Category: View from Underground

The MTA has long had a tough relationship with signs. It has struggled over the years to present Weekend Service Changes in a graphically-pleasing yet easy-to-read format, and it recently rebranded its house ads to better promote system-wide improvements. Now, its signage is again coming under question as construction sites around the city remain shrouded in mystery.

The problem is one of explication and explanation. At too many sites around the city, the MTA doesn’t adequately explain what work they’re doing, how long construction will last and what the final outcome will be. Signs are often haphazardly hung in odd places and feature long-gone completion dates with no nod to reality. In fact, signs I noticed this week at the 7th Ave. stop in Midtown claim that work is being done to improve service along the E/V route. The V, of course, hasn’t run since last June.

Andrew Grossman, the Wall Street Journal’s transit writer, tackled the issue of signs earlier this week. He writes:

Tunneling for the first phase of the Second Avenue subway will be finished by summer. Or possibly next spring. Much of the 96th Street subway station being built along the line will wrap up this summer, too. Or maybe winter 2013.

That’s the conflicting guidance on signs posted along the massive construction zone on Manhattan’s East Side. And confusing as they may be, they offer more details than riders and pedestrians get at many other Metropolitan Transportation Authority projects…

The MTA has made efforts to improve its subway communication. Last year, the agency started using a new system of clearer, centrally located signs listing service changes. Sometimes, when staircases are closed, paper signs tell people why they’re closed and when they’ll reopen. New screens revealing the wait for an approaching train got high marks when the authority surveyed riders last year.

The authority is starting to post some newly designed construction signs that are “uniform and provide consistent information,” MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz said on Tuesday. On projects funded with federal stimulus money, the agency displays signs noting the federal government’s role—though some completion dates are no longer accurate. And it also requires contractors to post notices when station stairways and entrances are closed.

Of course, problems creep up when weeks fly by. Elevators are often shuttered long past the dates promised on the signs, and those who have worked with the MTA recognize the challenge. “I think for these big agencies, they’ve got a lot on their plate—to their credit perhaps,” David Gibson, a one-time MTA consultant on signage, said. “You can get very involved in the perspective of the project people, the construction people, and you kind of forget that this is all about customers. It takes a rigorous concern for customers to get this stuff right.”

The customers — those folks who need the system to work — are often left in the dark. “It seems like it’s never-ending,” a woman attempting to navigate Fulton Street said to The Journal. “They should post some signs somewhere…the extent of it and how long, so people don’t wonder.”

Ultimately, as Gibson notes, this is about the passenger, and it’s about communicating effectively with the passenger. Historically, the MTA has struggled to do that. It’s true that the system is vast and construction projects often do not wrap when promised. But as capital work continues, the MTA should make sure those who have only a passing interest in what goes on underground and care more about getting from Point A to Point B are well informed. It is, after all, all about the customer.

For the baseball fans among us, the subways often play an integral part in our enjoyment of the sport. If I’m heading to see my Yankees play in the Bronx, I’ll always take the B, D or 4 train, and if I’m venturing out to Coney Island for a Cyclones game or Flushing to see the Mets, the subways are always the way to go. In the Bronx, the Yankees have long embraced the subway by featuring the Great City Subway Race on the jumbotron, and although I’ve bemoaned the inaccuracies of the scoreboard entertainment in the past, the subway race is a quintessential Noo Yawk part of the Yankee Stadium experience.

Imagine my surprise then when, during the fourth inning of Opening Day, the subway race no longer featured MTA trains. Instead of the B, D and 4 trains, the Yanks were using three trains labeled Road Gray, Midnight Blue and Pinstripes. The animated contest still started at Herald Square and Grand Central, but the trains weren’t a part of New York’s subway system.

Once I got home from the game and thawed off from the cold, I got on the horn with the MTA, and authority sources told me the change seemed to stem from a misunderstanding. As I reported over at River Ave. Blues, when the Yankees first started the subway race, they asked the MTA for permission to use the transit agency’s intellectual property. The subway bullets, after all, are MTA trademarks, and the authority granted that permission, for free, as long as the Yankees did not attach a sponsor to the race. Here, the story gets a little fuzzy. The Yankees had long had Dunkin Donuts sponsoring the race; the 4 train was frequently slowed by a jelly donut in the tracks. The MTA though didn’t seem to notice a sponsor had signed on until last year when Subway took over.

