View from Underground

On the subway’s 107th birthday, a Macy’s store

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 27, 2011

Today is an anniversary of sorts for our beleaguered subway city for 107 years ago on October 27, 1904, the Interborough Rapid Transit company launched the city’s first subway line. To celebrate, the MTA, one of its licensing partners and Macy’s unveiled a boutique in the Macy’s Cellar that will be hawking subway-themed merchandise through the end of the year.

The collection, created for Macy’s by Gouda, Inc., will be entitled NYC Underground, and the shop includes apparel, accessories and a variety of other products adorned with subway maps and route bullets. The store itself will be decorated with subway maps, station signs and benches and old metal straps from the now-reefed redbirds.

For the MTA, the store offers a chance to earn more on licensing. The authority is paying no rent to Macy’s and will enjoy prominent placement throughout the holiday shopping season. “As we look to make every dollar count across everything the MTA does, we’re working to enhance the value of the MTA brand and trademarks,” Paul Fleuranges, the authority’s Senior Director of Corporate and Internal Communications, said. “We are delighted to be able to do that with a prominent presence in such an iconic and world-renowned space.”

In exchange for the space, Macy’s will be slapping its logo on a variety of products for sale — including apparel with the subway map and Macy’s store. The MTA, which makes $500,000 a year in licensing fees and royalties, says this is its first foray into direct, co-branding collaborations. And to think, it took only 107 years.

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA EconomicsMTA Politics

Poll finds majority support for MTA payroll tax

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 27, 2011

There are fewer taxes more controversial in New York State right now than the payroll tax passed a few years ago to support the MTA. Levying a tax of 0.34 percent on businesses in the 12 counties serviced by the MTA, the tax has generated around $1.3 billion annually for the MTA, and it has drawn the non-stop ire of New York Republicans, some of whom have made trying to repeal it their life’s goal. Yet, a new poll shows reasonably strong support for it throughout the state.

According to a Quinnipiac poll, 56 percent of voters support the payroll tax. Forty-five percent say the tax is fine as is while 11 percent would increase it. Meanwhile, 24 percent of voters would like to see the tax repealed completely while nine percent would prefer it decreased. These results seem to jibe with other numbers that show a strong upstate/downstate divide over MTA support.

A whopping 59 percent of upstate voters oppose additional state support for the MTA while 55 percent of New York City voters want more state subsidies. Overall, New Yorkers oppose additional support for the MTA by a 51-42 margin, and voters seem to realize that repealing the payroll tax in the 12 MTA counties would lead to more state subsidies in another form. The MTA, after all, is counting heavily on the money to avoid service cuts and unplanned fare hikes.

Yet, despite this showing of support, the Republicans in the Assembly have been tirelessly advocate for a repeal. On Staten Island, business leaders and politicians have been railing against the tax, and state GOP representatives held an anti-tax hearing earlier this week with a focus on Staten Island and Brooklyn. Former New York City Comptroller and failed Mayoral candidate Bill Thompson called for a payroll tax repeal in The Post this week, but his plan includes other state subsidies.

The complaints for business leaders and politicians deserve a closer. Especially among Staten Island and Bay Ridge residents who seemingly suffered the most from the 2010 bus cuts, complaints focus around services. Business owners claim their employees drive and derive no benefit from public transit while others say they are taxed more for even less service. Of course, it’s tough to take these forums too seriously when people start calling the taxes “basically un-American” and “discriminatory.”

The concurrent problem is one of politics. State GOP Assembly representatives know a payroll tax repeal won’t make it through Sheldon Silver’s Assembly, and they have offered no better solution. Taking a page from the Lee Zeldin handbook of incomplete ideas, Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis said the MTA could, according to SI Live, “could make up the shortfall by selling off real estate, streamlining bloated executive salaries and renegotiating vendor contracts.” If the authority could generate $1.3 billion through those measures — most of which provide only one-time benefits — I have a bridge to sell Ms. Malliotakis.

Ultimately, the end of the payroll tax will come as part of a bargain: Institute congestion pricing or toll the East River Bridges, and the payroll tax can be similarly reduced. I can’t imagine suburban residents or Staten Island politicians would be too thrilled with that bargain, but the only other outcome would be a seriously starved MTA forced to cut services and hike fares. Who wants that anyway?

