it’s true, as the PCAC notes, that the homepage is better, but once a user starts navigating past those early links, it’s a disaster of outdate information, outdated links and inconsistent formatting. This criticism deserves a post of its own, but for now, I’ll just say that the MTA’s Website needs a complete and total overhaul.

Needs Improvement

Here, the PCAC gets a little technical. The MTA needs to do more with Transit-Oriented Development; the MTA needs to put more of a focus internally on IT and agency-wide technology solutions; the MTA should put their monthly Board and Committee Agendas online. I can’t argue with any of that. Note, however, that the MTA’s plan for the next twenty years is heavy on the Transit-Oriented Development. That’s great for the suburbs and boring for us urban dwellers.

The Bad

For this, the PCAC picks two tangible projects: They are not happy with the efforts to improve security for the MTA transportation network, and they aren’t happy with the whole 7 Line Extension funding drama. The security issue is one that has long plagued the MTA. Lockheed Martin won a contract in 2005 to install cameras and security sensors, but the defense contractor has made little progress. The MTA should put some pressure on its business partners to shape up or ship out.

As for the 7 line, I have long noted that the blame lays with the city. Mayor Bloomberg promised to fund the extension as part of his terrible Olympics idea. When that fell through, the station suddenly became too expensive, and the City has left the cash-strapped MTA in an awkward position. The City should do the right thing and pay for this station. It’s not fair to blame the MTA for this funding debacle.

Today marks the first day of a new feature The Morning Commute, a round-up of some of the top transportation stories from the Big Apple.

• Peter Kalikow, MTA head, will step down in 2007. Or Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer will fire him. [NY1]
• Remember those plans to add cell phone service to the subway a la Washington, D.C.? Yeah. Not so much. [New York Sun]
• Got a real estate windfall? How about a fresh coat of paint for 200 stations? [New York Post]
• The fare hikes that won’t happen until after 2009? Well, now they’ll happen in 2008 but just not in 2007. [New York Daily News]