Category: New York City Transit

When I’m waiting for a train, I’ll often take a look at the rubber bumper along the edge of the subway platform. Generally, I don’t like what I see. The bumpers are in various states of erosion, and sometimes the boards are visibly loose or just not there.

The bumper story came to a head in February of 2008 when a station collapsed. That day, part of the Kings Highway station platform fell and took a 14-year-old with it. The next day, NYC Transit President Howard Roberts promised an inspection of every single platform.

Today, we have a follow-up. After condemning NYC Transit’s response time in a preliminary report in January, the MTA Inspector General released his final report about the state of the platform edges, and the picture he paints is not a pretty one.

The document — available here as a PDF — carries with it a rather regal title: “An Inquiry Into Whether MTA New York City Transit Consistently and Correctly Identifies and Reports Subway Platform-Edge Safety Defects.” As you could imagine, Barry Kluger isn’t too pleased with the MTA’s efforts at correcting and addressing their platform issues. He summarizes:

• Platform-level inspectors at NYCT subway stations failed to correctly identify and report platform-edge safety defects visible at 16 of 23 stations sampled by OIG (70%), as confirmed by top officials in charge of station maintenance based upon their review of NYCT records and OIG photographs.
• Out of an OIG sample of 25 comments made by platform-level inspectors reporting non-safety defects, 22 of those comments used language that actually indicated safety defects, according to a review of those comments by top station maintenance officials.
• Station Operations Division middle managers are not promptly resolving confusion caused by inspectors who describe platform-edge conditions as safety defects, but rate and report them as non-safety defects.
• Different inspectors described the same platform-edge condition inconsistently. For example, inspection reports covering one station in the OIG sample, on five different days during a nineteen-day period, with no intervening repair, showed that two inspectors described the rubbing boards as “ok,” two others described them as “loose” (a safety defect) and a fifth noted that “rubbing boards in need of repair.”
• While NYCT requires that repair of so-called “non-safety defects” (which include safety defects that have been temporarily repaired) be completed within 60 days, its stated goal is to address 75% of those defects on time. Nevertheless, NYCT only addressed within 60 days some 41% of those rubbing board defects reported in the first eight months of 2008. Further, the backlog of defective rubbing boards is so great that NYCT’s goal for bringing these boards into a state of good repair is now December 2009.

In the end, Kluger offers up a succinct conclusion. “Rubbing boards with safety defects resulting from damage and deterioration pose a serious,predictable and widespread safety hazard, especially on subway lines with outdoor stations,” he says. He also recommends that New York City Transit systematize defect analysis and prioritize oversight and safety repair.

Interestingly, the Inspector General’s report ends with a letter from NYC Transit President Howard Roberts. In response to the IG’s preliminary report from January, Roberts stresses how he will direct Transit officials to improve their inspection efforts. Roberts, one of the key officials behind the Line Manager pilot, believes his program will help streamline platform repair efforts. The jury is out on that program, but I believe Roberts is on the right track with that promise. Now let’s see the Line Managers deliver.

Hot on the heels of Friday’s rather controversial post about the funding and benefits issues facing the MTA, today we have a pair of stories about the dicey fate of MTA employees. We’ll start with the one about conductor-less trains right now and end in a few hours with another tale about the station agents.

Over the weekend, the Daily News reported that, in an effort to save on staffing costs, the MTA is considering cutting train conductors on numerous routes throughout the city. These so-called One Person Train Operations would reduce on-board staffing figures by 50 percent as only the driver would remain. This practice has been in place on lines, such as the G and shuttles, that run smaller cars, and if Transit is to implement this on a wider range, it would be the first reduction of on-board personnel in some time.

As with any publicized personnel cuts, transit advocates and union officials are none too pleased. “Axing the conductor may save the MTA money, but it comes at the expense of the safety and security of the rider,” Gene Russianoff, head of the Straphangers Campaign, said to News reporter Pete Donohue.

Donohue reminds us of another time during which the MTA tried to pull conductors out of trains:

The MTA took conductors off the L line in 2005, but had to put them back after an arbitrator ruled that its contract with Transport Workers Union Local 100 required approval by the union. The following year, the same arbitrator stopped the MTA from taking conductors off G trains on weekdays.

After the second ruling, the MTA stopped putting OPTO plans in its annual budgets and four-year fiscal plans. Sources told The News that the MTA is again seeking the staffing change as a way to save money.

Transit officials have argued in the past that trains can run safely with just a motorman, as police and firefighters quickly respond to track fires and other emergencies. Officials also have argued that train evacuations between stations are infrequent and have been conducted without passengers suffering injuries.

I let those official statements speak for themselves. The cuts are well and good if they save money and eliminate redundant personnel, but the one time Transit needs to run an evacuation, the lack of a conductor will become an issue. Of course, it’s easy to train one person to handle a subway full of panicking passengers, but advocates will always argue for safety in numbers.

The TWU has already begun its defense of the conductors. “Of course, this is one of management’s demands. This is something the MTA has been pursuing the last two or three bargaining rounds and we continue to completely disagree with them,” a Local 100 spokesman said to the News.

In addition to the G and L lines, in the past, the MTA has pegged the J, M and 7 as candidates for conductor-less trains. I say, “Why not?” The safety concerns, while reasonable, seem overblown, and the L line has the technology to run completely unmanned trains. The driverless trains along the Paris Metro’s Line 14 have been a success, and if the MTA can reduce costs by cutting, it is at least a plan to consider.

Earlier this morning, I examined the MTA’s report card from the Permanent Citizen’s Advisory Committee to the agency. The MTA got slammed on its capital construction programs and technology implementation efforts while it earned praise for sustainability initiatives and leadership.

Now, let’s tackle New York City Transit’s write-up. The subway-operating agency earned high marks all around from PCAC. Again, the full report is here as a PDF, and I’ll run down the highlights right now.

The committee appreciates the leadership at NYC Transit. Howard Roberts, agency president, is praised for his “openness, thoughtfulness and foresight.” Roberts has come across the same way to me in my interactions with him, and he’s the right man for the job right now.

In terms of organization, PCAC also praises Joseph Smith and his efforts at consolidating the NYC Transit bus operations. The committee report offers up a qualified assessment of the line manager program: “It has imparted a sense of ownership to managers and helped quantify what it takes to provide a reliable level of service and well-maintained stations. However, it is still not clear how success is going to be measured.” I believe the Rider Report Cards are supposed to provide for a measure of success, but whether those are reliable remains to be seen.

Unfortunately for straphangers, PCAC’s most glowing praise refers to services that will soon be cut. The resumption of late-night 3 train express service from 148th St. in Harlem to Times Square is called “one of the most commendable achievements by NYCT” in 2008, and the shortened headways on the 1, 4, 6 and 42nd St. Shuttle “were appreciated.” With the planned service cuts designed to increase headway throughout the system, these positive gains may be short-lived.

The PCAC’s NYC Transit Riders Council also recognizes the success of the Select Bus Service in the Bronx. “As a joint MTA/NYCT project with the New York City Police Department and the New York City Department of Transportation, this is an excellent example of cooperation among various agencies,” they write. “The NYCTRC is pleased to see this promising start to implementation of SBS throughout the City.” The report calls upon Transit to provide more Select Bus Service with an eye toward the parts of Queens that don’t enjoy subway access.

As far as construction and system upgrades go, NYC Transit received mixed marks. The Myrtle-Wyckoff modernization project was haled as “an excellent example of station modernization.” The continued decrepitude of the Chambers St./Nassau loop continued to alarm the committee. “Unfortunately, this effort, costing $30 million, hardly made a dent in the overall deleterious condition of this once beautiful station,” the report says. “There is severe water leakage damage, peeling paint, loose wires, and a general ragtag condition throughout the facility. This situation is hardly appropriate for the New York City Hall location which is above the station.”

As they did with the MTA, PCAC reserves its most scathing language for the South Ferry debacle. “The Agency needs to identify where and why these errors occurred and describe steps that are being taken to improve project management.”

Escalators and elevators continue to haunt New York City Transit. While Transit has met its goal of 67 elevator stations by 2010 ahead of schedule, escalators are another beast. Six of the 12 new motion sensitive escalators at Herald Square were listed in a fourth-quarter report as “out of service awaiting contractor to perform warranty repair work.” Perhaps Transit purchased a few lemons.

On the communication front, again, Transit receives some mixed grades. PCAC likes the Rider Report Card program and calls it a definite step toward a better rider experience. They fault NYCT though for the state of its public address system. That’s not a surprise.

In the end, while the MTA is puttering along, New York City Transit seems to be thriving. They’re making smart choices that are designed to benefit the maximum number of riders. If Albany sits up and takes notice, they will see a city that needs this transit system and a transit system excelling at a time of great future uncertainty.

The ever-growing realm of New York City blogs feature a fair number of train-oriented sites. Some, such as Rail Fan Window and SubChat, are rail-fan oriented. Others — Station Stops and Trainjotting — focus on the commute. Meanwhile, the usual gang of New York blogs — Curbed, Gothamist, City Room — incorporate subway stories into their daily schedules while Subway Blogger and I provide dedicated coverage of the MTA.

Soon, we’ll be welcoming an unlikely entity into our ranks. According to Metro, New York City Transit’s own L train soon have its own blog. OK, maybe the train itself won’t have a blog, but an official MTA L train-centric blog will makes its debut soon.

Amy Zimmer reported:

The L blog grew out of L line manager Greg Lombardi’s monthly newsletter, but because Lombardi won’t be able to sit in front of his computer all day, MTA marketing and public affairs staffers may post, too, Fleuranges explained. “It might get too intense,” he noted.

It follows the MTA’s foray into Twitter, a micro-blogging social network service. Diane Chehab (@MetroCardDiane), an MTA marketing manager, last month began Tweeting — posting 140-character updates — to let her people know about rider promotions, like discounts at the Bronx Zoo.

Outside of the Tweeting, this blog will be Transit’s first real foray into a Web 2.0 world. “Like most blogs, we plan to have a comment section,” NYC Transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges said to Zimmer. “We expect and will encourage our riders to post comments and questions.”

Considering the public sentiments over the MTA, I wonder what that comment section will come to resemble come May when the fares go up. Still, if this effort can help the MTA increase its transparency, I’m all for it.

With Shea Stadium but a memory, the subway stop nearby will soon carry a new name. (Photo by flickr user wallyg)

Earlier this week, the DC-based Greater Greater Washington tackled the problem with Metro station names. The WMATA’s system has some rather ludicrous names. For example, when I lived in DC for ten months, my Metro stop was called Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan.

Here in New York, we are far more efficient with our station names, and by and large, those names are immutable. After all, Columbus Circle has been known as that since the year after the subway first opened, and 50th St. will always just be 50th St. Street-based names are succinct, and they tell you right where the train will shed its passenger load.

Now and then though, a station tied into a geographic location has to change its name because that geographic location isn’t there anymore. Out in Flushing, where 7 line riders used to travel to Willets Point-Shea Stadium, the MTA is attempting to figure out how best to rename the stop, now home to the corporately-sponsored CitiField. The MTA is none too keen on slapping Citi’s branding on a subway stop without a fiscal contribution, and they have tried to extract one from the Mets will little success. In The Times today, William Neuman reports:

Officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority had once hoped that a bit of Citigroup’s $400 million endorsement pact with the Mets might trickle down their way, through a naming rights deal of their own for the station.

But those hopes evaporated with the bank’s near-collapse and the Mets’ refusal to share the wealth.

So on Tuesday, transit officials informed the Mets that when the subway station (currently named after the team’s former home, the now-demolished Shea Stadium) was rechristened, it would not actually use the name of the new ballpark.

Instead, the station, on the No. 7 line, will be called simply Mets/Willets Point. New signs will go up soon replacing the old signs, which say Willets Point/Shea Stadium. The nearby Long Island Rail Road station will be renamed in the same way.

“We’re willing, as we have said, to entertain corporate names on stations, but only for a fee,” said Jeremy Soffin, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Good for the MTA. There’s no need to give Citi the free advertising, and it’s quite possible that CitiBank won’t exist long enough to fulfill the terms of its 20-year endorsement pact.

