AsidesPublic Transit Policy

APTA speaks out against the use of stimulus funds for operating deficits

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 23, 2010

Over the last few months, a growing divide has emerged amongst those of us in the transit advocacy community. Some fighting for transit dollars — such as Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign — have called upon agencies to use federal stimulus dollars earmarked for capital improvements to cover operating deficits while others — such as the Regional Plan Association and I — have come out against the use of capital funds as an operating band aid. In my view, it simply sets a bad precedent and allows state legislatures to further shirk responsibility for funding transit.

Today, the divide has spread to the federal level as the American Public Transportation Association, a federal transit lobbying organization, announced its opposition to the use of stimulus funds for operating expenses. Elana Schor at Streetsblog DC covered the story today, and APTA’s statement jibes with my position. “A lot of folks look at it as a zero-sum game,” Paul Dean, the group’s government relations director, said, “that if you add a federal subsidy, that’s going to lead to state and local governments decreasing their contribution, and you’re going to be back in the same place you were — with less money available to meet your capital needs.”

In New York, MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder has continually voiced his opposition to the so-called Russianoff Plan as well. Since the use of stimulus dollars wouldn’t come close to covering the MTA’s gap, the authority is still trying to find the $750 million it needs via service cuts, internal belt-tightening and better state-based funding mechanisms. The need for capital money and expansion, even at a time when operating revenues are low, remains a paramount concern for an agency all too well aware about the dangers of capital neglect.

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Cuts

FAQs on the impending MTA Board vote

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 23, 2010

Tomorrow morning, the MTA Board, after hours of contentious debate, will vote on the latest round of service cuts. By all accounts, the reduction in service, designed to save the deficit-riddled MTA $93 million, will be approved, but they are just the tip of the iceberg as the agency will still have to address another $400 million budget hole that has emerged since the cuts were first announced.

To understand the impact of the Board vote and what it means for the immediate future of transit in New York City, I offer up a brief FAQ on the vote.

Does the vote mean service will definitely be cut?

When the MTA Board votes tomorrow, they are doing so well in advance of their so-called drop-dead date. The cuts are designed to go into effect in June and will be rolled out slowly over the course of the summer. If the MTA’s financial picture improves or if the state is able to address the MTA’s funding gap before the end of May, these cuts could be taken off the table. However, the state is broke, and the MTA still must, as I mentioned above, close a $400 million budget gap. One way or another, we will see service cuts this year.

What happened to the Student MetroCard cuts?

Because the introduction of a half-priced Student MetroCard won’t begin until September, the MTA has decided to postpone a vote on that part of the cuts package. Political support is growing for some sort of action on Student MetroCards, and the MTA does not want to back itself into a corner by cutting the service now before the politicians have time to respond to constituent demands.

If and when the Student MetroCards are up for a vote, the MTA has structured the plan to give Albany ample time to save free travel. During the 2010-2011 school year, the authority would offer half-price rides to students, and only in September 2011 would any student discounts be eliminated. Odds are good that someone will step up to the plate before the MTA does away with free rides for students.

Can Sen. Espada’s bridge toll plan avert the MTA’s cuts?

Over the weekend, Pedro Espada, part of the Four Hike Four, surprised everyone by announcing his support for East River Bridge tolls. The revenue would be dedicated to the MTA, and all money from tolls must be, in the words of the Senator, “earmarked specifically for the restoration of the free student MetroCard program and other subway and bus services that are being targeted with cuts or elimination.” Sounds like a rescue plan, no?

Well, Espada’s plan has some faulty assumptions. He is proposing a $2 toll on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensboro Bridges and claims this toll would raise over $500 million for the MTA. Those who have studied the issue in depth — such as the Drum Major Institute’s John Petro — say that Espada is overestimating by double. As Petro writes today, this plan would net the MTA around $250 million. That would be enough, for now, to save student transit and take most of the subway and bus cuts off the table.

There is, however, one final catch. If Espada’s plan delivers just $250 million annually, the MTA would still need another $500 million to cover the remaining deficit, and those cuts would probably be reinstated. Right now, the MTA is running a dangerous political game by not proposing $750 million in cuts, but that’s the way it is. Any money from Espada is better than nothing.

Will the MTA raise fares this year?

As part of the last MTA funding plan approved in 2009, the MTA will be raising fares at the start of 2011, and the agency has been vehement in its adherence to that schedule. There will be, they say, no fare hikes this year. Still, some Board members seem to be floating trial balloons on the fare hike. If the MTA does raise its fares this year, it would probably be viewed as an advance on the 2011 fare hikes, and the authority would not, barring an economic catastrophe, have to raise fares again next year.

5 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Second Avenue Subway

Living in the Upper East Side’s blast zone

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 23, 2010

Residents of 1873 Second Ave., shown here at left next to the now-vacant Century Lumber lot, will have to be relocated for a month to accommodate subway construction. (Photo courtesy of Ben Heckscher/The Launch Box)

Building a subway through densely-populated neighborhoods replete with old buildings and infrastructure is no small feat. Construction involves digging and blasting, detours and street closures, and New Yorkers will still be waiting at least six and a half more years before just Phase I of the Second Ave. Subway is open for revenue service.

Over the last few months, as crews have nearly finished readying the tunnel boring machine’s launch box, we’ve heard a lot about life in the blasting zone. Just last week, Upper East Siders started to bemoan the late, loud blasts, and while the MTA maintained that all blasting was to wrap before 8 p.m., subsequent trips to the launch box site by Ben Heckscher of The Launch Box revealed otherwise. It’s loud; it’s dirty; it’s disruptive; it’s the slow march of transit progress as it tears up and then repairs a neighborhood.

Yet, for millions of New Yorkers, Second Ave. Subway constructive remains just an idea. We live and work far from the construction zones and do not see businesses struggling to compete with construction. Two recent bits of writing — one a news story and the other a narrative — help to shed some light on life in the blast zone.

We start with a report from The Real Deal. The MTA has informed the residents of 1873 Second Ave., a property on the west side of the avenue between 96th and 97th Sts., that they will have to be temporarily relocated for one month as the agency works to shore up the building. Next door, at the former site of the Century Lumber Co. building, the MTA will soon start work on a ventilation shaft.

The MTA in a letter says that it will pay the full cost of relocation and will attempt to do so with “as little disruption as possible.” Still, for Upper East Side residents, this is no small move. “This is devastating,” one anonymous tenant said to The Real Deal. “I don’t want to move. If I move it would have to be for good and I can’t afford that. I have been in this apartment for 10 years and have always paid my rent and I just can’t believe something like this could happen. I heard about things like this happening in Brooklyn, but never thought it could happen to me.” Not everyone, it seems, understands the costs of living on a subway construction site or the fact that the MTA will foot the entire bill.

For those who aren’t moving, though, the blasting — loud, disruptive, scary — has altered life along Second Ave. In a narrative about raising a family in a construction zone set to last for 10 years, Lisa Lawrence of the Upper East Side Moms blog writes about her young son’s reaction to the blasting. On a night of particularly loud blasting as the MTA started horizontal blasting that readies the launch box for the TBM, she writes, “my little guy came running out of his bed into our bed, scared out of his mind! My older two were very nervous and uneasy. After-all, we had begun to get used to the blasting and now this extraordinary boom?!?! My poor little ones. I am almost 31 years old, and I was scared out of my noodle! Imagine what they felt like!”

Buildings shake; businesses close; dust rises and settles; life goes on, stranger than it did for this out-of-the-way corner of the Upper East Side five years ago. One person summed it up best to Heather Haddon. Said Mike Borak, “The neighborhood would be great if it wasn’t for this.”

After the jump, video of a recent blast, recorded at 8:45 p.m. on Friday, March 19. It too comes to us via The Launch Box.

Continue Reading
19 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Metro-North

Back to the drawing board for Metro-North’s West Side stop

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 22, 2010

Nearly one year ago, I reported on Metro-North’s desire to build a station near Riverside Park on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. The station, eyed for 60th St. as part of Extell’s Riverside South development, would have provided for access into both Grand Central and Penn Station and could have served business, such as CBS, along the Far West Side and Lincoln Center.

While Metro-North is still looking to develop a stop on the West Side, the location at 60th St. is off the table, according to a report in The Journal-News. While the agency still plans to open a stop at 125th St. and Riverside, the authority the MTA no longer has the option to open a station at West 60th St. because development is too far along at the Extell site. Instead, the authority will explore sites at 72nd or 57th Sts. as alternate possibilities.

Metro-North Vice President of Planning Robert MacLagger spoke with Ken Valenti of the suburban-focused Journal-News to discuss the railroad’s plans, but right now, those at Metro-North seem divided over the focus of the station. MacLagger imagined Manhattan residents using the stop to commute to their jobs in Westchester, but Metro-North spokesperson Marjorie Anders believed that more suburban commuters would take the trains to their city jobs or evenings out in Manhattan.

Meanwhile, MTA reps and Extell developers have engaged in a bit of a back-and-forth over the death of the 60th St. project. MacLagger noted that the buildings were, in the words of Valentin, “built too close to the tracks to allow for a station to be built there. ” Those planning Riverside South disagree:

The Riverside South Planning Corp. worked first with Trump and more recently with the project’s current owners, Extell Development Co., to insure that the project complements the area. Paul Elston, chairman of the Riverside South Planning Corp., faulted Metro-North for missing the chance to request that accommodation be made for the station as Extell built over exposed tracks. “If they had acted two years ago, it would have been a slam-dunk,” he said.

Anders said Metro-North had told Elston two years ago that a site he pushed for, between 59th and 61st streets, wouldn’t work because the tracks curved too sharply. The Trump Organization did not respond to repeated requests for comment. An Extell spokeswoman did not return calls.

Jeffrey Zupan, the RPA’s senior fellow for transportation, questioned whether there would be enough demand for trains at the station. He expressed doubt that there would be the market for suburban-bound commuters that Metro-North expects. “There’s just not a lot of job concentration,” around the suburban stations, he said.

So what’s going on here? In a way, it sounds similar to typical MTA delays and in-fighting that have marred many of their expansion efforts. Extell had to move ahead with its construction at Riverside South while the MTA couldn’t come to terms on either a purpose or location for a West Side Metro-North station. Either way, the agency says it will select a site by the summer and begin the planning process. Some day, we’ll have Metro-North access along Manhattan’s West Side whether we need it or not.

23 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

To fund student travel, Espada proposes East River Bridge tolls

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 22, 2010

In a shocking move last night, Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada — and long-time foe of most things MTA — announced a plan to toll the East River Bridges in order to prevent the MTA’s service cuts. Last year, Espada was the leader of the Fare-Hike Four, a group dedicated to avoiding sensible MTA funding mechanisms at any cost, but with Student MetroCards on the chopping block, Espada has announced his support for the tolling plan.

“The MTA’s financial problems have not dissipated and it is evident that new funding is needed to prevent service cuts,” he said in a townhall meeting from the floor of the State Senate. “Last year I opposed a toll on the ‘free’ bridges because the revenue was destined for a general fund. I am proposing that revenue generated by a toll on the East River bridges be earmarked specifically for the restoration of the free student MetroCard program and other subway and bus services that are being targeted with cuts or elimination. The MTA must agree to the specific use of this revenue, or all bets are off.”

As for the details, Espada’s proposal is a start but doesn’t go as far as we had hoped last year. He has proposed a $2.00 toll on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensboro bridges, and he believes this toll would generate $525 million in annual revenue, enough to fund Student MetroCards and potentially allow the MTA to expand service. This toll will not discourage drivers from taking unnecessary trips, and the Harlem River bridges — those that impact Espada’s constituents — are not included in this plan.

Streetsblog, however, questions Espada’s math. They believe the net gain would be approximately $240 million, just enough to fund Student MetroCards and avert the majority of city-based bus and subway cuts. After the state’s payroll tax calculation error, I tend to believe Streetsblog’s math over the numbers coming from Espada. Still, the money will help, but whether the Assembly and Senate will approve such a plan this time around remains to be seen.

Espada, meanwhile, doesn’t believe the MTA would balk at receiving this money even if it is earmarked for student travel. After all, MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder has repeatedly stressed his desire to maintain free student transit. “I am fully confident,” Espada said, “that Walder would agree to this if it means preventing cuts to vital services and the free student MetroCard program. I am encouraged by Mr. Walder’s comprehensive, long-term vision for the MTA, but he needs help now to get the agency back on track.”

Help, it seems, is going to come from the unlikeliest of unlikely allies.

53 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service CutsSubway History

Remembering the V train’s controversial origins

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 22, 2010

Transit’s newest train designation is not long for this world. When the MTA announced on Friday that the V train will be cut and the M extended along Sixth Ave. and Queens Boulevard during the week, they put a eight and a half-year-old train on life support. Barring an economic miracle, the V train’s tombstone will read 2001-2010, and it will be a train few will miss.

Today, we roast the V train. It runs a slow local route from Second Ave. on the Lower East Side to Forest Hills in Queens via the 53rd St. tunnel. Designed to alleviate overcrowding along the Queens Boulevard line, the train never garnered much love, and transit advocates saw a promise of express service in Brooklyn that remains unfulfilled. That bright future won’t come to pass until the MTA’s financial picture improves. Instead, let us revisit the history of the maligned V.

For years, the F train ran express in Queens to 179th St. via the 53rd St. tunnel. The MTA had long hoped to connect the 63rd St. tunnel, opened in the mid-1980s, to the Queens Boulevard line, but that 1500-foot section of tunnel would not open until December 16, 2001, nine years after designs commenced on the project. With the new tunnel connector available, some IND Sixth Ave. train could run in Queens and into Manhattan via the 63rd St. tunnel while the other could run into Manhattan via the 53rd St. tunnel. Enter the V train.

The authority first announced plans for the V train in early December of 2000. The new local train was meant to, in the words of agency spokesperson Melissa Farley, ”relieve some of the pressure on the E and F lines.” Originally set to open in August 2001, the 63rd St. Connector and new train line were meant to increase capacity along the Queens Boulevard line from 41 trains per hour to 50.

Long before the first V train hit the tracks, though, the line was beset by controversy. Some politicians wanted the train to run 24 hours and also into Brooklyn, but the going got tough when the G came under fire. At a May 2001 meeting, the MTA approved the V but slashed the G. Instead of running to Forest Hills at all times, G trains were to terminate at Court Square during the week due to capacity demands along Queens Boulevard. Brooklyn and Queens politicians were up in arms, but the MTA gave them only a moving sidewalk in return.

The V itself, making 24 stops in Queens and Manhattan debuted on December 17, 2001, five months later than scheduled due, in part, to the Sept. 11 attacks. From the start, some transit advocates threw the V under the wagon. “My instinct is the V will end up standing for ‘very little used,'” Gene Russianoff, who wanted the express to offer an in-system transfer to the Lexington Ave. IRT line, said. “New Yorkers prize speed over elbow room.”

On its first day, the V was described as both slow and empty. New Yorkers —  then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani wondered “What is the V train?” — were confused by the train, and despite an extensive outreach program by Transit, commuters were baffled by the out-of-system transfer between the F at 63rd St. and the IRT and BMT lines at 59th St. The transfer from the 6 to V and E at 53rd St. was not a hit. “I didn’t know anything about the V train,” Donna Samaski said to the Daily News. “I came here looking for the F and now I don’t know where to go.”

Yet, as time wore on, the V trains became more useful. In May 2002, Transit officials noted slightly less crowded Queens Boulevard express trains. Instead of operating at 115 percent capacity during the morning and evening rush hours, the express trains were at 95 percent capacity with the V picking up the slack. Still, others wanted faster trains with better connections and thought that the 53rd St. corridor should have serviced only express trains with the local heading to Queens via 63rd St. “The V is a loser,” Russianoff said, taking a grudge against a train line to an entirely new level. “It’s slow and unpopular, and transit officials should rethink it.”

Today, though, the V is the V. It offers a slow ride from Queens into Manhattan but only by a few minutes. Those who opt for the local can often get a seat even during the peak hours, and with two different tunnels providing express service from Queens Boulevard, the route adjustments have simply became a fact of commuting life.

In a few months, the M will take over this tortured route, and the V with its controversial past will fade into subway history. Who knows what fates await the Brooklyn-based F express plan? Who knows how much more crowded the trains along the BMT 4th Ave. line — currently served by the M — will be? For now, these are the last days of the V, a slow route but one that eventually found its purpose.

41 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service AdvisoriesService Cuts

In new service cuts, V axed as M spared

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 19, 2010

If you’re looking for this weekend’s service advisories, feel free to skip to the listings. Otherwise, check out the rest of this post for an update on the MTA’s plans to cut service this summer.

The poor, poor V train is not long for this world. A child of 2001, the V runs only during the week and only for around 18 hours on a lonely local run between 2nd Ave. and Forest Hills. All of its stops are serviced by other trains, and in a few short months, it will become a part of subway history, doomed to be forgotten until the MTA has money to expand service.

For those who have followed the MTA’s latest proposal to slash service in order to save millions, the death of the V is a surprise. Early reports indicated that the M would be the designation to go. The V, running via the Chrystie St. Cut, would run from Forest Hill to Middle Village during the day and from Myrtle Ave. to Middle Village during late nights and weekends. Late on Friday, though, the MTA announced a handful of revisions to their service cuts, and while no subway cuts were spared, the M has been saved while the V will be axed.

Why the semantic change? According to the MTA, history and tradition were on the M’s side. “Rather than using the V designation for the revised service between Forest Hills-71st Avenue to Metropolitan Avenue,” the report — available here as a PDF — said, “the service would be designated the M. To conform to NYCT’s standard route designation system, which assigns the color of the route based on its Manhattan trunk line, the M would be orange rather than brown, since it would be a 6th Avenue route in Manhattan. While some members of the community were supportive of the service pattern change, many people expressed objection to the elimination of the M designation.”

Subway history, it seems, runs deep. “People were more comfortable with the M designation, being an older and more historic train designation than the V,” Transit spokesman Charles Seaton said to Michael Grynbaum of The Times. This color change, noted Grynbaum, will be the MTA’s first since the Q was rerouted from the orange 6th Ave. lines to the yellow Broadway lines.

In addition to this subway service change, Transit also announced a series of changes to the bus service cuts. The MTA has reduced the proposed cuts by $5.9 million, and certain routes including the Bx18 and Bx33 in the Bronx, the B4 and B13 in Brooklyn, the M22 in Manhattan, the Q14 and Q42 in Queens and the S42/52 and S60 in Staten Island along with some express bus lines will be saved. Many of these routes will still be scaled back from their current service levels but to a lesser extent than the MTA originally proposed.

“The enormous public reaction to the proposed cuts reminds everyone how fundamental the transit system is to New Yorkers and how painful any cut can be,” MTA Chairman Jay H. Walder said. “While our budget deficit forces us to move ahead with most of the cuts, we were able to take a number of the most painful cuts off the table based on what we heard from our customers.”

Despite this spin on the cuts, the simple truth is that the MTA is still cutting service. “Millions of subway riders will still suffer increased waits and greater crowding – as the subway cuts are totally unchanged and remain in effect,” Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign said in a statement. “And while a few thousand riders have obtained reprieves from very harsh cuts, tens of thousands of other bus riders around the city will suffer longer out-of-the-way trips and longer waits with more packed buses.”

For more on how the new proposal impacts the MTA’s other agencies, check out the authority’s website. Now on to the service advisories.

* * *

Below are the service advisories for the weekend. As always, these come to me via the MTA and are subject to change without notice. Listen carefully to on-board announcements and check signs in your local station. For a map of this weekend’s changes, check out Subway Weekender.


Please note: From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, there are no transfers between 23, and J shuttle trains at Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau. A trains skip Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau in both directions. There are no 4 trains between Utica Avenue and Brooklyn Bridge. There are no 5 trains between 42nd Street-Grand Central and Bowling Green. A special J shuttle will operate between Delancey Street-Essex Street F and the Prospect Park Q station in Brooklyn as an alternate.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, uptown 1 and 2 trains skip 50th, 59th, 66th, 79th and 86th Streets due to station rehabilitation at 96th and 59th Streets.


From 12:01 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, March 20 and Sunday, March 21 and from 12:01 a.m. to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, 3 train service is extended to/from New Lots Avenue due to work on the Fulton Street Transit Center and a cable pull south of Nevins Street.


From 11 p.m. Friday, March 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, Manhattan-bound 4 trains run express from Burnside Avenue to 125th Street due to a concrete pour at 149th Street-Grand Concourse.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, 4 trains run local between 125th Street and Brooklyn Bridge due to work on the Fulton Street Transit Center and a cable pull south of Nevins Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, there are no 4 trains between Utica Avenue and Brooklyn Bridge. For Utica Avenue, Franklin Avenue and Atlantic Avenue, customers may take the 3. For Nevins Street, Borough Hall, Bowling Green, Wall Street, Fulton Street and Brooklyn Bridge, customers may take the special J shuttle. These changes are due to construction of the Fulton Street Transit Center.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, there are no 5 trains between 42nd Street-Grand Central and Bowling Green due to work at the Fulton Street Transit Center. Customers should take the 4 or special J shuttle instead.


From 10:30 p.m. Friday, March 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, free shuttle buses replace A trains between Far Rockaway and Beach 90th Street due to station rehabilitations at Beach 67th, Beach 44th and Beach 25th Streets.


From 5:30 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 10 p.m. Sunday, March 21, free shuttle buses replace trains between 80th Street and Lefferts Blvd. due to track panel installation. Customers may transfer between the shuttle bus and the A train at 80th Street, 88th Street or Rockaway Blvd.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, 207th Street-bound A trains run express from Canal Street to 59th Street, then local to 145th Street due to station rehabilitation at 59th Street-Columbus Circle.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, Brooklyn-bound A trains run local from 59th Street to Canal Street due to a track chip out at West 4th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, A trains skip Broadway-Nassau Street in both directions due to work on the Fulton Street Transit Center.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, there is no C train service due to a track chip out at West 4th Street. Customers may take the A or D instead. Note: D trains run local between 145th Street and 59th Street. A trains run local with exceptions.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, D trains run local between 145th Street and 59th Street due to a track chip out at West 4th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, E trains are rerouted on the F line between West 4th Street and 2nd Avenue due to Chambers Street Signal Modernization project. For service to Spring Street, Canal Street, and World Trade Center/Chambers Street, customers should take the A instead. Note: Uptown A trains skip Spring Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, Manhattan-bound E trains run express from Forest Hills-71st Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue due to power cable work.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, uptown F trains skip 14th and 23rd Streets due to a substation rehabilitation.


From 8:30 p.m. Friday, March 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, there are no G trains between Forest Hills-71st Avenue and Court Square due to track maintenance. Customers may take the E or R instead.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, there is a special J shuttle operating between Delancey Street F and Prospect Park Q as an alternative to 4 service between Chambers Street-Brooklyn Bridge and Atlantic Avenue due to work on the Fulton Street Transit Center.


From 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday, March 20 and Sunday, March 21, Jamaica Center-bound J trains run express from Myrtle Avenue to Broadway Junction due to track maintenance.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, March 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, the last stop for some downtown N trains is Whitehall Street due to track maintenance. Customers continuing to Brooklyn may transfer to a Brooklyn-bound N during the day at Canal Street and overnight at Whitehall Street.


From 11 p.m. Friday, March 19 to 7 a.m. Saturday, March 20, from 11 p.m. Saturday, March 20 to 8 a.m. Sunday, March 21 and from 11 p.m. Sunday, March 21 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, uptown Q trains run local from Times Square-42nd Street to 57th Street/7th Avenue due to a track dig-out north of 42nd Street-Times Square.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, March 20 and Sunday, March 21, Manhattan-bound R trains run express from Forest Hills-71st Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue due to power cable work.


From 12:01 a.m. to 5 a.m. Saturday, March 20, R shuttle trains run local from 59th Street to 36th Street in Brooklyn due to track cleaning.


From 10:30 p.m. Friday, March 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, March 22, A trains replace S trains between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park due to station rehabilitation at Beach 67th Street, Beach 44th Street, and Beach 25th Street.

27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesService Cuts

On Student MetroCards, the right audience and the right message

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 19, 2010

Over the last few months, I’ve been highly critical of advocacy efforts in support of Student MetroCards. The most vocal groups have targeted the MTA despite the fact that the city and state — and not the MTA — should be funding student transit. Today, though, the Straphangers Campaign ramped up their efforts to target Albany. The campaign members and City Council rep Margaret Chin parked themselves outside of Stuyvesant High School this afternoon and gave out 1200 leaflets urging parents to call Gov. David Paterson and ask him to support Student MetroCards. “Call now or pay later for student MetroCards,” Gene Russianoff said.

The Straphangers also noted that the city is supposed to reimburse the MTA for student transit due to lost revenue from subsidized fares. As it is painfully obvious that the city and state’s combined $70 million in student transit contributions do not cover the $214 million the MTA says it costs per year to run the program, the appropriate governing bodies should be paying for this program. Mayor Bloomberg continues to say that the city has no money for student transit, but someone — be it Albany, City Hall of the city’s parents — are going to have to pay.

11 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesNew York City Transit

DeBlasio calls for more anti-fare jumping measures

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 19, 2010

In light of reports this week that both subway and bus fare-jumping cost the MTA a combined $35 million in 2009, Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio has called upon the authority to keep station agents and save money elsewhere. “It is penny wise and pound foolish,” he said yesterday, “to layoff station agents and let security cameras fail when our transit system is losing almost $30 million to turnstile jumpers. We need to do more to protect straphangers and their own funds. A good way for the MTA to save money would be to start investing in subway security.”

While DeBlasio noted the huge increase in lost revenue to fare jumpers from 2008 to 2009, the truth is that the numbers jumped because the MTA found a more accurate way to count those who hop the turnstiles. Crime, says the authority, is at an all-time low, and NYPD enforcement will continue even as station agents are eliminated. “Subway security is overseen by the NYPD’s Transit Bureau, which has done a phenomenal job in achieving record-low crime levels in the subway system,” the agency said in a statement. “These levels continue to drop, and are currently 9% below last year and 14% below 2008.”

Meanwhile, lost in the brouhaha over fare jumpers is the fact that, despite the high numbers, the rate of fare-jumping remains below two percent of overall ridership. That’s an acceptable shrinkage rate for any business. Said the MTA, “Fare evasion is an age-old problem in subway systems around the world that is expensive for the MTA and for our riders, who end up paying more when fellow New Yorkers choose to break the law. It has existed regardless of station staffing levels, which is why we continue to work with the NYPD on cost effective strategies such as targeting high-incidence locations and placing cameras in key areas.”

4 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City Transit

Transit praised, guardedly, in annual PCAC report

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 19, 2010

The Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA published its annual assessment of the Authority yesterday, and as I did last year, I’m going to offer up a few takes on what the report says. You can read the whole thing right here as a PDF. It’s an interesting perspective on the MTA from those tasked with giving riders a say in the way the authority is run and the policies it pursues.

In noting that 2009 was a “tumultuous year” for the MTA, the PCAC offered up praise for Transit’s development of numerous initiatives aimed at improving travel times, comfort and accessibility. Select Bus Service again earned high marks, and the new component-based station assessment plan garnered praise. Yet, as we all worry about the MTA’s financial future moving forward, so too is the PCAC. “We are concerned,” the report says, “that available resources will not be sufficient to satisfy the demands of maintaining the system and providing acceptable levels of service.”

The tumultuous year, of course, started at the top. Over the course of the summer, Howard Roberts left Transit and Thomas Prendergast took over. The PCAC had appreciated Roberts’ willingness to solicit rider feedback even if the Rider Report Cards weren’t the most rigorous statistical sampling of subway riders, and the Committee has been pleased with Prendergast’s outreach efforts as well. The impact of the recent shake-up of the line manager program remains to be seen, and the PCAC isn’t convinced this program improves station or car equipment maintenance.

In terms of service, Transit has made due with less. Despite suffering through some tough financial times, the midday 5 extension to Brooklyn was a welcome development last year, and the Jermone Ave. express pilot program earned some praise as well. Whether that will be continued in the future has yet to be determined. The PCAC strongly urged Transit to be aggressive in its Select Bus Service rollout as well.

From a pilot perspective, the PCAC praised the F line study, the new DesignLine buses and the luggage racks on airport-bound buses. I think it’s important to acknowledge Transit’s desire to improve its service, but the PCAC report is silent on the future of these initiatives. As with many pilot programs, these began this fall but particularly for the luggage racks, obvious needs remain simply pilots. Transit should be quicker to bring these initiatives to the system at large.

As far as accessibility concerns, the report is guardedly optimistic. “It is gratifying that the NYCT is ahead of schedule” to outfit 100 stations for ADA compliance by the end of the decade, it says, but “given the current tight financial situation, it remains to be seen if the remaining 30 can be finished by 2020.” The PCAC urged Transit to make the new Mets/Willets Point station completely compliant as quickly as possible.

Finally, the report touches upon a sore subject for Transit and one that has plagued the agency for years: communication and customer service. Despite the unreliability of TripPlanner, the PCAC generally praised the agency’s attention to online directions and appreciated the new PA/CIS rollout. All is not wine and roses there, however. “There are many stations,” the report noted, “still without public address systems and NYCT needs to move expeditiously to remedy this situation for the reassurance and security of all subway riders.”

Additionally, both service diversion signs and the decreasing number of MTA employees leave the PCAC worried. As I reported earlier this week, the PCAC is no fun of the confusing weekend signs, and, says the report, “the prospect of an additional 500 locations without agents will further erode confidence in the security and accessibility of the system.” MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder plans to address both of these issues.

So where does this leave Transit? By and large, this PCAC report is a generous one. It does not attack the current physical conditions of the agency’s infrastructure, but it does recognize that financial support, or lack thereof, for the city’s subways is a problem largely out of Transit’s hands. Overall, the pilot programs are seen as positive steps, but turning many of them into permanent features has so far not happened quickly. Innovation benefits everyone only when it is brought to the masses.

Stay tuned for more on the PCAC report. The Committee levied some charges against the way the MTA lobbies Albany, and I’ll explore that in depth later today.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts