Public Transit Policy

Send in the clowns

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 23, 2013

I haven’t had much to say of late about the illustrious 2013 mayoral race because there hasn’t been very much to say. By all accounts, Bill de Blasio is going to moonwalk into Gracie Mansion in two weeks, and it’s not even going to be close. He’s currently polling between 45-50 points above Joe Lhota, and city Republicans are willing to go on the record to criticize Lhota’s campaign. What fun is a race that isn’t one?

On Tuesday night, though, words from the two candidates both intrigued and irked me. It was the second-to-last debate before the election, and as Joe Lhota attacked, the two candidates parried. The debate isn’t going to change many voters’ minds at this point, and absent an utterly shocking October Surprise, de Blasio will move up while Lhota will move on. But last night, transit came to the forefront, and it was dismaying.

First, Lhota, the former MTA head who made headlines by improving operations at the agency and leading it through the post-Sandy recovery phase, spoke once more of his plan to decouple bridge and tunnel toll revenue from the MTA. Ignoring history, Lhota believes that the city should set toll policy (but not fare policy for the subways apparently) and that the city should determine what to do with bridge and tunnel revenue. This is, by the way, in marked contrast to congestion pricing which would funnel more money to transit.

So what would the impact of such a move be? Off the bat, the MTA would lose 12 percent of its expected revenue for 2014. To recoup that in other transit fares would require a hike of nearly 25 percent or direct contributions topping $1.6 billion. Lhota hasn’t proposed another revenue stream to make it up for the lost money, and as a former agency head, he should know better. Of course, it’s pandering pure and simple, and it’s something the state would never authorize. But this is what passes for transit discourse during a city-wide campaign.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the stage, Bill de Blasio decided to go after safe streets. Both mayoral candidates agreed on this point, but de Blasio put it to words. When asked about his views on pedestrian plazas, he said, “I have profoundly mixed feelings on this issue…The jury’s out.” To me, this does not show a politician willing to lead and guide the city through early 21st century growth and progress. This shows a politician willing to kowtow to special interests that barely exist.

Is the jury still out? Four years ago, a poll found that 58 percent of New Yorkers supported the creation of a pedestrian plaza between Times and Herald Squares with just 34 percent opposing. Those numbers have only increased over the past few years. Meanwhile, a 2010 DOT survey found drastic results. Travel times and congestion were down while pedestrian safety was markedly improved. Injuries were down by 35 percent, and nearly three quarters of New Yorkers though the area had “improved dramatically.” Today, businesses love the pedestrian plazas as they are crowded at all hours of the day, and retail rents in Times Square are now the highest in the city.

The jury isn’t out, but still, politicians insist it is. Meanwhile, I’ve passed a memorial to a 12-year-old killed by a car that rips out of my heart every day I walk or run by. We hear constant stories of accidents involving young and old pedestrians while police file no charges. We ask for improvements to the city-scape that lead to more community engagement and safer streets, and yet politicians do not lead. They do not understand what makes a city a city and what makes vibrant urban life possible. It isn’t making sure we limit pedestrians to five-foot-wide strips of concrete.

Maybe when de Blasio is mayor, this rhetoric will be just that, and he’ll continue the Bloomberg Administration’s safer streets plans. But it’s dismaying and disillusioning to hear two men trying to lead the city come up empty on such important topics. It may not have the cachet of education, crime, housing or jobs, but transit, transportation and street life are integral parts of New York City. What we saw last night wasn’t anything close to leadership.

32 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Superstorm Sandy

Video: Inside the Montague St. Tunnel

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 22, 2013

Ever wondered what it’s like to deconstruct and rebuild a 93-year-old tunnel? Well, wonder no longer, and instead watch the latest from MTA videographer J.P. Chan. The tunnel, as you will recall, was completely flooded during Superstorm Sandy, and the MTA has taken it out of service for 14 months to rebuild the Brooklyn-Manhattan link.

Chan’s video is our first glimpse at the work in progress. Currently, crews are going through the to-do list of the first which encompasses repairs to all right-of-way components including significant work to tracks, tunnel lighting, circuit breaker houses, power substations, pump rooms, fan plant, power cable and ducts. The second contract will involve a rebuild of the signal system.

