Category: New York City Transit

Every few months, the issue of handicapped accessibility rears its head. Usually, the news focuses around how the MTA is slowly — very slowly — but steadily working to improve access for riders with disabilities, and today’s latest is no different.

Late last week, the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee, the official MTA watchdog, released its assessment of the MTA’s accessibility efforts. The report gave mostly high marks to the transit agency but urged it to do more.

NY1’s Bobby Cuza filed a story about the report. As the PCAC did, Cuza highlighted how the MTA is actually ahead of schedule in bringing its subway stations in line with ADA requirements, but enforcement of these measures lags significantly. Cuza writes:

The report does acknowledge the significant progress the MTA has made. Back in 1992, the agency promised that 67 key subway stations would be made fully accessible by the year 2010 – a milestone the MTA reached this past summer, two years ahead of schedule.

But the report notes even so-called accessible stations often have broken-down elevators. And it recommends that stations display floor plans showing where elevators are located.

“We’d like to be able to use the elevators, but we need to know where they are,” said Dr. Jan Wells, associate director of PCAC. “And we think there should be diagrams posted in good places in the subway, and on the website.”

Despite these shortcomings, the PCAC did praise the New York City Transit for its recent efforts. “Given the magnitude of the challenge in making a 100-year old subway system accessible, NYCT should be applauded for the strides that have been made. Reaching the goal of 67 ADA accessible stations well ahead of the 2010 deadline is to be commended,” the report says.”PCAC recognizes, too, the support for improving accessibility expressed by current NYCT President Howard Roberts, especially in tight fiscal times, and we hope that this backing will continue.”

But despite this praise, the PCAC still urged NYC Transit to do more. I’ve included the full recommendations after the jump, but we’ve heard it all before. The agency should better present information about elevator outages, and the agency should quickly address elevator problems. Signage could be improved in stations, and train announcements should be clearly. For the most part, these are quality-of-life changes that would improve service for everyone while being of particular benefit to disabled riders.

Of course, the report hardly mentions the 800-pound gorilla in the room. “Despite the advances that have been made to date,” the watchdog committee wrote, “ensuring accessibility throughout the system is a long, costly, and continuing process.”

While the MTA must make any station it renovates handicapped-accessible and ADA-compliant, the agency doesn’t exactly have the money to voluntarily upgrade stations right now. In fact, if — or when — the MTA has to start cutting expenditures, voluntary services may be the first to go. We won’t see any steps backwards in addressing compliance, but the commendable forward progress may slow a bit over the next few years if funding starts to dry up.

(more…)

It’s an obvious idea, really. When an agency has hundreds of miles of tracks, subway cars and bus along with millions of passengers each day, why not test out innovations on the fly? Who needs a laboratory when New York City is filled with guinea pigs?

This approach to innovation is one that, over the last few years, New York City Transit has readily embraced, and with Howard Roberts at the helm, the agency is going to continue this policy full speed ahead. “Piloting stuff makes great sense,” Roberts said to me two weeks ago.

Over the last eighteen months, since Roberts took the helm at NYCT, more and more pilot programs have rolled out on the rails. The MTA embraced the Rider Report Cards and is in the midst of year two of the grading project. As a result of those report cards, NYC Transit has instituted the line manage program. Elsewhere, the city has seen the return of double-decker buses.

But the best, perhaps, is yet to come. As I wrote in August, New York City Transit will soon be tested train cars with flip seats that will enable the agency to accommodate more passengers during peak hours. The catch, of course, is that some of these cars won’t have seats, and everyone will be left standing.

Roberts wants to institute a test run of this program sooner rather than later to see if New York City Transit can begin to alleviate the problems of overcrowded. By deploying these retrofitted cars on some of the more crowded lines, the agency can add capacity to lines that can’t take more trains per hour.

When this pilot program commences — and it will still be a few months before that launch date — NYC Transit plans to stagger the seatless cars. Group them in the middle, and those rider angling for seats will avoid these cars like the plague. Mix it up, and straphangers will test these cars.

The MTA these doesn’t have much leeway in its budget for off-line experimentation. That the agency is willing to experiment on the fly, that they’re willing to take the risk that some pilot programs will work while others may not, is a sure sign that leadership is willing to do what it takes to respond to the demands of the passengers. If only our elected representatives were so obliging.

When I sat down with New York City Transit President Howard Roberts nearly two weeks ago, our talk eventually turned to the state of the system. We all know about the MTA’s attempts to restore the system to a state of good repair, and we all know that the trains are very crowded with many lines running at or near capacity. Roberts and I spoke at length about these two challenges New York City Transit faces in meeting customer demand.

“My personal estimate is that only about 100 of our stations truly qualify for the state of good repair,” Roberts said to me, and I couldn’t disagree with his estimate. Outside of the so-called Central Business District in Manhattan and a few flagship stations — Atlantic Ave. and Coney Island come to mind — in the Outer Boroughs, the number of stations with cracked walls , exposed pipes and decaying platforms far outnumber those in top shape.

As always, it’s a matter of money. Restoring the system to a state of good repair remains at the top of the MTA’s list of priorities, but the agency must first spend the available funds on maintenance and operations. As long as the tracks are in good repair, as long as the cars are running, the stations will come third even as they considered a major priority.

The other part of his equation is line capacity. “A significant number of lines are already operating at capcacity,” Roberts said. Almost wistfully, the NYCT head spoke about the progress in other parts of the world. Shanghai, for instances, has 89 tunnel-boring machines at work and by 2012, will have a subway system three-quarters the size of New York’s. Meanwhile, in a few years, the city will have tunnel-boring machines digging out the LIRR’s East Side Access route, the Second Ave. Subway and the 7 Line extension, but those projects pale in comparison to those underway in Asia.

While the MTA awaits this great awakening, to meet ridership demands, the agency will attempt to bring computer-based train control online over the next few years. In early tests, the returns are very promising. On a closed L line, NYCT was able to feed 31 trains per hour through the tunnels as opposed to the 23 trains per hour peak-use riders currently enjoy. These are, as Roberts put it, “huge capacity improvements that we can get without boring more tunnels.”

These CBTC plans though are still at least five to ten years away from reality. While the MTA is eying an outfitting of the newer signal system on the IRT lines and potentially the F line as well, again, the money just isn’t there. It will continue not to be there as long as the economy slumps.

But as some point, this lack of state and federal investment will come back to haunt our country, Roberts believed. “Either Americans wake up with respect to infrastructure needs or we will no longer be the preeminent power in the world,” he warned. I couldn’t agree more.

Last week, I journeyed down to Lower Manhattan for a session with Howard Roberts. The New York City Transit President graciously agreed to an interview, and we touched on all sorts of topics. Over the next few days, I’ll delve into the conversations he and I had. Today, we start with the trash.

The day before my meeting, clean subway stations were all the rage. The Daily News had just released its findings about the cleanliness of the subway system, and the paper reported that it would take a $100 million investment to ensure a clean subway system. On the surface, it seems like a daunting figure, but New York City Transit is committed to a cleaning program.

The agency is trying to determine what it really takes to clean stations, cars and the track bed. Those in charge want to present what Roberts called “a station that is clean and in a state of reasonable preparedness.” No will deny that the system has a long way to go to reach that point, but it remains a manageable priority.

“Wherever I can find a few extra cleaners, we’ll put them” into dirty stations, Roberts said. “We’ll get one station up at a time and go from there.”

Roberts hopes that the line manager system will allow him more flexibility and opportunity to insert cleaners into the system. The MTA knows that they don’t have enough money in the capital program to rehabilitate the stations that need it; they know they don’t have enough people to fix and clean everything. But New York City Transit, as an agency, has a budget over $5 billion. In that regard, a $100 million investment in cleanliness is a two percent drop in the bucket.

Through the new general manager program — one that Roberts hopes will better bring rider demands to the attention of the people at the MTA who can fulfill those desires — line general managers will be evaluated on a set of standards. Included in those standards will be station cleanliness. As the general managers grow to understand their lines, it will ideally become easier to assign the resources to the stations that need it. Perhaps we’ll see cleaner stations sooner rather than later.

Before leaving the issue of cleanliness behind, I brought up a familiar refrain. What can the MTA or the police do to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves and throw out their trash in the appropriate bins? The vast majority of riders tune out the PSAs, and I mentioned an approach similar to the one in use in DC in which cops ticket people for eating on the system. Roberts knows that this is a hot-button issue that could easily erupt.

“At this point in time, we are looking at the all possibilities,” he said. “But there would be a large public response” to any attempts to change the rules.

It’s all about practicality and knowledge at New York City Transit right now. The agency knows the stations could be cleaner, and the people in charge want to do something about it within the constraints of the budget. There’s hope yet for a cleaner system.

Today hasn’t been the best day of the year for me. I just wrapped up two hours spent dealing with a TimeBridge e-mail sent to every single one of my Gmail contacts. Prior to that, however, I had a lovely Monday morning commute.

Arriving at the 7th Ave. stop in Brooklyn at around 8:30 a.m., hordes of people standing on the platform greeted me. This should have been a warning sign, but when a B pulled up a few minutes later, I eagerly smushed myself into the packed car. I needed to get to class post haste, and the train had just enough room for me. After pulling in to De Kalb Ave., we sat for longer than normal, and once in the tunnel approaching the Manhattan Bridge, the dreaded announcement came.

“Due to a sick passenger at 7th Ave. in Manhattan, this train will be going up the Broadway line,” intoned the conductor. Why couldn’t she tell us this before leaving De Kalb? As we crossed the bridge, I spied a B train just sitting on the Sixth Ave. side, facing an interminable red signal. At Canal St., I switched to an uptown R and made it to class just a few minutes late.

Little was I surprised then upon scanning the daily headlines to come across a story on the increasing number of subway delays in The Post. While a sick passenger is hardly the same as an avoidable delay, the news is alarming nonetheless. Reports Bill Sanderson:

New Yorkers’ subway commutes have slowed significantly over the last three years, according to the latest NYC Transit data. The city is still far from the 1970s bad old days of broken-down, graffiti-scarred trains – but the downward trend in the quality of subway service is unmistakable.

Through June, the number of delayed trains is up an average 24 percent from two years earlier, and 71 percent from three years earlier. And the distance trains travel without breaking down was down 7 percent in July from two years earlier, and 17 percent from three years earlier.

Subway bosses blame the problems on more track work, heavy ridership, and less money for maintaining cars.

In other words, if your ride seems slower than it used to, that’s because it is, and this problem figures to get worse before it gets any better.

Despite facing a fare share of criticism over and some mixed results from its line manager program, the MTA is set to expand their program after a 10-month experiment.

Last year, when the Rider Report Card results highlight deficiencies in service and general feelings that the MTA was out of touch with its riders, New York City Transit President Howard Roberts introduced the line manager program. In the intervening months, the L and 7 served as guinea pigs, and now the MTA will spread the joy of oversight to other subway lines but on a more limited basis.

According to William Neuman of The Times, with money tight at the MTA — the agency is facing a potential $1-billion deficit — other subway lines will get only managers and not the other amenities, such as 24-hour cleaning crews, that the L and 7 currently enjoy.

Neuman has more:

Mr. Roberts said that the rest of the numbered lines would get general managers this fall, with the new positions being phased in over the next several weeks. Early next year, the rest of the lettered lines will shift to the new structure. Each line will also be part of a group of four to seven lines that have common responsibilities. For instance, the Nos. 1, 2 and 3 lines share several miles of track, so track maintenance would be the responsibility of a group manager.

Mr. Roberts said that once the reorganization is complete and the employees are moved to their new jobs, the changes will result in a slightly leaner work force, with 70 fewer positions and a savings of $7.3 million a year.

Meanwhile, the results of the current line managers are decidedly mixed. The MTA highlights on-time statistics to show the effects these managers are having, but numerous lines without the managerial oversight have enjoyed increased on-time numbers as well. Furthermore, as Neuman notes, on-time numbers for the 7 and L are actually off pace from the days before the line manager program.

Riders themselves have not noticed widespread improvement in the system, and I have a feeling that the latest round of rider report cards will reveal similar or identical grades as those doled out last year. Some riders, Neuman writes, say “they had noticed small improvements like trains arriving at stations with greater regularity, easing rush hour crowding in the cars. And many said that stations and train cars on the two lines were noticeably cleaner than elsewhere in the subway system.”

In the end, I have to like this program because of its intent. It saves the MTA money, and it shows that the agency is willing, finally, to listen to its customers. We can’t expect overnight results from an organization that has long resisted change, but we can hope that, as the powers-that-be receive more feedback and suggestion from the riders, they’ll be willing to take the steps necessary to improve our subway service.

In last week’s issue of the Downtown Express, Laura Latzko examined handicapped access and the subways. As we know, many subway stops aren’t very handicap-accessible, and Latzko’s story highlights how many key hubs are lacking in amenities and how handicapped riders have to change their routes to get around the city.

More important, though, is Latzko’s hints at things to come:

By 2020, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has promised to make 100 key stations accessible, as part of a plan it developed after the Americans with Disabilities Act was adopted in 1990…

Funding issues also contribute to the system’s inaccessibility. [NYC Transit spokesperson James] Anyansi said that it costs on average $5 million to $7 million to put an elevator in a subway and $15 million to $20 million to make a station accessible, with mezzanine and street elevators.

So therein lies the rub. The MTA knows its system is not handicap-friendly, and the authority knows that every time it renovates a station, it must make that station ADA-compliant. But adhering to those ADA measures costs up to $20 million. It is, in other words, cost-prohibitive for the MTA to make its system handicap-friendly.

Over the next decade, come funding hell or high water, the MTA will overhaul a bunch of key stations. This set of stations will include the Broadway-Lafayette/Bleeker St. hub with the B, D, F, V and 6 all merging at a common point. The agency will also try to work out their handicap-accessibility at many other key stations.

But again, this is an issue that relies on funding. Until the MTA can receive adequate funding, yet another sub-population in New York City will be left with sub-par subway access. This sounds like a very common refrain these days, and hopefully, one day soon, our elected representatives will begin to tackle these funding problems. I am not holding my breath.

This poster will soon adorn a train near you. (Click to enlarge.)

In mid-July, New York City Transit came under fire when word got out about the inactivity surrounding to a few planned anti-groping PSAs. According to reports at the time, the agency had been hesitant to launch an awareness campaign dues to fears that the ads could encourage copycat behavior.

Well, after The Post exposed this odd stalemate, the MTA has decided to act. NYC Transit is set to debut their new PSA — seen above — in train cars throughout the city. This ad will run for at least the next three months. “We think the poster sets the right tone, and provides our female customers the information they need — which is namely that they shouldn’t tolerate such criminal behavior and that they should report it,” Paul Fleuranges, NYCT spokesman, said in an e-mail. “It’s a message that not only applies to women, but also to men who may witness such behavior.”

In explaining the decision to proceed with this ad campaign despite the original copycat concerns, Fleuranges noted that the benefits of this PSA far outnumber the negatives. “The possibility of instigating this type of unwelcome behavior is far outweighed by putting out the message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated in the system and is viewed by us and the NYPD as being an extremely serious crime,” he said. “In and of itself the card may not stop all of it, but hopefully we can help put a dent in these occurrences.”

Holla Back New York City, a long-term proponent of these ads, is pleased to see one of their goals realized. They have been pressing the issue since well before Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s 2007 survey found that nearly two-thirds of all women experienced subway harassment. There is little doubt in my mind that displaying these ads is right thing to do.

Maybe we’re looking at the MTA’s financial crisis from the wrong perspective. Maybe, instead of asking a financially distraught state or city to pick up the tab, business developers, real estate mavens and local communities should pitch in and clean up.

That is at least what the New York City Transit Riders Council is suggesting. In a report that rehashes some familiar territory, the NYCTRC proclaims the subways to be in dire straits. As the council wrote in the press release (PDF) drawing attention to its survey of 50 stations (PDF), “The most common indicators where stations received failing grades include the presence of exposed wiring, the cleanliness and condition of station ceilings, the presence of tactile warning strips indicating platform edges, water leakage on ceilings, water leakage on walls, and cleanliness and condition of station walls.”

We know this already. We’ve had everyone from NYCT President Howard Roberts to the Straphangers Campaign and some local politicians tell us so. But the report contains some rather out-of-the-box approaches to combating both the decrepit stations and the finances involved in fixing them up.

The NYCTRC report begins with the regular litany of funding sources. The state should ensure a “steady, predictable source of revenue.” The city should “join with NYC Transit in a mutually beneficial effort to create a positive subway experience for users” — which is just a fancy way of saying, “Give the MTA more money.” But after that, things get interesting.

First, the NYCTRC suggests a “station impact fee.” Under this plan, the city would automatically charge a fee on any new development with walking distance of a subway station. The report says, “The presence of a subway station within walking distance adds great value to any development and increases the use of this transportation service; as such, new development and redevelopment should share in the care and maintenance of this important asset of the community.”

Next, the Council calls upon Business Improvement Districts to lend a hand in station maintenance. As clean and modern stations would attract more shoppers and business people to an area, the BIDs have a substantial interest in maintaining and improving conditions underground.

Hand in hand with the BID proposal is one calling for the creation of an “Adopt-a-Station” plan. Through this program, “neighborhood-corporate partnerships are formed to financially support capital improvements and maintenance of stations. Community residents and commercial establishments should have the opportunity to participate in the preservation of their local subway station.”

Why the MTA hasn’t implemented this idea in the past I do not know. By encouraging communities to take ownership of stations, the MTA can get its riders and those local business owners who rely on the stations to take command of some of the things the Transit Authority can’t. Critics will call this a dereliction of the MTA’s duties, but those same critics won’t fund the transportation agency to its fullest.

Of course, this idea gets to the very philosophical nature of the MTA. If the MTA — a public benefit corporation tasked with maintained and running the trains — can’t fulfill its overarching goal, should the public step in and rescue it through such a program? And while some richer neighborhoods have the disposable income to spend on subway station maintenance, do the city’s less well-off areas have to suffer as well?

Perhaps modeling such a plan on the successful Adopt-A-Highway program would be a good way to start. Perhaps the MTA shouldn’t come knocking, hat in the hand, to ask communities for such a direct contribution to station upkeep. But as it becomes more clear every day that the MTA doesn’t have the money, that the city and state don’t have funds, that congestion pricing remains a long shot, someone will have to step in and implement and out-of-the-box idea to rescue our subway system. If this one doesn’t deserve a shot, I don’t know what does.