The Commute: Reinventing The MTA – Part 2 Of 3
THE COMMUTE: Last week, we started speaking about reinventing the MTA, a subject we should have gotten to in 2014. We started criticizing the MTA Reinvention Committee’s report. One of those criticisms was that the report lacked specifics.
Lack Of Specifics
For example, on page seven, the report states that the MTA must “commit to reengineering how it does business to create a more efficient, integrated, transparent, and accountable MTA — one that gets the right work done, and does it faster and cheaper.” However, nowhere in the report does it discuss why construction expenses in New York City are many times the amount it costs in other cities or countries around the world, or why our capital projects take so long to complete and how to shorten that process.
On page 32, the report states that the MTA should “conduct a survey or a referendum of riders to confirm their preference for shorter-term line closures versus longer-term, off– peak, and weekend disruptions to gain regional support for such closures.” How do commission members know that is what the public wants? Perhaps riders do not want full closure of subway lines. Surveys need to be conducted to find out the facts, not merely to confirm pre-determined beliefs. Why not conduct surveys to determine if riders would rather see subway extensions instead of Select Bus Service (SBS) routes? Because in that case, what the public thinks is not considered important.
On page six, the report discusses Strategy 3 under “Implementing Actions.”
“Establish a permanent customer charter that addresses customer expectations, establishes performance timelines, commitments, and standards, and reconfirms the MTA’s commitment to customer service by meeting yearly service goals. The charter must be centered around the provision of customer comfort, service reliability, safety, security, real-time service information, system connectivity, accessibility, and resiliency throughout the system.”
“The charter should be created and updated with public input and reported in a transparent manner to ensure public feedback is incorporated and that the public has a sense of ownership in it. (Short-term)”
Nice strategy. However, what assurances are there that the MTA will actually do the above? That the MTA will assure real public input, not just the impression of public input. The MTA heard repeated requests for a bus stop at Avenue R on the B44 SBS prior to implementation and I was promised an evaluation of my proposal to change the route to improve the B44 SBS. The MTA never reported back on their evaluation of those proposals. In Queens, the MTA first decided to implement SBS along Woodhaven Boulevard and then held public workshops. No other alternatives were considered.
Service reliability and less crowded buses during non-peak hours are at the forefront of bus rider concerns. No measures are enumerated to assure that the MTA actually improve service reliability and place more of a concern on increasing rider comfort and less emphasis on reducing operating costs, except for recommending additional SBS routes, which is already on the MTA’s agenda.
During the past five years, many runs to and from bus depots that previously operated in revenue service operate today in non-revenue service to reduce operating costs. It makes little sense for a non-revenue bus not to pick up passengers, when the bus directly behind it is so overcrowded during non-rush hours that it is too full to pick up passengers and also bypasses the bus stop leading to extra long waiting times. Yet that is a frequent occurrence and nowhere is revenue vs. non-revenue service addressed or how the MTA Planning Service Guidelines should be changed to achieve more comfort.
“Implement early and visible infrastructure improvements that demonstrate tangible actions to the public, such as station improvements like painting, improved lighting, and more frequent cleaning. (Short-term)”
Again, another sensible recommendation. Many subway station maps are placed in dark locations so that a flashlight is required to use them. Painting stations more frequently than every 25 or 30 years would seem to be an obvious cost-effective measure to improve the subway environment, but where are the specifics as to how often subway stations should be painted and what it should cost? Where is there any statement about addressing the many water problems that cause station paint to peel or tile to become damaged a few months after a station is rehabbed or painted? Why repaint if it will not last? Again, the report suffers from a lack of specifics.
“Make implementing a new, open fare system (i.e. single fare media) to facilitate seamless travel across the region a high priority. (Short-term).”
More important than a single fare media is the need for a fare structure that does not penalize those who require a bus, train and bus to complete their trip by charging them an extra fare. The report does not even address alternate fare structures as we did here and here.
Page 40 – Strategy 4 speaks of “expanding service to bring more riders onto the existing system requires improving capacity and reliability and increasing the resiliency of the system.”
However, where does it speak of how do you increase capacity on subway lines that are already operating at maximum capacity or near maximum capacity during peak hours? The only mention is recommending BRT on Queens Boulevard to ease congestion on the Queens Boulevard subway line.
That recommendation is totally irresponsible, without an analysis of the impacts to traffic along that corridor. Further, the impact that BRT would have on reducing congestion along Queens Boulevard would be very minimal since virtually all riders would be attracted from the local where there is excess capacity, not from the overcrowded expresses. These so-called experts do not even mention resurrecting the super express proposal to relieve congestion along Queens Boulevard using the LIRR tracks, originally proposed with the building of the 63rd Street tunnels in the 1970s.
Page 46 – Strategy 5 states the MTA should:
“Improve bus service through a line-by-line review of bus routes and their particular constraints, with a goal of making certain SBS features the standard for all local bus routes, including faster fare payment, priority lanes, and transit-priority signals. Priority review should be given to routes in existing and emerging markets that are not well served by the existing system and that will increase the system’s resiliency. (Short-term).”
Also, to “Build a network of 20 SBS/BRT routes by 2020. (Medium-term).”
Again, where is the reinvention? Everything in this strategy is what the MTA is already considering. Where is there any discussion about local bus routes that have been outdated for over 70 years and the need to change those routes, as I have repeatedly stressed here and here. There is none. The assumption is that the only changes needed are in emerging markets, which is incorrect. It has taken the MTA 12 years to establish six SBS routes, largely because of MTA inefficiency, such as by meeting separately with each trade association requesting a meeting. Now this commission is proposing 13 new routes in next five years. How do they expect the MTA to accomplish this and at the same time assure adequate public feedback and proper MTA responsiveness to their concerns? Something clearly needs to change at the MTA and what needs to change is not specifically specified.
Next week: What does reinvention mean?
The Commute is a weekly feature highlighting news and information about the city’s mass transit system and transportation infrastructure. It is written by Allan Rosen, a Manhattan Beach resident and former Director of MTA/NYC Transit Bus Planning (1981).
Disclaimer: The above is an opinion column and may not represent the thoughts or position of Sheepshead Bites. Based upon their expertise in their respective fields, our columnists are responsible for fact-checking their own work, and their submissions are edited only for length, grammar and clarity. If you would like to submit an opinion piece or become a regularly featured contributor, please e-mail nberke [at] sheepsheadbites [dot] com.
