Second Ave. Sagas

The G train’s chicken-and-egg problem

by Benjamin Kabak January 29, 2013

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 29, 2013

Once upon a time, the G train wasn’t a particularly popular train. The remnants of this era are still evident in the state of the line. Desolate, half-abandoned platforms that aren’t close to a state of good repair mark the line, and the way it shuffles back and forth between Queens and Brooklyn with nary a stop or even a tunnel in Manhattan lends it the air of being part of The Other.

Yet, despite the mysterious sense of foreboding allure that surrounds the G train, it is both popular and reliable. It touches some of the more rapidly growing areas of Brooklyn and connects job centers in Long Island City and Downtown Brooklyn while skirting through residential neighborhoods. It comes reliably, if not often enough, and can be rather crowded during rush hour and, when running normally, on weekends.

Passing through or around various other subway lines, the G is also ripe for better connections to the rest of the city, and to that end, the Riders Alliance — an organization for which I sit on its board — has targeted the G for its first campaign. Its goals are rather simple: The Alliance is building grassroots support to pressure politicians and the MTA into adopting a few easy improvements for the G, including a free out-of-system transfer between the G and the J/M/Z and the G and the Atlantic Ave./Barclays Center station, increased train frequency at rush hour, improving communications with riders and reopening closed entrances.

At a rally on Sunday with approximately 75 riders, the Alliance and a few local politicians presented the requests and a letter to the MTA for a full line review similar to that conducted on the L and F lines over the past few years. The letter came from State Senators Daniel Squadron and Martin Malavé Dilan. “After calls to expand weekend L services to Williamsburg were made in 2011, the MTA discovered that transit riders are a reliable resource and know a thing or two about what improvements can be made, and where,” Dilan said in a statement. “These suggestions are worth looking into. And I hope the G Line can share the same success that came of the working relationship between the MTA and L riders last year.”

The letter expressed similar sentiments. “We ask,” it read, the MTA to “review schedules and ridership on weekdays and weekends, with the goal of creating a schedule that is more reflective of ridership patterns.” It is a modest request and one tough to turn down.

While the MTA hasn’t yet issued a full response to the letter, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, Adam Lisberg offered a glimpse into the MTA’s thinking. “Our decisions to add service reflect on what we go out and measure,” he said. “What they’re calling for is not borne out by our numbers.”

And therein lies the MTA’s chicken-and-egg problem. First, the MTA sets its own load guidelines. If it doesn’t find the train crowded, that’s because its definition of crowded may not line up with yours or mine. (For what it’s worth, a train is full when every seat is taken and a quarter of the car is standing.) Second, the MTA has often said that demand doesn’t warrant more service, but it’s very possible that more frequent service will lead to greater demand. New Yorkers avoid the G train because they think it doesn’t run very often, they think waits are too long and they think trains are too crowded for the service. By changing perceptions and encouraging ridership, ridership will go up.

The G train has gotten better over the years but it could be more valuable. It could help feed riders off the L and to the M. It could serve as a true lifeline through growing neighborhoods. It could be a great way to travel in between Queens and Brooklyn without that annoying loop through crowded Manhattan stations. The MTA should give a nod to these possibilities and explore ways to make the G better.

January 29, 2013 57 comments

New York City Transit

Few solutions for improved subway platform safety

by Benjamin Kabak January 29, 2013

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 29, 2013

The subway accident rate has remained low as ridership has increased over the past ten years. (Source: New York City Transit)

I am growing weary of discussing platform edge doors. As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday, I believe the increased public concern over subway platform safety is a ruse to deflect attention away from the real issues facing our transit system. Politicians can use subway platform system to claim they care about transit issues and are looking out for riders when, in reality, the incident rate was one per 11.3 million subway riders and nearly a quarter of those were suicide attempts. But here we are. Again.

Because of two high-profile homicides that were both a far cry from normal, New York City Transit has been forced to respond to increased calls for, well, anything on subway platform safety, and during yesterday’s MTA Board Committee hearings, officials unveiled a 46-page presentation awkwardly entitled “Customer Contact With Train Incident Report.” In it, the MTA lays bear just how little of a problem this is and presents a few solutions. From public awareness campaigns to the challenges facing any sort of platform edge doors to hope for a next-generation track intrusion detection system, the MTA is clearly paying lip service to all solutions, but its options going forward are limited.

So first things first: How do people get hit by trains? According to Transit, in 2012, 54 customers were struck while in the tracks and another 51 were hit by a train while in the station. The agency says that 33 were suicides or attempted suicides while three customers fell in between cars. Short of locking car doors, the MTA can’t do much more stop people from moving in between cars, and the only solution that will put an end to subway suicides are platform edge doors. The remaining 105 collisions last year fall in that space between avoidable and unavoidable based on the circumstances.

The first step in the MTA’s campaign against collisions involves the public awareness effort. Already, the PA/CIS systems are broadcasting safety messages, and those will soon spread to the backs of MetroCards, the MetroCard Vending Machine screens, the digital ads aboveground at certain train stations and every social media outlet imaginable. At this least, this effort could scare passengers away from standing too close to the platform, but as New York is New York, straphangers won’t budge all that much.

In the realm of technology, the MTA can look to limit access to the tracks, develop a warning system or both. The first part is tricky. Even as some cities retrofit their transit system with platform edge doors, circumstances underground are working against the MTA. First, it’s costly, and the MTA has no money. Second, the rolling stock isn’t standardized and won’t be for at least another decade. Third, station infrastructure — curved, narrow platforms with both little room for required electrical systems and weak platform edges — is lacking for such an effort. Fourth, operations could suffer from extended dwell time and flagging requirements. Even though the MTA received 12 responses to its request for information, yesterday’s presentation contains the seeds of the agency’s argument that platform edge doors are basically a non-starter.

So what can happen? First, the MTA says it will expand its Help Point system which would allow customers to warn train dispatchers of a person in the tracks. This is useful as long as the train isn’t barreling down on a station or potential victim. Help Point, which I’ve mentioned obtusely as a waste of money, could be at 100 stations by the end of next year and system-wide by the end of the decade.

Second, the MTA could look at intrusion detection. Here, the idea is that an advanced imaging system can tell when a human-sized something is in the tracks and sound an alarm that essentially shuts down the system. In theory, it sounds promising, but it’s an early-stage idea. The MTA is going to initiate a Concept of Operations, but it could be years before a solution is ready for any sort of practical pilot testing or implementation.

That leaves the MTA and its customers then with few solutions to something that isn’t a major problem. The agency is going to move forward with some sort of safety pilot program, but doing so is as much about placating the rabbling masses than it is about finding a long-term solution. And while I don’t mean to minimize tragic deaths caused by train collisions, at a certain point, the cost and time spent on the non-problem will detract from Transit’s real issues that impact us all.

January 29, 2013 88 comments

Service Advisories

FASTRACK arrives on the BMT Broadway line

by Benjamin Kabak January 28, 2013

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 28, 2013

The Broadway Line will be without overnight service this week. (Click to enlarge)

The BMT Broadway line enjoyed a FASTRACK-free 2012, but the pleasures of uninterrupted overnight service come to end this evening at 10 p.m. Until 5 a.m. each night this week, there will be no service along the BMT Broadway line throughout Manhattan. As FASTRACK goes, this is one of the easier treatments with the three-block walk from 59th St. and 5th Ave. to 57th St. on the F representing the longest gap between the Broadway Line and any other train line in Manhattan.

As far as service changes, here’s what’s happening:

The N will run between Ditmars Boulevard and Queensboro Plaza and between Stillwell Ave. and Jay St.-Metrotech, making local stops north of 36th St.
The Q will run from 57th St./6th Ave. over the Manhattan Bridge via the 6th Ave. line. Q trains will make express stops in Manhattan.
R service in Manhattan ends early, and the R shuttle between Bay Ridge and 36th St. will start earlier than normal.

The folks who have it the worst here are those trying to go from Manhattan to Astoria. A simple one-train ride now because a three-seat ride involving a trip up to 42nd St. and a short stint on the 7. Anyone traveling to Brooklyn via the Brighton Line should be able to replicate their usual one-seat ride with a short walk, and those looking for N service can turn to the D instead. All in all, it’s not terrible.

The next FASTRACK treatment will be on the A Line north of 168th Street for four consecutive weeknights from Monday, February 25 to Friday, March 1.

January 28, 2013 26 comments

Asides PANYNJ

PATH to restore Newark-WTC overnight connection tonight

by Benjamin Kabak January 28, 2013

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 28, 2013

Weekday overnight PATH service between Newark and the World Trade Center stop will resume operations this evening, Port Authority announced today. With this resumption of overnight service, PATH’s weekday overnight service offerings have returned to pre-Sandy levels, three months after the storm swept through the region. Exchange Place and the WTC station will be closed throughout February from 10 p.m. Fridays through 5 a.m. Mondays as crews work to restore weekday service between Hoboken and the WTC and full weekend service.

Meanwhile, last week, Ted Mann profiled the challenges facing PATH in an excellent article in The World Street Journal. PATH has leaned heavily on manual operations and jury-rigged signal systems as well as assistance from New Jersey Transit and the MTA to restore its infrastructure. As Mann notes, a large portion of the PATH system was within the Sandy flood zone. “If I had parts of system that were not affected, yeah, it’d be easier to bring those back, but virtually all of my system was damaged,” Acting PATH Director Stephen Kingsberry said.

While reading Mann’s article and watching PATH and the MTA approach their respective rebuilding efforts, I’ve often wondered if it makes sense to have two distinct agencies responsible to entirely different oversight bodies. While PATH spans two states, it is an integral part of the New York Metropolitan area, and hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyians and New Yorkers rely on PATH to travel across the Hudson. As the region recovers from the storm, perhaps a second look at how PATH operates in relation to the rest of the region’s transit network should become a louder part of the discussion.

January 28, 2013 47 comments

MetroCard

A vague plan for a MetroCard replacement, three to five years away

by Benjamin Kabak January 28, 2013

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 28, 2013

The MTA believes the current MetroCard system will be unsustainable and functionally obsolete by 2019, but a replacement effort is stuck in neutral with the agency aiming for a three- to five-year rollout time for the next-generation fare payment technology. With questions surrounding the widespread availability of bank-issued contactless credit or debit cards and a rapidly changing mobile payments, it is currently unclear what the eventual replacement for the MetroCard will be.

As part of Monday morning’s MTA Board committee meetings, the Capital Program Oversight Committee will hear an update on the new fare payment system, and the presentation materials are already available online [pdf]. From them, we can glean information concerning the current shape of the project, and seven years after the first contactless pilot and nearly a decade since the MTA first acknowledged the impending end of the MetroCard, more uncertainties surround the project than ever before.

So what’s happening with the project? For starters, it’s getting farmed out to the agencies from MTA HQ. As most of the work centers, unsurprisingly, around New York City Transit’s fare payment system, Transit will now have oversight of the MetroCard replacement project while Metro-North and the LIRR will work together (shocking, I know) to develop a rail road fare payment system. The Fare and Toll Payment System Coordination Committee, run out of MTA HQ, will ensure that all MTA agencies are collaborating on future fare and toll payment systems. Too many cooks stirring the soup or a much-needed division of labor that puts the project under the auspicies of Transit, a far more stable agency than MTA HQ?

No matter the answer to that question, something has to be done, and with Tom Prendergast a stalwart atop Transit even as the MTA has gone through a few CEOs itself, someone has to be willing to push forward. Notably, the MTA documents say that the MetroCard technology is nearing the end of its shelf life. It’s becoming increasingly more expensive to maintain, and the agency does not believe it can keep the equipment in a state of good repair much past 2019. While six years seems like a decent enough lead time, we know how quickly six years can flash by in the MTA’s world.

So with the same goals as earlier — decreasing operation costs, finding a low-cost open solution that won’t put the MTA at the mercy of an old, closed system — Transit will forge ahead with a contactless solution. It may not be as reliant on bank-issued cards as the MTA, under Jay Walder, had suggested a few years ago. According to these documents, bank-issued cards aren’t seeing as widespread an adoption as the MTA had anticipated. The presentation says that the value proposition remains “unclear for customers, retailers, [and] issuers.” With mobile payment technology quickly improving and new players frequently entering the game, the MTA wants to find something forward-looking that can be implemented relatively quickly as well.

So with a new time window — three to five years from now puts the project in the 2016-2018 range — the MTA almost wants to wait out the market. According to the presentation, the rough idea is to build contactless infrastructure on top of the existing system to layer it in while phasing out MetroCards. Such a move could make for a seamless transition when the MetroCard is finally killed. Still, though, the open payments model will not be fully implemented until the “landscape for transit is defined and less risky.”

For now then, the MTA has put forward some more modest goals. They will “refresh” the previous analysis while looking a more options for potential solutions. The agency will continue to build out an in-system telecommunications network as active cell service would be a vital piece for any potential mobile payments system. They will consult with their industry colleagues who have successfully implemented contactless card solutions in Chicago, London and elsewhere.

So where does that leave us? I hate to say the MTA is back at square one because it’s not. But it’s awfully close. The MetroCard shelf life is pushing the timeframe here, and the MTA has basically given itself a year of wiggle room with no clear answer as to a solution. (It’s worth noting that it took the MTA over four years from the first MetroCard pilot to outfit every turnstile in the system for the technology.) Furthermore, it sounds as though the MTA wants to be a leader in a field with no clear answer. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel here if other solutions — like an Oyster card or an Octopus card — are adaptable in New York.

Ultimately, this is one clear area where a lack of institutional champion has left the MTA without a clear path. The next MTA head needs to make MetroCard replacement efforts a priority, and the agency heads now with more oversight on this project should strive to push it through as well. While we’ve prematurely eulogized the MetroCard a few times in recent years, its technological clock is ticking ever close to its end.

January 28, 2013 49 comments

Service Advisories

Fare Hike ’13: Sunset dates, $1 surcharge details unveiled

by Benjamin Kabak January 25, 2013

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 25, 2013

New MetroCards will soon come with a $1 surcharge.

With the March 3 fare hike rapidly approaching, the MTA today unveiled the mechanics of the fare hike. Can you stock up on unlimited ride cards as my parents used to do with tokens? And just how is that $1 surcharge the MTA has been threatening with since 2010 going to work? All of that – and more! – below.

To recap, the not-so-fun stuff first: With this fare hike, the base fare will jump to $2.50 with a pay-per-ride discount of just 5 percent on all purchases at or above $5. The 7-day unlimited will cost $30, and the 30-day unlimited will set back regular riders by $112. An express bus ride checks in at $6, and the single-ride cards available only through vending machines will clock in at $2.75.

With the fare hike, the $1 “new card” surcharge will be instituted as well. Each card purchased at a MetroCard Vending Machine, a station booth or at commuter rail stations will cost $1. The MTA says that to avoid the fee, riders should keep and refill current cards. Damaged or expired cards may be replaced at no cost, and those of us who receive pre-tax MetroCard in the mail through a transit benefit organization will not be assessed the $1 surcharge. Those who buy combo railroad/MetroCard tickets also will not be charged that dollar. As with any MTA project, it took the authority only three years since initial reports to implement this fee.

Now what of the question of hoarding? The short of it is that straphangers pretty much cannot hoard cards. According to the MTA, all cards purchased before Monday, March 3 must be activated by March 11 for users to receive the full value. So seven-day cards are valid through March 17, 2013, and 30-day cards are valid through April 9, 2013. What happens if you activate your card after the March 11 date? Glad you asked. So says the MTA:

For unused Unlimited Ride MetroCards purchased prior to the March 3, 2013 fare change, refunds will be made at the purchase price. For partially used Unlimited Ride MetroCards purchased prior to the March 3 fare increase, refunds will be made on a pro-rated basis. Ask for a postage-paid envelope from your bus operator, at the station booth, or download the form at mta.info and mail it to us with your card.

That refund process can be a bit of a pain. So I’d say start using that card by or before March 11 or find someone willing to pay you for that unused card you have lying around your house.

And that’s that. The breakeven point for a 7-day card will be 13 rides and for a 30-day card 48 rides. In that inexorable march of time, the fares will go up. They always do. After all, someone has to pay for this whole thing.

January 25, 2013 38 comments

WMATA

On WMATA and appreciating the MTA’s capital budget

by Benjamin Kabak January 24, 2013

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 24, 2013

Some of WMATA’s capital goals include in-system transfer points between popular stations.

The MTA’s capital plan may be considered something of a mess. For $25 billion – give or take a few billion – every five years, the MTA embarks on a steady stream of expansion and rehabilitation projects. Sure, new construction efforts cost far too much, and sure, nothing seems to be completed on time. But the capital program, born out of the system’s 1970s nadir, isn’t going anywhere. It’s too important to the city, its subway riders and its construction lobby.

Of course, the capital plan isn’t perfect. I can’t overstate how project costs and construction pace have hindered rapid subway expansion, and the MTA is constantly fighting for the dollars it so desperately needs. It’s clear from even cursory glances around the system that the remains elusive. Additionally, as the capital plan has lately been funded through a series of bond issues, the MTA’s dept payment obligations have increased rapidly over the last decade.

The perpetual stream of funding for capital dollars though is not something we should take for granted. Despite the frustrations we often feel toward Albany, someone had the foresight to put such a plan in place. If we turn our eye to the south, we find in Washington, D.C., an agency held hostage by two states, the District of Columbia and the federal government with a clear need for maintenance and expansion but no real plan to pay for any of it.

Earlier on Thursday, WMATA unveiled a new strategic plan called Momentum which includes a modest expansion of the Metro system, some long-awaited transfer tunnels between the Farragut stations and between Gallery Place and Metro Center and, finally, some express tracks along certain routes. Total expenditures would add up to approximately $1 billion a year through 2040, low by New York’s standards but high nonetheless. There’s a catch though: No one knows how these plans will be funded.

Dana Hedgpeth of The Washington Post delves into the funding issue. She writes:

Dubbed “Momentum,” and 18 months in the making, Metro’s new strategic plan catalogues the system’s needs and renews the long-standing argument for Metro to have a dedicated funding source, just as many big-city transit systems do. Metro’s lack of capital investment in the past decade has been blamed on that lack of dedicated funding, and planners say that unless that changes, there is little hope of executing the ambitious strategic plan that will be formally unveiled Thursday.

A new Metro line is being built in Northern Virginia, but it is being constructed for Metro by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, with revenue from the Dulles Toll Road financing a significant part of the line’s $5.6 billion cost.

No such obvious source of financing exists for the new rail line and tunnels proposed in Metro’s new strategic plan, and the plan does not specify how the agency would finance the rail expansion and other costly improvements….Unlike other transit agencies in New York, Boston and Los Angeles that depend on some level of dedicated funds from specific taxes, Metro receives contributions from the District, Maryland, Virginia and the federal government for its operating and capital budgets, which total $2.5 billion. Shyam Kannan, Metro’s chief planner, said it will take a “reliable, sustained stream of capital funding from a combination of local and federal” moneys to pay for the slew of proposed projects.

Metro is nearing its maximum capacity, and at some point, the region’s planners and politicians will have to address that prickly issue. If D.C. is to grow, its subway system must grow as well, but without a steady source of funding, that growth is never a sure thing.

Here in New York, we argue for more funding. We argue for direct contributions instead of debt financing, and we argue for more subsidies for the operations budget. Although our system is still struggling to overcome decades of deferred maintenance, a plan, no matter how tough to realize, exists. It’s easy to lose sight of that fact, but it’s one we should not take for granted. After all, it could always be worse: The MTA could be the protect of four governments all with their own political viewpoints, interests and financial endgoals at stake.

January 24, 2013 56 comments

Asides MTA Technology

Countdown clocks, Subway Time app offline after 9 p.m.

by Benjamin Kabak January 24, 2013

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 24, 2013

A missive from New York City Transit on some much-relied-upon technology: “MTA New York City Transit announces that Countdown Clocks and the mobile app, Subway Time, will not be available to the public for a number of hours later tonight in order to test a software upgrade and back-up system. During this time, we will be bringing the servers down and back up several times beginning this evening, January 24, after the p.m. rush hour (about 9 p.m.) and continuing until shortly before the morning rush hour, tomorrow, Friday, January 25. We apologize for the inconvenience to our customers.”

Once upon a time, we didn’t have subway countdown clocks, and waiting for trains overnight was often as painful as a root canal. Now, we know when we have to wait for 15 minutes for a 2 train as I did at Chambers St. at 10:30 p.m. on Tuesday night. Tonight, though, New Yorkers are out of luck. The problem with technology, after all, is that someone, sometimes, has to upgrade the whole thing. The clocks should be back on before rush hour tomorrow.

January 24, 2013 3 comments

Abandoned Stations

Inside Metropolitan Avenue’s shuttered G passageway

by Benjamin Kabak January 24, 2013

written by Benjamin Kabak on January 24, 2013

The Grand St. half of the G train’s Metropolitan Ave. stop is currently closed to passengers.

The G train as it winds its way through Williamsburg is chock full of urban underground surprises. The South 4th St. shell sits uncompleted, unacknowledged and adorned with graffiti above the northern end of the Broadway stop, and a few blocks up Union Ave., the Metropolitan Ave. – Lorimer St. stop contains its own little secret. Thanks to an anonymous Second Ave. Sagas tipster, we can take a close look inside an area long closed to the public.

The secret to this station lies in its name. Before the IND Crosstown line and BMT Canarsie line combined to create today’s Metropolitan Ave./Lorimer St. complex, the IND stop was called Metropolitan Ave./Grand St. with entrances along Union Ave. at both intersections. The station featured one of the overbuilt full-length mezzanines that is a hallmark of the IND stations throughout the city. Much of that mezzanine is now blocked off by the police station, some crew quarters and, well, an abandoned entrance.

On the G train platform, evidence of the old name is visible in the tiling, and a shuttered staircase at the southern end of the platform leads upward to the now-closed Grand St. exit. My tipster, encountering an open grate a few months ago, did some exploring, and the photos show the station as it was before renovation in 2000-2001 changed the color scheme.

A transfer sign and staircases await passengers that will not be arriving any time soon.

We see a sloped ramp and station entrances in pretty good shape. Temporary walls mark the employees-only areas, and access to the platforms is gated off. All in all, there are publicly available and open parts of the system in much worse condition than this spot.

So what to do with it? Earlier today, I mused on the role passageways play in the subway system, and here is a functional one — albeit with some work to be done — sitting there without use. Considering the population growth in the area over the years since it was last in use, it’s a spot the MTA should consider reactivating.

The G train, meanwhile, is drawing some public support. The Riders Alliance — a group for which I sit on the board — along with local politicians is hosting a rally for the G this weekend. They’re not arguing for the reopening of this entrance, but they’re asking for increased G train frequency and out-of-system transfers between the G and J/Z in Williamsburg and the G and Atlantic Ave.-Barclays Center. “As the neighborhoods surrounding the G train continue to grow, it’s vital that their lifeline grow with them,” State Senator Daniel Squadron said.

For a few more shots of the abandoned mezzanine passageway, check out this set on Flickr.

January 24, 2013 54 comments

Load More Posts

News and Views on New York City Transportation

The G train’s chicken-and-egg problem

Few solutions for improved subway platform safety

FASTRACK arrives on the BMT Broadway line

PATH to restore Newark-WTC overnight connection tonight

A vague plan for a MetroCard replacement, three to five years away

Recommended reading and the weekend service advisories

Fare Hike ’13: Sunset dates, $1 surcharge details unveiled

On WMATA and appreciating the MTA’s capital budget

Countdown clocks, Subway Time app offline after 9 p.m.

Inside Metropolitan Avenue’s shuttered G passageway