MTA

For the MTA, 2011 will again be able making every dollar count. (Click the image for to read the PDF report.)

For the MTA, 2010 was not what I would consider to be a banner year. The authority had to enact sweeping service cuts in June that saw two subway lines and countless bus routes wiped from the map, and then in December, the agency jacked up fares for the third year in a row. Still, spurred on by an early January promise, Jay Walder did his best to make every dollar count, and he’s doing it again this year even as the MTA’s financial picture darkens.

This past Friday afternoon, Walder and the MTA released their agenda for 2011. In keeping with the 2010 theme, this year’s report is again titled “Making Every Dollar Count,” and it builds upon the progress the MTA made last year in both improving its customer relations and shoring up its bloated bureaucracy. “It’s a new year, but our focus remains unchanged,” Walder said in a statement. “We will make every dollar count. We will continue to cut costs to create a more efficient MTA. We will continue to improve service for our customers. We brought change to the MTA in 2010, and we’re going to build on that success in 2011.”

While acknowledging the financial problems facing the MTA and the current capital funding crunch, Walder in his report highlights the MTA’s savings from 2010. “As our customers faced service reductions and an end-of-year fare increase, we sought to ensure that we were doing everything possible to reduce operating expenses. This effort—the most aggressive cost-cutting in the history of the MTA—helped limit the impact of a devastating economic downturn,” the report says. “The emergency cost cutting we implemented in 2010 will set the stage for a more fundamental reshaping of the MTA, with cumulative cost savings expected to reach $3.8 billion in 2011.”

Of course, that’s well and good. We’ve heard a lot about the MTA’s push for internal reorganization, and we know what the authority is doing to save dollars and what it could be doing to save even more. That’s not the sexy part. Yet, within the 2011 report — available here as a PDF — are the progress items the MTA hopes to implement this year. The highlights involve better bus service and more real-time information. A new fare card is on the horizon as well. Let’s see how this shakes down.

Bus Improvements: According to the MTA, 2011 will be a banner year for bus improvements. Leading the charge will be bus lane cameras for 34th St. and Fordham Road in the Bronx. After a successful test run on 1st and 2nd Aves. this fall, the cameras have been shown to reduce congestion in the bus lanes. To expand this program though, the MTA will need authorization from Albany, and that has been slow to come. Buses will also soon sport security cameras to keep passengers and drivers safe.

Real-Time Information: Meanwhile, after years of no progress, real-time information is coming quickly to the MTA. Later this year, says the report, every bus on Staten Island will be equipped with BusTime, which tells riders via their phones or computers exactly where every bus in the borough will be. Signs on the B63 in Brooklyn promise BusTime later this week as well. Taking the guess work out of waiting for the bus will make it a more appealing mode of transportation.

Underground, the MTA is promising that over 200 stations will have countdown clocks by the end of 2011. Those include stations along the 7, which may be in line for an RFID-based train tracking system, and along Queens Boulevard. The real-time information screens in place at a few stations will expand to other key areas around the system as well, and Metro-North will join the LIRR on the MTA’s CooCoo service.

Station and Fare Improvements: Walder also tackled the MTA’s fare structure and physical plant as well. He anticipates that the next-generation fare payment system will be on all buses and subways by 2015. This year, the MTA will “begin entering into contracts for the behind-the-scenes work” that will allow for seamless integration amongst Transit, PATH, New Jersey Transit, LIRR and Metro-North. That’s an effort years in the making.

Finally, the MTA is vowing to clean up some subway stations. In 2010, the authority targeted 19 of its heavily-used stations for constant cleaning, and this year, the effort is going to expand to 96th St. on Broadway, the new Jay St.-MetroTech complex and 14 other stops. The authority is vowing “better-maintained stations,” but this is a prime example of something they must show instead of tell. As I mentioned over the weekend, the MTA’s physical plant is in terrible shape.

The report ends with a vow to produce a “leaner, more efficient and effective MTA,” and Walder has to stress that. Transit activists are worried about upcoming New York State budget cuts, and the five-year capital plan must be taken up again in Albany this year. The MTA is trying to move forward under difficult circumstances, and the economic storm may be gathering to halt this progress.

For now, the authority is talking a good game and producing results. To change public perception is nearly impossible, but if the MTA can show that it needs that capital investment and political support to keep improving services and providing transportation, perhaps Albany will listen. If every dollar counts, those that do trickle down to our transit system will be used for the good of us all.

Considering the snow, it's tough to say if the 14th St. station is above ground or below. (Photo by flickr user Jeffrey Keefer)

Snow stopped falling in the New York area nearly two days ago, and yet, the city’s transit network remains at less than full service. Buses are stranded; elevated subway routes are shuttered. Even as the commuter rail lines return to full service, New York City Transit is still trying to figure out what went wrong. After all, isn’t this the agency that’s supposed to be improving, non-stop?

For Wednesday, straphangers will find a system slowly returning to normal. The MTA continues to promise that crews are “continuing round-the-clock work to restore service throughout the system.” As of late Tuesday, the state of subway service was as follows:

Service has been restored with residual delays on the 5 to Dyre Avenue, the A to Far Rockaway, and the C, D, F, and G lines. Service remains suspended on the B and Q lines, the Franklin Avenue Shuttle and the Rockaway Park Shuttle. The L line is restored, operating in two sections: 8th Ave to Broadway Junction and Broadway-Junction to Rockaway Parkway. There is no N train service between the Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue Station and the Whitehall Street Station. New York City Transit expects to restore further service segments in time for the morning rush hour.

Despite assurances of an easier Wednesday morning commute, the Outer Boroughs are rife with dissent. For now, their anger is directed at city agencies and leaders. Take, for instance, this post on Sheepshead Bites. The Brooklyn-based blog notes that Mayor Bloomberg’s Manhattan street is perfectly plowed while streets in Sheepshead Bay are awash in snow. Buses cannot pass; cars are stranded; the subways aren’t running. This is city government at a stand-still.

Meanwhile, MTA officials are promising to figure out just what went wrong. Around Brooklyn, 250 buses remained stuck in the snow, and many of those were not equipped with snow chains. “We typically have not had difficulties with stuck buses with the types of buses we have today. The hybrid buses we use are typically able to get through the snow but for whatever reason this snow they didn’t get through. I’m not a snow expert to tell you why,” Jay Walder said. “We do need to look back. I’m not minimizing the fact that we have had a large number of stuck buses and we do need to look back.”

Based upon my conversations with those who have knowledge of the situation, it appears as though the MTA severely underestimated the extent of the snow. While Boston’s MBTA ran ghost trains to keep tracks warm and free from the snow, the MTA had to contend with stronger-than-expected winds and deep snow drifts. The authority did not call in snow emergency squads until roads in the city were nearly impassable, and the authority was simply not ready to respond to a blizzard of this magnitude. Forty-eight hours later, we’re still paying the price.

Soon — probably today — subway schedules will return to something approximating normal and buses will begin to run. The authority will look to improve its emergency response protocols, and we’ll remember the Blizzard of 2010 as we do the rainstorm of August 2007. The authority must seek to improve out of the aftermath of the last two days. It cannot do much worse.

The MTA can get plenty of satisfaction, according to internal polling. (Source)

Let’s try this one for size: The MTA yesterday released the results of its first-ever agency-wide standardized customer satisfaction survey, and while New Yorkers seem to make a sport out of hating the MTA, most riders seem to be satisfied with the state of their subway and mass transit survey. The results seem to belie reality on the ground, but when faced with a choice, New Yorkers may recognize the limitations of a vast system and their intractable demands.

The MTA didn’t share too much about methodology, but the authority says this survey represents the first time such statistics have been compiled “across the MTA family.” Customers were asked to rate the quality of service; MTA employees; on-board conditions such as lighting and comfort; information and communication; convenience, safety and security; home stations; and overall satisfaction. The commuter rail roads were deemed exemplary as as 93 percent of respondents say they are satisfied or very satisfied with Metro-North and 89 percent say the same of Long Island Rail Road. Overall, 18,000 people responded to the survey, and the results have margins of errors ranging from 1 to 4 percent.

Let’s drill down on the Transit results. The various presentations are all available right here. Initially, we see that the MTA used a 10-point sliding scale but grouped responses into four categories. Those who ranked services at 1 or 2 are considered very dissatisfied; 3-5 are simply dissatisfied; 6-8 means satisfied; and 9 or 10 lead to very satisfied customers. The presentation of the results, in other words, simplifies the scale.

Immediately, we see that 95 percent of riders are either satisfied or very satisfied with the countdown clocks. It’s hard to imagine anyone being dissatisfied with the efforts to bring real-time information underground, but I guess five percent of people prefer the time-tested method of peering wistfully into an empty tunnel.

On an overall basis, 71 percent of riders were satisfied with subway service, and 77 percent were satisfied with the line they use most often. That result seems to bolster the theory I set forth yesterday: Straphangers grow attached to their favorite train lines. In terms of service quality, 83 percent of people were satisfied with subway travel times while only 65 percent were satisfied with wait times. The MTA expects that real-time train arrival information will boost that figure, but I believe that until riders never have to wait for trains, they won’t be fully satisfied with service.

Next, we examine the information and communication totals. Clearly, riders enjoy having more info at their fingertips, but we start to see some sample size and selection bias concerns. Only 103 subscribers responded to the survey over email alerts, and these were, by and large, the satisfied customers. The placement of maps in the system, always a hot topic, drew some criticism.

The authority didn’t score too highly when it came to non-automated sources of information though. Only 69 percent of riders rated notices of service changes at least a six on the MTA’s scale, and only 56 said on-board announcements were clear. Only 62 percent found the availability of pocket maps satisfactory. While the MTA’s system is more complex than, say, London’s, the lack of a small pocket map is noticeable.

By and large, customers are happy with the rolling stock, and since so much of it is new, they ought to be. Where the authority is lagging though is in the cleanliness department. Only 68 percent were satisfied with car cleanliness, and just 64 percent say the stations are clean enough. That latter total seems far too high to me.

Interestingly, after nearly a year of debate over the role of station agents, straphangers didn’t say the subways seemed unsafe. Concerns were most pronounced after dark though as 80 percent say they feel personally secure before 8 p.m. but only 60 percent feel the same after 8 p.m. I’ll withhold judgment until we have another year’s worth of data to assess, but I can’t imagine those figures moving too far in either direction.

Even as we might cast a skeptical eye toward it, MTA officials were quick to promote the good news in this data dump. “This has obviously been an extremely tough year for our transit system and for our customers, but the survey results show that our customers appreciate the improvements we have been able to put into place, like countdown clocks,” MTA Chairman and CEO Jay Walder said. “This survey demonstrates the importance of improving service where we can in cost-effective ways.”

I found the most amusing part to be the customer suggestions though. Riders want more predictable travel times, cleaner stations and more real-time information. They also want shorter wait times, fewer delays, less crowding during rush hour and the Easter Bunny to arrive. What they don’t want to do is pay for it, and therein lies the great contradiction. Whether these numbers accurately reflect a generally acceptable level of satisfaction with the subways or whether the MTA is simply patting itself on the bank in a time of bad news matters little without the funds.

Take a listen to this 17-minute clip from The Brian Lehrer Show. Featuring Gene Russianoff and Transportation Nation editor Andrea Bernstein, the clip features Lehrer grilling his guests on the MTA. Ostensibly designed to explore how transit policy and the MTA shaped the election for governor, the focus was nominally on abolishing the MTA. Who should have control? What should the proper transit management agency be?

In one sense, the clip is infuriating. The callers to Lehrer’s show are angry and uninformed. One caller suggests privatization, seemingly ignoring New York’s subway history. Another calls in outraged over the MTA’s contract with Accenture. She claims the MTA is paying the consulting firm $150 million for “just $25 million in savings” and goes unchallenged when she says that everyone is just making up the idea that the MTA has saved $50 million. In response, Russianoff doesn’t offer up a correction. He just says this shrill attitude in which facts are ignored embodies “the irate sense of the riding public” — a public less interested in reality than outrage.

But on the other hand, Bernstein, Russianoff and Lehrer bring up some very valid points. They never quite get around to answering the questions put forth in the first few minutes of the segment, but during the campaign last week, they didn’t need to determine yet whether or not Cuomo should abolish the MTA. “I think it’s satisfying to riders this image of ripping apart the MTA and shredding it to pieces. The reality is that whoever is the governor already has a tremendous amount of influence. They appoint the chairman and a total of six votes on the board. They have the power of the budget,” Russianoff said. “This kind of change” — placing the MTA under the control of the governor — “It’s just not the change that’s needed.”

It is, for these reporters and commentators, about the trust the public puts or does not put in the authority. “It’s so easy to hate the MTA, but if you look nationally, New York has a great transit system. You can get anywhere. You can go 24 hours a day,” Bernstein said. “Yet people just hate it. It’s so easy to hate. I think the next governor, regardless of who controls or how it’s financed, is going to need to address this.

Lehrer’s show isn’t the first mention of a complete overhaul of the MTA. I explored the authority’s uncertain future yesterday afternoon, and one of the commentators featured in that piece questioned the need for the MTA as currently imagined. “I think the governor’s going to have to recognize that the M.T.A. was designed to solve specific problems back in the ’70s, and it’s done it fairly well, but it’s reached the point where it can no longer afford the programs that it needs to have in place based on the funding sources that it was originally thought to have, so he has to deal with that,” Robert Paaswell said. “He has to deal with the , What should an M.T.A. look like? Do we need this incredibly complex organization?”

The MTA came out of a time of fiscal unrest when the transit system in New York City needed a better managing body to set fare policy. The Triborough Bridge Authority was placed under the purview of the MTA to both oust Robert Moses from power and ensure that toll revenue was funneled back into transit. But the commuter rails were foisted on the MTA as the private entities that owned and operated them slipped into bankruptcy. Layer upon layer, the MTA took on a larger bureaucracy and financially-burdened assets.

Today, we enjoy the illusion of a regional rail system, but we don’t actually have that system. Fare payment modes are different across New York City Transit, the LIRR and Metro-North. Schedules don’t have to be coordinated because Metro-North and the LIRR have different terminals within the city. Employee skillsets are different due to both union work rules and the technical differences between the rail and subway lines. Only the map and the ability to cross-honor fares in the event of an emergency lend an aura of unity to the system.

So then is the MTA defunct? Should Jay Walder, a qualified transit technocrat with a solid background in management consulting, tear it down only to build it back up again but this time leaner and meaner? Russianoff, Bernstein and Lehrer didn’t supply a clear answer, but it’s hard to say the MTA shouldn’t be completely restructured. Unfortunately, it’s tough to do that on the fly while meeting the demands of 8 million daily transit riders, and I certainly don’t have the knowledge or expertise to offer up even a sketch of what the replacement agency would be.

Still, Bernstein’s point is one that bears repeating, and it’s one that Andrew Cuomo, a candidate elusive on transit but who wants to exhaust every internal financial cut before identifying new funding sources for the MTA, should embrace. Regardless of how he exerts his control or finances the authority, Cuomo must restore public confidence in those running the subway system. Only then will it enjoy the political and financial support it needs.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Update (2:24 p.m.): An earlier version of this article contained reference to an Accenture report that was not, in fact, a report. It was a pitch from Accenture to the MTA given back in December 2009. The post has been updated to reflect this view.

In late December 2009, as part of its efforts at renegotiating its preexisting contracts, the MTA worked with Accenture, a management consultant firm, to assess the structure and operations at the authority. During its pitch, Accenture noted, based on its past experiences, that the MTA had been rife with cronyism, bureaucratic overmanagement and downright laziness. For anyone paying attention, it was not a surprise, but with Accenture’s guidance, the authority was able to identify over $700 million in internal savings.

Heather Haddon, now at The Post, has got a hold of the pitch, and she highlights the areas Accenture planned to target, including:

• Promoting people based on “friendship and familiarity,” rather than skill.
• Failing to differentiate between top-quality employees and the bottom of the barrel. At times, employee evaluation is weak or nonexistent, and it is very hard to lay off bad apples, according to sources.
• Wasting a “huge” amount of time by appointing underlings to discuss issues when only executives can make decisions. At Long Island Rail Road, for example, the organizational chart includes layers of confusing titles, and administrators often aren’t up to speed with what other managers do, transit sources said.
• Being stuck in the past and lacking any “demonstrated desire” to do better.
• Suffering from a “horde” mentality that sparks protracted turf fights, with bureaucrats scuffling over limited resources.

Those who keep a close eye on the goings-on inside MTA Headquarters echoed the results of this report. “Things don’t get improved, or the decisions just don’t get made,” William Henderson, head of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA, said to The Post. “There is a lot of inertia.”

From my own experiences researching and covering the MTA, I’ve seen many of these problems in action. The authority, for instance, does not have its past budgets in digitally-readable format. They instead keep hard-copy reports on file but seemingly have to put analytic reports showing budget changes over time together by hand. The stories of bureaucratic in-fighting and turf battles are endless.

For its part, Accenture has urged the MTA to trim its administrative structure and eliminate numerous middle management positions, cut overtime spending and freeze some discretionary expense accounts. The MTA, who paid Accenture $3 million for the consulting treatment, has already enacted numerous cost-saving suggestions. Earlier this year, the Accenture ideas had saved the MTA $202 million and now the authority says they will realize savings of $381 million and $525 million annually going forward, increasing to $750 million.

With these savings in hand, implementing them will take some time. Consolidation and work-rule efficiencies have begun, but offices need to be modernized while redundancies ironed out. No CEO likes to tell his employees that they’re unnecessary, uninspired or extraneous. Yet, if Jay Walder is to earn the public’s and Albany’s trust, he must continue to push for Accenture’s recommendation reorganize. He came from McKinsey; he hired Accenture; and now he’s acting on it. The future of public transit in New York City may depend on it.