Second Ave. Sagas

amNY can’t have it both ways on subway ads

by Benjamin Kabak August 2, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on August 2, 2007

This cover is wrong on so many levels.

Usually, I’ll leave the amNY bashing to this guy. But, hey, it’s the subway.

Anyway, here’s the story. This morning, in my efforts to navigate the 68th St./Hunter College stop on the East Side, I noticed the cover of today’s amNY. It screamed at me: “Ads gone wild. Has surge in subway advertising gone too far?”

With a knowing chuckle, I picked up the paper, and the articles did not disappoint. There was one article about how the MTA has increased its ad revenue by $34 million over the last ten years and is continuing to explore creative advertising trends.

The other story, answering the question posed on the cover, was a whopping 194 words, and the answer was a resounding no. Straphangers – and, yes, amNY used the plural even though the one straphanger they interviewed was a 17-year-old from Jersey City – don’t seem to mind the advertising especially if it draws in more revenue for the MTA.

Shoddy journalism aside – one New Jersey teenager doesn’t count as a representative sample of straphangers – I want to take amNY to task for this cover. Clearly, they were trying to stir up a debate as they did last week when they seemed to be so outraged over the fare hike. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t bemoan a fare hike and be unwilling to accept more subway advertising. So what if there are Westin Hotel ads in Grand Central? If that means more money for the MTA and, thus, better service for us, then good.

As if to prove my point, the commute on the East Side IRT during rush hour is terrible. I had to get to a doctor’s office on the far reaches of the Upper East Side this morning. Negotiating Union Square is terrible, and it took me five minutes just to exit the station as 68th St. We need a subway line, and the MTA needs money. If advertising helps, I’m much more in favor of that than I am of cutting EMTs in the subways.

====

On a side note, the first story about advertising in the subways features a few interesting comments from Roco Krsulic, head of the MTA’s real estate and advertising department. Krsulic supported Norman Seabrook’s plan from last week:

Krsulic believes that more companies will cash in on new customers by dominating stations in targeted areas of the city with new forms of advertisement, such as the first ever Bluetooth interactive billboard used in the Westin campaign.

“Coors Light may be very much interested in 161st Street Yankee Stadium, but a vendor like Donna Karan might be much more interested in 34th Street Herald Square,” Krsulic said.

Well, hey! That’s exactly what I said. Let’s see it happen.

August 2, 2007 4 comments

MTA Absurdity

Mayor’s Aide: ‘Go see a shrink’ if you like taking the subway

by Benjamin Kabak August 1, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on August 1, 2007

The Mayor uses this car to drive to the subway. Lazy. (Photo: Robert Stolarik for The New York Times)

Oh, The New York Times, what have you started?

This morning, splashed across the front page of The Times – but thankfully, below the fold – appeared this scandalous story. Apparently, Mayor Bloomberg, long known as the billionaire Mayor who rides the subway to work with the common folk, hasn’t been totally honest with us. Much like you and I do, he has his drivers chauffeur him to the nearest (sort of) uncrowded express stop.

Bloomberg boards one of his two woefully fuel-inefficient Chevrolet Suburban SUVs at his house on 79th St. between 5th and Madison Aves. The cars head east on 79th and turn right on Lexington, just seven blocks south of the nearest express stop, where they pass not one but two local stops en route to the 59th St. stop. Personally, I prefer to take my converted Chieftan battle tank limo to the subway each morning, but to each his own.

This story came about after The Times received a tip that Bloomberg’s commute isn’t what it seems. They stuck a summer intern outside of Bloomberg’s apartment and had him shadow the Mayor to City Hall for a month, according to the intrepid reporter’s post on Cityroom.

The reaction, as you can imagine, was typical Public Outrage. People commenting on both Streetsblog and Cityroom accused the Mayor of hypocrisy. Others defending Bloomberg, and I must say that it’s hard to overlook his commitment toward boosting public transportation in the city even if he can’t deign to ride the local at the overcrowded 77th St. stop like the rest of us. (The Gawker comments were typically Gawker-ish.)