Following the 2010 season, MTA sources tell me, the authority attempted to reach out to the Yankees to discuss the subway race sponsorship. At no point did the MTA ask the Yankees for money, and one person with whom I spoke said the MTA had no plans to do so. Rather, they were going to ask the Yankees to append a public service announcement to the subway race urging fans to take mass transit to the game. The Yankees though never returned the MTA’s calls, and the authority never had the chance to make this offer.

For its part, the MTA was disappointed. “The video race was considered a method to promote taking mass transit to games,” Kevin Ortiz said. ” We are disappointed the Yankees decided to change the look of the trains.”

Yet, this story has a happy ending as the Yanks and the MTA resolved their differences. The trains, as I noted at RAB, will return to the scoreboard tonight, and while the Yanks’ sponsorship will remain, the race will now conclude with a public service announcement concerning mass transit. “The Subway Race,” the authority said in a statement, “will continue to remind fans that taking the train to the game remains the quickest and least expensive way to get to the game.”

For the subways, all’s well that ends well. Yet, I wonder how the company running the South Bronx’s ridiculous $35-per-car parking lots feels about the whole thing. If the Yanks and the MTA are making a more vocal push to promote mass transit at the stadium, those parking lots, which shouldn’t have been built in the first place, will continue to remain empty.

Andrea Bernstein from Transportation Nation passes along an interesting subway etiquette conundrum in the form of a personal story. She’s curious to hear other folks’ takes on it. Here’s the set-up:

Two months ago, I injured my back, making it hard for me to sit. So I stand on the subway train — but if it’s not too crowded, I put my bag on the seat to ease the strain of carrying a large purse, as well as to avoid bending up and down to put it on the floor. If I put in on the floor, I have to move it almost every stop, because it’s kind of long (good for carrying radio recording equipment.) And that also stresses my back, so if it’s not too crowded, I will put my bag on the seat, and stand beside it.

Today, when I boarded the train, it was pretty empty. So I put my bag on the seat, stood beside it, and proceeded to read the coverage of Japan on the NY Times op-ed page. About three stops later, a passenger got on — a young, seemingly able-bodied man, and pointed to my bag, saying “your bag.” I thought he was pointing out that the zipper was about 3 inches open, so I closed it.

Then, he said, “Move your bag!” rather brusquely. I explained it was there because I can’t sit, and it was taking up the seat instead of me. He started to scream: “You’re really being an asshole!”

Eventually, another woman on the train surrendered her seat to the young man and told Bernstein to take heart. Don’t worry,” she said. “There’s room for me and your bag.”

So here’s the question Bernstein poses: “Is it okay for me to put my bag on the seat instead of, um, my posterior?”

This question hinges on that unseen injuries and closely tracks the pregnancy issue. If someone is pregnant but not showing, they don’t expect anyone else to give up a seat for them without asking. If Bernstein is injured but not visibly so, how will people know that she can’t sit or can’t place her bag on the floor? Absent an explanation, they won’t.

The few writers to comment on Transportation Nation do not seem very sympathetic toward Bernstein. One notes that the subway is “not a luggage rack” while the other says, “The young man and others getting on the train can’t see any good reason for your bag to be on the seat.” He recommends a bag on wheels in the interim.

I always think New Yorkers on the subway should strive to be more polite than they are. If Bernstein is on a train suitably empty and needs to place her bag down for the sake of her back, other straphangers should be understanding. Furthermore, she’s not in violation of Rule 1050.7 as long as she’s not interfering with the comfort of others. Maybe I’m assuming too much though. What do you think?

The lasting image many people have of the New York City waterfront comes from a movie of a similar name. The miles of waterfront property coulda been a contender, as Marlon Brando once put it. Instead, the city has a tenuous relationship with its shoreline. At various points, multi-lane highways, industry and infrastructure have laid claim to prime waterfront spots, and while a port city needs its access to water, development north of the port has been slow.

That all will change if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way. As part of his third-term effort to leave a lasting impact on the city’s landscape, the Mayor announced earlier this week a $3 billion plan to redevelop the waterfront. I hesitate to call it a comprehensive one because it gathers numerous projects at various stages under one roof, but by and large, it would allow for the city to return access to the waterfront to people.

The driving force behind this effort is a 190-page document entitled “Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan.” The city has identified 130 projects — along with an expanded ferry service introduced last month — that planners hope will “catalyze waterfront investment, improve water quality, and expand public access” to the city’s shore.

Those in charge of the city’s economic development policies are happy because waterfront space is indeed a valuable commodity. “The waterfront represents an enormous opportunity for economic growth throughout the five boroughs,” EDC President Seth Pinsky said. “By investing in and expanding the working waterfront, we will be creating immediate job opportunities for New Yorkers as well as a source of long-term economic growth for New York City. Developing our waterfront infrastructure, so that we can expand industries like container shipping, will allow us to stay competitive with other waterfront cities around the world.”

Michael Howard Saul from The Journal had more on the details:

The $3 billion-plus initiative includes the development of more than 50 acres of new waterfront parks, the creation of 14 new waterfront esplanades and new ferry service.

Many of the projects are already in the city’s capital plan, and while these types of initiatives are often delayed—sometimes indefinitely—aides at City Hall said the mayor and the speaker are determined to make these 130 a high priority before their terms in office expire in December 2013.

The most expensive portion of these projects, a total of $2.57 billion, will be overseen by the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, which is funded largely through water rates. The remainder of the projects, valued at more than $700 million, are funded directly by city taxpayers.

Other projects include pier renovation and reclamation work; development of 50 acres of waterfront parks; more miles of greenway; and a push to bring more jobs to the Brooklyn Navy Yard space. “New York City’s waterfront has always played a major role in its history and is one of its greatest assets – we have more miles of waterfront Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland combined – but for decades New Yorkers have been blocked from it and it’s become less and less a part of their lives,” the Mayor said. “We’re committed to making it a part of New Yorkers’ lives again by completely revitalizing the waterfront and waterways.”

Yet for all the back-slapping that went on during this week’s press conference, Steve Spinola of the Real Estate Board of New York had an interesting statement on the proposal. “The question is how to you get people to the waterfront—to live or to the work or to play,” he said. “You need this blend of open space and infrastructure improvements, as well as the ability to attract investors to help pay for the ongoing cost of maintaining the waterfront.”

For $3 billion, Bloomberg’s proposal is noticeably short on answering Spinola’s question. The issues of getting people to the waterfront have long bedeviled New York’s city planners. Part of that is a historical happenstance: As roads developed, subway routes didn’t reach the waterfront. But part of that is geography: The land around the waterfront cannot support subway infrastructure. So the city will turn to ferries and hope that people are walking.

I can’t complain about waterfront development. Incorporating the views and riverfront space back into the daily routine of urban life would be a welcome development for New Yorkers. But for $3 billion, the city should make sure it can get people to the waterfront in the first place. Building up without adequate transportation is the recipe for an empty esplanade.

As this past week’s Transportation Camp Unconference settled into its routine, someone proposed one intriguing idea that never made it into a session. The theme was a simple one with a complex answer. “Why do people hate transit?” this card said.

Since first espying this topic and realizing we wouldn’t have a chance to explore it, I’ve been turning this idea over in my head. There is no doubt that people in New York City have a tense relationship with transit. We hear millions clamoring for better subway service, faster bus service and less congestion.

But when ideas are implemented — when bus lanes and bike lanes are proposed and built, as subway construction tears up a neighborhood and a commercial strip — the din is deafening. We’re seeing it along 34th St. and Prospect Park West and at one apartment building along 86th St. as lawsuits and whining take over. Essentially, New Yorkers want better transit as long as it doesn’t inconvenience them, take away their precious parking or car lanes or lead to improvements that alter their behavior.

That’s a very broad generalization on my part, though, and as I’ve thought harder about it, I’ve come to the realization that there are seemingly two camps of people in New York City. First, there are those who hate the MTA and want emptier trains to come more frequently while they pay less for the service. Then, there are those who hate the idea of public transit. They want the luxuries of a life in the city without being told that they should give up their cars or being subtly urged toward greener and more socially friendly modes of transportation.

The twain, however, shall meet. Both groups are united by a seeming dislike of the inherent social aspect of transit. I know I’m guilty of harboring ill will toward fellow passengers when I’m too tired to think in the morning but have to shove my way onto a train car packed with people who won’t move in and are blasting music through leaky earbuds. I scoff at those who litter at a station, throw something into the tracks or eat on a train car with no regard for their surroundings. I roll my eyes at those who think they are entitled to two seats or make only a token effort to get out of the way while standing in front of a subway car door.

In other words, we dislike transit because we are exposed to aspects of ourselves and society that we’d rather not confront. We are inherently selfish and hate to share personal space, but on the city’s trains and buses, we have to. When we factor in the condition of Transit’s physical plant and New Yorkers’ rational and irrational distrust of the MTA, it’s not hard to figure out why people seem to hate public transit.

The other folks — the drivers who think cars should trump bikes, buses and pedestrians in urban areas — are tougher to pinpoint. It too is a form of selfish NIMBYism that trickles up to those who represent us in Albany. Although cars pass through vibrant economic hubs in urban areas and drivers often do not stop to shop, car drivers can get very protective of their lanes. They feel threatened by better transit options because better transit options will inevitably lead to less parking or less surface space for cars.

The $64,000 question then is how to fix it? It isn’t feasible or cost-effective for the MTA to run enough service to please everyone. They can’t improve the bus system without taking space from drivers, and they can’t run trains that arrive every two minutes throughout the day while keeping fares as low as they are today. They could make station environments more pleasant by cleaning up or accelerating the station rehab plans. That costs money that the agency doesn’t have.

Ultimately, transit is one of those things most people begrudgingly rely upon for their every-day existence. It’s impossible to please everyone all the time, and transit agencies and advocates have to forge ahead with an unfortunate mix of paternalism and patience. People hate transit, but without it, New York City wouldn’t be where it is today.

Sub City New York from sarah klein on Vimeo.

Tom Mason, one of the creators behind this video, sent this along to me earlier this week. The description is a simple one: “It’s a short film – a visual poem – about that moment in New York when you emerge from the subway and find yourself in a new and sometimes unexpected world.”

It certainly captures that fleeting moment of finding yourself transported via the subway of somewhere new and sometimes unknown. As a sunny and warm Saturday arrives in New York, enjoy.

Where: The Church Ave.-bound G platform at Metropolitan Ave.
When: Thursday, February 24, 2011 at around 8:00 p.m.

When the MTA unveiled their new signs in December, the rebranding effort was sure to be met with a certain public skepticism. It’s easy to say that the MTA is improving, non-stop, but it’s much harder to show. With fares on the raise at the end of 2010 and services scaled back six months earlier, straphangers aren’t feeling too good about the state of their transit network.

Over the past few days, I’ve seen the sign praising the MTA’s construction workers with the tagline “Improvements don’t just happen” vandalized in numerous ways. Mostly, clever commuters cut out the word “just,” and the new message is clear. New Yorkers, frustrated with the MTA, think improvements aren’t happening, period. A more obscene edit gets that point across.

In a sense, it’s a short-sighted zinger. Over the past 25 years, we’ve seen new subway connections into Queens open up; we’ve seen the Manhattan Bridge overhauled; we’ve seen the onset of MetroCards, reduced fare options and free subway-to-bus transfers; we’ve seen a near-total overhaul of the MTA’s rolling stock; and a slow-moving State of Good Repair program inch forward. We have countdown clocks in over 100 stations, and now, we’re seeing a part of the Second Ave. Subway move toward a Phase 1 conclusion. Progress is there, but it’s slow.

On the other hand, progress is slow, and we’ve seen the system slide back a bit lately. Stations are dirtier, and station agents have become an endangered species. The give-and-take between capital improvements and daily maintenance leaves many frustrated.

That said, I don’t think New Yorkers will be satisfied with the subways until the trains arrive constantly, there’s always a seat, no one is ever delayed and the fares decrease. Perhaps promoting improvements is a losing battle no matter what happens underground.

Where: Uptown and Queens-bound platform on the 6th Ave. line at Herald Square
When: Sunday, February 20, 2010 at 5:38 p.m.

On Sunday afternoon, I found myself waiting for a train at Herald Square and happened to glance into the tracks. What I saw there was worse than any live animal scampering around while scrounging up some food. Rather, the tracks will filled with trash strewn everywhere and water, backed up because of papers blocking the drain, coating the garbage. At one of the system’s most trafficked stations, it was a reminder of the state of cleanliness in the system.

Now, I don’t know how this garbage got to the tracks. Maybe someone threw it there in a fit of rage; maybe a bag broke on the platform; maybe the station hadn’t seen a garbage train in a while and the overstuffed trash cans couldn’t handle one more copy of amNew York. It doesn’t really matter though because it was there and it was a mess.

Over the years, I’ve often returned to the theme of cleanliness underground. New Yorkers treat the subway system with little respect. People chuck stuff into tracks with garbage cans right behind them. They drop food onto the floor of stations or train cars and walk away. It’s tough to keep a system looking even half-decent when the riders are the ones contributing so actively to the mess, and until personal responsibility rises to the forefront, the subway system will just always look this dirty.