Second Ave. Sagas
  • About
  • Contact Me
  • 2nd Ave. Subway History
  • Search
  • About
  • Contact Me
  • 2nd Ave. Subway History
  • Search
Second Ave. Sagas

News and Views on New York City Transportation

Straphangers Campaign

Straphangers highlight Sandy-related delays

by Benjamin Kabak May 3, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on May 3, 2013

For the past few years, the MTA has embraced mobile communication by issuing digital alerts for most major incidents that lead to subway service changes, and a few months ago, the agency posted the alerts archive to its website. An enterprising organization looking to assess major subway delays could parse that database for information, and that’s just what the Straphangers Campaign did this week.

According to the subsequent report, the MTA issued more alerts for the F line than any other, and the G train suffered the fewest. After Superstorm Sandy, though, alerts increased by nearly 30 percent, portending a system suffering from saltwater corrosion. It is, unfortunately, impossible to know from the text alert archive how long these various service changes lasted, but the data provides a further glimpse into the way we ride.

The Straphangers posted the spreadsheet online and offered up a topline summary of their findings:

  • The most improved line was the G, which had 19% fewer delay alerts, comparing the first ten months of 2011 to the same period in 2012. The G went from 42 MTA delay alerts in 2011 to 34 alerts in 2012.
  • The L worsened the most — by 60% — from 84 MTA alerts of delays in 2011 to 134 alerts in 2012.
  • Manhattan was the borough with the most MTA alerts with 1,219 out of 2,669 in the first ten months of 2012, almost half of all total alerts. The Bronx had the least in 2012 with 9%.
  • The most improved borough was the Bronx with 17% fewer MTA alerts of delays, going from 283 alerts in 2011 down to 235 in 2012. Queens performed the worst, going from 392 alerts in 2011 to 458 in 2012, a 17% increase in delays.
  • “Mechanical problems” generated the most alerts — 36% — or 949 out of 2,669 alerts in 2012, followed by “signals.” While the number of mechanical delays increased 25% between 2011 and 2012, the number of signal delays remained unchanged.

Additionally, as I mentioned, track, switch and other mechanical problems drove a big jump in text alerts after the system reopened in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. From what I’ve heard, these Sandy-related problems will only increase until the MTA commits extensive resources to repairs on a number of flooded tunnels. That time is coming soon, and the service advisories will be quite severe, according to my sources. G and R train riders, in particular, may find their tunnels undergoing extensive repairs in the coming months. The MTA has yet to comment on these reports.

The agency did, however, issue a statement on the Straphangers’ study. Without offering much further explanation, a Transit spokesman said in an email, “The Straphanger Campaign’s use of the MTA’s email Service Alert as a barometer of individual subway line performance does not paint a full picture of service issues. However, it does serve to highlight one of the efforts in place to keep our customers informed.” The statement went on to nod at the wait assessment figures provided to the MTA Board, but those numbers aren’t as indicative of delays as the text alerts.

Ultimately, we know that subway service is fraught with problems. The system prior to Sandy needed to be modernized, and then-MTA Chair Joe Lhota spoke extensively about a capital campaign focused around just that sort of effort. Now that the mechanical aspects to the subway are suffering, that effort becomes even more vital. Unfortunately, it’s likely to get worse before it gets better, and that database of text alerts will grow and grow and grow.

May 3, 2013 7 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesBusesStaten Island

Staten Island SBS lanes set for camera enforcement

by Benjamin Kabak May 2, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on May 2, 2013

Considering Staten Island’s lukewarm embrace of Select Bus Services and the fits SI politicians threw over flashing blue lights, the news that camera enforcement is coming to SBS bus lanes should raise an eyebrow or two. As the Staten Island Advance reported yesterday, DOT crews are installing cameras along the bus lane on Hylan Boulevard and expect to activate them by month’s end. Those drivers found cruising down the SBS lanes during certain hours will receive a $115 summons in the mail.

According to the Advance, drivers can make only an immediate right-hand turn or pick up and drop off passengers, but continued travel in the dedicated lane will result in a fine. Already, Staten Islanders are concerned that “drivers unfamiliar wth the area could be at a disadvantage,” but these residents recognize the benefits. “I think overall, for the intention that they are trying to do in keeping motorists out of the lanes, it will work,” Michael Reilly said to the paper.

Lane enforcement is the next step in improving the bus system. Without it, SBS lanes are nothing but painted strips of asphalt, and the cameras will help clear the lanes of cars while keeping the buses moving. DOT plans to add signal prioritization to Staten Island later this year, and by then, we’ll know how accepting the prickly borough has been of camera lane enforcement efforts.

May 2, 2013 14 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway Cell Service

More Stories About Cell Phones and Subways

by Benjamin Kabak May 2, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on May 2, 2013

A sign in the 14th St. station announced new cell service last year. (Photo via Second Ave. Sagas on Instagram)

Whenever the MTA’s and Transit Wireless’ ambitious but slow plan to wire underground subway stations hits the news, a wave of articles bemoaning the intrusion of the connected realm into the sacred space of the subways hits the wires. It’s such a Manhattan-centric way of looking at the way New Yorkers use and ride the subways, and yet, when the MTA gathered cell phone big wigs and agency higher-ups last week in Times Square, the coverage that followed focused on this element but with a seemingly more nuanced twist this time.

In The Times, Matt Flegenheimer spoke to a cross section of New Yorkers about subway cell service. Many applauded the initiative, but a few scoffed at it. “If you don’t get reception, that gives you peace of mind,” Leo Bruce of Queens said at 18th St. “I don’t like being bothered sometimes,” one Yonkers woman who responded to a text message anyway said.

Eric Jaffe at The Atlantic Cities tried to find the reasons why cell conversations are so bothersome. We want to hear both sides of the conversation, and the one-sided nature of cell snippets truly seems to grind our gears. He explains,”Researchers found that people who overheard a cell phone conversation unwittingly remembered more words from it, compared to a two-person discussion they also overheard. The results, according to the researchers, suggest that ‘people are more attentive to cell phone conversations than two-sided conversations.'”

We’re more attentive because we want to fill in the gaps. We want to know what that person is talking about, and we can’t eavesdrop in the background if our mind is unwittingly racing to fill in the blanks. It’s not just annoying because it’s added sound in an already-noisy environment; it’s annoying because it’s only part of a conversation within earshot.

But it’s not a new phenomenon in New York City. Just because cell service has arrived in crowded subway stations doesn’t mean the same thing hasn’t been going on for the better part of the last two decades. While a majority of New York City subway stations are indeed underground, a significant minority of stations are above ground or at grade, and those stations have enjoyed cell service since essentially the dawn of the technology in New York. Ride a B train crossing the Manhattan Bridge and straphangers whip out their phones. “I’m crossing the bridge. I’ll be home in 15 minutes,” filters through the car. We laugh; we roll our eyes; we try not to get annoyed.

Now and then, of course, someone with no concept of a public space gets a call, and that’s when the huffing and puffing beings. Loud conversations in small spaces — open-air stations, Times Square — aren’t any fun no matter the location, but it doesn’t take underground service to drive that point home. It takes one long wait at a station in Astoria and the wrong person nearby on the platform.

Ultimately, I find the annoyances of rare improper conversations worth the convenience. After all, subway platforms are a bit of a liminal space within the city. Ideally, we spend no more than 10 minutes on these platforms per day, and yet social norms and social interactions take on a heightened importance. What happens while we wait for the subway seems more important than what happens throughout the rest of the day. But for those fleeting minutes, I’ll take the connectivity and live with the consequences.

May 2, 2013 18 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway History

Video: Dirty Old New York Subway

by Benjamin Kabak May 1, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on May 1, 2013

Via Ned Merrill’s Obscure One-Sheet comes a 15-minute video of old movie clips from the subway that’s sure to captivate fans of New York City history and, of course, the subway system. Make a game of it and see how many movies (or subway stations) you can name as the images flicker by.

May 1, 2013 7 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Queens

For LaGuardia, a new limited bus service looms

by Benjamin Kabak May 1, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on May 1, 2013

The MTA has proposed a new bus service for LaGuardia that will use the BQE and Grand Central Parkway to provide a speedier ride.

Absent extending the N train through Astoria — a dream that died at the hands of NIMBYs over a decade ago — the best way to improve transit to LaGuardia Airport involves buses. As buses have limited capacity especially for suitcase-laden travelers and with surface traffic heavy and variable on the roads approaching the airport, it’s not an ideal solution. Still, as the city examines various Select Bus Service routes to the airport, the MTA is working to boost existing service for a hub that’s near and yet so far.

This evening in East Elmhurst, the agency is hosting a public comment session on a proposed expansion of LaGuardia bus service. As you can see from the map above, the new route provides a connection from Jackson Heights to the airport via the BQE and Grand Central Parkway. If all goes according to plan, the new service would debut in the fall, and here’s how the MTA describes it:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) proposes revisions to MTA Bus Company operated bus service to LaGuardia Airport. A new limited-stop bus service is proposed connecting LaGuardia Airport with regional transit hubs in Jackson Heights and Woodside, traveling non-stop via the limited-access Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and Grand Central Parkway. The service would be named Q70 Limited. The Q70 Limited would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Coincident with the implementation of the Q70, it is proposed that the current Q33 local bus route between Jackson Heights and LaGuardia Airport be shortened to no longer enter LaGuardia Airport. The northern terminus would be relocated to 95th Street and Ditmars Boulevard in East Elmhurst, and the southern terminus would remain in Jackson Heights at the E/F/M/R/7 subway station. The Q33 would retain its current hours of service, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

There’s good and there’s bad here. The good is obviously the speedier connection via limited access roads from the subway in Queens to the airport. This 24-hour service could dramatically improve transit connections for travelers trying to reach LaGuardia, and eliminating local stops in Queens means that all riders of this bus will be trying to reach the airport as quickly as possible.

The bad aspects of this plan though are problematic. First, the BQE and Grand Central do not have dedicated bus lanes and feature soul-crushing rush hour traffic jams. The buses, as with most in the city, will be subject to the whims of the road conditions. Additionally, by cutting off the Q33 before the airport, many local riders who live in the area and work at the airport will find their transit route eliminated. Doubling back to pick up the new Q70 Limited will add time to these trips. Finally, these buses will face capacity problems as they fill up with luggage and passengers. It’s a problem on the M60 and on the Q33 that this plan doesn’t solve.

Ultimately, this is a band-aid for a larger access problem. It takes existing resources and reshuffles them around to provide a better transit experience, and that’s fine if we’re thinking bigger. But LaGuardia access proposals haven’t moved beyond buses since the failed attempt at proposing a subway extension in the late 1990s. It’s time to revisit that effort whether the alignment runs through Astoria or above the Grand Central Parkway. In 2013, one of the city’s major airports shouldn’t exist in a transit desert.

May 1, 2013 87 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

The Great G Train Break-Up Claim

by Benjamin Kabak May 1, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on May 1, 2013

Hating on the G train has become something of a New York pastime over the past few years. Even people who have no reason to ride the IND Crosstown deride it as an unreliable train. “The G sucks” is a common refrain, if only because it’s what we’re supposed to say.

Lately, with the Riders Alliance (full disclosure: I’m a board member) pushing for necessary and important G train improvements — a full line review, out-of-system transfers — that could boost ridership, G train derision has made a comeback, and the claims are perfectly outlandish. Apparently, on top of being allegedly unreliable, the G train also breaks up relationship. DNA Info’s Meredith Hoffman has this dispatch from some borough-crossed lovers:

Former Park Slope resident Christie Walsh remembers in detail the night she made a trip to Greenpoint and ended up going home with a guy she’d met at a bar. He became her boyfriend — but after a couple of early treks to his place she learned never to venture there during their six-month relationship.

“I always refused to go there,” said Walsh, 26, who now lives in Sunset Park. “After a couple of punishing rides on the G train I decided I wouldn’t do it… Eventually he moved to California. The funny thing is, I’d date someone in California, because I’d like to go to California. I’d never like to ride the G train.”

Walsh and some other Brooklynites say the G train’s slow and unpredictable service has sabotaged relationships — and some have even sworn off G-train dating altogether. “I had to make a rule that was, literally, if you live off the G you’re not for me,” said Bedford-Stuyvesant resident Mutale Nkonde, 26, who lives off the A and C trains, and said getting anywhere off the G involved a nightmarish array of transfers and usually getting lost. “To get to the G is such a monumental hike, it’s two buses plus a long walk.”

The story is replete with other tales of woe. A couple who splits their time between Clinton Hill and Greenpoint claim the G keeps the pair apart more often than they’d prefer. “He lives 3 miles away and it takes 45 minutes, at a minimum, to get there,” one half of the pair said. “So that takes nearly two hours just to see each other. I’m glad it’s there but it’s still a huge pain.”

Others still bemoan the state of the G line’s infrastructure and the problem with short trains. “The thing about the G is it comes middle of platform so if you’re dressed in high heels you have to run what feels like 7 miles to catch the train,” one woman said. “When you get there it looks ‘Law and Order’-ish.”

I have to wonder though if the G train is to blame or if the city’s Manhattan-centric transit options are the real culprits. The G train isn’t that bad. As long as it’s not short-running to Bedford/Nostrand or suffering some other GO service change, it runs regularly and on schedule. I find it to be one of the more reliable lines in that if I miss a train, I know the next one will come after the allotted headway has elapsed and no sooner. The trains are short, and rush hour rides are crowded. But these complaints focus around night time, off-peak service.

As far as cross-borough (or even cross-neighborhood) coupling goes, I’d rather be stuck with the G train than, say, the R or the C. I find waits for those lines to be interminable and less reliable than the Crosstown local train. Plus, once the G arrives, the trip from one end to the other is reasonably speedy whereas the R and C tend to crawl.

But as silly as these relationship complaints are — a strong relationship with two committed partners should withstand no matter the subway line — the story highlights the problem of intra-borough travel. Some areas of the city just aren’t well connected via subway, and the north Brooklyn-to-south Brooklyn transit options are limited. Cross-Bronx travel and many intra-Queens trips suffer the same fate.

Fixing this problem isn’t easy. We’re not going to see new subway lines provide these connections, and buses carry their own sets of reliability issues. The upcoming CitiBike program will solve a lot of problems, notably those Clinton Hill/Greenpoint rides that would take 20 minutes of pedaling. But otherwise, we’re left with the subway system we have until someone is willing to spend the time, money and political capital on expanding it. As long as the city can provide those last-mile modes of transit though, even the shakiest of relationships shouldn’t have to suffer at the hands of the G train.

May 1, 2013 49 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesSelf Promotion

Evening Open Thread: Pondering a SAS redesign

by Benjamin Kabak April 30, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 30, 2013

Second Ave. Sagas hasn’t changed its look much over the last few years. I think it’s been since late 2008, and in Internet years, that’s an eternity. So I’m thinking about redesigning the site in the coming months, and I wanted to open this thread up to you, my readers. What would you like to see on a redesigned site? I’m not even going to give suggestions because I’m curious to hear your unfiltered comments. Have it below or feel free to contact me privately. I’m looking forward to the feedback.

April 30, 2013 57 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Second Avenue Subway

Mad Men, real estate and subway construction

by Benjamin Kabak April 30, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 30, 2013

A premature destination sign spotted recently on a Q train. (Via imgur)

AMC’s Mad Men is one of those distinctive New York City shows that’s captured the imagination of the nation. I haven’t been a regular viewer in a few seasons for a variety of reasons, but I’ll follow along now and then. During Sunday night’s episode, my Twitter mentions exploded during one season in particular as our favorite soon-to-be-existing subway line garnered a wink and a nod.

In the scene, which you can view here, Peggy Olson is checking out an apartment on York and 84th St., and she’s concerned that it’s too far away from the subway. Her broker tries to seal the hard sell: “Believe me, when they finish the Second Avenue subway, this apartment will quadruple in value.”

Get it? It’s 2013, and there’s still no Second Ave. Subway. Across the country, many viewers just moved on from the line, but New Yorkers nodding knowingly. Don’t get your hopes up, Peggy. You’ll be 77 before the Second Ave. Subway actually starts serving the Upper East Side.

To me, the scene struck a few chords. First, Peggy’s blight brings up a related issue I’ve touched upon in the past: When the Second Ave. Subway opens in approximately 43 months, it will bring up real estate prices from Second Ave. eastward. All of a sudden, York and East End Avenue residents will be a significantly shorter walk to the subway, and businesses will see increased pedestrian flow. Even those prickly residents at Yorkshire Towers might find the subway in their driveway to be a convenience, and the disruptions from construction will recede into the past.

Second, I wondered about its historical accuracies. Would people in April of 1968 been talking about the Second Ave. Subway and its construction? Already, the city had tried to build the subway and failed. It had been included in the 1930s-era Second System plans and an aborted construction effort in the 1950s left the city needing the line. In late 1967 and early 1968, political forces aligned behind an effort to kickstart construction, and a $2.9 billion transportation plan unveiled in February 1968 included the Second Ave. line. Funded hadn’t been identified, and work had yet to start. But a real estate agent could have used ongoing momentum to push the apartment.

Fast forward 45 years, and we’re still awaiting. That’s why the Mad Men joke worked. But what of the actual subway construction itself? Last week, the MTA announced that the giant muck houses at 72nd St. and 69th St. would be removed as blasting has been completed, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney celebrated the progress. “With the muck houses coming down and the final contract out for bid, the Second Avenue Subway is fast becoming a reality,” she said in a statement. “These milestones are major steps forward for a project that will bring relief to commuters who need a better way to reach their destinations.”

I’m sure Peggy, though, has long since given up that East Side apartment and hopes of a subway line coming to rescue her. As a long-time New Yorker, she’s probably adopted the attitude of many: They’ll believe in the Second Ave. Subway when it exists. The home stretch nears.

April 30, 2013 14 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Brooklyn

On Smith/9th Sts. and ADA compliance

by Benjamin Kabak April 30, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 30, 2013

Smith/9th Sts. towers over Brooklyn, but the platforms do not have elevator access from street level. (Photo: MTA New York City Transit / Marc A. Hermann)

When the Culver Viaduct’s Smith/9th Sts. station reopened on Friday, the politicians came out en masse to support the station. Although the MTA acknowledged the delay in restoring F and G train service to Red Hook’s subway connection to the rest of the city, politicians made more than mere note of the delay.

“Finally, the long, long wait my constituents suffered is at an end,” City Councilwoman Sara M. Gonzalez said. “While the delays continued, residents of Red Hook endured longer waiting times and distances. I am confident they will like what they see as they begin to utilize this station again. Now, whether their transit needs are for employments, health, entertainment, academic or other personal choices, they will leave and arrive in this splendidly transformed station and I share in their joy. I look forward to advocating further with Red Hook residents as we seek further transit improvement options.”

What no one mentioned was the station’s lack of elevator access, and as riders returned to the station — even as work continued, in fact — I’ve received more questions concerning the MTA’s ADA obligations than just about anything else related to the project. Local business owners voiced their outrage on Twitter. “Smith/9th St subway station: $32 million, 2 years, no handicap access,” the social media arm of Seersucker, a restaurant on Smith St. above the Carroll St. station, noted. “How did NYC officials let that happen?” They’re not the only ones wondering, and so I set out to investigate why Smith/9th Sts., 87.5 feet above the Gowanus Canal, contains escalators and stairs but no elevators.

According to the MTA’s release on the station reconstruction, the $32 million projected included “ADA features” but not ADA accessibility. Stair risers and treads are now uniform dimension, and handrails are at the proper height and size. The platform edges now contain tactile warning strips as well. But that’s it, and with more steps leading up to the station entrance, it’s now even harder for straphangers with limited mobility to navigate the station.

The MTA has already fielded inquiries concerning ADA-accessibility at this station, and spokesman Kevin Ortiz issued a statement: “The design for ADA elevators at this station was structurally unwieldy and financially prohibitive due to the station’s layout.” I spoke to Ortiz yesterday afternoon, and he elaborated on the situation. Considering the geography of the station over the canal and its height, the MTA estimated requiring four to six elevators to make this station ADA-compliant, and given the ridership — under 5000 fares per day, 286 out of 421 and 93 out of 157 in Brooklyn — the elevators were cost-prohibitive and economically inefficient.

“But what of the ADA requirements?” an astute observer may ask. It’s a valid question as the ADA appears to require transit agencies to spend some part of a project on ADA upgrades and generally require rebuilds to be ADA compliant. As I understand it from MTA sources though, the agency has an ADA waiver. They must outfit 100 Key Stations with full ADA access by the end of the decade, and the MTA is currently ahead of schedule. But for new projects, they can argue for an exemption if doing so is structurally infeasible. If a 90-foot high station that spans a body of water wouldn’t qualify there, I don’t know what would.

Furthermore, that there has been no lawsuit filed against the MTA strikes me as strong evidence against any wrong-doing as well. Disabled riders and their legal advocates are not shy about flexing their muscles. They successfully sued for ADA upgrades at Dyckman St., and the MTA’s settlement included promises of an elevator. Two years after Smith/9th Sts. station shuttered and around five years after plans were first unveiled, no court challenges to the plans exist.

So what remains is a tough situation made worse by circumstance. No one in the 1930s anticipated the ADA when building the station, and now, in 2013, we have a new station without full ADA access. It strikes me as a situation with no good answer.

April 30, 2013 64 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesQueens

Broad Channel service still on track for late June restoration

by Benjamin Kabak April 29, 2013
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 29, 2013

As we mark the six-month anniversary of the day Superstorm Sandy swept through the region, South Ferry garners the bulk of the media attention for a variety of reasons. It was the MTA’s newest station, and it suffered dramatic damage, all of which occurred underground and in Lower Manhattan. But it wasn’t the only part of the subway system that suffered.

In Queens, all those miles and neighborhoods away from South Ferry, the subway system that connects the Rockaways to the rest of the city suffered as well. The Broad Channel crossing was wiped out completely, and the infrastructure on the peninsula was heavily damaged. In late March, the MTA said it was targeting a June date for A train service to be restored, and that date holds true today.

I checked in with MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz this morning, and he tells me that the agency is still on track to restore Broad Channel service by the end of June. Simply running trains over the channel doesn’t mean work will stop, and crews will contain to combat the corrosive effect of saltwater for the foreseeable future. Yet, restoring subway service will be a big lift for this storm-ravaged area struggling to stay afloat after Sandy.

April 29, 2013 13 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts

About The Author

Name: Benjamin Kabak
E-mail: Contact Me

Become a Patron!
Follow @2AvSagas

Upcoming Events
TBD

RSS? Yes, Please: SAS' RSS Feed
SAS In Your Inbox: Subscribe to SAS by E-mail

Instagram



Disclaimer: Subway Map © Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Used with permission. MTA is not associated with nor does it endorse this website or its content.

Categories

  • 14th Street Busway (1)
  • 7 Line Extension (118)
  • Abandoned Stations (31)
  • ARC Tunnel (52)
  • Arts for Transit (19)
  • Asides (1,244)
  • Bronx (13)
  • Brooklyn (126)
  • Brooklyn-Queens Connector (13)
  • Buses (291)
  • Capital Program 2010-2014 (27)
  • Capital Program 2015-2019 (56)
  • Capital Program 2020-2024 (3)
  • Congestion Fee (71)
  • East Side Access Project (37)
  • F Express Plan (22)
  • Fare Hikes (173)
  • Fulton Street (57)
  • Gateway Tunnel (29)
  • High-Speed Rail (9)
  • Hudson Yards (18)
  • Interborough Express (1)
  • International Subways (26)
  • L Train Shutdown (20)
  • LIRR (65)
  • Manhattan (73)
  • Metro-North (99)
  • MetroCard (124)
  • Moynihan Station (16)
  • MTA (98)
  • MTA Absurdity (233)
  • MTA Bridges and Tunnels (27)
  • MTA Construction (128)
  • MTA Economics (522)
    • Doomsday Budget (74)
    • Ravitch Commission (23)
  • MTA Politics (330)
  • MTA Technology (195)
  • New Jersey Transit (53)
  • New York City Transit (220)
  • OMNY (3)
  • PANYNJ (113)
  • Paratransit (10)
  • Penn Station (18)
  • Penn Station Access (10)
  • Podcast (30)
  • Public Transit Policy (164)
  • Queens (129)
  • Rider Report Cards (31)
  • Rolling Stock (40)
  • Second Avenue Subway (262)
  • Self Promotion (77)
  • Service Advisories (612)
  • Service Cuts (118)
  • Sponsored Post (1)
  • Staten Island (52)
  • Straphangers Campaign (40)
  • Subway Advertising (45)
  • Subway Cell Service (34)
  • Subway History (81)
  • Subway Maps (83)
  • Subway Movies (14)
  • Subway Romance (13)
  • Subway Security (104)
  • Superstorm Sandy (35)
  • Taxis (43)
  • Transit Labor (151)
    • ATU (4)
    • TWU (100)
    • UTU (8)
  • Triboro RX (4)
  • U.S. Transit Systems (53)
    • BART (1)
    • Capital Metro (1)
    • CTA (7)
    • MBTA (11)
    • SEPTA (5)
    • WMATA (28)
  • View from Underground (447)

Archives

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram

@2019 - All Right Reserved.


Back To Top