Meanwhile, Neuman reports on the MTA’s $40 million rehab of the newly named Mets/Willets Point station. That station — a highly-trafficked and impossible-to-navigate one at its worst — has gotten a fresh coat of paint, some elevators, new lights and a streamlined entry path.

With new Yankee Stadium simply called Yankee Stadium, the MTA won’t have to rename the B/D/4 stop in the Bronx. The new Metro-North station will be called Yankees/E. 153rd Street, another succinct geographic demarcation of its location.

While Albany politicians are slowly getting around to debating a bailout package for the MTA, New Yorkers are making their voices heard indirectly by riding the rails in record numbers. According to New York City Transit, subway ridership figures for 2008 hit 1.62 billion trips, the highest total since 1950 and an increase of 61.1 million trips — or 3.9 percent — over 2007.

Overall, New York City Transit reported an overall total ridership figure of 2.37 billion last year. That figure includes all agency-operated bus trips as well as the subway total. Most of that growth came in the early months of 2008 when city job numbers were on the rise and tourism remained strong. Whether those trends continue into 2009 remains to be seen, but the job loss in the financial sector will stunt transit numbers this year.

Meanwhile, the trains during the week remain packed to the gills. Average weekday ridership for the subway system sat at 5.2 million passengers in 2008, the highest total since 1951.

Transit officials were quick to praise the role the MTA plays in moving New York City while pushing the need to fund the MTA. “The sustained ridership growth in our subway and bus network is proof of the vital role NYC Transit has in moving the region forward in an environmentally sustainable manner,” Elliot G. Sander, MTA executive director and CEO, said. “The improvements we have made to the infrastructure, including the purchase of new buses and subway cars, are paying dividends, and the ridership growth we’ve seen is proof positive how important a fully funded capital plan is to the continued reliability and viability of the system and to the region as a whole.”

On a closer level, ridership growth patterns followed population increases. Parts of the L line saw growth at rates of around 10 percent, and the line as a whole saw ridership increase by 8.5 percent. Stations in Long Island City, the Rockaways, the Lower East Side and Dumbo all saw growth between 15 and 19 percent as well, and the Select Bus Service in the Bronx witnessed an increase of nearly 10 percent.

“The success of Select Bus Service demonstrates how the use of innovative technology combined with the cooperation of our city and state partners can yield enormous benefits for our customers and for service,” VP of Buses Joseph J. Smith, Sr. said. “SBS is the blue print for how we’d like to improve bus service city wide.”

These numbers — and grand expansion plans — are all well and good, but there’s an alarming undercurrent to this latest news. Right as MTA ridership is exploding, the agency is going to have to cut service and raise fares because they are out of money. Now, sure, the agency hasn’t, in the past, been forthcoming with their finances. They’ve squandered good will and public trust, but the public-benefit corporation also can’t run a system at a break-even point with fares held artificially low.

We the New York public want transit fares to be low. We want the $2 ride because it maximizes the system’s accessibility. But for the MTA, relying on the vagaries of property taxes and a disproportionately high percentage of the fare box revenue for operating expenses, to be profitable, they would have to raise the fares substantially without government support.

These numbers show just how important transit is to New York City. Albany cannot let the system fail. New York — the state and the city — won’t be able to weather the storm of bad transit service.

Nearly three years ago, Dustin Dibble, then 22, fell onto the tracks at Union Square and was run over by an N train. He was so severely injured that one of his legs had to be amputated below the calf, and of course, he sued New York City Transit.

Last week, he won his case, and the financially beleaguered transit agency is now on the hook for $2.3 million. There is, of course, a catch: Dibble was so drunk at the time of his accident that he wound But iup in the tracks because he passed out and fell there. He doesn’t remember ending up on the tracks, and his blood alcohol content was 1.8 or twice the legal limit for drivers in New York. Somehow, though, the jury found him just 35 percent responsible for his accident, and he’ll walk away, for now, with a $2.3 million judgment.

On the surface, it’s rather easy to be outraged about this. Chris Rovzar, writing at NYMag.com’s Daily Intel blog, is fairly outraged by this development. Others have called this a prime example of the need for tort reform, and most are just dismayed that the MTA — and thus taxpayers — are going to have to pay $2.3 million to some guy who was too drunk to stand and fell onto the train tracks at 1:50 a.m. one night.

The lawyer for the case, meanwhile, picked on the testimony of the man driving the train. From The Post story about the case:

Train operator Michael Moore, a longtime MTA vet with a sparkling record, said in a deposition, “I saw what I thought was garbage on the track” and continued into the station.

Moore, who suffered a fatal stroke before the case went to trial, also said in his deposition, “I saw movement and I put the train into emergency” – meaning he hit the emergency brake.

[Dibble’s lawyer Andrew] Smiley said Moore had testified at the deposition that he couldn’t “stop every time he sees garbage,” because “there’s garbage all over the place,” but NYC Transit rules call for the motorman to stop the train if there’s a mass on the tracks.

That’s a mess of a case, and as a law student, I can certainly appreciate it. Per New York City Transit laws, it seems as though Moore was negligent in operating his train. However, industry custom dictates that it would be impossible for train operators to break every time they see a “mass on the tracks,” as The Post puts it. Meanwhile, once Moore saw movement, he tried to do all he could to stop the train.

So who wins and who loses? Well, the taxpayers don’t win. That’s for sure. While NYC Transit is sure to appeal, on the legality of it all, it seems as though Dibble may have a strong case, but I have to wonder if a man too drunk to sit down or stand up on a train platform is really just 35 percent responsible for his actions? At some point, we have to take responsibility for how we are, and being too drunk to function shouldn’t excuse falling onto the subway tracks and into the path of an oncoming train.

The floors of the subway system are known for their grimy, gumminess. (Photo by flickr user Susan NYC)

About once a year, it seems, the disgusting floors of the New York City subways take center stage. Last year, the problem focused around rising concrete and porcelain costs. This year, it’s all about cleanliness.

According to Pete Donohue of The Daily News, the MTA is looking for ways to better demarcate emergency exists while improving the sanitary conditions of the system’s floors. He reports:

NYC Transit is testing a new type of flooring with iridescent flakes that can illustrate routes to exits if the lights go out in an emergency…The resin-based material is poured like concrete, allowing flakes to be set in a pattern.

Safety aside, the resinous flooring might conquer an unsightly foe that’s defeated many a subway cleaner: gum. Many subway stations have porous concrete surfaces that are difficult to maintain and deteriorate into gum-spattered eyesores. Some stations have granite floors, which are easier to scour but expensive to install: $1.7 million for an average-sized station.

Resinous flake flooring is easier to maintain and less expensive, about one-third the cost of granite, officials said. “If this really works [it] gives the ability to essentially do away with the gum problem,” Roberts said. “It could make an order of magnitude difference in the appearance of stations.”

Currently, the Chambers St. stop on the IRT is serving as the guinea pig. As the station is rehabilitated, New York City Transit has poured the new materials on the mezzanine. I’ll try to swing by and snap a picture soon.

It’s hard to argue with this approach if it does indeed make it easier to clean the station platforms. Right now, those floors are among the least appealing aspects of waiting for a train. With food stains, gum splotches and various other unidentified liquids pooling up, the floors are ugly at best and unwalkable at worst.

This move reflects well on NYC Transit and the rider report card projbect. They’re actively looking to address a problem — cleanliness — identified by many as one of the drawbacks of the system, and the riders should benefit for it.

Rockettes Lauren Gaul, left, and Naomi Hubert urge riders to take the subway this winter. (Photo courtesy of New York City Transit)

As part of the annual MetroCard discount at Radio City Music Hall’s Christmas Spectacular, New York City Transit rolled out both the Rockettes and a Nostalgia Train yesterday. The train ran from the World Trade Center stop on the E to 47th-50th Sts./Rockefeller Center on the D with a few of the Rockettes in tow.

While the event was ostensibly put on to promote the $10 discount a MetroCard will get you at Radio City Music Hall this winter, the bigger news is the Nostalgia Train. Starting Nov. 30 and continuing through the holiday season, New York City Transit will again be running the Nostalgia Trains along the V line from 2nd Ave. to Queens Plaza and back.

I hopped a ride on the vintage subway last year. For pictures and more, check out the coverage from Dec. 2007.