Anyway, take a look at the footage. It’s certainly a mess down there as the fixing and fortifying continues. (And in case you’ve forgotten, here’s a video of Montague prior to the start of construction.)

24 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City Transit

A look at the 20 Year Needs: Capacity constraints

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 22, 2013

In discussing the MTA’s 20-year dream of having open gangways in its next generation of rolling stock yesterday, I mentioned the capacity constraints facing the system. These new trainsets are vital to increasing capacity because, as Toronto claims, they can bump up ridership by 8-10 percent with an investment that happens every few years due to normal wear and tear. The MTA doesn’t need to spend billions on the slow process of building subway lines when it can add space simply by redesigning its rolling stock.

According to the 20 Year Needs Assessment, the MTA is well aware of the capacity constraints the system faces and the problems the agency faces in attempting to address this issue. In a section toward the end of the document, the agency discusses solutions to capacity constraints, and it’s a point worth exploring here. Essentially, there are a series of key choke points in the system, including the Queens Boulevard Line, the West Side’s IRT line (and some switches in Brooklyn), the L train through Northern Brooklyn and the F and M in Downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan. How can the MTA solve these problems?

Off the bat, the agency recognizes a simple but dismaying truth: Mega-projects are not a short-term answer. “In identifying solutions for these choke points in the subway system the MTA needs to be cognizant of the long time horizon that “megaproject”-type solutions require. For example, the currently under-construction Second Avenue Subway took nearly 10 years to go through planning, engineering and required environmental analyses, and will take nearly the same amount of time for construction of its first phase. This schedule makes it difficult for megaproject-sized strategies to address current or anticipated transportation needs in a timely manner.”

The answer is full of buzzwords and involves “additional strategic solutions that make the greatest possible use of existing bus and subway lines to meet the evolving needs of an ever more mobile population.” Here’s how the document puts it:

In addition to regular state of good repair maintenance and regular replacement of power, signals and track, there are needed upgrades to the existing subway system to support additional system capacity. Critical among these is expansion of Communications-Based Train Control. Currently available on the L line and being installed on the 7 line, CBTC will allow more frequent train service on crowded corridors such as the Queens Blvd. line.

Maximizing the benefits of CBTC, however, may require fleet expansion to provide more frequent train service, which in turn may require more yard space for train storage and maintenance, as well as increased power generation capacity for the busier subway lines.

Other strategies which may alleviate hotspots may include:

  • Corridor analysis studies to better analyze specific travel trends and identify cost- and time-effective capacity improvement efforts.
  • Rebuilding critical subway junctions where lines merge and separate (such as the Nostrand Junction on the 2/3/4/5 lines) to maximize train throughput and reduce delays.
  • Rebuilding constrained terminal stations (such as Brooklyn College/Flatbush Terminal) to address capacity choke points.
  • Restructuring existing service to maximize throughput.
  • Expanded Select Bus Service utilizing dedicated bus stop,s off-board fare collection and limited stops to provide alternative travel routes in congested corridors.

I worry about the inclusion of Select Bus Service on this list because it’s not really a substitute for improving and streamlining subway service. If anything, it’s a complementary to subway service and should be used to get people from underserved transit areas to subway stations. Without a massive increase in the number of buses on the road, Select Bus Service cannot be a substitute for improved subway service.

Still, we’re left with a list of unsexy but necessary investments. Without multi-billion-dollar expansion efforts that a decade and a half, at best, to go from proposal to reality, the MTA has to find incremental improvements somewhere, and CBTC and switch rebuilds are going to become a need rather than a luxury. We may dream about open gangways and reactivated rights-of-way, but it is here in these efforts that the needs of the 20-Year Needs Assessment come into focus.

46 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Public Transit Policy

The multi-billion-dollar gorilla in the room

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 21, 2013

At what point is it no longer practical for New York State and its various transportation-related agencies to resort to fare hikes and toll increases to fund infrastructure projects? Have we reached the breaking point? These are two questions that no one likes to ask, but as the state begins to build a new Tappan Zee Bridge and as the MTA looks toward another $28 billion five-year capital plan, these are questions that deserve our attention.

The topic came up yesterday when Chris Ward, the former head of the Port Authority, spoke about the Tappan Zee Bridge. Dana Rubinstein was on hand for the talk and filed this report:

“The very things that we have taken for granted, which were the foundation for building infrastructure, we have probably lost within this region,” said Ward. “If you look at the great notion of the Port Authority as an independent authority. You look at the M.T.A., you look at even the way the City of New York functions with how it builds infrastructure, that model today, unfortunately, is broken.”

The Port Authority’s LaGuardia Airport, for example, remains “a crap airport,” according to Ward.

“The Port Authority faces probably a $7 billion infrastructure gap on what it would like to do and what it can afford to do,” he continued. “The M.T.A. is probably in a somewhat worse position and we’ve realized and the governor has realized we are not going to be able to fund the capital plan off fares and tolls on the M.T.A.”

Ward didn’t present a catch-all solution, but his point is a good one. We need infrastructure, and infrastructure costs money. We need to be willing to pay for infrastructure, but we also have to willing to invest in maintenance and upkeep. We also need to figure out a way to control costs. There’s no good reason for New York City to have the highest capital costs in the world, but our leaders aren’t willing to take on the cost structure which include work-rule reform and an overhaul of the bidding process.

For the city to remain competitive, it will have to build — and fund — infrastructure expansion projects that do a bit more than Select Bus Service does. That’s going to require a discussion about alternate funding schemes including congestion pricing. No one wants to talk about it, but it’s there. Within ten years, New York City will either have congestion pricing or an infrastructure gap too large to overcome. I’ll take the former. Now let’s start talking about it.

22 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Rolling Stock

Another look at the MTA and open gangways

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 21, 2013

The open gangway of a Metro train in Paris.

When the MTA released its 20 Year Needs Assessment report earlier this month, I took a closer look at the paragraph calling for open gangways in the next-generation subway car design. By copying the design of articulated buses and essentially creating one long subway car that encourages passenger flow, the MTA believes this design — in use the world over — would “maximize carrying capacity” while “balancing loading and unloading times at all doors.”

As this is New York, where, if we didn’t invent it here, we have to study it to death, the MTA has cautioned that open gangways aren’t on the horizon any time soon. The R211s, the next new rolling stock order, won’t have them, and it’s likely that open gangways wouldn’t be considered until the mid-2020s when the cars put into use in the mid-1980s are due for replacement. Still, that doesn’t stop us from enjoying the novelty of this Shiny New Thing, and in The Times today, Matt Flegenheimer teases out a story on subway cars.

By and large, The Times piece rehashes the promise of the 20 Year Needs Assessment. The MTA, throwing some cold water on this fire, warns that “any major change require[s] extensive review,” and the usual suspects worry about passenger safety concerns more valid 30 years ago. “Remember the time when we were in the high-crime era and gangs were roaming through the trains?” Andrew Albert, MTA Board member, said to The Times. “Everybody loved the locked end doors.”

But there are some lessons from Toronto, a close neighbor that enjoys the open gangway designs:

Elsewhere, the trains have proved largely successful. Brad Ross, a spokesman for the Toronto Transit Commission, which began using an “open gangway” model two years ago, said capacity had increased by 8 percent to 10 percent.

In the model’s early months, Mr. Ross said, passengers would often let trains with traditional cars pass them by, preferring the features — or at least the novelty — of the new ones.

But there have been pitfalls. Mr. Ross said that young children have been disappointed that the conductor cab occupies the entire width of a car, precluding the pastime of peering into the tunnel from a front window. “An amusement ride no more,” he said.

Young children and old railfan window watchers alike have long since grown accustomed to the full-width conductor cabs in New York City as that design was introduced to the subways years ago. But the capacity increases are alluring. For nothing more than the cost of a new order of rolling stock and an extensive study of how these cars would work in New York, the MTA can boost train capacity significantly. Open gangways are by far the easiest, quickest and cheapest way to increase capacity, and for that reason alone the MTA should be aggressive in pursuing this design.

As an RPA official noted to The Times, New York City is well behind the curve, and it’s time to catch up. “We’re one of the largest systems in the world that doesn’t do it,” Richard Barone, the RPA’s director of transportation programs, said. “Our trains don’t function right now to allow people to circulate.”

33 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Weekend work impacting 14 subway lines

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 19, 2013

Looking for some transit-related things to read or listen to this weekend? Boy, are you in luck. First, check out the archives for The Next Stop Is…, the official podcast of Second Ave. Sagas. Don’t take my word for it though; TimeOut NY named it to their top ten list. Eric and I will have a new episode for you this upcoming Wednesday.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other ways to find Second Ave. Sagas content. I use Instagram to post photos of scenes from around the city’s transit infrastructure, keep up a robust Twitter feed and maintain a Facebook page as well.

Now onto the service advisories. I crashed earlier than usual last night to fight off a slight cold and didn’t have the opportunity to post these. My apologies.


From 3:30 a.m. Saturday, October 19 to 10 p.m. Sunday, October 20, there are no 4 trains between Woodlawn and 161st Street-Yankee Stadium due to track panel installation at Burnside Avenue. Customers should take the D and free shuttle buses instead.

  • 4 service operates between Utica Avenue/New Lots Avenue and 161st Street-Yankee Stadium.
  • Customers may transfer between 4 and D trains at 161st Street-Yankee Stadium.
  • For service to or from 167th Street, 170th Street, Mt. Eden Avenue, 176th Street, Burnside Avenue, 183rd Street, Fordham Road and Kingsbridge Road, customers may use D service at nearby stations. (Walk or take a cross-town bus between 4 and D stations.)
  • Free shuttle buses operate to and from Bedford Park Boulevard, Mosholu Parkway and Woodlawn. Shuttle buses connect with the Bedford Park Boulevard D station.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, October 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, 4 trains run local in both directions between Grand Central-42nd Street and Brooklyn Bridge due to signal work between 14th Street-Union Square and Grand Central-42nd Street.


From 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., Saturday, October 19 and from 8 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., Sunday, October 20, 5 trains run every 20 minutes between Dyre Avenue and Bowling Green and operate local in both directions between Grand Central-42nd Street and Brooklyn Bridge due to signal work between 14th Street-Union Square and Grand Central-42nd Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, October 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, there is no 7 train service between Times Square-42nd Street and Queensboro Plaza due to CBTC work south of Queensboro Plaza.

  • Customers should use E, F, N, and Q service between Manhattan and Queens
  • Free shuttle buses operate between Vernon Boulevard-Jackson Avenue and Queensboro Plaza.
  • In Manhattan, the 42nd Street S shuttle operates overnight.
  • Q service is extended to Ditmars Boulevard from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday and from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sunday.


From 5:30 a.m. Saturday, October 19 to 10 p.m. Sunday, October 20, there is no A train service between Howard Beach-JFK Airport and Far Rockaway due to track panel work at Lefferts Blvd. and Rockaway Blvd. and track tie renewal and maintenance at Grant Avenue. A trains operate between Inwood-207th Street and Howard Beach-JFK Airport or Lefferts Blvd.

Rockaway Park shuttle operates between Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway. Free shuttle buses operate in two segments:

  1. Non-stop between Howard Beach-JFK Airport and Far Rockaway via the Nassau Expressway.
  2. Between Howard Beach-JFK Airport and Rockaway Parkway stopping at Broad Channel.

Customers may transfer between trains and free shuttle buses at Howard Beach/JFK Airport, Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, October 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, Brooklyn-bound A trains run local from 125th Street to 59th Street-Columbus Circle due to track tie renewal north of 59th Street-Columbus Circle.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, October 18 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, October 19, from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, October 19 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, October 20 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, October 20 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, 207th Street-bound A trains run express from Canal Street to 59th Street-Columbus Circle due to work on the Mulry Square Fan Plant at 14th Street.


From 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. Saturday, October 19 and Sunday, October 20, 168th Street-bound C trains run express from Canal Street to 59th Street-Columbus Circle due to work on the Mulry Square Fan Plant at 14th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, October 19 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, Coney Island-bound D trains run local from 145th Street to 59th Street-Columbus Circle due to track tie renewal north of 59th Street-Columbus Circle.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, October 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, Jamaica Center-bound E trains run express Canal Street to 34th Street-Penn Station due to work on the Mulry Square Fan Plant at 14th Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, October 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, Jamaica-bound F trains run express from Church Avenue to Jay Street-MetroTech due to work on the Church Avenue Interlocking.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, October 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, there is no G train service between Church Avenue and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts due to work on the Church Avenue Interlocking. Customers should take the F instead. G service operates in two sections:

  • Between Court Square and Bedford-Nostrand Avs
  • Between Bedford-Nostrand Avs and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts, every 20 minutes

To connect between F and G service, customers should take the A or C between Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts and Jay Street-MetroTech.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, October 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, M service is suspended due to station renewal work at Fresh Pond Road, Forest, Seneca, Knickerbocker and Central Avenues. Free shuttle buses operate between Metropolitan Avenue and Myrtle Avenue, making all stops.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, October 18 to 5 a.m. Monday, October 21, Coney Island bound-N trains are rerouted via the D line in Brooklyn from 36th Street to Stillwell Avenue due to track panel work south of 8th Avenue.


From 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday, October 19 and from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Sunday, October 20, Q service is extended to and from Ditmars Boulevard due to the 7 suspension between Manhattan and Queens. At all other times, Q trains terminate at 57th Street-7th Avenue.

(42nd Street Shuttle)
12:01 a.m. to 6 a.m. Saturday, October 19, Sunday October 20 and Monday, October 21, the 42nd Street shuttle operates through the night due to 7 suspension between Manhattan and Queens.

(Rockaway Park Shuttle)
From 5:30 a.m. Saturday, October 19 to 10 p.m. Sunday, October 20, there is no shuttle train service between Broad Channel and Beach 90th Street due to track panel work at Lefferts Blvd. and Rockaway Blvd. and track tie renewal and maintenance at Grant Avenue. (See A entry.)

3 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

Subway Retail Sagas: Pop-up shops arrive underground

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 18, 2013
Uniqlo employees show off the merchandise available in the Union Square pop-up shop.

Uniqlo employees show off the merchandise available in the Union Square pop-up shop.

As the subway system has rebounded from the dark days of the Bernhard Goetz era, the MTA has sometimes struggled to fill its empty retail spots. Newsstands with their arrays of candy bars fill some spaces while discount clothing stores line some corridors. The Record Mart remains the best place to build up your back catalog of Fania releases. But otherwise, retail has yet to embrace the subway.

Lately, though, as part of an aggressive push to maximize empty space and draw in more dollars, the agency has pushed for new commercials opportunities, and this week, they announced a pop-up shop initiative that will bring retailers underground. These stores will receive month-to-month leases to operate in what the MTA is calling temporarily vacant spaces as the agency works to find takers for long-term leases. The Newsstand at Lorimer/Metropolitan in Williamsburg piloted the concept, and now Uniqlo has opened a store within fare control at the Union Square station.

In a press release, MTA officials spoke about orienting these spaces toward the ever-popular Millennials. “The younger generations are gravitating to the subway system as never before,” MTA Real Estate Director Jeffrey Rosen said. “They are savvy about shopping online. Retailers want to reach them where they are, which is our subway system. We are glad to be able to offer space in our stations to facilitate this new business niche.”

As to the mechanics of the deal, anyone who rents out the space — from small entrepreneurs to established corporations — are taking a lease “as-is,” and stores may appear more temporary than normal. The MTA notes that high-traffic areas can serve to increase exposure “where the emphasis is on displaying merchandise as much as actually conducting on-site transactions.” In other words, it’s another advertisement in a system working to maximize incoming revenue from ancillary avenues. (I have an inquiry into the MTA concerning Uniqlo’s rent but have not yet received a figure.)

“Pop-up stores will provide a fresh and beneficial element to our stations while also improving the image and desirability of retail space in the subway,” MTA Chairman and CEO Thomas F. Prendergast said. “This is another example of the MTA working to make better use of its real estate portfolio and improving the subway environment for customers at the same time.”

8 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Penn Station

More thoughts on a new Penn Station

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 18, 2013

Is this Penn Station’s future or just a fanciful rendering from SHoP?

The clock is officially ticking on the effort to plan a new Penn Station. With the City Council vote earlier this year granting Madison Square Garden only a ten-year operating permit, city politicians have challenged the various stakeholders to come up with a replacement plan that can be well under way by 2023. The Municipal Arts Society and the Regional Plan Associate have come together to form the Alliance for a New Penn Station, and while they’re on the right path, I’m not sure they’ve figured out what they want for a new Penn Station and the surrounding area.

On Thursday, MAS hosted the first day of its Summit for New York City, and this year’s sessions focus nearly exclusively around Penn Station. The speakers spent the day discussing the need for a new Penn Station and a redeveloped Midtown, and each of the architectural firms that unveiled their renderings earlier this year will discuss their plans in depth. It’s a veritable lovefest, but without commitments from Amtrak, NJ Transit, the MTA or MSG, none of this will come to pass.

The trouble with the messaging began early in the day. “Penn Station should be a city within a city,” Charles Renfro, a partner with Diller Scofidio + Renfro, said. He called it “a double destination.” From the get-go, I am skeptical. I do not expect train stations to be utilitarian and dingy as the current Penn Station is, and New York City should embrace the chance to improve upon what we have in place. But a train station is designed to be a gateway to a city, not a destination unto itself. It gets travelers to their destinations efficiently and easily.

On the East Side, Grand Central is unique in what it has meant to the city’s history and in the way its incidental spaces have been used to create a commercial destination. Do we need an inorganic, overbuilt mall atop a train station or a building that accommodates passenger flow and quick travel with the right mix of amenities? A combination of Philadelphia’s 30th St. Station and the Grand Central Terminal would be just fine, and it doesn’t require MAS, the RPA or a bunch of architects to reinvent the wheel due to New York exceptionalism.

Meanwhile, in its presentation and a new Penn 2023 policy document, the Alliance discusses its overall vision for the neighborhood. Penn Station is to be the catalyst for the revitalization of that area of Midtown. The current train station, they say, “stifles growth and limits economic opportunity in the area” because it is at capacity. But the train statin itself needn’t be a required part of a plan to spur development in Midtown.

It’s true that Penn Station’s limitations — both structurally and, equally importantly, operationally — impact capacity. A new station would solve that problem but so would through-running at a much lower initial cost. Meanwhile, to spur on growth outside of Penn Station, fix the zoning regulations. A plan to upzone the area similar to the effort underway for Midtown East and an elimination of the Special Garment Center District would be all the catalysts the area needs. A new train station could be a part of a redevelopment plan, but it’s not the necessary centerpiece.

So what’s the right approach? While I’ve been skeptical of the MSA and RPA approach over the last year, their Penn 2023 does contain the germs of the right plan. Although they prioritize a worldclass neighborhood first, their vision includes relocated MSG, completing Moynihan Station, pushing through on the Gateway and Penn South plans and rebuilding Penn Station. That’s a significant increase in transit capacity for the area, and the only thing holding back this project is money. They’ve proposed creating a Penn Station Redevelopment and Revenue Capture District, but that would fund only so much of the plan. Plus, we haven’t even looked inside the Pandora’s Box that is the MSG relocation problem.

These aren’t easy issues to grapple with, but now is the time to figure this out. As the MAS report says, this opportunity won’t knock again. “The longer we wait,” Penn 2023 reads, “the more congested the station will become, making it more difficult to make improvements.”

36 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
View from Underground

A deeper dive into train deaths

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 17, 2013

Via New York Magazine

At a certain point earlier this year, the media hullabaloo over passenger/train collisions reached a crescendo. The TWU began to agitate for a costly slowdown; politicians began to wonder about platform edge doors; and the MTA had to defend itself on an issue that isn’t actually a problem as 48 of over 1.6 billion rides ended in an accidental death. These incidents are tragedies with ramifications for families and train operators alike, but the outcry seemed to overshadow the problems.

Today, Adam Martin at New York Magazine takes a closer look at the MTA’s deadly year, and while the numbers show a slight uptick in train deaths this year, overall the picture shouldn’t worry New York’s subway riders. In pure numbers, this year has not been a kind one for the MTA as, through August, the agency reported 65 deaths caused by subway, LIRR or Metro-North trains. If this pace continues throughout the year, the 98 projected deaths would blow past last year’s record total of 84.

But in a sense, the tide has turned a bit. While the incidents earlier this year focused around homicides, the number of non-suicides has dropped significantly. Of the 65 deaths, 40 of them were suicides and only 25 were accidental or other. Last year, those numbers were flipped with nearly 60 percent of subway deaths not suicides. The numbers are fairly de minimus considering overall MTA ridership, but maybe the aggressive public awareness campaign warning of the dangers of subways and other trains has paid off.

Why, then, have suicide numbers spiked? Martin offers up some theories:

One possibility is that the increase has been driven by intense media attention given to two incidents late last year in which people were pushed onto subway tracks and died. The New York Post splashed a dramatic photo of one victim seconds before death across its front page. A 2008 Columbia study found decreasing media coverage was an effective way to bring down the number of subway suicides. If the reverse is also true, then a barrage of coverage might spur them.

In the end, it’s hard to read much into these numbers. As an MTA spokesman said to New York Magazine, “So far, this year seems to be falling within the range of normal year-to-year variability. I would hesitate to call it a trend.” On a day-to-day basis then, the rails are safe.

11 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MetroCard

An ode to the Unlimited MetroCard

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on October 17, 2013

Let me tell you a little secret: Tonight, I took the G train from 7th Ave. to 15th Street. It’s not a particularly long ride, and I probably waited for a train longer than I was on it. But I just didn’t feel like walking, and I knew that it was early enough that the F or G were both still running pretty frequently. So with a flick of the MetroCard, I saved myself from walking about 6/10 of a mile. It was lazy, and it was glorious.

What made my little indulgence possible was, of course, my 30-day unlimited MetroCard. It didn’t cost me anything to swipe in at 7th Ave., and in fact, I was able to make use of what is in effect a sunk cost. Every month, I pay for a pre-tax 30-day unlimited ride card, and I have a certain number of rides to make the purchase a good investment. For those who pay full price, the break-even point is 48 rides, and after that, every swipe just makes that 30-day card a better deal.

Twenty years ago, we didn’t have that option. We loaded up on tokens and had to carry them everywhere. We had no free transfers between buses and subways, and each ride had to be planned in advance. We may have walked more or resorted to cabs as they offered better value for the ride in the early 1990s than they do now. For New Yorkers who don’t know or remember the past, it was truly a different time. The subway wasn’t nearly as integrated into everyday life as it is today.

It’s hard to understate what the unlimited MetroCard did. It wasn’t easy to see the project through, and it took combined pressure from the mayor and governor to see the change through. Rudy Giuliani pushed on the philosophy of “one fare, one city,” and George Pataki applied the necessary pressure from Albany. By the late 1990s, the MTA has moved beyond the idea that one ride should cost one fare. “The goal here,” Pataki said in 1997, “was very simply to empower the rider. Empower the person who takes the subway and the person who takes the bus by giving them the broadest possible range of options as to how they want to choose to use the mass transit system.”

It’s worked, and it’s become something we all take for granted. Tokens have become museum pieces, and nearly a third of all subway riders use some form of unlimited card. Others still are able to take advantage of the subway/bus transfer that comes with a pay-per-ride swipe. Only a small percentage of riders buy single-ride cards — the 2013 equivalent of a token — and most of those are tourists.

Meanwhile, the subways have seen nearly unprecedented ridership growth since the late 1990s, and while a reduction of crime and investment of the system deserve some credit, so too do the MetroCards. It’s easier than ever to justify a subway ride, and it’s now cheap and convenient. Just swipe that card, enjoy the fact that dollars aren’t deducted, and go. That’s how to draw people to transit.

As the MetroCard and its technology nears the end of its shelf life, I wonder about what comes next. The MTA doesn’t seem to know yet what its next-generation fare payment technology will be, but it will come equipped with the same flexibility. We won’t have that yellow and blue piece of plastic, but it’ll always be with us, a key part of New York City’s transit history.

60 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts