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

News and Views on New York City Transportation

Fare HikesService Cuts

The fare remains the same, at least for 2010

by Benjamin Kabak July 1, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on July 1, 2010

Twenty ten has been very unkind for the MTA. The year started out with Albany robbing the authority of over $143 million, and it’s been one bad piece of economic news after another. The payroll tax has fallen around $300 million short of expectations. The MTA has to go through the charade of public hearings to cut station agents. Now, Albany might outlaw OPTO and station agent reductions until 2013 all without providing much-needed funds for these unnecessary positions.

Through it all, the MTA has implemented a sweeping series of service cuts that has left bus commuters reeling and has restructured subway service patterns throughout parts of three boroughs. The agency won’t, however, seek to raise the fares until 2011 when it has legal permission to do so. In speaking with John Gambling on WOR radio yesterday morning, Jay Walder reiterated that position. “It will not come earlier,” Walder said. “We’re going to hold to the schedule.”

That’s the good news. The bad news, says Walder, is that the fare hikes will be far greater than the 7.5 percent increase the agency’s four-year plan had stipulated in 2009. “We’re grappling with an exceptionally difficult financial times and that requires tough decisions,” the authority’s chairman and CEO said. “It requires things that are painful for our employees and our customers, and we have to recognize there’s no easy way out.”

I can’t even begin to speculate on the size of the next fare hike. The agency still has, by most accounts, to fill a budget hole of nearly $300 million and will propose its solution later this month when it unveils its financial plan. We could see an increase of 15 percent or more. I wonder if this is the right approach.

I’ve long espoused the theory that the MTA should raise fares as much as it can before cutting service. It boils down the simplicity of the authority’s mission: It is supposed to be supplying a service to the public in the form of efficient, fast and frequent mass transit to meet rider demands. As Section 1264 of New York’s Public Authorities Law says, the MTA’s purpose is to provide for the “continuance, further development and improvement of commuter transportation.” Service cuts seem anathema to that goal.

One of the problems lies in the MTA’s approach to the fares. The authority isn’t required to hold down fares or artificially deflate them, and yet it has. With unlimited-ride MetroCard programs and pay-per-ride discounts, we are paying less per ride on average in real dollars than we did in 1996. As deficits grow, that the fares haven’t kept pace with inflation is just a bad business practice.

Another problem is one of priorities. Perhaps I’m unique in this sense, but I’d rather pay more for the same service today than pay the same for less service today or pay more for less service tomorrow. We know the MTA won’t restore the service cuts when they raise fares in January, but had they chosen to raise fares by five percent this year, the increase in revenue would have been more than enough to stave off the cuts. If that’s the price for a public transit network that doesn’t shudder under the weight of demand, then so be it. My 30-day MetroCard costs me approximately $1 per ride as it is; I can withstand a fare increase.

In the end, this discussion is one of policy. Would the MTA rather incur the wrath of riders and politicians over the third fare increase in as many years or through service cuts? For now, the answer is service cuts, but the authority should make sure that their customers know the service cuts — and the eventual fare hikes — were brought about through inaction in Albany. The state has refused to provide adequate funds for Student MetroCards; the state has refused to enact congestion pricing or East River bridge tolls. Instead, the state has stolen money earmarked for the MTA, and then the same representatives who voted for that measure slam the MTA for its budget gap.

A pawn because of its status as a creature of the state, the MTA can’t speak out against Albany as those who fight for better transit in the city do. What the MTA should do though is raise the fares before it begins to cut service. Without providing ample service, what role does the agency serve anyway?

July 1, 2010 27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
7 Line Extension

To save a 7 station, an obvious redesign at 41st and 10th

by Benjamin Kabak June 30, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on June 30, 2010

A few months ago, the planned 7 line station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. had been read its last rites. The city — picking up the tab for the entire $2.1 billion extension — did not want to pay the additional $500 million this station would cost, and although it would be a vital part to the future of the West Side, the MTA was no in position to fund it either. Today, though, Mayor Michael Bloomber, under pressure from the Real Estate Board of New York, announced a simple engineering solution that will keep the possibility of a station alive, the project on time and costs relatively under control.

As The Wall Street Journal’s Michael Howard Saul reports, Bloomberg said he believes that plans for a station sometime in the future can be built into the project. He is now requesting federal funds to confirm the initial engineering reports, and when money is flowing again, either the MTA or the city can begin to right this wrong. “We need engineers to confirm that it’s viable, but we’re confident we’ve found a way to keep the prospect of a future Tenth Avenue station alive without delaying the current extension,” Bloomberg said.

The city is now applying for $3 million in federal TIGER II grants that will confirm that a redesigned station could be built after the extension is completed and if sufficient funds become available. As Saul writes:

Under the new design proposal, the new station would be built with two entrances and two separate platforms – one for eastbound and one for westbound trains. The MTA prefers now to build subways where passengers can enter at any point, no matter what direction they’re headed. But officials said the compromise preserves the option of the second station, allowing it to be built at later date without interrupting service.

Basically, the original station schematics had called for an island station as the 7 line current enjoys at the other Manhattan stops. Instead, the MTA would design the stop at 41st and 10th so that the stations are on the outside of the tracks similar to, say, 50th St. along the 1 train. That way, construction on the station could proceed without disruption to the train line as is happening on the uptown tracks at Bleecker St. right now. The solution is so simple it’s astounding it had not been proposed before.

With this initial victory in its pocket, REBNY officials say they will continue to work to identify funding sources for the station. A real estate tax would easily generate the $550 million needed to build it, but I doubt the lobbying organization would readily embrace that idea. “We recognize that funding for the full project is a goal we will need to work on collaboratively in the months ahead. And be assured that REBNY will continue toward that objective,” Mary Ann Tighe, REBNY’s CEO and chairman, said. “But without this action, and without this redesign, there would not even be hope that a station could be built. Now the residents and businesses located in this area, and those still to come to the Far West Side, will know that a station is still possible.”

In thanking the politicians involved in this process, REBNY President Steve Spinola gave a nod toward the residents, many of whom do not actually want this station at 41st St. and 10th Ave. anyway. “This funding is an important first step in fulfilling the promise made to thousands of residents and businesses who moved to the Far West Side because they believed they would have convenient transportation built in the near future,” he said. “We owe it to the community to continue pushing for funding to make the station a reality.”

Without commenting on the sheer obviousness of the engineering solution, in its statement, the MTA stressed a commitment toward wrapping up construction by the end of 2013. “”The MTA is fully supportive of the Mayor’s proposal to seek federal funding to study the viability of building out a Tenth Avenue station in the future,” the authority said. “While neither the City or MTA can fund the station due to financial constraints, we should not preclude the possibility of a station in the future. We will continue to work together to complete the extension of the 7 line on time and on budget.”

June 30, 2010 19 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
TWU

A costly and unnecessary no-layoffs bill moves forward

by Benjamin Kabak June 30, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on June 30, 2010

With TWU workers set to enjoy a three-percent raise next year despite a $400 million MTA budget gap that led to this week’s service cuts, Albany is set to handcuff the MTA’s labor practices. A bill that passed the Senate yesterday and now awaits Assembly approval will bar the authority from closing station booths, fire agents and eliminating on-board personnel numbers. It would, says, the MTA rollback $80 million in cost savings, and the hypocrisy from Albany on this measure runs deep.

As the authority has tried to close a budget gap of approximately $400 million, it has tried to work with the TWU leadership to find savings. After all, a fiscally healthy MTA is in the best interests of its employees, and the upcoming mandatory raises are more than anyone should expect while working for a company that’s bleeding money. Last week, the authority floated a proposal that would have saved it money and the union jobs in exchange for a lesser benefits package for new workers. The union counterproposed another plan that would have allowed for $35 million in savings.

In each case, a provision calling for no layoffs proved to be a sticking. The MTA won’t grant it, and the TWU won’t accept benefits or salary reduction measures without one. Meanwhile, the union is working behind the scenes in Albany to get legislation passed that would hamstring the MTA’s labor relations for at least the next three years.

The bill the State Senate passed is S03772, and it is sponsored by Martin Dilan, chair of the transportation committee, with Ruben Diaz, Ruth Hassell-Thompson and Diane Savino as co-sponsors. Ostensibly, the bill is entitled the Transit Authority Passenger Security and Safety Act, but with the TWU openly touting its passage, it’s clear that this is a piece of special interest legislation wrapped in the en vogue language of safety and security.

With a justification in the enclosing memo citing “threat of terrorist attacks,” the act requires the MTA to keep at least one train operator and one conductor on board each train and cannot close token booths until at least July 1, 2013. During the next three years, a TA Transit Safety Advisory panel is supposed to “study, monitor and make recommendations with respect to the public safety from terrorist threats and criminal mischief” at stations. “I really don’t want to micromanage the MTA, but sometimes public safety trumps everything,” Senator Dilan said to the Daily News this morning.

Right now, the bill is awaiting action in the Assembly, but with numerous sponsors, it should see a floor vote at some point. As the legislation ripens, the MTA is less than pleased. In a response memo, the MTA slammed the bill and Dilan’s line of thinking. “Decisions about transit operations are best made as the result of thorough managerial analysis and review, not mandated by statute or advisory panels,” the authority said.

In a word, this bill is a travesty. The TWU can’t seem to come to an agreement with the MTA over the layoffs, and so it’s using its powerful political position to exploit Albany’s dislike of the MTA. If this bill passes, the state assembly will have, in the span of eight months, stolen $143 million from the MTA and forced it to implement unnecessary and costly business practices without funding them. Trains don’t need two operators, and under this regime, the MTA wouldn’t be able to implement cost-saving OPTO plans. Additionally, every single station booth doesn’t need to be staffed. But that doesn’t stop Albany from acting. Barring layoffs until 2013 would ensure that we the riding public have to pay more for less, and you can thank our elected representatives for that.

June 30, 2010 27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway History

The high-priced origins of the Chrystie St. Cut

by Benjamin Kabak June 30, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on June 30, 2010

The 1972 Vignelli map showed the now-defunct K train making use of the Chrystie St. Cut.

When New York City Transit announced that, as part of their service cuts, the M train would run from Middle Village to Forest Hills via Sixth Ave., many riders were confused about this routing. While those in the know knew about the Chrystie St. Cut, only New Yorkers around for the death of the K train in 1976 could lay claim to knowledge of that connection, and after 34 years of silence, the tunnel connecting Essex St. on the BMT Nassau St. line with Broadway/Lafayette on the IND Sixth Ave. had been lost to the sands of subway time.

Today — two days after Doomsday — we know all about the Chrystie St. Cut. We know that a train with 60-foot cars only can slowly wind its way from Essex to the Sixth Ave., and we know that residents in northern Brooklyn and southern Queens are enjoying the new one-seat ride to Chelsea and Midtown. They ought to, after all; it was an expensive connection to build.

Our tale starts in 1954, nearly 15 years before initial revenue service on the Cut would begin. That year, the Transit Authority, the precursor to the MTA, asked the Board of Estimate for $172 million for capital improvements. In their request was a $37 million outlay for the entire Chrystie St. Connection that would allow BMT trains coming off of the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges to transfer over to the IND tracks in Manhattan. In 2009 dollars, that would be akin to a $292 million price tag, small beans considering the cost of the Second Ave. Subway and 7 line extension.

From the get-go, the project faced a lukewarm reception. New York City planning officials worried that the connection would be a “possible detriment to efficient rapid transit traffic movement” to and from Lower Manhattan. In 1957, however, these objections were put to bed, and the TA promised a three-year construction timeline. The Board of Estimates authorized a $10.2 million expenditure for the first phase, up from $9 million a year before, and on November 25, 1957, officials gathered for the groundbreaking. The price had risen to $58 million or $437 million in 2009 dollars. Even in the 1950s, the TA couldn’t control construction costs.

In 1961, a year after the TA’s initial deadline, trouble began. One report accused the authority of wasting money on the modernization project. As 1961 turned into 1962 turned into 1963, the costs rose from $60 million to $70 million. By the end of 1963, one report had the project’s cost at $74.8 million or $518 million in 2009 dollars. In 1964, the new connection was still supposedly one year away from being ready for service, and the city started a clean-up effort that involved restoring parks and removing unsightly barriers.

Finally, a decade after beginning work, in November of 1967, the Chrystie St. Connection went into service. While the passengers were confused, the Manhattan Bridge connection proved to be a hit. The Williamsburg Bridge/Chrystie St. Cut sections suffered though. The KK, a skip-stop service to Jamaica, went into service in the summer of 1968, and commuters were unhappy. The routes were slow and often indirect. By 1975, the MTA had announced plans to pull the plug on the Chrystie St. Cut, and in August of 1976, amidst budget crises and deficits, the KK was no more. In the end, construction of the Chrystie St. Connection took 10 years while K trains ran through the Cut for just eight.

When the last K train rolled down that line, little did New Yorkers realize that a useful subway connection would be severed from the Beame Years until the reign of King Bloomberg. It is ironic too that service originally cut due to a budget deficit was this time restored for the same reasons. I’ll have more riders of the M train later today, but it is a fascinating history. The Chrystie St. Connection remains vital today as trains coming off of the Manhattan Bridge have used it for decades, and now, after just eight years of initial use and nearly four decades of neglect, the Williamsburg connection has been restored. Through it all, we’re still waiting for both a properly funded transit system and the Second Ave. Subway, an original impetus for the Chrystie St. work all those years ago.

June 30, 2010 28 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City Transit

Report: MTA knew of ceiling problem before 181st St. collapse

by Benjamin Kabak June 29, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on June 29, 2010

The 181st St. ceiling on August 16, 2009. (Photo via MTA Inspector General)

The August 2009 ceiling collapse at the 181st St. station should have been avoided, says a new report. Barry Kluger, the MTA Inspector General, issued a detailed examination of the agency’s station inspection policies and procedures leading up the accident. He concluded that the authority had known about the faulty ceiling conditions and the possibility of collapse for ten years but had failed to remedy the problem.

“NYC Transit managers had learned in 1999 that a portion of the ceiling at 181st Street was at risk of collapse,” said the report, available here as a PDF. “However, it did not begin a comprehensive assessment of the ceiling’s condition until June 2009, just two months before the ceiling fell.”

The MTA’s inspection negligence, according to Kluger, was not limited to just the solitary station along the 1 line. Accidents at Bowling Green and 18th Ave. could have been prevented too. “Each of the three incidents reviewed during this audit indicates weaknesses in the adequacy of NYC Transit’s station inspections. These shortcomings increase the risk of customer injuries and service disruptions. The shortcomings also increase the probability that scarce capital and maintenance dollars will be spent addressing emergency situations,” he said. “Facing extraordinary pressure to pare spending, NYC Transit simply cannot afford the additional costs associated with emergencies that are clearly preventable.”

Unsurprisingly, the problem seems to be one of bureaucracy. According to Kluger, workers in Transit’s Capital Program Management division identified the structural issues in the 181st St. ceiling during a station rehab in 1999 and were responsible for identifying permanent solutions. CPM failed to do more than install a temporary shield, and when the Department of Subway’s Maintenance of Ways division took over inspections, it failed to question CPM’s work.

To compound the matters, MOW inspections are well below standard. According to Kluger, these inspections would take place from the station platforms. “From these vantage points,” he said, “no inspection could have adequately detected the extent of the ceiling’s distress at the 181st Street Station.”

Amongst the lack of communication across departments, the poor standards for inspection and the fact that other components aren’t inspected regularly, it’s a wonder we haven’t seen worse accidents underground. To remedy these oversights, the MTAIG has recommended the obvious: better communication and inspection standards. As the MTA begins to spend the $16 million appropriated for repairs at 181st St., Transit officials said they have already begun to implement these recommendations and to upgrade their inspection protocols. Better late than never.

June 29, 2010 2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Cuts

Dispatches from the service cuts

by Benjamin Kabak June 29, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on June 29, 2010

As the first rush hour in the post-service cut era dawned yesterday, riders throughout the city had to scope with a radically altered transit network. As the city’s commuters struggled to adjust to this new reality, service cuts coverage dominated the news. Reporters from various news outlets produced numerous pieces featuring exception reporting on various aspects of the changes, and I’d like to round them up here.

When signs get ost in translation

Although English remains New York’s dominant language, the city is filled with thousands of immigrants who are only just adjusting to life in the United States. Many of the subway and bus changes impact these non-English speaking communities. The M, for instance, ran through Hispanic communities in Brooklyn and Chinese communities in Manhattan while buses no longer serve Haitian neighborhoods.

To track these changes, WNYC’s Matthew Schuerman hit the streets and found signs only in English. The MTA urged those in need of translation services to call an 800 number, but communities were left to fend for themselves. Eventually, street-savvy New Yorkers found their ways to the proper train lines.

Queens residents protest residential bus routes

While many people were out in force protesting against the MTA’s cuts, one neighborhood association in Queens had a different gripe. Residents in Whitestone spoke out against what they saw as a poorly planned rerouting. Their target was the Q15A, an alternate route of the Q15 that was designed for passengers stranded by the elimination of the Q14.

When the MTA put this new line into service, they routed it down a few narrow residential streets, and local politicians requested a route change on the grounds that the streets were too narrow. Yesterday, with protesters watching from the sidelines, a new Q15A and a pick-up truck came to a stalemate as the street was not wide enough to let the two vehicles pass each other. The police had to clear the road, and neighborhood residents have renewed their calls for a better route.

Those who suffer the most

Times columnist Clyde Haberman tackled the service cuts in his latest NYC column this week. He says that the city’s poor are the ones hardest hit by the cuts. As I mentioned earlier today, Haberman’s charge is true because of the general disregard for buses found in American society, but otherwise, I think he misses the point. Everyone will suffer with these service cuts. Trains upon which people from all walks of life rely will be more crowded, and as the wealthiest opt to drive, congestion will slow down the city’s economy.

Union inspections slow down new routes

Over the past few days, I’ve received numerous reports of slower-than-normal commutes on the BMT lines in northern Brooklyn. While some of the delays are due to passengers adjusting to the new service patterns, amNew York says that union inspections have led to delayed service as well. TWU inspectors have done safety checks on the new M trains, and the lines should pick up speed as those inspections are wrapped up.

Fourth Avenue: The deepest cut, oft ignored

Finally, news on a topic I plan to cover more in depth later on: the R train along 4th Ave. is too crowded. When the MTA announced its subway service cuts, most of the attention focused on the new M routing. Lost in the coverage was the reality of longer waits and headways along the BMT 4th Ave. line in Brooklyn. Since the M would no longer be servicing the local stops here, those Manhattan-bound customers would have to wait for only the R train.

These eight-minute headways coupled with fewer trains has led to overcrowding on the R. Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, a frequent R train rider himself, said, “One of our people reported heavy crowding on the R at DeKalb, where they got rid of the M. The R is picking up the slack, but waits are near doubling and crowding is significantly up.” I wonder how this line will hold up under the pressure of the new crowds.

June 29, 2010 31 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Buses

On Day 1 of Doomsday, buses remain second class

by Benjamin Kabak June 29, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on June 29, 2010

Around the corner from me, former bus stops were clearly marked as such. At other points, though, the shelters sat empty with no signs and no buses passing by. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

For some reason or another, city buses throughout America carry a bad reputation. In far-flung cities across the nation, buses are what the lower classes take as transportation because they cannot afford the luxury of a car. Forget the cost savings and the environment benefits of a full bus; these vehicles are looked down upon by citizens who don’t use buses and the politicians who are supposed to be subsidizing their operations.

In New York, then, as service cuts sent shockwaves through the MTA’s transit system, it is no surprise that bus riders were the most confused. While Transit sent out waves of employees to help straphangers navigate a subway system with a newly-routed M line and no V or W trains to be had, bus riders were left to fend for themselves amidst a sea of gleaming CEMUSA bus shelters and some hastily and haphazardly hung pieces of paper proclaiming “This location is no longer a bus stop.”

As part of their efforts at assessing the MTA’s effectiveness in introducing the cuts to the public, the Straphangers Campaign sent waves of volunteers to the far reaches of the city. The evidence was anecdotally in nature, but it served as an indictment of the MTA as it attempted to guide passengers through the elimination of 570 bus stops and numerous routes.

The biggest problem was one of information or the lack thereof. Bus riders, said the Straphangers in a release, were confused by the service changes and didn’t understand the alternate routes. Along 9th St. in Brooklyn, for example, neither the B77 nor the B75 were to be found, but a new route — the B61 — took its place. Transit said it did not have “sufficient space” at bus stops to post comprehensive information about the replacement routes, and instead, the Authority tried to hang up unobtrusive, but also unobvious, signs about the new info. Go to the website for a rundown, Transit officials said.

Meanwhile, at other routes — an old B48 stop at Franklin Ave. and Sterling Place — the stop had been eliminated, but you wouldn’t know that from the signage. In fact, nothing alerted riders as to the location of the nearest stop, and with the old schedule and route map still posted, people could be forgiven if they thought a bus might show up. Contradictory indications — bus stops with the so-called lollipop poles still standing, no signs indicating the nearest stop, outdated route maps — filled the city.

This problem of an information deficit doesn’t belong only to the MTA. Because the buses are surface transit, they also fall under the auspices of New York City’s Department of Transportation. DOT is responsible for maintaining the bus stop signage and the shelters that dot the city. When two agencies are in charge of coordinating, no one is in charge of coordinating, and those second-class buses and their former stops are left twisting in the wind. It’s hardly surprising that numerous stops still appeared in service, and they probably will look as they do for weeks.

As I walked up Union St. today, I passed a bus shelter at 5th Ave. The bus guide-a-ride, such as the one above, was approximately five feet east of the shelter and not visible to those walking up the hill that gives Park Slope its name. Neither the MTA nor DOT had hung signs up in the physical shelter itself, and except for a police squad grabbing a bite at the Uncle Louie’s stand across the street, the road was empty. The now-defunct B71 could have been just a few blocks away for all anyone knew.

The physical reminders weren’t the only illustrations of the city’s disregard for buses. As of this writing, the maps posted on the MTA’s map page are out of date. Download the Brooklyn map, and you’ll find the pre-service cuts schematic. Considering the minimal amount of time it takes to upload a PDF, this delay in updating the website — to which the MTA has told users to go for up-to-date information — is inexcusable. Elsewhere on the website, PDF files of the new routes had already been posted, but users will intuitively navigate to the first page with old information. This confusion just compounds the problem.

Eventually, someone will come along to determine the future of these spaces. DOT and the MTA say they are working fast to update the signs. Eventually, the markings of the old bus routes will fade away. The road space will probably revert to below-market-rate parking spots when they should become areas for bike parking. The CEMUSA shelters might remain as on-street advertising and semi-useful street furniture. They’ll serve as stark reminders of bus stops that aren’t and of the way we regard buses and their riders. Even in a city of two million daily bus users, the system remains an afterthought at times, left to the aged and poor who need it most and now don’t have it.

June 29, 2010 24 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway Advertising

Transit’s first ad-wrapped car debuts along the 6

by Benjamin Kabak June 28, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on June 28, 2010

While most Straphangers were busy adjusting to life in the post-service cuts era this morning, some along the 6 line probably did a double-take when their regular train pulled into the station. Transit this morning debuted its first ad-wrapped non-Shuttle subway train along the popular Lexington Ave. IRT local route.

The ad campaign is for Target, and it promotes the discount retailer’s new store. Initially, Transit had said that the fully-wrapped subway car generates $250,000 in advertising revenue over six weeks. The authority later said that this figure was incorrect. At that rate, Target would be paying just under $42,000 per week.

Transit says it took two work crews three days to complete the wrapping, and the process required the help of computer imaging software. At first, the sight of such an obvious ad is a bit glaring, but why shouldn’t the MTA be milking as much money as it can out of its pristine advertising surfaces?

After the jump, a pair of views of this train car. All images come courtesy of NYCTSubwayScoop on Twitter.

Continue Reading
June 28, 2010 28 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesService Cuts

Lawsuits abound to stop service cuts

by Benjamin Kabak June 28, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on June 28, 2010

As a hot and steamy Monday dawned in New York City, millions of commuters found the shape of the transit system radically different. With the MTA’s service cuts in place, many bus routes were no longer in existence, and subway service patterns changed as well. Although politicians could have looked to bridge tolls or congestion pricing as a way to provide money to the MTA to halt the cuts, no one in Albany did so, and now private citizens are turning toward the legal system to achieve that goal.

As The Daily News reports, various organizations have filed or plan to file three lawsuits aimed at overturning the service cuts. The first suit landed in Brooklyn Supreme Court on Friday and was filed on behalf of disabled riders. Per Pete Donohue, the suit asks the MTA to “explain why cuts to 11 southern Brooklyn routes don’t violate state law requiring equal treatment for the handicapped.” Although a judge did not enjoin the cuts, he did set a hearing date for late July in the case. Another disabilities group plans to file a similar federal suit later this week, and the TWU also plans to file a suit to block bus driver and mechanics layoffs this week.

Although I can’t comment on the merits of these suits yet, the first two at least strike me as Hail Mary attempts. The MTA has been explicit in its attempts at adhering to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and although services for disabled riders have been scaled back, they’ve been so within the color of the law. The cuts may not be good customer service, but their legality does not appear to be in doubt.

June 28, 2010 8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Putting the service into customer service

by Benjamin Kabak June 28, 2010
written by Benjamin Kabak on June 28, 2010

When the subway system is running out of whack, the MTA often does not make it easier for its riders. (Illustration via @FakeMTA on Twitter)

By and large, the MTA is a typical bureaucratic organization in early 21st century American politics. Due to decades of political neglect and patronage, it is top-heavy with far too many managers, and due to years of overly generous labor practices, it is also bottom-heavy with far too many employees who enjoy comfortable benefit packages. But in another sense, the MTA isn’t a typical bureaucracy because it must also provide services for paying customers.

Most governmental agencies don’t have to deal with millions of people on a daily basis. They’re supposed to make our city, our state and our country run with minimal disruptions, and career bureaucrats exist to achieve that goal. We don’t see regulators on a daily basis because the regulations are highly targeted for certain industries and sectors. Although government may be pervasive, it runs in the background.

The MTA though must, by virtue of its role as a public authority running New York’s transit system, see the people it is supposed to be servicing every minute of every hour of every day. At some point or another, people are riding on trains, waiting for trains, buying MetroCards or needing directions. It is a very hands-on authority, and at the same time, it’s supposed to be providing a service while running a zero balance on its ledger books. Without serious support from the city and state, that is a nigh impossible goal.

Yet, the MTA doesn’t run itself as a customer-oriented business at times. Take, for example, a ride I took this Saturday afternoon. I took a 3 train from Grand Army Plaza with plans to switch to the 4 at Nevins St. As I make this transfer every day this summer for my day job, I have seen how this is a very popular transfer. Because the trains are directly across the platform — and not down and up a set of staircases as they are at Atlantic Ave. — riders need the Nevins St. platform.

While my 3 train sat at Atlantic, a 4 pulled in, and I thought I would be in luck. The 4 pulled out first, and the 3 crawled into Nevins. As the doors to the 3 opened, we dashed across the platform only to be greeted with the closing doors of the 4. The conductor on the train watched as people threw their arms up in frustration, and then the driver pulled away.

During the week, I can understand why express trains at Nevins St. do not wait for connecting passengers from the local trains. The rush hour schedule, particularly along the Lexington Ave. IRT, is a demanding one, and a slight delay can ripple up and down a line at capacity. But on the weekends, the schedule is looser. The previous 4 was eight minutes ahead, and the next one was 8 minutes behind. Instead of providing a service for its weekend passengers — a service that the schedule dictates it should provide — the MTA left those who are paying it for train service in the lurch. There is no explanation or accountability for this sort of behavior.

As a governmental entity divorced from the city and state for historical reasons of political expediency and financial well-being, the MTA bears the brunt of a lot of abuse. Politicians who opt not to fund the authority put their own failings on the shoulders of the transit agency, and New Yorkers have come to embrace the MTA as a sign of governmental bloat and inefficiencies. What happened to me on Sunday showed why people hate the MTA. It isn’t run, from the customer’s perspective, as a service-oriented authority when it should be.

Today will be a true test of the MTA’s abilities to relate to its passengers. Despite months of announcements and media coverage as well as signs that have been up for nearly two months, many people I saw today in Brooklyn didn’t know about the death of the B71, B75 and B77. They didn’t know that the B61 was now running a long, meandering route to Brooklyn Heights from Park Slope via Red Hook. They had no idea that bus stops were no longer being serviced by buses despite signs blaring this reality.

As subway changes go into effect this morning, the authority will send out the troops. The employees will greet frustrated and confused customers who just want to get to work. It’s time to see how the public sector can interace successfully with those who ride it. If Monday goes off without a hitch, the MTA could take the lessons they learn during the trying days of service changes and apply them to the daily days of travel. Perhaps, then, if the express train waits 10 more seconds for connecting passengers, people will think more kindly of a beleaguered agency.

June 28, 2010 33 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts

About The Author

Name: Benjamin Kabak
E-mail: Contact Me

Become a Patron!
Follow @2AvSagas

Upcoming Events
TBD

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

Instagram



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

Categories

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

Archives

Meta

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

@2019 - All Right Reserved.


Back To Top