24 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
7 Line Extension

Challenges and benefits of a Secaucus-bound 7

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 27, 2011

Could the future route of the 7 train take it across the Hudson River? (Via The Wall Street Journal)

By dropping word of his support for a Secaucus-bound 7 train this week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg reminded us once again of his ability to draw a spotlight. With New York and New Jersey transit advocates largely despairing over the lack of transit on the new Tappan Zee Bridge, Bloomberg seemingly us a bone with a show of support for the 7 plan. If anything, the timing has helped restart the debate over the practicality, feasibility and intentions behind the plan.

On Wednesday, after The Post’s story made the rounds, the Mayor faced the New York press corps and went on the record with some support for a trans-Hudson rail crossing. “We want better transportation from here to all the markets, all of the places that people live that want to come into this city to work and to shop and have their entertainment,” he said. “This is something where the economics seem to make some sense. The subway extension is on budget, on time pretty much, coming down the West Side, and you could probably continue it over. There are some economic arguments that it would be justified and that we could work with New Jersey and the federal government and the state government here to get some money to do it.”

For now, we don’t know what the Parsons Brinckerhoff report will say. It’s still only a preliminary report and only those in the city government have seen it. When it’s released, we’ll have a better sense of the road ahead. Right now, though, if Bloomberg is serious about getting such an ambitious plan off the ground, he’ll have to work fast to secure funds for an environmental impact study and the project itself. He has 26 months.

Already, we’re seeing some of the benefits and challenges this project face come into view. Over at WNYC, Andrea Bernstein gathered some info. For starters, the city believes it could put together a broad coalition of funding partners that would include the city and state, New Jersey, the Port Authority and the MTA. That is, apparently, news to those entities.

The MTA is facing a set of very familiar problems. With Joe Lhota coming in, the new CEO and Chairman has a directive from Gov. Andrew Cuomo to cut costs and save money. The current capital plan has no leeway for funding such a project, and the MTA would rather see through the Second Ave. Subway before it looks to New Jersey. So far, MTA officials have tried to distance themselves from this idea. Noting that the MTA has no cash, a spokesman told Metro, “We’re focusing on the three capital projects we have now.” Transit officials said yesterday they would have no comment until the engineering study is released.

Beyond that significant obstacle, the city and PB are reportedly bullish on the popularity of such an extension. Initial estimates say the 7 extension would draw around 125,000 riders per day, thus significantly increasing crowding along the 7 line throughout Midtown Manhattan. Somehow, the IRT Flushing line stations would have to handle increasingly large crowds. In a similar vein, though, the ridership estimates show how this project would be a draw for the real estate business. As Alon Levy noted via Twitter, sending the subway through Hoboken and to Secaucus would be “a bonanza for developers.” Construction companies and landowners on both sides of the Hudson — and especially those at Hudson Yards — would be thrilled. A subway that passes under Hudson Yards from both New Jersey and the rest of New York would vastly increase the area’s popularity.

Still, despite this seemingly rosy outlook, the challenges are immense. Early reports say it could cost less than ARC as the tunneling requires no new Manhattan terminal. Rather, the MTA would simply start digging west from the tail tracks of the 7 line extension near 26th and 11th Ave. Some estimates, however, peg the cost at as much as $10 billion. With federal ARC dollars long since disbursed, any funding from DC would have originate from a new effort to drive transit dollars to the region, and this 7 line extension would just be one more megaproject competing for bucks.

Furthermore, what of the rolling stock and IRT-sized subway cars? Even though the 7 comes equipped with 11-car sets, capacity is limited by width. In an ideal world, it might make more sense to send a spur off the 8th Ave. line with its spacious IND cars to New Jersey. Bu we live in a world of practical realism. With a development at Hudson Yards spurring the discussion, the Mayor will focus only on the 7 line. Its tail tracks bring it close to New Jersey, and mighty political forces are lining up behind it.

Yet, for all of this talk of support from Bloomberg, a reticent and reluctant MTA and a project that doesn’t even have a public scoping document yet, we’re likely jumping the gun. Maybe the Mayor can deliver billions of dollars and a firm joint commitment to this project while somehow drawing a cost-conscious MTA on board. Maybe he can placate constituents throughout the five boroughs who would rather spend transit dollars on improving interborough rather than interstate access. Maybe he just won’t care about the politics because he’s a lame duck and wants a legacy. It wouldn’t be the first time Bloomberg has pushed through something he wants more than anyone else.

For now, enjoy the proverbial ride. This project has had more legs than it ever should have, and maybe one day the next stop on a Secaucus-bound 7 line will be across the river in New Jersey.

82 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BrooklynNew York City Transit

Rendering of the Day: NYU’s 370 Jay Street

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 26, 2011

NYU wants to bring the Center for Urban Science and Progress to 370 Jay Street in Downtown Brooklyn. (Rendering via NYU and The Real Deal)

As the MTA gears up to offload the long-idle Transit building at 370 Jay St., a familiar player in the New York City real estate market has emerged as a leading contender for the space. As The Daily News reports today, New York University is targeting 370 Jay St. as the future home for its Center for Urban Science and Progress. The plan, which would rely on significant contributions from the city, would help push forward an academic revival in Downtown Brooklyn.

Instead of competing with Stanford and Cornell for space on Roosevelt Island, NYU would prefer to overhaul the MTA’s former headquarters across from its Polytechnic campus. “It would make Brooklyn the urban center of the universe,” NYU Senior Vice Provost for Research Paul Horn said to The News. “There’s nothing anywhere near it on this scale.”

Erin Durkin has more:

Mayor Bloomberg is offering a powerhouse academic institution $100 million in construction costs, plus free land, to open the high-tech school. Horn said NYU would forego the land the city is offering on Roosevelt Island or other sites in favor of downtown Brooklyn. “It’s a terrific entrepreneurial center,” Horn said. “There are a lot of advantages to being there as opposed to isolated somewhere.”

[Horn] said NYU could build the center with $20-$25 million of the city money for infrastructure fixes and moving the MTA’s old equipment out of 370 Jay, and spend $450 million overall on a 200,000-square-foot project. It would launch CUSP in space at nearby MetroTech, with classes starting in 2013, then move into 370 Jay after a major overhaul.

The NYU plan calls for 50 faculty members – from civil, electrical and mechanical engineering, computer science and other fields – would teach 400 master’s students and 100 Ph.D. students at CUSP. “Improving security, dealing with disasters, a variety of problems that are absolutely critical and things the city will be worrying about anyway – this will have our institute focusing on creating solutions to those problems,” Horn said.

NYU has a reputation for utterly consuming neighborhoods it targets. This plan, though, would remove a blight from the streets of Downtown Brooklyn while delivering dollars to the MTA for its abandoned headquarters. The building will be subjected to an RFP process. I doubt, however, that this is the last we’re hearing of NYU’s interest.

18 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
7 Line Extension

Report: Bloomberg set to push for 7 to Secaucus

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 26, 2011

Could the 7 trains, seen here in Flushing, be bound for Secaucus, New Jersey? (7 trains galore by flickr user SpecialKRB)

When it comes to transit planning, the concept of legacy is a dangerous one for New York politicians. Instead of finding new funding sources or promoting transit investment that improves the current system based upon need, politicians prefer something flashy that will carry their names well beyond their term-limited time in the New York arena. That is, after all, one of the reasons why Mayor Bloomberg is funding the 7 line extension to the Hudson Yards area while the Second Ave. Subway struggles to move beyond Phase 1.

Now, the Mayor is poised to push forward on a plan to extend the 7 line westward, past the boundaries of New York City, under the Hudson River and to Secaucus. It would be a monumental project with a price tag today of around $10 billion and a construction time of ten years. It would represent the first extension of the New York City subway to areas outside of New York City. With various stakeholders — including the city, New Jersey, the Port Authority, the federal government and the MTA — it has the potential to be a complicated project, but according to a report in the The Post, the mayor wants to get it off the ground before he leaves office in 2013.

This tale began last November when the city, without notifying the MTA or anyone else really, floated a plan to send the 7 to Secaucus as a potential ARC replacement. The move would provide a one-seat ride from New Jersey to midtown and would further spur growth at the Hudson Yards area. The city paid Parsons Brinckerhoff $250,000 to conduct a feasibility study, and apparently, Bloomberg likes what he’s seen from the preliminary report.

Calling this subway extension “a heck of a lot better” than the ARC Tunnel, one source in the Bloomberg administration said things could move forward quickly. “This is a really good project,” the source told The Post. “The mayor wants this.” Whatever Mikey wants, Mikey gets.

The Post has more:

Mayor Bloomberg is pushing forward with a proposal to extend the No. 7 train to New Jersey and get the project locked in before he leaves City Hall in two years…Although noncommittal in public, Hizzoner is now a fan of the concept and is looking to announce the next planning steps in the coming months, sources said. Bloomberg would then be able to go public with a formal proposal by the end of 2012, in a bid to get the New Jersey-bound No. 7 tunnel on track by the close of his third term, Dec. 31, 2013…

The next steps in the process are a full business plan and environmental-impact study, which have not yet been commissioned. During his weekly radio appearance on WOR Friday, Bloomberg didn’t reveal his enthusiasm for the project, saying only, “If there’s money for it and it makes sense, I’d certainly support it.”

But yesterday, Bloomberg spokeswoman Julie Wood sounded a more optimistic note: “Since we began exploring this idea, we continue to think it has a lot of potential as a way to cost-effectively improve regional transportation and also create thousands of jobs.”

Officials in the Christie administration and the Port Authority are working with City Hall on the No. 7 concept, but insist that the mayor take the lead. Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said yesterday, “We have been intrigued all along by this as a potential alternative.”

The issues, of course, focus around the money. Where will anyone find $10 billion for the project? Would the Port Authority be involved in a cross-Hudson project that uses MTA services and rolling stock? What would New Jersey contribute? How would New York City fund such an expansion — and should the city even be looking at an out-of-state subway line when so many routes within the five boroughs could use the attention?

For their part, MTA officials were silent on the news. Speaking after the MTA Board meeting this morning, Transit president Thomas Prendergast didn’t offer up too much. “We have to see what results of the study are,” he said. “It would be premature to comment on it.”

Ultimately, as The Post notes, though, this move is all about Bloomberg’s legacy. Moving forward with such an ambitious project would cement his place in the annals of city history. He would be the mayor who delivered the subway to New Jersey. Yet, whether we need this subway extension, whether the dollars are there and whether they could be better spent remains to be seen.

100 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Public Transit Policy

The Tappan Zee as New York’s ARC mistake

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 26, 2011

Plans drawn up in 2010 that included rail tracks across the Tappan Zee replacement will not see the light of day.

Let’s build a bridge. Let’s stick it across the widest part of the Hudson River. Let’s spend 10 years making sure various state stakeholders — transit advocates, municipalities on either side — agree on the form of the bridge. And then let’s torpedo these plans when the federal government dangles some easy-access dollars in our face. Let’s cancel the transit aspects of the plan, proclaim the desire to have the bridge last 100 years and promise that we’ll build the transit connection, you know, later.

If that sounds like an idea straight out of the 1950s, well, that’s because it is. Apparently New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo didn’t get the message. Today, the Governor revealed the state’s new plans for the span that will replace the aging Tappan Zee Bridge. For a few billion dollars, the state will build a massive bridge, and it won’t include transit options. It won’t have bus lanes for true express service; it won’t provide a cross-Hudson rail link. Located barely 28 miles north of Times Square, this bridge will just service cars. It is New York’s very own ARC Tunnel mistake.

The Tappan Zee story is one I’ve followed closely over the past few years. When plans were put forward in 2008 to replace the Tappan Zee, transit was a centerpiece, and over the intervening years, transit remained part of the plans. A year ago, we espied renderings with rail, but funding remained scarce. And then barely a week ago, we learned that in order to fast-track the Tappan Zee span, transit had been cut. The uproar has been tremendous.

“I am troubled by the proposed design’s absence of a mass transit component that would help alleviate congestion,” Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, one of many politicians speaking out against the new project, said. “A new bridge — without a mass transit component — would already be at capacity on the day of its opening.”

From both sides of the Hudson, from politicians and transit advocates alike, the decision to temporarily set aside a cross-Hudson transit connection has been slammed, but there’s a problem: No one knows who is responsible. As Streetsblog detailed this week, neither US DOT nor New York State officials have new scoping information packet is awkwardly silent on the decision to roll back a decade’s worth of planning.

“While advancing financial analysis,” the document says rather passively, “it was determined that funding for the corridor project (bridge replacement, highway improvements, and new transit service) was not possible at this time. The financing of the crossing alone, however, was considered affordable. Therefore, it was determined that the scope of the project should be limited, and efforts to replace the Hudson River crossing independent of the transit and highway elements should be advanced.”

Yesterday, the state unveiled more details concerning the Tappan Zee replacement span. It will be designed to last 100 years; it will leave some space for future transit improvements — improvements that will cost more to build and likely will never materialize; and it will be wide. It’s an alluring vision but one that rests upon fault assumptions. As Cap’n Transit recently explained, bridge traffic cannot continue on an upward trajectory for much longer without causing some congestion that would seriously drain the economies in Rockland, Bergen and Orange.

In a way, then, this decision is worse than New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s move to cancel the ARC Tunnel. There, he simply let the status quo stand. Here, Cuomo and the Feds are on the verge of funding something that will move transit-oriented progress backward in time. Even if the state or D.C. eventually found the money to add transit to the middle of the bridge, a wider roadway already in use won’t move the region forward.

It’s not too late for the Tappan Zee. The public comment period on the scoping document will last another three weeks, and already the public is making its voice heard. Yet, government officials say they had no choice. The money, they say, simply wasn’t there. Yet, New York could probably get away with tearing down the Tappan Zee and building nothing if they spent the $5.2 billion on improving rail service. That’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

For now, we wait. In one year’s time, we’ve seen transit projects in the form of the ARC Tunnel and the Tappan Zee replacement span flushed down the drain. In the future, adding transit will require another round of environmental impact studies, and rail routes after the fact rarely see the light of day. The stick is dangling, but the carrot is a rotten one.”The same thing was said when the George Washington Bridge was built,” Yonkers City Council President Chuck Lesnick said. “That magnificent structure celebrated its eightieth anniversary, and we’re still waiting for the train to come on that bridge.”

32 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMetro-North

Metro-North to restore full Port Jervis service on Nov. 28

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 25, 2011

Nearly three months to the day since Hurricane Irene washed out a significant stretch of trackbed along the Port Jervis line, Metro-North will restore full service to the west-of-Hudson commuter rail, the MTA announced yesterday. Full service on the Port Jervis line is set to resume on November 28, a month sooner than anticipated.

“Since Irene, Metro-North’s top priority has been the restoration of train service on the Port Jervis Line and thanks to the tireless work of the railroad’s own employees, we are very pleased to announce that full, through train service will be restored a month earlier than expected,” Metro-North President Howard Permut said. “We invite our customers to come back to Metro-North and thank them for their patience during this crisis.”

On November 28, the MTA will restore the schedule of 26 daily trains and 14 weekend trains. The alternate bus service will cease then as well. Metro-North officials credited the expedited repairs process to the declaration of emergency issued by then-Chairman and CEO Jay Walder as well as increased cooperation from landowners and municipalities along the washed-out right-of-way. Although the MTA will continue to work throughout the winter and into the spring to repair the line, the authority now projects a completion date in June 2012, and the work will cost between $30-$40 million, significantly less than the original $60 million estimate.

9 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Absurdity

To combat trash, Transit to…remove trash cans?

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 25, 2011

Straphangers are often creative in disposing of garbage if the closest trash can is too far away. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

The MTA, as we well know, has a bit of a trash problem. Garbage piles up everywhere underground, and rodents find the subway tracks and platforms to be very comfortable homes. For years, with budgets on the decline, Transit has searched for ways to combat what they have termed the “unsightliness and malodor of trash bags” in subway platforms, and now, as the agency ramps up trash collection efforts, they’re trying something counterintuitive: At two stations, the authority has removed trash cans in an effort to cut down on trash.

The pilot program in place at 8th St. and Broadway and Flushing/Main Street has earned headlines this morning for the sheer audacity of the idea, but it is part of a broader effort aimed at keeping stations cleaner. The measures are outlined in a report presented yesterday, and they include a targeted effort to eliminate rats, the prioritization of garbage collection trains and the addition of more refuse trains and trucks. Ultimately, the MTA has to collect and remove the 40 tons per day of trash that grows in the system, and it’s finding the task challenging.

The intriguing centerpiece of this effort though is clearly the plan to remove trash cans. Michael Grynbaum has more on this idea:

The idea is to reduce the load on the authority’s overtaxed garbage crew, which is struggling to complete its daily rounds of clearing out 40 tons of trash from the system. But it also offers a novel experiment: will New Yorkers stop throwing things away in the subway if there is no place to put them?

…The no-bin experiment is a more unusual approach, but it has precedent. In London, bins are banned from some Underground stations; in Washington, a similar program was abandoned because of riders’ complaints.

The PATH train has had no bins since 2001 because of security concerns. Since the removal, “it seems there is less trash,” said Ron Marsico, a spokesman, although he noted that the PATH system was smaller and more easily cleaned than the subway.

I understand why the MTA is pursuing this line of thinking, but there’s a clear conceptual gap here. Both the WMATA and the PATH systems are cleaner than ours because food is banned. The DC Metro engaged in a public crackdown of eating and drinking a few years ago, and the Port Authority has been diligent in keeping food out of the system as well.

Some MTA officials recognize this conflict as well. Board member Charles Moerdler wants the authority to study “the extent to which foodstuffs on trains or sold on the platforms is either deleterious to the system, or can in some way be curbed or eliminated, which I would favor.” But John Gaito, Transit’s trash guru, expressed a more resigned attitude to The Times. “It’s impractical,” he said. “You have a lot of customers who need to eat food on the system.” I’m not convinced anyone needs to eat in the unsanitary conditions of the subway, but that’s long been the argument for not banning food.

The real problem though is one of human behavior in the subway. Unless the MTA bans free newspapers that make up 44 percent of system-wide waste, people will just use whatever they want as a garbage can. With the nearest trash can over a city block away, riders at 7th Ave. in Brooklyn simply improvised, and the back end of Nevins St. has also been turned into a makeshift garbage can. The solution to combating trash in stations involves more garbage cans which inevitably lead to more garbage runs and more expenditures on garbage collection.

For now, though, that’s not in the cards, and neither is a ban on food. Instead, we get this strangely counterintuitive pilot program that seems to be showing returns at one station but more trash at the other, and everyone is skeptical. “NYC Transit doesn’t have the money to keep stations clean,” Gene Russianoff said to the Daily News. “So even a ridiculous idea sounds good to them.”

51 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City Transit

Countdown clocks driving up rider satisfaction

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 25, 2011

According to the MTA, its riders are quite satisfied with service. (Source: Customer Satisfaction Survey)

Here’s the $64,000 question for all 5.3 million subway-riding New Yorkers: Are you satisfied with service? Are you happy with your commute? Do you think the MTA is doing a good job? For the second year in row, the authority claims that nearly three-fourths of all riders are satisfied with subway service, but I remain skeptical.

The MTA last year revealed its customer satisfaction survey, and astute SAS readers questioned the methodology. The survey is now back for a second year, and although the MTA is trumpeting across-the-board improvements, problems remain. The sampling is appropriately random, but the scale remains skewed. Whether or not riders are truly satisfied is a question we could debate.

On a top-line level, the results are promising. Overall, 74 percent of riders are satisfied with subway service, and that total is up from 71 percent last year. Furthermore, 78 percent of riders are satisfied with the overall station environment, and that figure too is up from 71 percent next year. If anything, I’m personally less satisfied with station environment these days. I’ve found subway stations to be dirtier and less well maintained recently that at any time in the recent past.

So what then does it mean to be satisfied? In the presentation of findings, the MTA discusses its sample. From June 20-30, the authority conducted 1200 adults who had taken at least one subway trip in the past 30 days. These sample was culled from landlines (86%) and cell phones (14%). The margin of error is +/- 3 percent, and it seems as though the respondents represent a valid survey sample.

The results, though, are skewed to make the MTA look good. The MTA asked respondents to rate over 50 attributes on a scale of 1-10 where 1 and 2 represented very dissatisfied, 3-5 represented just dissatisfied, 6-8 meant riders were satisfied and 9-10 were very satisfied. Generally, anything less than 8 isn’t usually considered “satisfactory,” but the MTA stretched the scale. Thus, 74 percent of riders are willing to give the authority at least a 6 on a 10-point scale. Only 13 percent of riders said the MTA’s subway service was very satisfactory.

By and large, every major metric improved this year over last. According to the MTA, 84 percent of respondents find the MTA comfortable and convenient while 80 percent are satisfied with the courtesy and helpfulness of subway conductors and 79 percent are satisfied with service frequency. Those totals were at 78 percent, 77 percent and 72 percent last year, and yet, those seem to be the topics of more complaints than anything else.

Throughout the survey, the MTA reports increased satisfaction with nearly everything. Riders are more content with station cleanliness this year than they were last, and rush hour crowding on platforms and trains isn’t as bad it was in 2010 before the service cuts and fare hikes. Despite a bump in crime and fewer station gents, riders say they feel more secure on platforms and find platforms cleaner. If you too raised your eyebrow skeptically at this news, well, the MTA thinks it has an answer.

Countdown clocks are driving the bump in customer satisfaction. (Source: MTA)

As the authority notes, the bump in satisfaction may not be due to better service or cleaner platforms. Rather, the countdown clocks are driving the perception of better service. As the authority noted in the survey presentation, “All 54 subway service and station attributes were rated higher by those with countdown clocks in their station than those without a countdown clock in station.”

With countdown clocks, customers are far more satisfied with wait times and predictability of travel time and even seem to appreciate frequency and reliability of subway service even more. By taking the surprise out of wait times, the MTA can create the perception of better control over one’s commute, and thus, riders are predisposed to be more relaxed about their rides. Overall, 96 percent of riders were satisfied with countdown clocks; the other 4 percent are probably annoyed that they don’t work sometimes.

So what then can we conclude from these results? The MTA says that “continued investments in information technology, station maintenance and cleaning, and maintaining reliable service will continue to address customer concerns into the future.” Right now, though, the money seems to be in place to improve only information technology. Is the authority then essentially tricking us all into thinking our commutes are better? I personally like the countdown clocks and find myself less anxious over my waits. But when all is said and done, I’d rather have more train service. Personally, I’m satisfied with my daily commute but barely so. Are you?

17 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Photo of the Day: Why we can’t have nice things, redux

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 24, 2011

Last week, we saw what happens to low-tech MTA signs that are designed to help people find their ways about the subway system: Eventually, they fall victim to irate vandals. But what about the MTA’s high-tech countdown clocks? Here’s the view that awaited me in Grand Army Plaza early Saturday afternoon.

A shattered sign at Grand Army Plaza mars the MTA's new technological efforts. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

It’s tough to say what exactly happened here, but it’s easy to see the impact. Someone tried to smash the countdown clock. Perhaps he or she grew annoyed by a late-night 20-minute wait. Perhaps a aggressively drunk straphanger took out some MTA-inspired frustration on the sign. Perhaps someone with a warped sense of right and wrong decided to break stuff. The nearest victim was a sign hanging eight or nine feet above the platform.

In its annual customer information survey released today — more on those results later — the MTA trumpeted a system-wide embrace of technology. Riders who regularly use stations with countdown clocks are far more pleased with service than those stuck on B Division lines with only the lights at the end of an empty tunnel to forecast train arrival times. People find it less stressful and easier to travel if they have a sense of when the train is coming. So why the destructive tendencies?

As I mentioned on Friday, Transit is less likely to spend precious dollars on customer improvement measures if those efforts are going to waste. As most of us learned in nursery school, it takes only one person to ruin it for everyone else. Is that what we’re seeing here as New Yorkers take out their subway-inspired frustrations on the nearest inanimate object?

55 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts