Category: New York City Transit

For the vast majority of rush hour subway commuters, getting a seat is the Holy Grail of the ride home. That seat provides us riders with our own too-small space underneath the packed masses of disgruntled cube dwellers trying to make their ways to or from work in a train that’s too crowded, too hot, too slow and not on time. That seat is a beacon of hope, individuality and space in a place where, all too often, those three traits are noticeably absent.

But with if those seats were gone? What if, instead of standing expectantly above a seat waiting for that person to get off at DeKalb Ave. or Rockefeller Center or 68th St., those seats simply didn’t exist at all in the subway? Could more people fit into the trains at rush hour? That’s what New York City Transit head Howard Roberts is wondering, and he plans to find out.

In a pilot program announced over the weekend and set to debut in five-to-seven months, NYC Transit will be eliminating seats from some rush hour subways an in effort to combat over-crowded subways. Pete Donohue had more:

The agency is planning a pilot program featuring a train with flipup seats in four of 10 cars. The flipup seats will be locked in the up position during rush hours, meaning everyone inside the car will have to stand, the Daily News has learned.

“Each car will be able to carry more people,” NYC Transit President Howard Roberts said of the no-sitting strategy. “It means more capacity. It gives the ability to pick up more people, and have fewer people left on the platform waiting for the next train.”

After rush hours, workers will unlock the flipup seats for riders to use, Roberts said.

Right now, the MTA is still attempting to work out logistics of this program. The NYCT chiefs do not yet know which lines will enjoy these seatless cars, and officials aren’t sure of the long-term prospects of the plan. But those in the know believe two things to be: More people will fit into the cars, and passengers won’t like this plan.

It’s hard to argue with the former point. With seats gone, people will squeeze into every available inch of a train car. No one will sit with their legs spread open as annoyed and tired commuters glare uselessly in that person’s direction. No longer will people sit on top of each other for seats; instead, they’ll stand too close to each other.

It’s the second statement — Gene Russianoff’s assessment that passengers won’t like this plan — from which I dissent. If the MTA adheres to the NYCT plan and keeps six out of ten cars with seats, passengers looking to take a load off can still gamble in those cars. Sure, it may mean more people rushing for seats, but I, for example, could rarely if ever get a seat from W. 4th to 7th Ave. along the BMT line. I would be happy to find a car without those annoying seats that jut into the car so prominently featured on the R68s.

The folks who stand to lose are the aged and infirm who can’t stand up for the duration of their subway rides. The folks who stand to lose are those who get on early enough and ride far enough to get a coveted seat on the way home. The folks who stand to gain are the rest of us, and outside of rush hour, when the seats will be flipped down, nothing will seem changed. The needs of the many — space in a train on the way home — outweigh the needs of the few who want seats for their short commutes at the end of the day.

It’s been a rough week for the MTA. With two fare hikes on tap over the next few years and only a balanced budget to show for it, the public is grumbling about paying more for the same sub-par service.

But grumble no more for tonight’s news is good. Starting on Sunday night and continuing on into Monday, New York City Transit is rolling out some much-needed and long-awaited service upgrades. While the upgrades were reduced in scope, they will beef up service to under-served neighborhoods and overcrowded subway lines.

We start with the big change out in Flushing, Queens. Beginning on Sunday, NYC Transit is adding 14 additional round trips on the IRT Flushing Line between Flushing-Main Street and Times Square. As part of this upgrade, express service will commence at 5:30 a.m. — 5:33, to be precise — an hour earlier than it does now. But that’s not the only change.

Some Main St.-bound trains in the morning will discharge their passengers at Willets Point-Shea Stadium — a three-platform station — instead of at 111th St. — a two-platform station. This will, according to 7 Line Manager Lou Brusati, help the line run more regularly and smoother. At Main St. in the morning, express trains will leave from Track One every five minutes and locals from Track Two at least every eight minutes.

The Manhattan IRT lines are getting a boost as well. On Tuesday night, I spied work crews hanging up the news signs, and lo and behold, the 3 will start to enjoy more service. Starting Sunday, the 3 will become a 24-hour express train. From midnight to 6:30 a.m., 3 trains will run from 148th St. to Times Square making all express stops. NYC Transit also plans to take some pressure off the 2 by increasing the frequency of the 3 from every six to eight minutes to five to seven minutes.

“The return of around-the- clock 3 train service means people will no longer be forced to wait outside in the heat and humidity or the cold and snow for a shuttle to bring them home. It also means that those who commute late at night or early in the morning will have access to the same level of service as those who work day-time hours,” Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, Jr., of Harlem, said while thanking the MTA for these upgrades.

Finally, we arrive at the upgrades to a few of the lettered train lines. The B, M and W lines — not nearly as fancy as the car with the same — will all see service increased in an effort to meet the MTA’s loading guidelines. For B train passengers — that’s me! — trains will now run until 11 p.m. at night, an increase of 90 minutes. Riders along the W will enjoy the same extended hours. The M will now run between Metropolitan Ave. and Broad St. from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. and from Metropolitan Ave. and Myrtle Ave. from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Currently, trains stop running to Broad St. at 7:30 p.m.

In the end, these are somewhat minor but very essential upgrades, and the timing of this announcement couldn’t have been better for the MTA. While we really needed the full $45-million package of upgrades, these $8.9-million increases will have to suffice. Now we can’t say the MTA never does anything for its passengers.

While news of the fare hike dominated the papers this morning, another big story concerning train service made the front pages as well. According to MTA’s own metrics, train delays are up significantly this year with the IRT lines bearing the brunt of the problems. More concerning, though, are reports suggesting that there is no quick fix to this problem.

For the numbers, check out the graphic at right. Ray Rivera, reporting on this story for The Times, provides some context:

The No. 4, which runs from Woodlawn in the Bronx to Crown Heights and Utica Avenue in Brooklyn, reached its destination on time in only 70.1 percent of its runs in May, the new figures show. That was nearly a 12 percent decline from the same month the previous year.

The average on-time performance for the rest of the system was 91.5 percent that same month, a 1.62 percent decline from the previous May, according to the agency.

The No. 4’s average on-time performance for the year was slightly better, at 79.7 percent, a 4.8 percent decrease from the previous 12 months. Over all, the system had a 12-month on-time average of 92 percent, a 1.64 percent decrease from the previous cycle.

According to Rivera, the MTA has dispatched workers along the route to figure out why the IRT trains are suffering a disproportionate number of delays. Straphangers Campaign lawyer Gene Russianoff, as he is wont to do, questioned the MTA’s methodology, noting that the MTA counts trains as late if they reach their terminus stations after the scheduled time. How these trains behave en route is a different story and one that could make these numbers look bad.

While, as Rivera writes, “transit officials cite track work, customers holding doors, sick and unruly riders and signal trouble as the leading causes for the delays,” these reports come from train crews and based on guidelines handed out by the MTA. They are, in essence, subject to the whims of the train crew.

I think the biggest culprit in delays these days originate from passengers. Irate straphangers try to cram onto over-crowded trains during rush hour, and those driving the train can’t close the doors. While track-work delays and other non-human delays (mechanical problems, signal issues) cause their fair shares of delays, if the MTA could combat the door-holding craze plaguing the trains, I’m sure service would improve. It’s a better solution than reviving the dormant skip-stop service.

The graphic on the side charting delays comes to us via The New York Times.

That’s today, folks. So don’t jump that turnstile. And if you want the details on Section 1050.4 of the MTA NYC Transit Rules of Conduct, click here.

And for the fun of it, City Room’s Sewell Chan details the history of the MTA’s anti-fare-jumping efforts.

Updating this morning’s item on the end of the planned service upgrades, it seems that the Daily News sources weren’t 100 percent correct. According to The Times’ William Neuman, the MTA and New York City Transit will go ahead with $4.5 million worth of service upgrades. It’s better than nothing, right?

Neuman reports:

Extra service, sometimes in small increments, sometimes in larger ways, will be added to nine subway lines in July, according to information distributed to the authority’s board this week.

The changes include having the B and W trains run until 11 p.m. on weekdays, an hour and a half later than they currently run. And the No. 3 train, which currently shuts down from midnight to 5 a.m., would run during those hours between Times Square and 148th Street.

The changes will cost about $4.5 million for the remainder of this year and $8.9 million a year after that. They require approval by the authority’s board, which meets next week.

While I’m still working on getting the exact details of the service upgrades, Neuman reports that the “1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, B, J, M, N, Q, W and the shuttle between Times Square and Grand Central Terminal” will see additional service. Noticeably absent are the promised service expansions along the IND Crosstown line, more commonly known as the G train.

The original service expansion plans called for increases across the board in the region. However, service increases for buses, the LIRR and Metro-North have since been scraped. Even worse, in some ways, though, are the sources of the money for this increase. The MTA says it will cut administrative costs (good) and subway car cleaning costs (bad).

In the end, this move seems like a PR effort. The MTA was getting slammed for raising the fares without extending service. So they’ve reshuffled some funds to extend service. Whether we’ll notice the dirtier subway cars, I do not know, but I’m not complaining about added service along train lines upon which I rely on a daily basis.

Most New York City subway riders would agree: Nary a week goes by without some subway delays. Whether it’s a few more minutes than usual at rush hour or a full-blown police investigation/sick passenger issue, delays are seemingly running rampant recently.

Well, as The Sun reported yesterday, if it seems like delays are up, that’s because they are. In numbers to be released next week, the MTA will announce that delays have reached an 11-year high and have more than doubled since 2003.

For those interested in the raw data, take a look at the number of delays by year since 1996, courtesy of the MTA:

2007: 162,774
2006: 125,364
2005: 90,914
2004: 78,398
2003: 69,890
2002: 88,522
2001: 99,768
2000: 102,855
1999: 126,829
1998: 141,541
1997: 158,578
1996: 175,955

The MTA pinpoints construction issues as the leading cause of these delays. That is, of course, the cost of having to maintain and upgrade a system 100 years old in some parts. “We are doing an incredible amount of capital construction work and those projects do have an impact on normal operations if they are not completed on time,” Paul Fleuranges, vice president for corporate communications, said to The Sun. “While it is our goal to have this work wrapped up in time for normal service to resume, sometimes that is not possible.”

Additionally, sick customers, unruly riders and obnoxious door-holders contribute to these unplanned delays as well. When the automated voices on the new trains tell you get out of the way, just listen to them already.

Transit advocates were a bit dismayed at the sudden jump in delays over the last few years. “By their own numbers, they’re providing service that’s deteriorating,” Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign said to The Sun. “You have to manage by the numbers. These are showing a problem.”

I offer up a different take though. While the rise in delays coincide with the unprecedented boom in subway ridership numbers, they also line up nicely with an increased focus on the capital campaign. The MTA kicked off its 100-year anniversary in 2004 with a pledge to maintain the system into its second hundred years. Since then, delays have spiked.

Of course, at some point, we should expect to see the delays go down, but many of these capital projects aren’t close to completion. One day soon, we hope, the construction will be completed. For now, we just have to hope that the delays decrease. A 21st Century New York with 1970s subway delays would be quite the experience.

Ah, the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA. Since 1981, this committee, which has the potential to be a voice for change, has been flying under the radar. For its fancy, the committee doesn’t get its name in the paper more than once a year really when the annual MTA Performance Review hits the news.

Well, guess what? Today’s the day. The Committee has issued their review (available here as a PDF), and the critiques are what you would expect really. For this post, I’ll look examine what the PCAC thinks about New York City Transit, and later this afternoon, I’ll look at the PCAC’s response to the MTA overall. If you’re interested in the commuter rail networks, page through the PDF. It’s a quick read.

Before jumping in, it’s interesting to note that, by and large, the PCAC, much like the Rider Report Cards, isn’t issuing any groundbreaking information. As you’ll notice shortly, I’ve hit upon nearly all of their critiques and praises at some point during the last 13 months. How can I get a spot on this committee?

And here we go.

The Good

With New York City Transit in the crosshairs, the PCAC starts out by praising the man in charge. PCAC likes Howard Roberts, the new head of New York City Transit. Considering that the Committee went out of its way to offer the same compliments to MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander, it seems that no one really liked the old bosses. Nice work, Gov. Pataki.

In more tangible areas, the PCAC praised NYCT for its myriad service upgrades. The Times Square Shuttle is better; the L line is better; the 7 line, running express after Mets games, is better; and even the Staten Island Railway is better. The PCAC also praised the MTA for renovating their elevators. Way to go, guys.

Interestingly, the Committee highlighted the MTA’s communications efforts during planned service outages. They were particular impressed with the MTA e-mail alerts and the new service alert posters. I approved of those changes last year as well.

Needs Improvement

The PCAC wasn’t too thrilled with the Rider Report Cards. I concur. A flawed process and methodology as well as predictable results marred the process. Relatedly, the PCAC criticized the MTA for their vague performance measures. What exactly does it mean for a train to “on time”? What does it mean to suffer from delays during travel? These too are questions I recently posted.

While PCAC criticized a few bus issues — the odd placement of shelters, poor dissemination of express bus routes — they are not happy with the cleanliness, or lack thereof, of the subway system. As long as the stations remain open 24 hours a day, cleanliness will always be an issue.

Unacceptable

No big surprises here: The PCAC was not at all pleased with the inability of NYCT to communicate during the August 8th flood disaster. This story has been covered to death. We know the drill.

The Committee expressed dismay that 86 stations do not have public address systems. Coincidentally, NYCT head Howard Roberts announced plans to address this deficiency earlier this week. Do you think he had an advanced copy of the report?

Finally, the PCAC was highly unamused by the lack of progress with the Public Address/Customer Information Screen projects. We know that one from the lab rat that is the L Line. Those signs are, as The New York Times wrote on Sunday, hardly reliable. With the project already 34.4 percent over budget and three years behind schedule, the Committee questions when, if at all, we’ll see late 20th Century technology arrive in the New York City Subways.

Check back later for the PCAC’s look inside the MTA.

Do we trust Lee Sander and Howard Roberts? That’s really the question behind this line manager plan New York City Transit will begin to implement on Monday.

If we trust the MTA CEO with impeccable academic credentials and the NYCT President who helped streamline the New York City buses twenty years ago, then this seemingly bureaucratic addition of line managers will help improve subway service, somehow. If we don’t trust them, it’s just one more layer of bureaucracy in an organization already plagued with too many employees and layers of red tape.

First, the details: In response to the mediocre grades the MTA has received from the unscientific Rider Report Cards and the seemingly glacial pace of change the pre-Sander MTA, New York City Transit has decided to assign line managers to each line. While most government agencies would shy away from adding another 20 middle managers, Howard Roberts, NYCT president, and Sander, the MTA’s head honcho, think that turning each line into its own railroad with its own funds and crew will help streamline common problems.

William Neuman in The Times wrote more about this restructuring:

The changes are designed to give individual subway lines a greater degree of autonomy by putting each one under the direction of a manager who will be responsible for almost everything that happens on the tracks, in the trains and in the stations.

The goal, Mr. Roberts said, is to have 24 subway lines operating in many ways as 24 self-contained railroads. (The number may vary, depending on how the lines are counted.) They will compete against one another and be rated on service, cleanliness, on-time performance and other measures…

The new managers will be backed up with money and manpower. Additional cleaners will be assigned to stations and trains. And managers will also be able to send out special crews to “blitz” their stations — swarming in and spiffing up everything: peeling paint, rusted fixtures and damaged signs.

The pilot program — because the MTA always needs a pilot program — starts on Monday on the L and 7 lines, those isolated bastions of crowded, underperforming subways. And with the quote of the day comes Roberts. “Bureaucracy is where it takes a year to get something done,” he said. “Creating small organizations that can react quickly and solve problems overnight is the antithesis of that.”

I have long dreamed of the day the MTA solves something overnight.

Sarcasm aside, it’s really easy to see how this plan can fail. Individual subway lines are not autonomous. While the L and 7 are the only trains on their respective tracks, take the B train. At no point from Brighton Beach to Bedford Park Boulevard are the B trains the only trains on the route. The B must share tracks, switches and signals with, at times, the Q, the D and the C trains while the F, V and A also stop at similar stations but use adjacent tracks. Who is supposed to manage that mess?

And what about this whole competition thing? Most people don’t enjoy the luxury of competition in choosing their subways. The vast majority of New Yorkers take the same trains each day because that train is close to home and gets them to work. No one’s going to walk a significant distant to find a train that won’t save them too much time. So while one commenter at CityRoom suggests naming subway cars and other superficial improvements, the Subchat contributors suggest a more rational pay-for-performance model. If your line’s stations are the cleanest, you get paid more. I like that.

For its part, The Times likes this plan. In today’s editorial, The Times notes that, right now, one person is in charge of 468 stations which is why nothing gets done. Is it better to add a new vice president and 22 more managers to improve this problem? Only if more fat is trimmed.

As Railman718 noted (here and here) today on Subchat, this reorganization appears to be something that Sander and Roberts have had on the agenda since before either of them were installed at the MTA. It’s why Pataki-era leaders who weren’t known for their transportation savviness have left in droves.

So basically, we’re right back where we started. If the MTA is intent on eliminating middle management, as Scott suggested here yesterday that they are, it’s probably a winning restructuring. If they can create adequate spheres of influence and figure out how overlapping lines are going to managed, this plan will work. If they can address the systematic problems with the MTA and bring the current state of subway technology in New York City into the 21st Century while doing it, it’s a win. All of this just makes for one tall order facing an agency that needs to overcome a tall order to gain back the trust of its riders.