AsidesView from Underground

Link: The damaging noise levels of the subway

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 13, 2013

By and large, the subways are not a very forgiving environment. Filled with rats, garbage and a general lack of cleanliness, it’s too hot in the summer, and too stuffy in the winter. It’s also loud. With a constant barrage of announcement, screeching brakes, and express trains rushing by, we expose our sensitive ears to noise on a regular basis. Just how loud the subways are and how damaging the noise exposure can be is a constant topic.

Today, in The Times’ Science section, the regular Q&A column tackles that question. Linking to a 2006 study (that predates this site by a few months), C. Claiborne Ray explains that constant exposure to the noise of the subway system could pose a threat of hearing loss. Writes Ray, “Guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization set a limit of 45 minutes’ exposure to 85 decibels, the mean noise level measured on subway platforms. And nearly 60 percent of the platform measurements exceeded that level. The maximum noise levels inside subway cars were even higher than those on the platforms, with one-fifth exceeding 100 decibels and more than two-thirds exceeding 90 decibels.”

Recent technology has included sound dampeners on some new rolling stock. It may, then, be time to re-run the study, but in one regard, we’re doing ourselves no favors by shoving headphones into our ears. The NIH study notes that “personal listening devices only increased the total noise and risk.” So there you have it. Or as a certain Twitter account might put it: GUYS, it’s loud in the subway, and The Times is ON IT.

13 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Public Transit Policy

From Lhota, park-and-ride and transit WiFi trumps congestion pricing

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 13, 2013

Despite the zaniness of the mayoral candidates’ transit policies and proposals, I had long assumed Joe Lhota would emerge as the sensible voice on transportation. After all, he’s running for mayor largely because of his brief tenure atop the MTA, and even though he didn’t spend much time running the agency, he seemed to grasp the larger problems facing transit improvements. His campaign has left me wanting more.

So far, we haven’t gotten much in the way of policies from any of the GOP candidates. Lhota, the presumptive frontrunner, has a website but no policy statements. He’s spent a lot of time clamoring for city control over the bridges and tunnels at the expense of the funding scheme established through the Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority and the MTA. I explored some of those issues yesterday. Now, in the form of a radio appearance, we have a little bit more from Lhota. It’s not quite what I had expected.

As part of an interview on WOR, Lhota spoke about the possible mechanisms for funding transit, and the conversation turned to congestion pricing. Once upon a time, congestion pricing had a powerful champion in City Hall and the support of a majority of the city’s residents (so long as the money were guaranteed to go transit improvements). It is the only way to ensure that fewer cars are entering congested areas of the Manhattan and part of a larger package to improve travel times and environmental, economic and safety conditions along heavily-trafficked corridors. Somehow, it’s turned into a political hot potato as no one will even discuss it any longer.

So Lhota got around to talking about it yesterday, but in a very roundabout way. Dana Rubinstein turned in and offered up select quotes:

“We’ve got to do everything we can to mitigate the number of cars in the city by doing smart things, common sense things, before we start saying ‘Well, let’s start charging people for coming into midtown, or congestion pricing,'” said Lhota this morning on the John Gambling radio show. “That’s the last step.”

…Today, when WOR radio host John Gambling asked Lhota his thoughts on congestion pricing, he started talking about parking lots instead. “Long before we have a real formal debate on congestion pricing, we’ve got to do everything we can to reduce the number of cars in the city and there are ways to do it,” said Lhota. “One of the things that I proposed when I was at the M.T.A., and I will definitely do while I’m mayor is, if you look at the end of every one of the subway lines, whether in the north along the Westchester County border, or along the border with Queens and Nassau County, at the ends of each of those lines, I want to be able to build parking garages and basically tell the people who are coming in from Nassau County, ‘You know what, don’t drive in. Why don’t you park in one of these nice, pretty garages that we’ll prepare for you and then take the subway in.'”

And to help lure the millenial set: WiFi. “We’ve got to make sure that our subway system is WiFi-ed,” said Lhota. “We’ve got to make sure that our buses have WiFi. The number of people who would would get on buses if they had access to WiFi and be able to use their computers or their smartphones would be extraordinary.”

Talk about overstating your case. If these are the prerequisites to congestion pricing, we’ll never see it happen under Lhota. Let’s work backwards.

WiFi in the subway is a great idea and one I’ve supported for years. But it’s not about to turn subway cars into roving offices. From a practical perspective, try whipping out your laptop on a Manhattan-Q train at 8:30 in the morning, and then let me know how much work you can get done. It’s tough enough to read the newspaper on an iPad, let alone hammer away at a keyboard with a computer on your lap. I question too how many people would eschew cars for subways simply because of the Internet. That’s a luxury of marginal overall utility, not an upgrade in any meaningful way.

Then, we arrive at the park-and-ride idea. As Rubinstein notes in her piece, this is a drum Lhota has banged before, and it’s a terrible one. First, most — if not all — subway terminals are in built-up densely settled urban areas that have no room or need for a deadening parking garage. Second, parking garages serve to encourage driving when we want to eliminate it by making it easier to park, and thus, more convenient to drive. Third, we have an entire network of suburban park-and-rides with easy access to trains. It’s called Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road, and it funnels suburban travelers to their job centers more quickly and more directly the subways from, say, Jamaica or Wakefield would.

So this leaves us with a recognition that we need to do more to mitigate the number of cars entering and traveling through core areas of Manhattan each day, the knowledge that the MTA’s finances could use an infusion of cash, and the belief, left over from the 1950s apparently, that park-and-ride will do the trick. And therein lies your 2013 mayoral campaign in a nutshell.

200 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Map: FASTRACK shutters local stops along Queens Boulevard

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 12, 2013

QueensBlvdFastrack0813

It’s been nearly a month since the MTA’s last FASTRACK treatment, but the program returns tonight in Queens. From 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. each night this week, there will be no local service at 36th Street, Steinway Street, 46th Street, Northern Blvd. and 65th Street in both directions as all Queens Boulevard trains will run express. For those heading looking to avoid a five-stop local slog, it’s good news, but for everyone else, consider these alternate routes:

  • Free shuttle buses run local between Queens Plaza and 74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue, making station stops at Queens Plaza, Queensboro Plaza, 36th Street, Steinway Street 46th Street, Northern Boulevard and 65th Street.
  • Customers may transfer between shuttle buses and the 7 E F R trains at 74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue, Queensboro Plaza 7 N or Queens Plaza E R.
  • Regular late night R service operates in Brooklyn only between 95th Street and 36th Street.
  • M shuttle trains operate between Metropolitan Avenue and Myrtle Avenue all night.

The next FASTRACK begins on August 26th and it will impact the A train north of 168th St.

8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

So what about city control?

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 11, 2013

As the first round of the city’s illustrious mayoral campaign hits its homestretch, we’ve heard and dismissed a lot of bad ideas concerning transit. A Republican hopeful called for monorails while the leading Democratic fundraiser drew a bunch of lines on a map and called it the Triboro RX bus route. I’ve been critical of these supposed campaign promises, and as Ted Mann explored a few weeks ago, so have a few others. Is there anything worth debating?

One idea I’ve shied away from discussing keeps coming up again and again, and it is one proposal worth mentioning. That is, of course, city control over the MTA and, to a lesser extent, city control over bridge and tunnel fares. Joe Lhota has been pressing for the latter, and a few candidates the former. These topics have their origin in city history and no easy answer.

Originally, the city did control the subways through the Board of Transportation, and it was a problematic relationship to say the least. Due to a need to appease voters, mayor after mayor refused to raise the subway fares. The precious nickel remained in place for decades, and inflation meant that the subways were generating pennies in revenue compared with their initial takes in the early 1900s. The over-simplified version of history is that through an effort to shore up the Transit Authority’s finances and push Robert Moses out of power, the state-run MTA came to be. The state assumed responsibility for funding the subways and, in return, the state controls the MTA through board appointments.

As mayoral control over the MTA has waxed and waned as a campaign issue, Dana Rubinstein a few weeks ago offered up an overview of the debate:

The chance that Albany legislators representing the city’s suburbs and, whose constituents rely on the authority’s Long Island and Metro-North railroads, would voluntarily cede control of their favorite hobbyhorse to the mayor of New York City is approximately zero. The notion that the state would transfer power to the city and continue to fund mass transit at the current rate is unlikelier still.

Nevertheless, it’s a lot easier to talk about mayoral control than to discuss finding new revenue streams for the transit agency. Which is why Quinn and her rivals have been talking about mayoral control the way they have. On Friday, at a Queens press event about a proposed three-borough select bus service route, Quinn once again said the mayor should make the majority of appointments to the M.T.A.’s board, and appoint the head of the M.T.A.’s bus and subway division, New York City Transit.

“Right now, 90 percent basically of the ridership of the M.T.A. is people using buses and subways,” she said. “There is no question that bus and subway riders in the five boroughs, the majority of them New York City residents, are the economic engine of the M.T.A. But we have the voice of a piston on the board.”

On the record, the MTA and its current leadership are not looking to see the current political structure change. In a radio appearance on the Brian Lehrer Show, MTA CEO and Chairman Tom Prendergast responded to the campaign. “The underlying premise of the creation of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority was the need, and this is some farsighted individuals back in the 60s, that realized you needed to deal with transportation on a regional basis,” he said. “If we look just at the needs of Long Island. the needs of the lower Hudson Valley that Metro-North provides services to, or New York City in terms of its bus and subway system, we will miss that regionality. So if we start to hive off sections of the MTA and manage them specifically from the needs of that constituency base, we’re gonna get hurt on a regional basis.”

It’s hard to assess claims of regionality from the MTA simply because the organization is still so siloed. Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road don’t get along and lack interoperability. The fare structure isn’t harmonized across the various agencies and promises to streamline operations have been slow to become reality. Still, the idea that the MTA benefits the entire region is still valid. Just because the vast majority of rides originate in the five boroughs doesn’t mean the only people who benefit are city residents, and the mayor appoints four board seats, second only to the Governor’s six nominees.

So what’s the right answer? Is there one? Mayoral control of the MTA brings with it mayoral responsibilities and obligations. It’s a non-starter for political reasons, and it isn’t something New York voters should rush to embrace for economic reasons as well. It will, however, never not be a campaign issue because it sounds good on the surface. Ideas that sound good on the surface though often aren’t underneath.

42 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Weekend work impacting 17 subway lines, shark

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 9, 2013

As the week that saw a dead shark wind up an N train draws to a close, let’s look at the weekend ahead. There’s definitely some work going on.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August, 11, downtown 1 trains run express from 72nd Street to Times Square-42nd Street due to cable work for Flushing CBTC.


At all times, from 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 until 5 a.m. Monday, August 26, there is no 2 train service at 241st Street in either direction due to switch renewal north of 238th Street and track work south of 241st Street. Customers may take free shuttle buses between 238th Street and 241st Street during morning and evening rush and during the overnight hours when the Bx39 does not run.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, August 10 and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, August 10 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August 11, downtown 2 trains run express from 72nd Street to Times Square-42nd Street due to cable work for Flushing CBTC.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, August 10 and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, August 10 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August 11, 3 service is extended to 34th Street-Penn Station due to cable work for Flushing CBTC.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 10 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 12, 4 trains run local in both directions between Grand Central-42nd Street and Brooklyn Bridge due to signal work between 14th Street-Union Square and 42nd Street-Grand Central.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 10 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August 11, uptown 4 trains run local from Grand Central-42nd Street to 125th Street due to track tie renewal north of 125th Street and track maintenance south of 138th Street-3rd Avenue.


From 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., Saturday, August 10 and from 8 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., Sunday, August 11, 5 trains run every 20 minutes between Dyre Avenue and Bowling Green due to signal work between 14th Street-Union Square and 42nd Street-Grand Central.

  • 5 trains run local in both directions between Grand Central-42nd Street and Brooklyn Bridge.
  • Uptown 5 trains run local from Grand Central to 125th Street on Saturday, August 10 only.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 10 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August 11, 6 service operates in two sections due to track tie renewal north of 125th Street and track maintenance south of 138th Street-3rd Avenue:

  • Between Pelham Bay Park and 125th Street
  • Between 125th Street and Brooklyn Bridge


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August 11, Manhattan-bound 6 trains run express from Hunts Point Avenue to 3rd Avenue-138th Street due to track tie renewal north of 125th Street and track maintenance south of 138th Street-3rd Avenue.


From 5:45 a.m. to 8 p.m., Saturday, August 10, Main Street-bound 7 trains run express from Queensboro Plaza to 74th Street-Roosevelt Avenue due to cable work between 33rd Street and 69th Street for Flushing CBTC.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, August 10 and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, August 10 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August 11, downtown A trains run express from 125th Street to 59th Street due to track tie renewal between 125th Street and 59th Street-Columbus Circle.


From 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, August 10, downtown C trains run express from 125th Street to 59th Street due to track tie renewal between 125th Street and 59th Street-Columbus Circle.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, August 10 and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, August 10 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August 11, Coney Island-bound D trains skip DeKalb Avenue and run express from Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center to 36th Street due to rail renewal north of Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and track tie renewal at Union Street.


From 11:15 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 12, Coney Island-bound F trains are rerouted via the M line after 36th Street, Queens to 47th-50th Streets due to station work at Lexington Avenue-63rd Street for Second Avenue Subway project.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August 11, Jamaica-bound F run express from West 4th Street to 34th Street-Herald Square due to track tie renewal at 23rd Street, 34th Street-Herald Square and 42nd Street-Bryant Park.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 12, there is no G train service between Court Square and Nassau Avenue. G trains operate between Nassau Avenue and Church Avenue. There is no G service at Greenpoint Avenue, 21st Street and Court Square. Free shuttle buses operate on two routes:

  1. Via Manhattan Avenue between Nassau Avenue G and Court Square
  2. Via McGuinness Blvd between Lorimer Street L and Court Square

Customers may transfer between:

  • G trains and shuttle buses at Nassau Avenue
  • L trains and shuttle buses at Lorimer Street
  • E and 7 trains and shuttle buses at Court Square


From 3:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. Saturday, August 10, there is no J train service between Broadway Junction and Myrtle Avenue due to switch renewal north of Myrtle Avenue-Broadway and track panel installation at Kosciusko Street. J trains operate in two sections:

  • Between Jamaica Center and Broadway Junction
  • Between Chambers Street and Myrtle Avenue, and then rerouted via the M line to/from Metropolitan Avenue.

L trains provide connecting service via Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs and Broadway Junction. Free shuttle buses operate between Broadway Junction and Myrtle Avenue, making stations stops at Chauncey Street, Halsey Street, Gates Avenue and Kosciusko Street. Transfer between J trains and free shuttle buses at Broadway Junction and/or Myrtle Avenue.


From 3:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. Saturday, August 10, M service is suspended due to station renewal north of Myrtle Avenue-Broadway and track panel installation at Kosciusko Street. Customers should take the J train making all M stops between Myrtle Avenue and Metropolitan Avenue. (See J entry.)


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, August 10 and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, August 10 to 5 a.m. Sunday, August 11, Coney Island-bound N trains skip DeKalb Avenue and run express from Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center to 36th Street due to track tie renewal at Union Street.


From 10:45 p.m. Friday, August 9 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 12, Manhattan-bound Q trains run express from Sheepshead Bay to Newkirk Plaza due to track panel work at Sheepshead Bay.


From 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Saturday, August 10, Bay Ridge-bound R trains skip DeKalb Avenue and run express from Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center to 36th Street due to track tie renewal at Union Street.

4 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Second Avenue Subway

Maloney, Silver urge forward progress on SAS Phase 2

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 9, 2013

Pressure from certain realms of New York City politics to keep moving forward on the Second Ave. Subway has grown stronger over the past few weeks as Representative Carolyn Maloney has trained her attention on Phase 2 of the project. After drawing out some words from the MTA on the fate of the project, she and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver have penned a letter to MTA Chairman and CEO Tom Prendergast. Maloney could be emerging as the champion who can keep this capital construction effort moving forward.

The letter to Prendergast is a continuation of the latest dialogue between the two sides. Maloney and Silver acknowledge the MTA’s update as the agency reaffirms the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the two are pleased the MTA hopes to discuss funding with the Federal Transit Administration. In the meat of their letter, they hit upon a key point:

We believe those steps need to be done with all due haste in order to ensure that the MTA is moving forward with a seamless transition to the next phase. In our view, it would be much harder to continue construction if there is a significant lag between the two phases. Currently, the MTA has a great team in place that knows the plans, knows the problems and can build on lessons learned during the first phase of Second Avenue Subway construction. If the MTA fails to move forward now, much of that knowledge will be lost as people move on to different projects.

In coming years, the number of people commuting to jobs on the East Side is expected to continue to expand and the need to proceed with construction of the subway grows critical, particularly in Midtown. Furthermore, East Side Access is expected to add riders to the already overcrowded Lexington Avenue line. These two changes make it more important than ever to quickly begin Phase 2 of the Second Avenue Subway. The closer we get to the next phase, the closer we come to fully realizing the vision for the entire project, which is so urgently needed throughout the East Side, including Lower Manhattan. We look forward to learning more about your plans for the Second Avenue Subway, including the timetable for your study, any changes that you expect to make, any difficulties you currently foresee and the timetable for your negotiation of the full funding grant agreement. We want to reiterate our strong support for this project and our willingness to work with you to make sure the project moves forward as quickly as practicable.

Maloney’s office assures me as well that the Congresswoman plans to continue to push for progress on Phase 2 and will be staying involved in the process, however it shapes up to be. The MTA meanwhile will soon put forth plans for its next capital campaign, and the push is on to include initial funding for SAS Phase 2. It would indeed be a shame lose the forward momentum generated by Phase 1, and there’s no reason why Phase 2 discussions shouldn’t begin now.

36 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Public Transit Policy

Once again, on the problem with ferries

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 9, 2013

As the R train’s Montague Tube shutdown enters week two, the Bay Ridge ferries from 58th St. in Brooklyn to Lower Manhattan have been three weeks to live. Proposed by politicians and rider advocates as a way to alleviate travel concerns during the tunnel work, the ferry is not what I’d call a necessity. I’ve already expressed my skepticism of the plan, and a piece on its usage and costs in this week’s issue of The Brooklyn Paper does little to convert me.

Will Bredderman did some digging into the ferry and its ridership needs. He found that all of 120 people took the boat on its first day of service earlier this week, and the New York City Economic Development Corporation would not comment on the number of people needed to keep the service afloat. Despite the EDC’s assurances that they were “happy” with the early ridership, based on the cost estimates Bredderman reported, we should be skeptical indeed.

The kicker here is indeed those costs. The fare to ride the ferry is $2, but according to The Brooklyn Paper’s sources, the cost of a trip is around $20 a passenger. In other words, the EDC is subsidizing the ferry to the tune of around $18 a person. That’s a farebox operating ratio of 10 percent, and even if ridership inches up a bit, it won’t increase enough to make these costs more palatable.

Again, then, I’m left questioning the city’s new-found love of ferries. Politicians have embraced them as an alternate means of transportation while flat-out ignoring the fact that many ferry terminals — like the one at 58th St. in Brooklyn — are a mile away from the nearest subway and not located near dense residential areas that would warrant such service. Meanwhile, we don’t discuss costs because the EDC, unlike the MTA, isn’t forthcoming with its budget numbers.

When the MTA cut bus lines in 2010, they did so based, in part, on the cost to operate those buses. Many routes that were bleeding money were eliminated, and in the MTA documents provided at the time, we learned that some of the buses cut cost more per passenger to operate than fares dictated. None of the routes though were as unprofitable as the ferry, and all of the routes serviced orders of magnitude more people than a ferry does. Overall, New York City Transit’s current mid-year farebox operating ratio is projected to be around 58.6% for 2013. Why do we fetishize ferries so much again?

30 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Technology

Clarifications on the ‘Next Train’ announcements for Astoria

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 8, 2013

We learned yesterday of new audio announcements concerning train arrival information for a handful of stations in Astoria, and today, I have more information concerning the tracking technology. While the project is mostly a one-off implemented at the request of Astoria’s Assembly representatives, it’s a bit more useful than I first thought.

Notably, the countdown is in minutes — not stations — with audio announcements beginning when the next two trains are within six minutes of the station. The announcements arrive every two minutes with the latest on moving trains and are also audible in the station vestibules. For cold weather days, this will come in handy. There are no plans to incorporate this type of information into a visible countdown clock, but the MTA says it is moving ahead with an effort to bring clocks to the B Division — all lettered subway lines — within three to five years.

So what’s the plan then? According to an MTA spokesman, the agency aims to “get to where we are in the A Division in terms of the same level and type of information,” but the Astoria treatment is independent of that effort. (In Astoria, the announcements are tied into prior signal upgrades.) For now, the MTA is focusing on capturing train arrival information through dispatch and schedule information, and eventually, this data will be made public. The second step involves developing a viable countdown clock implementation. With 132 more stations, nearly 80 more route miles and over 104 more peak trains in service (317 vs. 203), the B Division is much larger than the A Division. We’ve waited this long; what’s another five years?

11 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Buses

Thoughts on the love affair with buses

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 8, 2013

Former MTA execs and NYC politicians gather in front of a souped-up express bus.

Over the past few years — both in New York and nationally — urban planning advocates and city politicians have taken a liking to buses. Bus rapid transit, deployed successfully in developing nations, has become the hot new item while pushes to increase rail capacity and reach have died at the hands of a number of factors. It all rubs me the wrong way.

The latest entry into this discussion came from the keyboard of Matthew Yglesias. In a piece at Slate with an intentionally inflammatory sub-head, Yglesias says that buses are the future. Building new trains, he says, isn’t the route to improving transit, but networks of bus rapid transit systems are. While there are some lessons to be learned from Yglesias’ argument, it’s almost defeatist in its framing. Here’s his take:

When it comes to moving large numbers of people efficiently through urban areas, it’s hard to beat good old-fashioned heavy rail subways and metro lines. But these projects come at a steep price, especially in the United States, and don’t make sense in many areas. Yet, politicians looking for cheaper options too often fall for the superficial idea that anything that runs on train tracks must be a good idea. The smarter strategy in many cases is to look instead at the numerically dominant form of mass transit—the humble bus—and ask what can be done to make it less humble…

Buses often fall down on the job—not because they’re buses, but because they’re slow. Buses are slow in part because city leaders don’t want to slight anyone and thus end up having them stop far too frequently, leaving almost everyone worse off. Buses also tend to feature an inefficient boarding process. Having each customer pay one at a time while boarding, rather than using a proof-of-payment where you pay in advance and then just step onto the bus, slows things down. That can generate a downward spiral of service quality where slow speeds lead to low ridership, low ridership leads to low revenue levels, and low revenue leads to service that’s infrequent as well as slow. Closing the loop, a slow and infrequent bus will be patronized almost exclusively by the poor, which leads to the route’s political marginalization…

Of course the problem is people who drive cars won’t like it—the exact same reason that shiny new streetcar lines are often built to drive in mixed traffic. But public officials contemplating mass transit issues need to ask themselves what it is they’re trying to accomplish. If promoting more transit use, denser urban areas, and less air pollution is on the agenda, then annoying car drivers is a feature not a bug. If the idea is to have a make-work job creation scheme or something cool-looking to show off to tourists, buses may not be the best idea. But while upgraded buses clearly isn’t the right solution for every transit corridor in America, it deserves much more widespread consideration as an affordable path to mass transit.

I’ve generously excerpted beginning, middle and end of Yglesias’ argument. The end and how he eventually gets there is right. To have a fully functional bus rapid transit network that moves buses quickly requires some pain on the other side. Unlike New York City’s half-hearted Select Bus Service network of slightly faster express buses, BRT requires truly dedicated lanes, level boarding areas and signal prioritization. It requires, in other words, prioritizing street space, curbside space and travel lanes for buses at the expense of cars. I have no problem with that argument, and in fact, I fully embrace it far more than anyone in New York City’s Department of Transportation has.

But how we get to this conclusion to me is problematic. Yes, rail projects are expensive, but rail projects are also better. A crowded bus can carry 60-100 people; a crowded train can travel much faster with over 1500 people on board. Operating ten or twelve trains per hour means transportation for 15,000-18,000 people while operating that many buses results in transit for 600-1200. It’s apples to oranges.

The better answer is to figure out how to get costs down. Other countries have managed to build reasonably priced rail lines, and so could we. The answer isn’t to punt to buses but rather to figure out a way to make a bus network work with a train network. Nearly every major American city would be better served with some version of a rapid transit network involved rail. It could be light rail, a surface subway or an underground subway, but such a network would combat sprawl, pollution and congestion far more effectively than a bus rapid transit network would.

Ultimately, the two modes of travel shouldn’t be an either/or proposition, but for some reason, we seem to make it into a battle. Buses make sense in certain areas and for certain travel, and rail makes sense for others. Discarding rail because it’s hard to see through due to costs just means we’re ready to give up.

102 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesPodcast

Podcast: Episode 2 of ‘The Next Stop Is…’

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 7, 2013

The second episode of the Second Ave. Sagas’ podcast “The Next Stop Is…” is ready for your listening enjoyment. In this week’s episode, Eric Brasure and I tackle the Montague Tunnel shutdown, the impact rezoning Midtown will have on transit infrastructure, and, despite Dan Doctoroff’s objections, the future of the Second Ave. Subway. We also tackled a reader question, and I urge any of you with your own comments to submit them to me via the contact form, Twitter or Facebook.

To grab the audio file to listen, click here. You can also find the podcast in iTunes. This week’s recording runs a little short of 30 minutes, the perfect amount of time for your subway commute. We’ll be back with a new episode in two weeks.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

3 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts