Staff retention at the MTA is already a problem, and will be made worse by the headcount reduction proposed in the reorganization plan.

Over the last few years, we have seen how the loss of key MTA staff is playing out and it’s not pretty.  Too often, it’s the best people in critical positions who leave. As more senior staff retire and younger staff leave for greener pastures after just a few years, there is and will continue to be a negative impact on riders unless steps are taken to slow the “brain drain.”

The 2010 cuts, followed by the constant whiplash from leadership change, has made staff retention that much harder. When Governor Cuomo hired three extremely strong agency leaders and their visioning plans were released, there was hope that the whiplash would stop… but here we are! The infrastructure and operation of our vast system REQUIRES informed and knowledgeable staff. Attrition has severe and unintended consequences: needed positions do not get filled; institutional knowledge gets lost; and important positions focusing on accountability are no longer to be found.

A full and transparent review of the effects of the hiring freeze, attrition, and retirements by departments and management levels should be undertaken and analyzed.

We strongly encourage an analysis of the full impact the MTA hiring freeze is having on retaining its professional workforce, and what the proposed headcount reduction will mean to service. Such an analysis must be done quickly to help determine whether simply cutting jobs is the best way out of the growing deficit. It is possible that with the dream team the Governor brought on – Cathy Rinaldi, Andy Byford, Phil Eng, Janno Lieber and Pat Foye – there is another way to go… a thoughtful restructuring that will reduce the MTA’s deficit through improved reliability, ridership growth, fare flexibility, congestion pricing, value capture, and more. Unfortunately, the AlixPartners’ plan is a rushed response to institutional problems that have taken years to develop. Nearly nine million people rely on the subways, buses and commuter rails every day. Steps to implement the still-developing reorganization must be thoughtful and deliberate to get riders where they need to go.

The MTA relies heavily on a knowledgeable, skilled and supported staff at all levels.

The MTA’s commitment to retaining and developing talent and establishing succession plans is crucial to maintaining a productive and functioning transportation agency. Also crucial are metrics that measure processes and performance. For example, the MTA’s Enterprise Asset Management team developed performance metrics in response to federal requirements, but their internal purposes are far reaching – internal planning and external funding needs are fact-based and metric driven.

Critical and publicly available performance metrics must also be developed to make it easier to understand the unintended consequences of the vacancies that have been occurring as long-time employees head for the door. The burden those vacancies have on staff – and the work that isn’t being done – also have serious consequences for riders.

Performance metrics are not just necessary for service and process performance, they will be needed to measure the value of AlixPartner’s recommended changes.

Given the large-scale changes that are being proposed, it is critical that the users of the system have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the reorganization plan. They must be included in the decision-making process. The best way to do that is through a 45-day public involvement process that includes public forums, with significant review and consideration in the final plan. PCAC stands ready to assist the MTA in this effort to ensure that the people who use the system have their voices heard.

The post The MTA’s Transformation Plan and the Need for Staff Retention appeared first on PCAC.

It was disheartening reading through the disclaimer that the plan “is speculative and includes estimates and assumptions which may prove to be wrong.”

The Transformation Plan claims it was based on data that “varied widely in accuracy and completeness.” A $4 million-dollar plan based on assumptions and not on verified facts is worrisome. With a weak basis, the plan also fails to identify some key references: What are the “AlixPartners reference metrics,” “MTA historic performance,” “Performance parameters,” “Peer data published by the FTA and other resources” and “3^rd party benchmarks & KPIs” that the report relies on? Where are the hundreds of pages of appendices that form the basis for the assumptions included in the plan? These are crucial in understanding the validity and applicability of the plan to the MTA.

As some recommendations seem helpful on the surface, how implementable are they?

It is worth delving into the efforts the MTA has undertaken that have been effective, like Save Safe Seconds, and which ones haven’t. How have the past consolidations affected performance? These factors contribute to the analysis of what a realistic and successful reorganization plan could be.

The plan references hiring 30 + new top-level management, while extending the hiring freeze for the rest of the organization and consolidating departments – including a decrease of up to 2,700 positions. Many of the report’s key recommendations revolve around the centralization of mission-critical operating agency functions into all-agency operating support groups. While such actions have the potential to realize cost savings and increase inter-agency dialogue, MTA operating agencies historically have been resistant to cooperation and coordination across jurisdictions and disciplines. What mechanisms does the Transformation Plan put in place to ensure that centralization efforts do not end up complicating the smooth coordination of critical tasks?

Most importantly, the plan does not look at international best practices and lessons learned from other transit agencies.

Looking to public transportation systems that have undergone restructuring would help ground recommendations in the Transformation Plan. The Construction and Development recommendations were based on an MTA Board Working Group’s Cost Containment Plan, which has merit, but has yet to be reviewed for success; it was only presented on once after its conception and the public is unaware of what it includes and how it has been successful in reducing costs in the process. What are the actual cost savings? What are the “best practices” of its implementation and how effective is it?

$4 million dollars for a report without “a verification of the facts” is a disservice to riders and taxpayers. Riders want a reorganization plan with assurances that it will work, not one built to fail. They also want to be able to provide meaningful input, and we urge you to include a 45-day public comment period. Nearly nine million daily riders deserve a chance to weigh in on the proposed plan and its proposals. They should have that chance: change is most impactful bottom-up, not top down.

The post MTA Transformation without the Facts appeared first on PCAC.

The hearing focused on the MTA’s dire financial situation and the need for sustainable and recurring funding sources to support the operating and capital budgets. More than a dozen Senate members grilled MTA President Patrick Foye, Managing Director Veronique Hakim, Chief Financial Officer Robert Foran, and Chief Development Officer Janno Lieber for over five hours on the Governor’s Executive Budget proposals, with a focus on Congestion Pricing and how it would be implemented.

During their lengthy testimony, it became increasingly clear that while Congestion Pricing is critical to funding the improvements spelled out in Fast Forward, there is no plan yet, just a concept. It’s a concept that we strongly support, but agree with the elected officials – and riders – who want to know how it’s going to work: Will it mirror the FixNYC Report? Will there in fact be “…variable and dynamic pricing options…” as the panel suggests? How much will it cost to enter the Congestion Zone? How much money will it yield, and how will that money be spent? Will it go into a lockbox for transit use only? Will there be a flat fee for trucks and delivery services that enter and leave the zone several times a day? How will trucks be charged? Where will the toll gantries be placed, what kind of construction will be needed – and how will that be coordinated with New York City?

Support for Congestion Pricing has never been stronger, but time is running out for its inclusion in the 2019-2020 Adopted Budget. Missing the deadline could mean missing key milestones for critical subway and bus improvements – and that could mean more time for riders stuck going nowhere fast.

We urge the MTA and the Governor’s office to develop and release a real plan that New Yorkers can understand: Riders want to know what Congestion Pricing is going to mean to their families and neighbors – and they deserve answers. Earlier this week, we participated in a press conference with TransitCenter, elected officials and other advocacy organizations that highlighted TransitCenter’s analysis of how much time New Yorkers could save if Fast Forward is funded. The answer: tens of thousands of hours a year – hours that could be better spent doing just about anything else.

Don’t Forget LIRR and Metro-North!

In addition to the Fast Forward plan, LIRR Forward and Metro-North Way Ahead set the stage for capital improvements across the region. While Congestion Pricing has been tied directly to Fast Forward, significant investment is needed to meet the needs of all of the agencies. Two other key aspects of the Governor’s proposed budget got less attention but are equally important since funding for the capital plan has been linked to their enactment:  expansion of speed camera zones in New York City; and MTA restructuring.  While we support each of these, we do not agree that critical infrastructure funds should be tied so directly to passage of these requirements.

New York City Speed camera zones expansion in New York City

Speed cameras will keep children safer in school zones, help buses move faster, catch people running red lights – and add a layer of enforcement in the Congestion Pricing zone. Why wait? Start putting them up now and lift the restrictions on how many can be placed and where. Tell us how much revenue will be brought in and how it will be spent.  We support allocating revenues from the fines to transit-related purposes and street-based safety-related projects.

MTA Restructuring

Here’s a term that’s been bandied about, but without a definition of what it even means: changing board membership and voting structure? Breaking down agency boundaries? Bringing in new leadership at the top and keeping the agency heads? We agree that there is a need to continue to make process improvements and that efficiencies can be found – but the strong leadership at NYC Transit, the LIRR, and Metro-North are making a difference, which riders can see. A new and independent Chair is needed to support the agency heads in their efforts and work with them to identify savings, but structural review and revision are too important to do in haste. There should be a longer, multi-stepped approach leading to a well thought out proposal.

But Wait, We Need More…

These funding sources are a good start, but will not meet all the needs of the MTA or its riders.

Finding creative ways of raising transit funds

Consistently capturing and use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) would create tremendous opportunities for the MTA. Transit access can A portion of that value should be captured and funding set aside to finance transit infrastructure improvements when proximate projects – such as upzonings, Amazon’s H2Q in LIC, and TOD on Long Island and in the Hudson Valley – are developed. We’ve seen how successful these programs can be and mechanisms already exist for the types of agreements; they should be used consistently and constantly.

They say that desperate times call for desperate measures.

These are desperate times: delays and disrepair are causing people to flee the system, leading to declining ridership, which means less revenue, less faith in the system, and less investment.  We’ve been down this slope before and it doesn’t end well. We need to look at every possible revenue source, including incremental tax increases in the sales tax, gas tax, recording tax, Millionaire’s tax, corporate tax, and future cannabis taxes, to address the real state of emergency that we are seeing unfold. Now’s the time for the state to pony up the more than $8 billion it has committed to the MTA, and for the city to kick in its share. We shouldn’t have to wait for the MTA to accrue more debt before getting these desperately needed funds. Getting out of debt by getting into more debt doesn’t work at home, and it won’t work for the MTA.

It is clear that the MTA must do its part to regain the trust of the legislature, and the faith of the riders it serves. The New York region is built around a robust transit system. It’s critical that it remain the driver that supports our growth, vitality, and identity. Investment in the future of the transit system is investment in the region’s economic stability and ability.

The post Talking to Albany, let’s hope they are listening! appeared first on PCAC.

New Yorkers are a cynical bunch. We want to know that tried and true systems are being used, especially when we’re in tunnels that go under water. What about the other significant aspects of the project that weren’t discussed or were glossed over? To what degree is the scope of the proposed project the same – or different – than the original plan? What will happen to the new track and track beds, new lighting and fire systems, and elevator and accessibility projects? They aren’t cosmetic changes, they are real needs of the communities who use the L train. Are we sure that the technology can be applied in a confined 100+ year old tunnel that is still in use for the majority of the time, and is it safe for riders and workers to be in the tunnels where unknown environmental hazards may have been released during construction?  Is this a new precedent for how MTA construction projects will be handled – second guessing and last-minute vicissitudes?

We welcome innovative technologies that are cheaper and more efficient – but at this point all we have is a PowerPoint, not a plan. Right now, there are far more questions than answers.

What a waste: The decision to close the tunnel wasn’t made lightly.

It was based on the collective experience of experts and engineers who worked on all nine Sandy-related tunnel projects including the Montague Tunnel shut down; the Canarsie Tunnels are widely agreed to have been the worst hit and need the most work. Tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of hours have been spent on this project. Federal funds have been advanced, construction has begun, and alternate service plans are in place – the result of significant substantial community input.

The business community, elected officials and the real NYC transit experts and riders who have been in the literal trenches have spoken and they’ve agreed: just get it done!

It’s going to cause disruption for hundreds of thousands of riders, but there’s a well-thought out, federally-approved alternate service plan that’s been years in the making. People have moved in anticipation of the closure, and spent countless hours making alternate plans. No one wants the pain that the closure will bring, but the pain of not doing it, or doing a slapdash job, will be far worse.

So many questions must be answered:

• Where have these experts been over the last three years?
• What was the scope of work that the academic experts analyzed? What was their access to and involvement with NYC Transit staff and with whom did they interact?
• How long is this fix good for? Or are we going to have to go through this again in fifteen years?
• Will this require a new NEPA and/or public involvement process?
• When will the four identified public outreach sessions be held and where?
• How does this impact the Capital Program?
• Will federal funds need to be repaid, and who is responsible for the repayment?
• If a $477 million construction contract can be done away with in just a few months, will any contractors want to do business with the MTA?
• Since this has never been done in the US before, who will do the design work? Will it have to go back out for bid?
• Since the technology likely doesn’t exist in the US, is it “Buy America” compliant per state and federal requirements?
• Will the exposed cables in the tunnels be more vulnerable? Is there even room to do the “racking” (cables mounted to the tunnel walls) in this tunnel?
• With twenty minute headways, what will be done to address the extreme crowding that will happen?
• How will the riding public and the workers be protected from silica dust that will undoubtedly be raised by movement of trains through the tunnels?
• Where will the work trains that will hold and remove the construction debris be stored and unloaded? Will they go through active stations and/or communities?
• What happens if this can’t actually be accomplished? Then what?

The post L Train Miracle Cure? Call us Cynical: Fix the Tunnels For Good, Not Just For Now!! appeared first on PCAC.

In the past four decades, and particularly in the past decade, our organization has spent a lot of time considering what the MTA system needs to excel and how to secure the resources needed to reach this objective. As we confront yet another point in time where system needs demand examination of the finances supporting the MTA, we believe that the path we’ve advocated practically since the PCAC’s birth – funding that is stable, reliable, and able to adjust to inflation and the changing needs of the system – is the appropriate solution today.

Instead, the financial choices made by the MTA and by others have too often involved one-shot, band-aid solutions that have allowed us to lurch from present difficulties to the next crisis several years down the road. The system that exists today is in large part the product of this lack of stable funding. This has led us to where we are today, with an MTA system that is heavily burdened, performing below reasonable standards, and weighed down by years of deferred repair and modernization.

When I first arrived at PCAC a little over fourteen years ago one of the first things I worked on was the 2005 Bond Act, which rewarded its backers with $1.45 billion to invest in the MTA. We were happy to see the Act approved by voters, but it didn’t solve the MTA’s resource issues. Neither did a real estate boom, a modest slice of sales taxes, massive borrowing, or the payroll mobility tax. Instead of facing up to what was necessary, we constrained needs assessments and waited for the “someday” where the system could catch up. The bottom line is the system needs more resources, both in terms of financing and priority in the public realm. Should we execute improvements more smartly and efficiently – absolutely, but we need to make necessary commitments now.

Where does the MTA stand now?

Advocates, business and civic leaders, and everyday riders recognize the needs of the system and are talking about how to meet them. The members of this Board must also deliver this message. This may sometimes involve saying “with all due respect, that funding level won’t cut it in the long run” to our elected leaders, including the people who named you to this Board. It won’t be easy, but please do the right thing and the PCAC, its Councils, and our members will be there to back you up.

By the way, we know this process could take a while, and that’s why it’s important to start now. I mentioned the Bond Act was one of my first projects, but New Fare Payment was the absolute first thing I worked on. And that is only set to be implemented 15 years later.

The MTA needs to ensure it has adequate funding to maintain its system and provide this region with the transportation service that is so critical to its success. The time to act is now.

– William Henderson

The post The MTA and Funding: Will we ever have enough? appeared first on PCAC.

“Accessibility strengthens our transit system, and it’s the right thing to do.” – NYC Transit

In 2018, NYC Transit hired an executive-level Accessibility Advisor Alex Elegudin, who reports directly to President Byford to ensure system-wide accessibility advancements. The agency also released the Access-A-Ride app (MyAAR), which is designed to make it easier for customers to schedule, track, and give feedback on their rides, in light of recent protests regarding poor AAR performance. These are crucial steps in the right direction – the list below highlights some of the proposed improvements on the way:

• Ensure subway customers are no more than 2 stations away from an accessible station
• Increase elevator installation
• Allow AAR vehicles to use bus lanes
• Improve real-time information about elevators and escalators
• Accelerate installation of consistent accessibility features
• Identify options to redesign fare gates

During Transit Center’s event, many concerned citizens and accessibility advocates were able to engage with President Byford by asking questions and giving the President useful input. Riders advocated for accessible announcements on-board trains, the ability to purchase reduced-fare cards at ticket machines, up-to-date elevator and escalator information, and the need to train MTA-NYCT staff to better address accessibility issues and to assist riders. Thankfully, the latter two topics are being addressed in the Plan, with the hope that other issues raised will be addressed as well.

Achieving system accessibility, will require dedicated funds for the Fast Forward Plan.

In addition to President Byford, Queens State Senate member Michael Gianaris was present to support the Fast Forward Plan and accessibility improvements. Senator Gianaris just released a report assessing subway line accessibility. The Senator honed in on the need to secure funding for the Plan and stressed that funding cannot be diverted to other uses. Gianaris expressed that political will must be present to secure funding for transit, which will depend on who gets elected this November. The Senator called for lockbox funding that recently passed both houses of the State legislature and requires the signature of Governor Andrew Cuomo to become State law.

As we have seen from the congestion pricing debate, finding palatable revenue streams in today’s political climate can be challenging. Congestion pricing did not make it to the Senate floor for a vote this year, with Senate members like Gianaris on the fence. However, ensuring that the life-blood of our economy, our transit system, thrives is crucial to the region and the state’s overall economic health. Therefore additional revenue streams, including congestion pricing, need to be identified and put into place by voters and elected officials. Without these dedicated funds, the Fast Forward Plan, including accessibility will be nothing more than a vision short of realization.

State Bond Act: An Effective Lockbox

One way of reliably directing funding to a specified purpose is through voter-approved State bonds. It has been thirteen years since The New York State “Rebuild and Renew Transportation Bond Act” was approved by New York State voters. In 2005, the Bond Act included almost $3 billion for infrastructure and expansion investments. Due to the “state of emergency” of today’s system, it is time to revisit state-backed bonds for transit.

A State bond has the advantage of not increasing pressure on the MTA’s future finances. The MTA’s bond rating fell from an A+ to AA- by S&P Global Rating this year according to Bloomberg News. MTA debt service is expected to grow by 29 percent to about $3.2 billion per year. The debt burden consumes 16 percent of the operating budget, leaving MTA Board members concerned. Therefore, issuing MTA-backed bonds is not the best option to pursue.

As mentioned by Senator Gianaris, it will depend on the political will of those voted into office during November’s elections to change things. Voters need to have a well-developed understanding of what is at stake this fall and to support those candidates willing to support secure dedicated transit funding and State-backed transit bonds. Without these mechanisms the Fast Forward Plan, including its improvements in accessibility, will be impossible to advance. Such an outcome would leave our system and our economy in even greater jeopardy – get out and vote!

The post Fast Forward to Accessibility for NYC Transit appeared first on PCAC.

An element of this Corporate Plan is a New Fare Payment System (NFPS); which will be implemented in the first five years of this 10-Year Plan. Since the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee (PCAC) to the MTA has been advocating for advanced fare payment options, we are looking forward to its implementation.  

Over the past couple of years, there have been several announcements highlighting the MetroCard’s replacement with a new contactless fare payment system. The fare collection system that started over 100 years ago with small paper tickets changed to a nickel, then to a dime, then to various tokens, and then finally to the MetroCard will now be walked into the future through contactless cards.  

Contactless fare collection systems consist of two types; closed loop systems and open loop systems. Closed loop systems refer to payment instruments which are used solely for transit fare payments. Whereas in open loop systems; the payment instrument could be used for generic payments along with transit fare payments.

The city of Hong Kong was the first one to experiment with both types. In 1997; Hong Kong launched the Octopus Card; as a closed loop system. Wherein; monetary value stored in the Octopus Card could be used as transit-only funds (like our MetroCard).

Over the years, the Octopus Cards received a major upgrade. The closed loop system transformed to an open loop system enabling commuters to use a single Octopus Card for multiple purposes. This card is linked to the commuter’s bank account and is used just like a debit card. By waiving or swiping the card at the transit system, a restaurant, or a grocery shop, the amount owed is deducted from the commuter’s bank account. These systems generally use contactless technologies for a ‘wave and pay’ or the ‘tap and go’ experience. Commuters can also choose if they want their payment deducted from their debit account or to be added to their credit account.

In 2003, Transport for London (TfL) introduced their Oyster Card, a closed loop ‘tap and go’ system. You can flash your card at the turnstile to gain transit access. Over the years, TfL opened its system to other cards and banks in the UK started introducing contactless debit and credit cards which could be used just like an Oyster card. The transit fee is directly deducted from your bank account. Hence, London has a combination of open loop and closed loop fare payment system.

Besides; open loop systems also involve payments through smartphone applications and tapping your electronic ticket barcode at the turnstile for transit access.

In the June 2018 Capital Program Oversight Committee Book the timeline for the implementation of the new contactless system would be as follows:

May 2019: Introduction of the new contactless system; new turnstiles at limited subway stations that would accept contactless bank cards or mobile wallets. The MetroCard would still be available until the new system has been fully implemented in the year 2023.

October 2020: By this time there is widespread and automatic issuing of contactless bank cards to the New Yorkers. Contactless technologies in place on new turnstiles at all subway stations and on all buses.

February 2021: Introduction of the new contactless transit card and a mobile app to manage the card. These cards would be available with out-of-system stores like Duane Reade and CVS. They will not be offered at the subway stations yet.

March 2022: Installation of kiosks vending the new contactless transit card at all the subway stations, Metro-North stations and the LIRR stations.

July 2023: Removal of the MetroCard from the system. Transit fares are paid through the new contactless transit cards, contactless bank cards, smartphones and the new app.

So, are we ready to bid adieu to the MetroCard and say hello to our new ‘animal’ transit card? Let’s do this New York!

The post Time to bid adieu to the MetroCard? appeared first on PCAC.

In 2015, NYC Transit began an immense project to reimagine the bus network on Staten Island. Due to the complexities and scale of the project, it was decided to start with the express bus network in light of frequent rider complaints of poor reliability and long travel times. The Staten Island Express Bus Redesign Project is focused on making routes more direct, reducing route miles in Manhattan, and increasing stop distances to increase speed and reliability.

During this time NYC Transit staff has proactively engaged with communities on Staten Island, soliciting input from over 2,500 riders through surveys and community outreach events. While this effort was underway a group known as The Bus Turnaround Coalition called for a complete restructuring of the NYC Transit bus network due to poor performance and declining ridership. Recommendations include redesigning routes, all-door boarding, transit signal priority, and increasing transparency about bus performance. NYC Transit President Andy Byford has accepted these and other recommendations with open arms, starting with the implementation of the bus performance dashboard that increases transparency on bus performance. This coupled with the Staten Island project are the first steps to reimagining the City’s overall bus network.

Proposed Staten Island express bus improvements are long overdue.

Much of the Staten Island bus network has been in place for over fifty years. Many existing express bus routes are indirect and include lengthy on-Island travel before beginning non-stop express service into Manhattan. The average express bus route makes 27 stops before leaving Staten Island, compared to the S79 Select Bus Service that makes half as many stops on the Island and travels 13 percent faster.  The redesign also reduces the per route average from 27 to 15. More direct routing means fewer turns and less time spent on local streets.

Off the Island, nearly half of Staten Island express bus riders use routes that serve both Downtown and Midtown. In the morning Midtown riders ride on buses through Downtown stops and congestion, while afternoon Downtown riders wait for buses delayed by congestion in Midtown. On some routes, nearly 50 percent of running time is spent on congested Manhattan streets. In contrast, routes that travel directly to either Midtown or Downtown achieve average speeds that are 25 to 40 percent faster than routes that serve both areas.

Recommended improvements use existing resources already allocated to the bus network.

NYC Transit presented recommendations that are fiscally feasible to implement by using existing resources. These recommendations include:

• Reducing the average Manhattan express bus route from 3 miles to 1.5 miles per route.
• Creating more direct routes by reducing the average number of turns at intersections.
• Increasing route mileage spent running non-stop on highways.
• Increasing distance between bus stops to keep buses moving.

These improvements will result in running time reductions of at least 20 minutes per route, with most riders experiencing travel time reductions compared to what exists today. Most express bus riders are looking forward to the improvements with 76 percent of riders supporting the redesign.

This change, like any other, will require some time for riders to adjust.

Riders will receive improved bus speeds and travel times, a more efficient network, improved reliability, and ultimately more daily express bus trips with the present level of resources. Beyond the benefits they provide to commuters, these changes create better connections between the various parts of the city.

The team at NYC Transit is expecting to implement the redesign recommendations by August 2018, and will begin looking at the rest of the City starting with the Bronx bus network. Overhauling the entire bus network will be a heavy lift, but it is ever so necessary as pointed out by the Bus Turnaround Coalition. “Changes that have been made to the network have often been piecemeal in nature, resulting in a network that doesn’t add up to provide the direct, fast, and frequent service New York needs.”

The lessons learned from the Staten Island project will help inform NYC Transit as it takes next steps to address the entire network. The NYCTRC supports efforts taken so far on Staten Island, and are looking forward to the next phase of bus redesigns that will hopefully result in more direct, fast, and frequent buses.

The post Staten Island: The first borough to get a reimagined bus network appeared first on PCAC.

PTC installation is crucial, but should not impede the mobility of Rockland County commuters.

These cuts come as a result of the need for NJ Transit to install Positive Train Control (PTC) technology on cars and locomotives. Congress mandated PTC in 2008 and it must be installed by the end of 2018. PTC is an essential safety technology that can prevent train crashes and derailments caused by excessive speed, conflicting train movements, or human error. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) estimates that PTC could have prevented dozens of accidents, including fatal ones like the 2013 Spuyten Duyvil crash, which killed four people and injured 60. PTC also could have mitigated the 2017 MNR train derailment in Rye, NY, where five of the train’s 12 cars came off the tracks during rush hour. PTC installation is extremely important to protect passengers, train crews, pedestrians, and motorists, but should not require reductions in service, especially since so few trains service this area.

Along with the looming deadline to install PTC, NJ Transit also struggles with financial problems, the lack of train operators, and shortages in rolling stock that has led to overcrowding. Despite the federal PTC mandate, necessary upgrades should not come at the expense of rail commuters’ quality of life.

This decision harshly affects Metro-North’s Pascack Valley Line riders in several respects:

• Reduces AM peak hour service by more than 11 percent.
• Reduces PM peak hour service by more than 12 percent.
• Reduces the number of express trains available to MNR riders in half, from two to one in each peak period.
• Eliminates a late afternoon Friday train on all but a few days.

This is not the first inconvenience that MNR’s West of Hudson riders have endured, as there have been frequent cancellations of express trains in recent months. The time saved by riding express trains is important to many commuters, and an extended loss of this service could cause these riders to shift to other transportation options. The outcome could be an enduring loss of ridership resulting in further degradation of service.

The Metro-North Commuter Council (MNRCC) understands and supports the legal requirement to install PTC on cars and locomotives by the end of 2018 and recognizes the equipment availability issues that may result from this effort. NJ Transit’s decision to substantially degrade the quality of service on the Pascack Valley Line, without additional alternatives for riders is simply unacceptable.

With no alternatives for Rockland County, such as shuttles bus service or at least reduced fares, the riders will suffer. The solution to PTC-related equipment availability issues must be more than merely cancelling trains for the remainder of 2018. NJ Transit should fulfill its commitments to provide adequate service to MNR’s West of Hudson service area and to work cooperatively with MNR and the MTA to provide Pascack Valley Line riders with the level of service on which they rely.

The post MNRCC Protests Cancellation of Pascack Valley Line Trains appeared first on PCAC.

At last month’s MTA Board meeting, Ellyn Shannon, PCAC’s Associate Director, testified to the MTA board on behalf of the New York City Transit Riders Council (NYCTRC).  Ms. Shannon proposed that in light of NYC Transit’s visionary Bus Action Plan, the MTA Board should further support the effort by voting for an Economic Impact Analysis on the cost of congestion to the MTA and its riders.  With elected officials raising concerns about the burden of congestion pricing on drivers, what about the burden of congestion on bus riders?

Unreliable bus service due to traffic congestion has only vaguely been discussed by the MTA and transit advocates, which is why we are proposing this analysis.  Clear numbers are necessary to understand the gravity of congestion’s impact on bus service.

Assessing the costs

Running a slow system costs more than running a fast system. This applies to both buses and subways. The graph below shows the percent difference in travel times between AM non peak and AM peak for weekday riders on a variety of Manhattan bus routes. As a result, here are some of the costs that are incurred.

If every weekday, the run time during the peak is 30-40% longer than the off peak due to congestion, then several negative impacts occur:

• More buses are needed for any given route
• More mechanics are needed to repair the buses
• More depot space is needed to store buses
• More bus operators are needed to drive the buses
• More fuel is needed to run the additional buses
• Revenues are lost as riders switch to for-hire-vehicles like Uber and Lyft or further add to the overcrowding on the subway.

Our proposal aims to make an important inroad in the congestion pricing discussion. By reducing congestion, more frequent service and greater reliability is possible for the same amount of spending. We call on MTA Board Members to support advancing an Economic Impact Analysis on the cost of congestion to the MTA and its riders.  This analysis must also include the cost of not having enough bus lane enforcement cameras that capture the critical problem of vehicles blocking bus lanes.

We believe the value of the MTA producing this study is critical.  They have the immediate access and best understanding of which records are most relevant to this study, enabling them to complete it and make it public as quickly as possible.  Speeding up buses sooner rather than later is an integral component to reducing travel times for our riders.

The post The Cost of Congestion for Buses appeared first on PCAC.