Buses

Building a better bus rapid transit network

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 8, 2010

For the East Side, this Sunday marks a seemingly momentous occasion for that is the day that Select Bus Service along 1st and 2nd Avenues debuts. Unfortunately, this iteration of a bus rapid transit service leaves me wanting more, and a city looking to improve its interconnectedness needs more.

The details for the new service make it sound better than it is. With longer buses, dedicated lanes and pre-boarding fare payment, more riders can fit comfortably onto buses that should move faster, and passengers won’t have to wait for the painfully slow process of the MetroCard dip that current local buses employ. Cameras will be deployed to enforce the bus lanes, but these are changes that could have been introduced to buses long ago.

The real problem with the new Select Bus Service though is the routing. As the MTA’s SBS M15 website explains: “The new M15 Select Bus Service replaces the M15 Limited. Most bus stops for the new M15 Select Bus Service are the same as the former M15 Limited, but some stops have changed.” In other words, the M15 Select Bus Service is nothing more than a limited bus on steroids.

For Select Bus Service to work, it must transcend previously existing bus routes. It has to take people from areas that are underserved by current transit modalities and improve commute times and connectedness. I can take an express bus up and down the East Side, and I can walk to Lexington Ave. and take an express subway as well. While truly dedicated bus lanes are an initiative that should be applauded, Select Bus Service that simply covers preexisting ground is a half-victory. The service in the Bronx that connects passengers with subway lines via Fordham Road is better, but it too is lacking in interconnectedness.

Enter the Pratt Center. To coincide with the debut of Select Bus Service in Manhattan, the Pratt Center for Community Development released its Transportation Equity Atlas. This new study highlights mobility and transit access across neighborhoods and key work centers throughout the city. “We found,” the Center said, “great disparities in transportation access between higher-income, professional workers and low-wage manual and service workers. High housing costs mean that most low-wage workers live in areas outside the city’s subway-rich core. Those workers also must travel to work sites dispersed widely around the city and region. This leaves the lowest-paid workers with the longest commutes to work, and limits the geographic range of job opportunities for residents of high-unemployment communities.”

By highlighting commuter patterns from 13 low-to-moderate income neighborhoods and 10 job clusters outside of Manhattan, the Atlas shows how hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers are slowed by the lack of interconnectedness. Take, for example, those who live in Bay Ridge but work at JFK Airport. Since the Triborough RX subway route remains but a dream, to travel that route via transit involves some combination of bus and subway trips that can take up to an hour. Many people live close enough to the airport to take local buses, and these commuting patterns suggest, says the study, “the potential for improved bus service to open up access to employment opportunities in northeast Brooklyn and Southeast Queens.”

The Pratt Center’s work on this atlas is a part of its larger work on the COMMUTE project. Communities United for Transportation Equity is a coalition of community groups fighting for better bus service. As part of that effort, they have put forward their own version for Select Bus Service in the region. I’ve included the map below, but for more detail, check out this PDF file.

What makes the COMMUTE proposal better is the way it improves interconnectedness. The NYCDOT/MTA Select Bus Service plan, COMMUTE’s crosses borough borders and delivers workers from their homes to employment centers outside of Manhattan. While it makes sense historically for the New York City subway system to be so Manhattan-centric, the Select Bus Service routing shouldn’t suffer from the same problem. COMMUTE’s proposal combines various express and local bus routes and some parts of the Triborough RX routing to take people where they need to go. In that important sense, it is a better solution to the city’s bus problems.

For now, though, the city has to start somewhere, and the East Side will be that starting point. For many New Yorkers, Fordham Road is too remote a location to conceptualize true bus rapid transit, but routing along the East Side will bring it home. SBS can be a model for a true express service in New York City while COMMUTE’s bus proposal should become the city’s model for a real bus rapid transit network. Under that proposal, the people who need the service the most would benefit from improved access to transit routes that actually matter.

11 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ARC Tunnel

The ARC Tunnel postmortem: reasons and a future

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 7, 2010

These tunnels, the only way into or out of New York City for NJ Transit, aren't going to cut it. (Photo courtesy of NJ Transit)

For Gov. Chris Christie, pulling the plug on the ARC Tunnel was a matter of economics. According to ARC Executive Steering Committee estimates, the project will cost between $3-$5 billion more than anticipated, and without massive tax increase, New Jersey cannot pay for any potential cost overruns. “The ARC project costs far more than New Jersey taxpayers can afford and the only prudent move is to end this project,” he said this afternoon.

The information upon which Christie based his decision on the project came from a three-page memo put forth by the heads of the agencies overseeing the project. The memo — embedded after the jump and available here — discusses the rising costs of the project. Although no one conducted a line-by-line analysis of the budget, the FTA believes the final costs could be as much as $13.7 million, and New Jersey Transit anticipates overruns of at least $1.3 billion.

For a project that started out with a $4.3 billion price tag in late 2003, the ballooning costs forecasted its end. “The Committee fully recognizes the value and benefit of a cross Hudson transportation improvement would bring to New Jersey’s transportation system and the entire region,” the report says. “The Committee also understands that this action may result in the loss of $3 billion in discretionary federal New Starts money. Nonetheless, it is the judgment of the Committee that in the current economic climate, New Jersey and its project partners cannot afford this project and recommend its immediate and orderly shutdown.”

By closing up shop, Gov. Christie will see around $478 million flushed down the drain. The state believes it can recover some of this money already spent on construction, but the job losses today and in the future will sting. While Ray LaHood, the current Secretary of Transportation, plans to meet with Christie tomorrow, the immediate future for the ARC Tunnel looks bad.

Meanwhile, advocates for the project are dismayed. The Regional Plan Association slammed Christie for basing his decision off of unofficial cost estimates and fears that twenty years of progress on a badly-needed river crossing will go up in smoke. “The decision to cancel ARC is an enormous disappointment,” Bob Yaro, RPA president, said. “ARC was desperately needed by the residents of New Jersey who now face limited access to the most lucrative job market in the nation, less reliable commutes and more congested roadways at the Hudson River crossings for the next generation.”

Another RPA official noted that, despite the cost increases, New Jersey would see nearly unprecedented economic growth by completed this project. “With the 70,000 additional daily riders who would have used ARC, New Jersey would be more connected to New York City and the expanding global economy, companies and workers would continue locating in the Garden State, home construction would pick up, and the value of homes near transit stations would rise by an estimated $18 billion,” RPA Executive Director Tom Wright said. “All of this has been jeopardized by this decision.”

Yet, some advocates have highlighted the silver lining in Christie’s cloud. The ARC Tunnel, while badly needed, is not an ideal project. It doesn’t allow for Amtrak expansion and would require a new station cavern buried deep below 34th St. with no direct connection to Penn Station. The NJ ARP’s 2005 statement explores these issues further, and Christie’s decision to halt the project now could allow for these design flaws to be corrected in the future.

At some point not too far from now, the New York/New Jersey region will have to figure out how to improve rail crossings under the Hudson River. The ARC Tunnel, twenty years in the making, would have begun to solve our region’s transportation projects, and this setback, while major, shouldn’t mark the end of those efforts. Today is a sad day, but it shouldn’t be the end of this project by any means.

After the jump, read the memo from the ARC Executive Steering Committee torpedoing the project.

Continue Reading
34 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ARC TunnelAsides

Gov. Christie officially kills ARC Tunnel

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 7, 2010

Despite reports yesterday that the ARC Tunnel could be saved, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced this afternoon that the state will be canceling the trans-Hudson project amidst concerns that the real costs of the project will far exceed the current $8.7-billion. As the federal government has told New Jersey that the state must cover any cost overruns, Christie, as we learned earlier this week, did not believe New Jersey could foot that bill. The $3 billion New Jersey had earmarked for this project will go toward other transportation projects, including a mix of road and rail investments.

While speaking in Trenton this afternoon, Christie issued the following statement: ““The ARC project costs far more than New Jersey taxpayers can afford and the only prudent move is to end this project. There is no doubt that transportation projects are critical to creating jobs and growing our economy. I have asked Commissioner Simpson and Executive Director Weinstein to work with all interested parties – Amtrak, the Federal Transit Administration, the Port Authority, the State and City of New York and our Congressional delegation – to explore approaches to modernize and expand capacity for the Northeast Corridor. However, any future project must recognize the regional and national scale of such an effort and work within the scope of the State’s current fiscal and economic realities.”

Paul Krugman is not amused. Details to come.

55 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fare Hikes

MTA Board approves 2011 fare hike

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 7, 2010

It was a foregone conclusion that subway fares were going up, but the MTA Board has voted to approve a fare hike that will go into effect on January 1, 2011. The 30-day MetroCard will now cost $104, and while the $2.25 base fare will remain the same, the fare bonus will drop to 7 percent on purchases of $10 or more. For more details on the various changes, check out this post.

Interestingly, while the Board realized it’s choices were limited, the meeting itself grew a bit contentious as public speakers were harsh, and the MTA representatives decided to reply. NY1’s John Mancini reports:

Many MTA Board members echoed the sentiment that the state government cannot be relied on rescue the agency from budget shortfalls, and said the only other alternative would have been further service cuts. “We did everything we could do. We have nothing left to do,” said board member Susan Metzger. “I would rather have expensive fares than no service.”…

However, several public speakers who addressed the board went on long tirades accusing the agency of being more concerned with its Wall Street investments than the concerns of transit riders. Two speakers even referred to board members as “rich scumbags” and demanded that the board members be fired.

Board member Norman Seabrook said he also opposes the fare increases, but he criticized the harsh tone of the public speakers. He said the state Legislature would give more aid to the MTA if it was faced with the possibility of a transit shutdown. “Let the system crash. I bet you dollars to doughnuts that they won’t let that happen,” said Seabrook.

While Seabrook’s suggestion is a risky one, I’ve long wondered what Albany would do if the MTA Board allowed the authority’s system to crash. I believe the Board members could be charged with a breach of their fiduciary duties, but it would force Albany’s hand.

But for now, what’s done is done. Come January 1, 2011, we’ll be paying more to ride the subways. Again.

21 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fare Hikes

Gearing up for a fare hike vote

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 7, 2010

Higher transit fares are coming soon, and there ain’t nothin’ we can to stop it.

Later this morning, at 9:30 a.m., the MTA Board will hold a special meeting to handle the fare hike. The meeting will be streamed online, but I already know what’s going to happen. The MTA officials and board members will talk about how this 2011 fare hike is both Albany-approved as part of the funding package passed last year and a necessary evil. The MTA, despite over $700 million in internal cost-cutting, still faces a sizable deficit, and the authority doesn’t want to cut service. So we pay more.

As the fare hike proposals made the rounds a few months ago, the MTA unveiled a new approach to capturing revenue. Since introducing the unlimited ride MetroCard in the late 1990s, the MTA has suffered from a revenue gap. While the unlimited cards have spurred higher ridership, their frequent use means that the average fare is today lower in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was in 1996.

So to close this inequality in its monetary stream, the MTA put for two proposal: a capped card and an unlimited card with a higher price. The capped card would have come in two denominations: One would have been valid for 30 days or 90 rides for $99, whichever came first, and the other for 7 days or 23 rides for $28. Beyond the typical snark from New Yorkers — “how could it be unlimited if it has a cap?” was a constant refrain — the response to this proposal was loud and swift. Despite the fact that most New York subway riders do not reach the 90-ride limit in 30 days, the loudest among us seemed to hate this proposal.

The Straphangers Campaign were the most vocal opponents of the capped card. They believed that a capped card would not encourage transit ridership. Instead, potential straphangers would underuse their cards early in the month in an effort to ensure that the countdown of swipes wouldn’t reach zero before the end of the 30 (or seven) days. It was, in other words, a lesson in the psychology of payment plans. Would you rather pay a few dollars more for something that is unlimited or a few dollars less while having a constant reminder that the thing for which you paid could eventually reach zero before time runs out? With reservations, I supported the former.

At the various MTA fare hike hearings, the public came out in favor of the unlimited card. People want options, and later this morning, the MTA will vote for the options. “An overwhelming majority of transit customers told us that keeping 7-Day and 30-Day passes that provide for unlimited travel is preferred to a capped pass,” MTA CEO and Chair Jay Walder said in a letter to his board. “It was clear that the unlimited pass has become a fundamental part of life for many users of the NYC Transit system, encouraging ridership by both offering a steep discount and eliminating the need to worry about monitoring how often one uses the system. We heard that message; and in this proposal the weekly and monthly transit passes remain unlimited.”

So what then will the new fare structure be? According to documents released yesterday by the MTA, the 30-day unlimited ride card will cost $104 up from $89 now, and the seven-day card will cost $29, up from $27. The one-day Fun Pass and the 14-day card will be eliminated, and the MTA is targeted the 30-day card to close that aforementioned revenue gap.

The base fare for the pay-per-ride plans will not increase, but that’s merely incidental. Single-ride tickets will now cost $2.50, and the MTA is significantly altering the pay-per-ride discount. Instead of a 15 percent bonus on all purchases at $8 or more, the new bonus will be just seven percent with a minimum purchase of $10. This new math means that a MetroCard user must swipe his or her unlimited ride card at least 50 times over 30 days for it to be a better deal than the pay-per-ride card. Under the current fare scheme with $89 cards, the tipping point is 46 rides. So the MTA is, in effect, adding four rides to the fare equation.

The final kicker is the MetroCard fee. In an effort to cut back on waste and MetroCard costs, the MTA is instituted a $1 surcharge on all new MetroCards purchased from a booth or a MetroCard Vending Machine. Out-of-system purchases will not be penalized, and I’ve been told that the unlimited cards, which are currently one-and-done, will be refillable now.

But the real story behind the fare hikes — and in a sense, I’m burying the lede here — are the toll proposals that have emerged. Spurred on by outraged Staten Island motorists, the MTA is contemplating a proposal in which they do not raise the E-ZPass fares on all MTA Bridges & Tunnels crossings and instead jack of the cash fares. The full breakdown is available here as a PDF.

In The Times today, Michael Grynbaum tackles this discrepancy, and transit advocates are not happy. Rail supporters believe keeping the E-ZPass fare low discriminates against subway riders and doesn’t capture the full costs of driving while representatives from the Bronx in particular allege class warfare. Those who can afford E-ZPass shouldn’t get a discount over those who can’t. I believe however that anyone who owns a car in New York City can afford the $25 payment for an E-ZPass tag. This proposal is just one of two that the MTA Board will consider.

And so the fares will go up again. On January 1, 2011, we’ll be paying more for the subways, and as NBC New York notes, we won’t be getting more. Instead, we’ll be paying more to ensure that service levels do not dip any lower. In a city that sees over five million subway rides per weekday, that is a sad commentary on the state of political support for New York’s transit system.

9 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ARC Tunnel

ARC Tunnel not yet officially dead but on life support

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 6, 2010

Despite a report yesterday that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will soon pull the plug on the ARC Tunnel, sources close to the project tell me that word of the project’s demise may be premature. While saving the ARC Tunnel may be a longshot, those fighting for it say that Gov. Christie is not taking his decision lightly, and with the 30-day moratorium expiring on Sunday, advocacy groups are urging the governor to take the time to conduct a thorough review of the project.

Speaking on the record yesterday after the initial reports came out, Christie defended his administration’s due diligence. He said:

I have not made any decision I have not been given the information yet by my executive director of NJ Transit or my commissioner of transportation regarding what the real cost of the ARC tunnel going from New Jersey to New York is going to be, and until I get those real costs I can’t make a decision. But what I do know is this: I was alerted to the fact that there were potential for significant cost overruns. And New Jersey’s broke. And the federal government’s made it clear that New Jersey will be on the hook for any cost overruns on the project.

Well I gotta know what those cost overruns are gonna look like, and whether we’re going to have the money to pay for it or not. So that’s why I put a thirty day halt to construction said go back sharpen your pencils and come back to me. The thirty days runs up this week. When I get back to New Jersey tomorrow I’ll be meeting with my transportation commissioner and my New Jersey transit executive director and they’ll give me information and I’ll have to make a decision. But no I haven’t made any decisions yet at all.

Sources say that Christie understand the magnitude of this project. He knows that $600 million in contracts has already been awarded; he knows that the $3 billion in federal money will create thousands of jobs for a state struggling through a bad economy; he knows that the New York region will continue to grow and that rail access into and out of the city needs to expand. He knows that other municipalities are chomping at the bit for a crack of that $3 billion from the feds, and he also knows that his state cannot afford to spend money it doesn’t have.

Noting that he won’t get the support from the federal government or from the city of New York to cover potential cost overruns today, he said that the project’s future boils down to one of pure economics. “The criteria will be the reliability of the numbers that I’m provided and the back-up for that in terms of what the real cost of this project will be — and then making a cold-hearted analysis of whether the state of New Jersey can afford it,” he said.

While Sen. Frank Lautenberg suggested that the Port Authority cover overruns, Christie has noted that the Port Authority’s money comes from New Jersey. In other words, that idea seems to be a non-starter.

Currently, New Jersey Transit officials are conducting a line-by-line review of the ARC Tunnel’s budget and projected expenses in an effort to identify potential cost overruns and a true price tag. Thomas Wright and Juliette Michaelson at the RPA have urged Christie to extend this review. The project, they noted, originated in 1990 and should not be so lightly discarded. They write:

Both the TTF and ARC are critical to the future of the state, and options exist to see them both through. Gov. Christie could continue to negotiate with the construction unions, which have already indicated a willingness to make concessions on their contracts. The Port Authority, a bi-state agency with long-range planning expertise and a core competency in building infrastructure, could also take over the project and assume any potential cost overruns. A compromise could also be negotiated, whereby Gov. Christie reallocated the revenue from future Turnpike toll increases ($1.25 billion) to the TTF and transit users funded the gap with a new “ARC Surcharge” on their fares. Finally, instead of worrying about potential cost overruns that may or may not materialize — the contract bids that have come in so far are right on budget — we could move forward with the financing plan we have in place now, and worry about budget overruns if and when they materialize.

If Gov. Christie is serious about killing ARC, then he must do his due diligence and determine the price that New Jersey’s economy will be paying in terms of more delays and over-crowding on NJ TRANSIT trains, and the effect of poor transit service on individuals and businesses seeking to locate in New Jersey.

Thirty days may be long enough to kill ARC, but it is surely not enough time to devise a successful strategy to fund both the best-planned transit investment in the nation and the necessary maintenance of the state’s road system. Before killing ARC, we call on Gov. Christie to extend the review period to 90 days, giving himself and other state leaders a meaningful chance to keep New Jersey competitive and sustainable.

And so we wait on the future of a project that is entirely necessary for the region and seemingly on life support. It’s not too late for the ARC Tunnel to be saved, but the clock is ticking.

16 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Paladino: ‘I’m going to take the MTA apart piece by piece’

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 6, 2010

For the most part, the MTA has not played a starring role in the race for governor of New York. Despite the authority’s financial struggles and the attack on the payroll tax from the area’s suburban counties, neither Republican candidate Carl Paladino nor Democratic nominee Andrew Cuomo have paid more than lip service to the MTA. That changed yesterday.

While fighting against a 24-point deficit in the latest polls, Paladino opined on the MTA during a Crain’s breakfast yesterday. The Daily News’ Daily Politics has the transcript, and Paladino’s remarks on the MTA are what you would expect:

I’m going to take the MTA apart piece by piece. I will put it under a microscope. I will put competent management in, management that really understands how to work and how we efficiently and cost-productively work. … I will take it apart piece by piece. I will expose it to the people. And then you see how fast the legislature lets me take the MTA and bring it back into the government, back under the control of the New York State Department of Transportation, and back under the control of the people. Because right now this faceless giant is killing this community. It’s, it’s horrible, the effect.

Despite this pledge, the GOP nominee also said he would fire Jay Walder, a statement that makes me believe he hasn’t been paying attention. For all of the MTA’s faults, Walder has led an effort to trim over $700 million in annual spending from the MTA’s budget. If that’s not competent management, I’m not sure what is, and for that alone, he should not be fired before his six-year term is up.

Anyway, as with most politician of any persuasion in New York, Paladino doesn’t seem to understand that the MTA is a creature of the state of New York. There’s no need to put the MTA under the control of the Department of Transportation — another bureaucratic nightmare — when the state Senate and Assembly already has oversight control over the MTA and the Governor can appoint the authority’s head. Instead of a real discourse on the state’s transportation needs, it seems as though New York voters are just going to get the same old, same old from its candidates.

27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Straphangers Campaign

In annual Straphangers report, 7 takes top honors

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 6, 2010

The 7 train — favored by John Rocker and urban anthropologists everywhere — is the city’s top subway route, according to the annual State of the Subway Report released this morning by the Straphangers Campaign. For the second year in a row and sixth time out of the previous 13, the IRT Flushing route leads the pack while the C train, that sad 8th Ave. local, has been rated the worst for the third year running and by no small margin.

The State of the Subways Report Card, an annual release since 1980, tracks each line along six measures, and this year, with a decade and a half of heavy investment in new rolling stock behind us, the Straphangers found that trains breakdown less frequently, are cleaner and feature more intelligible on-board announcements. “This positive trend reflects the arrival of new model subway cars and better maintenance of Transit’s aging fleet,” the Straphangers said in their report. However, the regularity of service across the subway lines varies dramatically though, and riders still struggle to find seats during peak hours.

On a scale based off of a swipe of a subway ride with $2.25 being the highest, the 7 earned a $1.60 rating, with the L right behind it at $1.45. “The 7 ranked highest,” said the report, “because it performs best in the system on subway car cleanliness and above average on four measures: frequency of scheduled service, regularity of service, delays caused by mechanical breakdowns, and seat availability at the most crowded point. The line did not get a higher rating because it performed below average on announcements.”

The C train, meanwhile, earned just a $0.55 rating while the 2, D and R trains tied for second-worst but with ratings of $0.90. “The C line performs below average on five measures: amount of scheduled service, delays caused by mechanical breakdowns and announcements (all three next to worst); regularity of service; and cleanliness,” explained the Straphangers. “The line performed better than average on one measure: chance of getting a seat at rush hour.”

As I complain every year, the Straphangers still release their reports as PDF files instead of web pages with tables. So to view the full line-by-line results, you’ll have to check out their four PDF files (line ratings, table of results, best and worst and historical rankings. I’ll break down the findings though.

The Straphangers, often tough critics of the subway system, praised the MTA for its improvements on breakdowns, cleanliness and in-car announcements. They report notes:

  • The car breakdown rate improved from an average mechanical failure every 134,795 in 2008 to 170,314 miles in the 12-month period ending May 2010 — a gain of 26%. This positive trend reflects the arrival of new model subway cars and better maintenance of Transit’s aging fleet. We found sixteen lines improved (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, B, E, F, J/Z, L, M, N, Q, R, V and W), while five lines worsened (2, A, C, D and G) and one stayed the same (1).
  • Subway cars went from 91% rated clean in our last report to 95% in our current report. We found that twenty lines improved (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, L, M, N, Q, R, V and W) and two worsened slightly (2 and J/Z).
  • Accurate and understandable subway car announcements improved, going from 90% in our last report to 91% in the current report. This likely reflected in part the increasing use of automated announcements on ’new technology“ cars. We found eleven lines improved (1, 3, B, D, E, F, G, J/Z, L, Q and W), five worsened (2, 6, 7, R and V) and six did not change (4, 5, A, C, M and N).

In terms of how various subway lines performed, the Straphangers offered up these top-line observations:

  • Breakdowns: The M had the best record on delays caused by car mechanical failures: once every 1,045,886 miles. The G was worst, with a car breakdown rate sixteen times higher: every 60,039 miles.
  • Cleanliness: The 7, L and V were the cleanest lines, with only 1% of cars having moderate or heavy dirt, while 11% of cars on the dirtiest lines — the J/Z and R — had moderate or heavy dirt, a rate more than ten times higher.
  • Chance of getting a seat: We rate a rider’s chance of getting a seat at the most congested point on the line. We found the best chance is on the B line, where riders had a 68% chance of getting a seat during rush hour at the most crowded point. The 2 ranked worst and was much more overcrowded, with riders having only a 27% chance of getting a seat.
  • Amount of scheduled service: The 6 line had the most scheduled service, with two-and-a-half minute intervals between trains during the morning and evening rush hours. The M ranked worst, with ten-minute intervals between trains all through the day.
  • Regularity of service: The J/Z line had the greatest regularity of service, arriving within two to four minutes of its scheduled interval 93% of the time. The most irregular line is the A, which performed with regularity only 83% of the time.
  • In-car announcements: The 5, E, L, M and W lines had a perfect performance for adequate announcements made in its subway cars, missing no announcements, and reflecting the automation of announcements. The R was worst, missing announcements 25% of the time.

The Straphangers say they publish this report every year because the MTA is hesitant to release broad report cards of their service. Howard Roberts’ Rider Report Cards went the way of the dodo after one and a half cycles, and the Straphangers have continued to push Transit for information on how trains perform. Lately, the authority has released more data about on-time rates and the like, but nothing as comprehensive as the Straphangers’ efforts have emerged from Transit. “We hope,” the advocacy group said, “that these efforts — combined with the concern and activism of many thousands of city transit riders — will win better subway and bus service for New York City.”

Postscript: The data in this year’s report still includes the V and W lines because the Straphangers conducted their survey before Transit implemented the June service cuts. Next year’s report will show the impact the cuts had on the system. For an entertaining look back at a system vastly improved, check out WNYC’s unearthing of the 1985 State of the Subways report. Today, we worry about litter; twenty five years ago, we worried about broken doors and cars with working lights.

7 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

From Transit, a new focus on the customer

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 6, 2010

Initiatives such as the new Customer Information Center show that the MTA is paying more attention to its riders. (Photo courtesy of New York City Transit)

Over the past few months, I’ve been very critical of the MTA’s attitude toward customer service. Oftentimes, the authority seems to run its train system with little regard for those who pay to ride, and while some of its problems stem from a lack of funding, others are institutional. Express train operators do not wait for connecting passengers from a local train because of orders to stay on schedule; station cleaners do a half-hearted — or no-hearted — job.

Yesterday, then, when the MTA unveiled its multi-tiered approach to real-time information, I was pleased because this is a project that is all about the customer. With the new Station Advisory Information Display signs, no longer will straphangers be left waiting endlessly for a train or a garbled announcement of a service delay. Instead, we’ll get information as we enter the system and before we swipe our MetroCards. We’ll have plenty of time to figure out an alternate route and avoid the maddening delay.

The MTA too recognizes how this new technology should improve commuting and make trips less harried. “So often, new technology is part of the hidden infrastructure of the subway and therefore it is transparent to our customers even though they benefit from its presence every day,” Thomas Prendergast, president of NYC Transit, said. “Now, we are putting in place technology that not only improves their commutes but is also visible, actually having a tangible impact on their commutes.”

While we can laud the agency for finally bringing late 1990s or early 2000s technology to the city’s subway system, resting on those laurels isn’t an option. Even though money is tight, there are plenty of ways the MTA could, through small investments, show an increased focus on customer comfort and station cleanliness. In his “NYC” column earlier this week, Times writer Clyde Haberman tackled just that topic and offered up his suggestions for a more pleasant commute.

For Haberman, emergency exits — long a hot topic for debate here — are the bane of the subway. He and New York City Transit Riders Council chair Andrew Albert want the MTA to silence the alarms. “What’s the point of them?” Haberman asks. “They are as ignored by New Yorkers as the brain-numbing car alarms that used to fill the night air.”

His other suggestions are both simple and on the money:

What would it cost to insist during nonrush periods that subway conductors keep doors open for a few seconds longer to allow passengers to scurry between express and local trains? All too often — again, we’re not talking about peak periods, when every second counts — a train sits for a while in the station, then closes its doors just as a connecting train pulls in across the platform. The frustration for riders is incalculable.

It would cost the authority nothing, nor would it be an affront to the First Amendment, to require the owners of free newspapers to install proper storage boxes. At too many subway stations, the papers are piled carelessly, or simply dumped. Passing trains blow them every which way, creating a mess and increasing the risk of track fires.

Along that line, why not “do simple things like making sure there are enough trash cans for the number of people that use a station,” said William A. Henderson, executive director of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the M.T.A. “It’s not a big deal.”

Nor is it a big deal, while New Yorkers wait for so-called smart cards to advance beyond the experimental stage, for someone to devise a box for old MetroCards that doesn’t have a porous bottom that sends them spilling across the subway station floor. How big a deal could it be to see to it that a presumably important service announcement isn’t made at the very moment an express train roars through the station? And how much would it take to ensure that destination signs on trains and buses are correct? They aren’t always, Mr. Albert said.

The MTA currently suffers from both a public relations problem and a serious funding drought. Whenever news sites mention the authority, it was with an air of dejected resignedness that suggests we know the authority isn’t perfect but must live with it. Those in charge could go a long way toward improving their image in the eyes of New Yorkers by cleaning up our commutes.

Knowing when the train is supposed to arrive and then seeing the train arrive at that time instills passengers with faith in the system. Not slipping on discarded newspapers or navigating stations littered with discarded MetroCards would make the atmosphere underground a little more pleasant. Putting garbage where there aren’t any is a logical first step in cleaning up dirty stations, and none of these initiatives will carry with it a high price tag.

The subways soldier on though, taking baby steps years after other systems do, and we wait for that cleaner ride. At least now we know with more certainty if and when our train will indeed arrive.

4 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ARC Tunnel

Report: New Jersey pulls plug on ARC Tunnel

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 5, 2010

These tunnels, the only way into or out of New York City for NJ Transit, aren't going to cut it. (Photo courtesy of NJ Transit)

Via Andrea Bernstein at Transportation Nation:

Three sources familiar with the $8.7 billion tunnel under the Hudson river from NJ, say, barring an unexpected, last-minute change of heart from Governor Chris Christie, the ARC transit tunnel under the Hudson river is dead. The sources say Christie will likely announce this week that he’s restructuring NJ’s portion of the money to go to roads. The FTA and the Port Authority will recoup their $3 billion each, though the Port’s money will likely go into other regional projects.

The writing had been on the wall for this project since September 13 when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie suspended work on it to “review costs.” The state’s leaders feared that the $8.7-billion price tag was too conservative and that the state would be forced to pony up money it didn’t have. At one point, Christie claimed that the project could cost $5 billion more than expected.

On September 16, as activists urged Christie to resume work on the project, I explored the governor’s wavering commitment to the much-needed transit project, and by September 21, it seemed clear that New Jersey would takes its tunnel investment and siphon it into its transit fund with a heavy emphasis on road spending. That’s exactly what appears to be happening.

As recently as yesterday, New Jersey officials confirmed that the ARC Tunnel money could go into New Jersey’s empty transportation coffers. “I don’t know,” Jim Simpson, Christie’s transportation commissioner, said in response to questions of the funds’ future, “but let’s look at the source of the money. You’ve got a billion dollars of federal money that comes to the New Jersey Department of Transportation that would normally be associated with highway projects. You’ve got that billion coming in—100 million a year—that is rededicated, flexed to ARC. So if ARC didn’t happen there’s a billion dollars for roads and bridges and things like that.”

The ARC money will most likely be funneled into New Jersey’s near-empty Transportation Trust Fund. While some of the money will go to rail — the past breakdown is available here — any New Jersey transit upgrades will pale in comparison with the potential future benefits to the region and state from the ARC Tunnel.

And so, there appears to be no future for this project. Michael Bloomberg said that, as this project has long been New Jersey’s baby, the city will not step in to fill the funding void. The Port Authority has expressed its support, but without New Jersey’s $3 billion contribution, the PA doesn’t have the money to keep it going. The Port Authority has not yet said how it will deploy the money it had committed to the ARC project.

While Transportation Nation called this a huge blow to a transit-oriented Obama Administration, the impact of this decision wille extend well beyond Washington. Despite the project’s flaws, the region needs to increase its rail capacity into and out of Manhattan. With Christie’s decision, the Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel will remain but a dream on paper, and the Access to the Region’s Core will not be improved. What a shame.

64 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts