PERMANENT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE MTA
MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2014
A meeting of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee (PCAC) to the MTA was convened at 12:00 noon on March 6, 2014, in the 5th floor Board room, at MTA Headquarters, 347 Madison Avenue, New York City. The following members were present:
Andrew Albert Christopher Greif
James F. Blair William K. Guild
Gerard Bringmann Marisol Halpern
Sheila Carpenter Matthew Kessler
Francis T. Corcoran Trudy Mason
Mark Epstein Maureen Michaels
Randy Glucksman Bryan Peranzo
Mike Godino Edith M. Prentiss
Stuart Goldstein Larry Rubinstein
Ira Greenberg Michael Sinansky
Burton M. Strauss, Jr.
The following members were absent:
Francena Amparo Thomas Jost
Richard Cataggio Sharon King Hoge
Owen Costello Steve Mayo
Rhonda Herman Raymond Pagano
Neal Zuckerman
In addition, the following persons were present:
William Henderson -PCAC Executive Director
Ellyn Shannon -PCAC Associate Director
Angela Bellisio -PCAC Transportation Planner
Bradley Brashears -PCAC Research Assistant
Tom Prendergast -MTA Chairman
Samuel Wong -NYCT
Maria Alvarez -Newsday
Charles Sutter -Westchester D.O.T.
Janet Horn -NYC Pubic Advocate
Gary Prophet -Concerned citizen
Richard Schulman -Concerned citizen
Ann Guild -Concerned citizen
Janice Schacter Lintz -Concerned citizen
Matt Shoktin -Concerned citizen
Ken Stewart -Concerned citizen
Approval of Agenda and Minutes
The agenda for the March 6, 2014 meeting was approved. The minutes of the December 5, 2013 meeting were approved.
Chairs’ Reports
The written Chairs’ Reports are attached to these minutes.
Mr. Albert commented that the main issue in the NYCTRC report is that the Bus Time system has just gone into operation citywide. He said that this development has major implications for both riders and for the management of the bus system.
Old Business
No old business was discussed.
New Business
Mr. Greif said that there has been a lot of bus service added in the outer boroughs, but the weather this winter has made it difficult to operate bus service. He stated that he commends the NYC Transit and MTA staff for all the work that they have done to prepare for the winter storms and operate service during them.
Trudy Mason made a motion to send a letter to Tom Prendergast commending the hard work of the MTA and its operating agencies in operating service despite the winter storms and in cleaning up the system in the aftermath of the storms. Mark Epstein said that any letter had to be circulated to each of the Councils, because each area faced different issues over the winter and had somewhat different experiences. Ms. Mason said that she was proposing a letter that is generic in nature and would not go into great detail. Randy Glucksman said that the letter could be sent to each Council Chair, who could review it to ensure that it reflected each Council’s position. The motion to send this letter was brought to a vote and failed to attract a majority of those voting.
Janice Schacter Lintz of the Hearing Access Program addressed the members. She noted that her organization had brought the idea of using induction loop technology to serve persons with hearing impairments to NYC Transit from London where it is in use. She said that induction loops had been included in station booths in the subway system and that the next phase had been to install the technology on buses and LIRR trains.
Ms. Lintz said that in the prior week she met with MTA Chairman Tom Prendergast and that he told her that induction loops would not be installed in buses and that he would install them on commuter rail cars only if required by regulations. Maureen Michaels asked whether the induction loops would be for new cars and buses rather than existing vehicles. Ms. Lintz responded that the proposal was to install the devices in new vehicles.
Francis Corcoran asked if Ms. Lintz if she could provide the PCAC with language that it could use in a letter to the Chairman on the induction loops. Matthew Kessler asked whether induction loop technology is required to be installed under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Ms. Lintz replied that the regulations are currently vague, but she believes that a requirement for induction loops will be included in future ADA regulations. She said that even in the absence of regulatory requirements, the aim of installing induction loops is to provide effective service and the ADA regulations require that service for persons with disabilities be effective.
Ms. Mason asked what other cities in the United States use induction loop technology in their transit systems. Mr. Lintz responded that the MTA is the largest purchaser of rail equipment in the US and that including induction loops in their specifications would lead the market in this direction. She said that Caltrain is looking into including induction loops and that the US Access Board is making it clear that a requirement for induction loops will be put into implementing regulations for the ADA.
William Henderson noted the negative response that the PCAC received on its recommendations about expanding eligibility criteria for reduced fare. Mr. Greif commented that the letter from the MTA on this subject indicates a misunderstanding of issues facing persons with disabilities. Edith Prentiss suggested that the next step is to work through disability advocacy groups to press for an expansion of the reduced fare criteria. Mr. Glucksman asked the members if they would be satisfied with an expansion of the eligibility criteria that included only people unable to drive because of epilepsy.
Mr. Sinansky noted that an Access-A-Ride or Able Ride pass is effectively a reduced fare pass, but it is still not accepted by many train crew members. Mike Godino said that he knew of a person who had serious travel limitations but was unable to get a reduced fare card because he was not eligible for Medicare. Ms. Mason pointed out that there were successful efforts to expand reduced fare eligibility to persons with mental illnesses. She suggested that the PCAC look at the legislation providing for this expansion. Ms. Michaels asked where the line should be drawn on reduced fare eligibility.
Mr. Glucksman pointed out that later in the meeting when MTA Chairman Tom Prendergast is in attendance members will have an opportunity to ask about reduced fare policies. He said that the Council Chairs will each have an opportunity to ask questions and can defer to their members.
Mr. Blair suggested that each Council Chair be able to ask a question and then allow their members to ask individual questions. Mr. Corcoran noted that this is an opportunity to set the tone for the PCAC’s relationship with the Chairman. Mr. Glucksman stated that Mr. Prendergast has been very responsive to our issues and in working with the PCAC.
Ms. Michaels asked whether the MTA had responded to our letter asking about issues and lessons learned from the December Spuyten Duyvil derailment. Mr. Henderson said that no response had been received. Ms. Michaels said that she is concerned with riders’ ability to use the emergency exit windows in the M7 cars. Ms. Prentiss remarked that she is concerned with the availability of emergency exits for persons with disabilities.
Introduction of MTA Chairman Thomas Prendergast to Discuss the State of the MTA and Its Operating Agencies
Mr. Prendergast began by stating that it is a privilege to serve the MTA as Chairman and CEO. The year of 2013 was challenging for Metro North, but overall the MTA’s agencies performed well. One major accomplishment was securing funding for repair of damages from Superstorm Sandy and for resiliency projects. He also noted that ridership has continued its upward trend, with subway ridership averaging 3.5 million per weekday in 1994, but exceeding 5.9 million on a single day in 2013. He said that the MTA is on the path toward improving service following the 2010 cuts. In 2010, $90 million in service was cut, but in the coming year $29 million in service will be restored or added, with the possibility of further improvements being approved by the MTA Board in July.
Chairman Prendergast said that he believes the Bus Time system will drive increases in bus ridership as people begin to use it. People are more likely to meet a specific bus that they have tracked than to go to a bus stop and wait an indefinite length of time for the next bus. He said that the M8 cars on the New Haven Line are proving to be very popular and providing capacity to the line and that 700 new buses are being delivered.
On the other hand, safety had clearly taken a step back at Metro-North in recent years, leading to problems such as the Bridgeport and Spuyten Duyvil derailments. These incidents resulted in a number of investigations, including the Federal Railroad Administration’s Deep Dive, investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board, and a detailed review of Metro-North by an MTA Blue Ribbon panel. Mr. Prendergast observed that Metro-North had gone from a troubled set of commuter services when it was founded to a best in class railroad and said that the organization needs to be brought back to that level.
Mr. Prendergast noted that the MTA has taken $800 million out of its annual costs on a recurring basis and that these savings will grow to $1.2 billion by 2017. The fare and toll increases projected for the next several years will be approximately equal to the rate of inflation. The pattern of regular fare increases is important because it avoids large fare increases or periods of deficits until the next increase.
In terms of capital spending, Mr. Prendergast said that the MTA needs to have some pay-as-you-go, or paygo, spending to keep up with its needs. He said that the size of the MTA’s asset base is $965 billion, and that $29 billion over five years is not a large amount in comparison. The final stage of the capital program process for the next five years is beginning, concluding in the MTA Board’s approval of a new Capital Program in September. Mr. Prendergast said that the MTA hopes for an approved Program in the first or second quarter of 2015 and that paygo funds are needed to keep prevent capital spending from being curtailed until the new Program is approved by the Capital Program Review Board.
In preparation for creating a Capital Program, the MTA performed a twenty-year needs analysis, which has two parts: (1) a survey of the condition of assets, which defines the projects that need to be in each future Capital Program, and (2) and an assessment of the state of the system as a whole and customer expectations, which are evolving as riders expect a better system environment and real time information.
Chairman Prendergast said that the MTA will ask the PCAC for its support of the Capital Program and noted that several things make the NYC subway system unique: (1) that it operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, (2) that it is the only system with extensive express and local service, and (3) that it is the only major system major transit system where fares do not vary by time of day or distance. He explained that the MTA is not proposing to change any of these elements, but noting that the value of these features must be taken into account. He also observed that the NYC subway system is unique because of its interoperability between lines, such as its ability to route East Side trains to the West Side, and vice versa, during service disruptions.
Mr. Prendergast addressed the current collective bargaining process in which the MTA is involved and noted that the time is approaching when major decisions will have to be made. He said that in New York State the MTA’s commuter railroads are the only large public sector entities that are not subject to the Taylor Law and thus prohibited from striking. If there is not a settlement, the railroad unions have the ability to use self-help, and a strike will be possible on the LIRR beginning in July.
The Chairman continued that in 2009 there was a grand bargain struck on MTA finances. This arrangement included the Payroll Mobility Tax, service cuts, fare increases, and it always included a provision that labor would contribute to the financial package through three years of no net increases in unit labor costs. The Presidential Emergency Board concluded that the MTA can afford raises, but raises are affordable only by raising fares and spending paygo capital funds on operations. These actions reduce bonding capacity and make it hard to fund the Capital Program. He said that this labor action is different than in the past, as it is about economics rather than work rules.
Mark Epstein said that when the LIRRCC asks the LIRR about strike contingency plans, they are referred to MTA Headquarters. He asked whether the Chairman could discuss them. Mr. Prendergast responded that plans are being formulated, but the MTA would not attempt to operate the system in the event of a strike by LIRR employees. The MTA cannot replace the LIRR system, but there are things that can be done to ensure that people can continue working. Telecommuting is one tool that was not available in previous strikes. He stated that the MTA wants to avoid getting to the point of a job action and if one occurs to keep it as short as possible. Mr. Epstein requested that LIRRCC have the opportunity to provide input on the contingency plans. Mr. Prendergast said he will reach out to the Council, but time will be short to finalize contingency plans.
Mr. Epstein noted that he had been given a number of dates for the opening of East Side Access. He asked Mr. Prendergast his timeline and vision for the project. Mr. Prendergast replied that the MTA has been given a range of dates through the process, but he was present at the beginning of the project. The East Side Access project, like the Panama Canal, is mainly about moving materials, but the projections for how long the work would take were wrong. When the project is completed, projections are for 60 percent of LIRR trains to use the East Side terminal, and the system has been designed to handle 24 trains per hour.
Mr. Prendergast also explained that East Side Access will open Penn Station to Metro-North service. If you are in the Bronx and were many years ago promised rail service, this is the best way to get it to you. One factor in favor of adding this service is the development in the Bronx along the Hutchison River Parkway. He said that planners believe that people will come to depend on East Side Access to get to Manhattan and noted that the original terminal for the project was to have been at 3rd Avenue.
Mr. Epstein pointed out that Mr. Prendergast had previously noted that the subway system does not charge for longer trips and said that this is a major contrast with the LIRR. Mr. Prendergast responded that the highest discounts and subsidies in the MTA system go to the LIRR, followed by Metro-North and that this has been a conscious decision based on the needs of the entire region.
Mr. Blair said that because the MTA is a large organization it tends to be defensive and cautious and asked the Chairman whether he wants to be more open to outside resources to counteract these tendencies. Mr. Blair gave the example of the use of TTCI as a consultant, with the result that Metro-North learned a great deal about itself. Mr. Prendergast replied that he is a firm believer that an organization has to fight against complacency and the attitude that those running an organization know everything and do not need outside input. He said that executive leadership must ask to be challenged from outside the organization.
Mr. Blair asked whether there is a trigger in place for invoking emergency schedules and whether there has been movement from a standard where the system is operated regardless of conditions to one in which management protects the system. Mr. Prendergast said that he was in Chicago in 1978 when the transit system tried to run in a 33 inch snow storm. The system had a total of 1100 cars and needed 900 to operate normal service. By the end of the storm the system had 350 cars that were still operational. He said that the lesson is to protect the system’s assets. This orientation has some risks, as on one Friday a predicted snowstorm did not occur, but a weekend schedule had already been put in place on Metro-North. When the snow did not materialize, ridership overwhelmed the available trains, although Metro-North tried to add trains through supplements and did a lot of things to try to deal with issues of inadequate capacity. He added that Metro-North probably should have alerted riders, who might have adjusted their travel patterns.
Mr. Albert said that the 2010 service cuts are fresh in people’s minds and that these cuts were a result of funds being taken from the MTA. A lockbox bill was approved by the Legislature, but it was vetoed. He asked what advocates can do to ensure that adequate transit funding will be provided. Mr. Prendergast responded that the MTA is sensitive to people’s feelings about establishing a lockbox, but their focus is making sure that there is enough funding to operate the system. To do this, the MTA has to make sure that needs are communicated to elected officials and that the State sets aside the necessary resources to meet them. There are a lot of conflicting needs in the State budget and lawmakers have to find ways to resolve them.
Mr. Albert said that he believes the unbuilt 7 Line 10th Avenue station is the biggest missed opportunity in the subway system and asked whether it should have been included in the 7 Line extension project. Mr. Prendergast responded that he believes the station will eventually be built. Mr. Glucksman suggested that the MTA look more closely at extending the 7 line to Secaucus. Mr. Prendergast said that from a transportation standpoint this proposal has merit, but in practical terms it is unlikely to happen.
Mike Godino stated that he has worked in Brooklyn for seven years and believes that the proposed scoot service to Atlantic Terminal will affect Brooklyn passengers adversely. He asked whether there is a possibility of direct rail access to Brooklyn after East Side Access is built. Mr. Prendergast said that modeling has been done and it shows that you cannot maintain through services, run the level of service needed and maintain on time performance at the same time.
Mr. Blair asked about the nature of the MTA’s relationship with Albany. Mr. Prendergast said that there is frequent contact between the MTA and the Governor’s staff and that when he asks for resources the MTA gets them. He said that the most the important task is to get the next Capital Program approved and that the MTA needs advocates’ help in making the case for capital spending to Albany.
Ms. Prentiss stated that she does not believe Mr. Prendergast has a full appreciation of implications of Jamaica to Brooklyn scoot service for persons with disabilities. She said that because of the difficulties of changing trains on non-adjacent tracks she will be one train behind all other riders. She also noted that when Howard Roberts was NYC Transit President, he established a kitchen cabinet group to deal with disability issues, but that the existing groups set up by the MTA and its agencies do not do what is necessary. Mr. Prendergast stated that he is open to dialogue.
Ms. Prentiss said that she does not believe that the MTA complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Mr. Prendergast responded that whether or not the MTA and the disability community agree on ADA issues, there needs to be a dialogue about them. He said that often issues arise when station elements are replaced and the ADA requires that accessibility improvements be made.
Ms. Michaels said that riders are told that safety first is the rule at the MTA, but it seems like until there is an incident, nothing gets done. The LIRR has new cars being designed, but we do not know whether lessons learned from incidents at Metro-North are being compiled by a team and incorporated into the design. She also said that she has concerns about flawed emergency exit window design in the M7 cars.
Mr. Prendergast responded that the NTSB is the premier accident investigation organization in the world and that they will look at how people were killed and injured in the Metro-North accidents and make recommendations for changes. The NTSB did detailed interviews with passengers as part of their investigative process. Mr. Prendergast said that the MTA is bound to the crashworthiness standards established in Washington and that developing these standards is a core competency of federal officials.
Sheila Carpenter said that she was a member of the PCAC committee working on recommended changes to reduced fare rules. She feels that the LIRR does a good job of defining the persons with disabilities who are eligible for reduced fare, but has overlooked persons with seizure disorders. Mr. Prendergast stated he would look into the issue. Mr. Greif said that there are many issues with people getting access to half-fare, among them that train crews and bus operators do not recognize valid means of demonstrating eligibility for reduced fares.
Larry Rubinstein asked whether the MTA has looked at other metrics for on-time performance. Mr. Epstein added that one issue left unaddressed by current measures is missed connections at Jamaica, where a rider may be late although the train may make up time and not be counted as late at the terminal. Mr. Prendergast commented that the established standard for at least 20 years has been that trains arriving within 5 minutes 59 seconds of their scheduled arrival time are considered on time. He acknowledged that there are problems with transfers, but said that it is often not possible to hold connections for late arriving trains.
Trudy Mason asked if the MTA is conducting a review of communication. She noted that the incident on the Lexington line on January 15 included many communication failures.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
William Henderson
Executive Director