Now, I was prepared to let this slide. Maybe the security measures around him demand that he take a police escort to the subway. And as I said, he has been the best mayor in terms of securing funds for public transportation and expanding the system’s reach that we’ve seen in decades. So he likes to take a little more comfortable ride. Deep down, we all would.

But then his chief spokesman Stu Loeser (pronounced, as far as I’m concerned, as “loser”) opened his big mouth. Take it away, Cityroom:

Speaking to Mr. Loeser afterward, one reporter asked whether the mayor was taking the subway “for show.”

“No, he takes the subway virtually every day,” Mr. Loeser said, “because it’s the fastest way to get from Point A to Point B. He says this every day.”

Mr. Loeser added: “Almost every day, he says, um, you know, do you like taking the subway? Nobody likes taking the subway. If you like taking the subway you should see a psychiatrist, get your head examined, go to see a shrink. The mayor takes the subway from various places and various times because it’s the fastest way to get around.”

This means war. War on Mr. Loeser. War on our fake commuter mayor. Many of us take the subways, and we are perfectly sane. Sure, we may complain about them. Sure, they may be crowded during rush hour or slow during the weekends. But we love our subways.

We love our subways because they are New York. Non-stop, twenty-four service keeps this city alive. We’re the City That Never Sleeps because the subways take us where we want to go whenever we want to go there.

The subways are also New York’s greatest melting pot. The Mayor, a man worth around $5 billion, rides the train with people who live in the far reaches of the Bronx who could never dream of affording a car to deliver them to their low-paying civil service jobs at 1 Centre St.

Ride the subways through Brooklyn, and you can go from Coney Island to Little Russia to Chinatown. You can see Hasidic Jews reading the Torah in Hebrew and Polish immigrants reading foreign-language papers.

Maybe you, Mr. Loeser, need to see a shrink. Maybe you’re the one who needs to learn how to love and appreciate the subway. It might be good for you to travel with the rest of us.

August 1, 2007 14 comments

Rolling Stock

Riding an R160 down the N line

by Benjamin Kabak August 1, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on August 1, 2007

New subway cars are popping up all over the place these days. While they’re similar to the cars that have been running down the IRT lines for a few years, the new R160 cars sure do carry a novelty factor.

First, some history: In 2002, the MTA signed a $2.3 billion deal with Kawasaki Heavy Industries of Japan and Alstom of France to build the new cars. The estimated target date for the roll-out of the first 660 cars of new rolling stock was mid-2006; the order had an option for another 400 cars.

In 2005, the project turned from gold into lead as disaster struck. The 10-car test train, on the way from Alstom’s factories in Brazil to New York City, were heavily damaged. The project was delayed for months due to shoddy construction work. Finally, in the fall, the MTA completed a test run of the cars on the N, Q and A lines, paving the way for the current roll-out of the new cars.

So how do these new cars rate? Well, as Chris pointed out yesterday, they certainly have that new train smell. The one I took in June had that faintly rubbery smell of nothingness that you certainly can’t find on an unairconditioned R42 car during rush hour. Even the crowded train I took on Monday had a faintly non-descript and not-unpleasant odor about it.

As for the amenities, well, let’s just say the kinks need some working out. Take a look at my less-than-ideal Blackberry camera pictures of the ride.

Here, we’ve got the nifty “next stop” banner. Unlike the moronic maps on the IRT’s R142 cars, half of which point the wrong way, the route maps on the R160s update as the train goes along. Or at least, they’re supposed to update as the train rolls along.

I got on a Brooklyn-bound N train making local stops in Manhattan and Brooklyn. The map had the right set of stops but the order was completely off and backwards. For the entire ride, the train map kept telling me that the next stop was 86th St. followed by Ave. U. That’s useful if you’re at Coney Island and less so if you’re leaving Prince St. heading south. The pre-recorded station announcements were correct though.

I love this “future stops” function here. It allows the riders to relax knowing their stops are well into the future. It does help if they’re set properly though. This train wasn’t even programmed to display the local stops while running on the local tracks due to a service change.

Finally, after we left City Hall and started the slow crawl toward Cortlandt St., the train’s destination signs and pre-recording stop announcements told me that the next stop was Cortlandt St. Well, as I well know, Cortlandt St. is closed (and has remained closed well past the intended completion date for the renovations).

The conductor came on to correct the announcement, but as we rolled past Cortlandt St., the pre-recording voice again told us all we were stopping. Oops.

Anyway, I always love riding new rolling stock. What subway blogger wouldn’t? But even though these trains are supposedly through their testing periods, it seems to me that the kinks still need to be ironed out. Otherwise, the MTA may find itself with a bunch of very confused straphangers on their hands.

August 1, 2007 18 comments

MTA Absurdity MTA Economics

MTA may cut beneficial services to save money

by Benjamin Kabak July 31, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on July 31, 2007

So the MTA seems to be taking this whole financial crisis thing pretty seriously. They’re even going to start cutting small problems that they consider to be non-essential.

In The Daily News today is a report stating the MTA may cut its in-station EMTs. The Authority currently posts emergency response teams at seven of the system’s busiest stations, and those in charge feel the savings are worth it.

The Daily News has more:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which projects huge budget gaps, says it can save nearly $250,000 a year by killing off the “Sick Customer Response Program” in 2009.

Sick customers are responsible for approximately 430 train delays a month, the third-highest monthly average.

NYC Transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges said it’s “premature” to discuss the proposal, part of the MTA’s 2008-2011 budget plan.

Now, to me this seems ludicrous. The MTA is projecting an operating deficit of nearly $1 billion if they don’t see a tax revenue situation similar to the one they enjoyed this year. But the Sick Customer Response Program is a minimum-cost program that can benefit riders throughout the system. If the MTA wants to cut down on delayed trains and disgruntled passengers, rapid emergency response teams are a necessity.

Meanwhile, the good folks commenting on this story at Subchat are picking on the MTA for offering the holiday discounts in 2005. And can you blame them? The MTA stupidly handed out $50 million in discounted fares that didn’t do anything to increase ridership at the time. That would be enough to fund the Sick Customer Response Program for 200 years.

July 31, 2007 1 comment

MTA Economics

Maybe the MTA should just ask for that money

by Benjamin Kabak July 31, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on July 31, 2007

Growing up, I learned to always say please when I wanted something. Now, one New York State Assembly member is suggesting that maybe the Metropolitan Transportation Authority should try the same approach.

Richard Brodskey (pictured at right), representative from the 92nd Assembly District in Westchester, suggested last week that the MTA should ask Albany for more money as a way to avoid a fare hike. Another Assembly member, Linda Rosenthal of Manhattan’s West Side, echoed Brodsky’s sentiments.

MTA Elliot “Lee” Sander notes that he would gladly accepted state money if the legislative and executive bodies could deliver. But, as The Daily News notes, history is not on the side of the subways:

“We’ll take the money,” Sander said. “Maybe we will look at being more ambitious in our requests than we have been.”

The state has been shortchanging the MTA for years, the transit officials said. Money that has been raised through a series of taxes was earmarked for mass transit, but state government never passed the required legislation to send it to the MTA. For the first time, the governor’s office has indicated it will abide by the formula, and the MTA expects that to bring approximately $330 million into its operating budget next year.

To Sander, I say, “Go for it.” No one has ever come out behind by asking for more. With Gov. Pataki and Mayor Giuliani, the two men most guilty for diverting those funds earmarked for the MTA, out of office, maybe the MTA could even get that money from Spitzer and the legislature.

For Bodsky though, I have to wonder about his intentions. He was, after all, one of the Assembly members who killed the congestion pricing. It’s great that he’s offering Sander his advice, but the MTA would have had access to plenty of funds if Brodsky and others had passed the original congestion fee plan. Now, Sander has to go hat in hand to a legislature that seems fairly hostile to New York City.

The subways need the money to meet the demands of a growing city. Will the State of New York step up and give it to the MTA?

July 31, 2007 3 comments

MTA Construction Second Avenue Subway

Just why is it going to take so long to build a new subway?

by Benjamin Kabak July 30, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on July 30, 2007

If you squint, you can almost see a subway. (The hole in the ground at Second Ave. from Curbed).

78thAnd2nd, an online friend of Second Ave. Sagas, is guest blogging at Curbed this week. For his post, he hit upon an interesting question: Why is it going to take so damn long to get this Second Ave. subway built?

The MTA shut down parts of Second Ave. a few weeks ago, and since then, not much has happened on the street. Meanwhile, as we all know quite well, the Second Ave. subway project is due to last until 2020, and even the three stops that make up Phase I of this project won’t be completed until 2013.

So to answer our question, we turn to a recent piece by Alex Marshall, editor of the Regional Plan Association’s newsletter. He writes:

The first phase of the Second Avenue subway is a tenth the size of the original IRT in track length and has three stations as opposed to 28. Yet it will take six years to complete as opposed to four for the much larger IRT. Why is this?…

I think part of the answer is funding. If the funding stream for the Second Avenue subway were doubled, for example, could construction time be cut in half? If you add up all the time lost to individuals stuffed onto overcrowded subways on the Lexington Avenue line, if you contemplated the dollar value of the new development that will spring from the East Side once the Second Avenue is completed, it would make sense to spend a lot more money sooner to make the subway happen more quickly.

Marshall also notes that micromanagement and the recent attention to environmental studies, historical impact and and workplace safety measures contribute to the snail’s pace of construction.

The point however is one I made earlier today, and the one those commenting on my post this morning are making. New York City should be willing to spend money now to get its public transportation infrastructure ready for the next 100 years. The city, once a visionary in this field, has stagnated. Now we need someone to deliver the proverbial kick in the pants. But what politician will shepherd through a multi-billion-dollar subway expansion plan? Anyone?

July 30, 2007 0 comment

Congestion Fee Fare Hikes MTA Politics

New York should take its cue from London Transport

by Benjamin Kabak July 30, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on July 30, 2007

Every subway rider has his or her own vision for a better subway system. (Click here or on the image for guypak’s full version.)

Every few months, a thread such as this one pops up on the Straphangers Riders Diaries board or on Subchat. One person proposes the ways in which the New York City subway system could be extended to be a more inclusive system.

In the future MTA system linked above, the 7 goes beyond Main Street in Flushing and the F extends past its eastern terminus in Jamaica. The V journeys through a now-neglected part of Queens before meeting up with the A out to Far Rockaway. The 2 extends to Kings Plaza; the G permanently stops at Church Ave. (instead of its current planned temporary excursion into Kensington); the A runs a cross-Bronx line; and the N and W finally deliver subway riders to LaGuardia Airport.

While this map doesn’t include F/V express/local service in Brooklyn or the West Side extension of the 7 train, the 28 new stops would address many of the inadequacies of the current system, which, mind you, hasn’t been extended in over 80 years. Meanwhile, as we New York transit buffs dream of a future, plans for expansion seem noticeably off the table.

For the last few days, the MTA chiefs have been trying hard to justify a fare hike (and some pols think the MTA should just ask for more money from Albany). But in all of the talk of fare hikes, nary a word has been uttered about expanding subway service. Sure, the Second Ave. subway is under construction, but what about the rest of the city? At a time when the mayor is trying to push for fewer cars and better public transportation, more rail service is exactly what this city needs.

As a model for its expansion plans, New York City should look no further than London. While its taken more than 10 years to get this project off the ground, London Transport announced plans last week for the long-anticipated Thameslink rail project. The project will deliver more comprehensive commuter rail service through London. This includes a 300-percent increase in the number of trains reaching center London and an increase in the number of seats available during peak hours by 14,500.

The article contains a kicker that should ring some bells with New Yorkers:

Network Rail says the Thameslink upgrade is needed because 70% of all rail journeys begin or end in London and the south east and London’s population is projected to grow by nearly one million people in the next 20 years.

Those numbers sound suspiciously similar to Mayor Bloomberg’s estimates of the projected increase in New York’s population over the next 23 years. In London, the British are addressing projected population growth by preparing for it now. In New York, we’re sitting idly by while politicians whittle away the one good plan — congestion pricing — that would have boosted funds available for public transportation infrastructure. We’re not even considering increasing LIRR or Metro-North service either.

So as the fare hike debates heat up and the congestion pricing debates heat up, New York should turn to its sister city in the UK for inspiration. After 80 years of pining for a Second Ave. subway and a JFK Raillink, I would hope that the city would have learned its lesson. Planning now for the future seems obvious to me. Maybe we just need a reminder.

July 30, 2007 16 comments

Service Advisories

New signs announce weekend service changes

by Benjamin Kabak July 27, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on July 27, 2007

When the MTA unveils something new, the Transit Fan in me totally geeks out. That’s what happened this week when I arrived back home in New York after my trip out west. I saw one of these posters (at right) announcing the service changes.

Now, every week these posters pop up, and most people have come to know and trust the old ones. A white background, some black letters and a red stripe would announce the change.

But no more! The new posters are colorful and, supposedly, more informative. Now we have a blue band at the top proclaiming “Service Changes.” We have a smaller, orange band telling us that it’s a weekend change. And then we have the text of the service alert as black text on a salmon background. The familiar black band of the MTA is on the bottom.

Now, while the MTA website in some places still refers us to the black and white posters, the new ones are here to stay. These new posters are intended to be easier to follow. The question, “How does this affect my trip?” provides a summary of ways to get to your destination in spite of this service changes.

I’m less thrilled, however, with the next section. “Why is my service being changed?” the poster demands to know. Well, on every poster I’ve seen so far, the answer is always the same: “We are performing XXX work to make sure that subways continue to operate safely along the X line.” Well, thanks. Good to know the MTA is making sure the subways are continuing to operate safely. And here I am, thinking that these service changes were in place simply to mess with tourists who don’t really know where they’re going anyway.

I still wish these posters had colors to match their subway lines. The posters for the West Side IRT should have red subway bullets; the one’s for the IND and BMT should have blue or orange bullets, depending upon the line in question. But for now, these new posters will work.

With that in mind, here are your service changes for the weekend. The highlights:

Shuttle buses on the L past Lorimer St.
Weekend Manhattan-bound N trains are going over the Manhattan Bridge until Monday when the N will run along the R at all times for a few weeks.
Brooklyn-bound Q trains running on the R over the weekend.
West Side IRT express trains are running local.

Enjoy the weekend.

July 27, 2007 7 comments

Fare Hikes

Fare hike returns seem meager

by Benjamin Kabak July 27, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on July 27, 2007

As the MTA tries to figure out whether or not there are better ways to raise revenue than implementing a fare hike, some of the details of the fare hike have been seemingly ignored. What, for instance, are we subway riders going to get for our increased fare?

Well, the MTA has released preliminary details of the specific service improvements, and the returns are, in my opinion, quite lacking. Here’s what the MTA is promising us for all of our fare hike problems:

Additional rush hour, weekday off-peak and weekend service on the L Line.
Additional evening service on the Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6, and additional weekend service on the No. 7.
Increased Staten Island express bus service on weekends, weekdays, middays and nights, in addition to the new S89 service to Bayonne kicking off this fall.
Bus Rapid Transit initiative scheduled to begin with implementation along two routes.
Next year, a total of five subway station rehabilitations are scheduled to be completed, all made newly ADA accessible.

Wow. Not much, eh? The L service is a step in the right direction. For months and months, we’ve heard about how the MTA had not anticipated the population explosion in Williamsburg and points east. Finally, they’re addressing problems of overcrowding and unreliable service along a vital artery line into Brooklyn.

The increased evening and weekend service along the IRT lines sounds nice. But I don’t know too many people complaining that the 4, 5 and 6 suffer from lack of off-peak service. The 7 train service will benefit John Rocker’s friends.

The other benefits are niche improvements. I wrote recently about the Bus Rapid Transit lanes. As I said two weeks ago, those will work only if the MTA and NYPD figure out a way to keep cars out of the designated bus lanes. I like the idea as a pilot program; I’m less than thrilled that this is one of the top five pressing needs for New York City Transit. Ideally, if this pilot is a success, the city could add more BRT lines with the arrival of the congestion fee.

The five subway stations scheduled for rehabilitation intrigue me. I get a lot of search hits as people look for information about the plan to connect the Uptown IRT platform at Bleecker St. with the rest of the Broadway-Lafayette stop. When I wrote about it in May, it was hard to tell if the MTA would follow through with this now or in the indeterminate future. There’s still no indication of this plan’s fate.

In addition to those changes listed on the MTA’s site, amNY’s Tracker Blog highlights a few more additions for us. These changes included longer weekday operating hours for the B and W as well as that long-promised G train extension to Church Ave. in Brooklyn.

For fans of the MTA’s rolling stock, the Authority will add new R160 cars along the J, Z, L, M, N and Q Lines. That’s great for the L, N and Q, but by adding new cars to the J, Z and M lines, the MTA is targeting barely-used train lines. Those cars are the oldest, but they are also the least frequented of any subway line in the city.

Overall, then, we’re getting a mixed bag of service upgrades. We’re not seeing a commitment to the Broadway-Lafayette plan or the plans to paint many of the subway stations. I like new subway cars as much as the next guy, and I like increased off-hours service. But why is the MTA targeting lines that aren’t underserved? And where’s our F/V express service? Not yet here, it seems.

July 27, 2007 7 comments

MTA Absurdity

Behind the numbers of the subway sexual harassment survey

by Benjamin Kabak July 26, 2007

written by Benjamin Kabak on July 26, 2007

So while Norman Seabrook’s plan to Disney-fy the subways took the headlines this morning, another story made the rounds. As numerous news outlets noted, a recent survey revealed that two-thirds of subway riders claim to be victims of sexual harassment while riding the rails.

The Daily News summarizes:

Two-thirds of people responding to an online survey say they have been sexually harassed on the subway, but only 4% reported the incident to authorities.

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who conducted the study over the past month, said yesterday more has to be done to reduce the rate of sex harassment.

“There’s this credo in New York that what happens underground, stays underground,” Stringer said. “You should not have to take a staircase out of a subway after having been harassed or assaulted, and feel that no one was there to help you underground.”

Now, that sounds pretty bad, right? 1800 people surveyed; 1200 harassed. Those are hardly good numbers. Meanwhile, Sewell Chan at CityRoom has more on the survey. He writes: “One-tenth said they had been sexually assaulted and more than two-thirds percent said they had ‘felt the threat of sexual assault or harassment’ in the subways. More than 9 in 10 of the respondents who reported they had been harassed or witnessed harassment said they never told the M.T.A. or the police.”

But, without lessening the impact of these incidents, something funny happens when you look beyond the numbers. This survey, conducted by the Manhattan borough president, was e-mailed to over 20,000 people. Those who responded were the men and women who wanted their voices heard on this issue. They were the ones who were the victims of harassment; they were the ones who want to see something happened.

My initial reaction to this survey was “no way.” No way are two-thirds of all subway riders victims even if that’s how the articles in the papers portray this very unscientific story.

That’s not to say sexual crimes in the subway doesn’t exist. They do, and it’s important to remain vigilant on trains. But 66 percent of riders? No way. This is a fine example of the media overplaying a high number from a poor survey to report a story that isn’t really as important as we are lead to believe.

July 26, 2007 2 comments

Load More Posts