Search Results for "feed"
Feb
10
LI Pols protesting better train service to NYC
Posted by: | Comments
Penn Station access for Metro-North will not be a grievous insult to Long Islanders.
There must be something in the water out on Long Island that makes its politicians put forth some crazy ideas. A few days after one group of Long Island State Senators proposed a further repeal of the MTA payroll tax, another is protesting what is, in essence, better commuter rail service for New Yorkers from both the Island and Westchester.
The story goes a little something like this: On and off for the last decade or so, the MTA has toyed with a Penn Station Access Study that discusses how best to bring Metro-North trains into Penn Station. In November, thanks to a push from Bronx politicians, the authority announced that it is engaged in a Federal Environmental Assessment that is exploring the impact such a routing would have. The assessment will be finished by the end of 2013, and at that point, the MTA will determine how best to proceed with this project.
Meanwhile, a group of Long Island Senators is having what can charitably be described as a freak-out. They are already calling upon the MTA to reject Metro-North service to Penn Station, and their complaints seem utterly short-sighted. “To make room for the new Metro-North Trains, the LIRR could be forced to cut the number of trains it runs into Penn Station,” Kemp Hannon, a Republican from Nassau County, said. “The LIRR is already sharing ingress into Penn Station, and any reduction of service could have a devastating impact on commuters and other travelers. With only seven of Penn Station’s existing 21 tracks being allotted to the LIRR, any reductions would seriously impair LIRR operations and affect all LIRR riders.”
The Senators, as Newsday reports, sent a letter to MTA Chairman Joe Lhota expressing their displeasure with the move. They don’t want to see a reduction in LIRR service to Penn Station, but they seem to be ignoring both common sense and commuting patterns.
Right now, as we know, the MTA is building out the East Side Access project that will, by 2016 or 2018 or some point this decade, bring LIRR service to Grand Central. The MTA studies show that tens of thousands of people from Long Island want and need direct service to the East Side. These folks currently travel via LIRR to Penn Station and then make their ways to the East Side. It’s circuitous and inconvenient.
Based on the current MTA funding proposals and the speed of construction, any Metro-North service into Penn Station is unlikely to see the light of day before the East Side Access project is completed. By then, the LIRR won’t need to run as many trains into Penn Station becomes some of its ridership will choose instead to go to the East Side. The Long Island Senators claim that, even after ESA is in service, LIRR must operate the same service into Penn Station. They want it all at the expense of better commutes for New Yorkers from Westchester. It simply defies transportation reason.
Dec
09
Weekender map upgrade as work impacts seven lines
Posted by: | Comments
Transit has updated its Weekender map in response to rider feedback.
It’s another light week of service, but before we just into these, I have another story: New York City Transit announced today that it has unveiled an upgrade of its Weekender map. The online offering, available starting every Friday at 3 p.m., allows straphangers to view the weekend’s service changes on a Vignelli-inspired subway map.
Here’s what Transit had to say about what they’re calling The Weekender 1.5:
Based on these comments and suggestions, new Weekender features have been introduced – including a searchable station name box that anticipates your station as you type – and an additional level of zoom to the subway diagram to give you a wider view of your trip.
The color on certain graphic elements and text has also been adjusted as a result of feedback from the ADA/vision-impaired community. TripPlanner+, the only route search program that plans your way around the construction, is also now much easier to reach.
Of the changes, Transit President Thomas Prendergast said, “We asked. You suggested, and we listened. These improvements customers will see starting today will make it easier for subway riders to visualize exactly how weekend work will affect subway service.”
Now onto the changes. As always, these come to me via Transit, and they are subject to change without notice. Check signs in your local station and listen to on-board announcements. Subway Weekender has the map.
From 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Sunday, December 11, uptown 2 trains run express from 3rd Avenue-149th Street to East 180th Street due to rail and plate replacement at Simpson Street.
From 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Sunday, December 11, uptown 5 trains run express from 3rd Avenue-149th Street to East 180th Street due to rail and plate replacement at Simpson Street.
From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturday, December 10 and Sunday, December 11, Flushing-bound 7 trains skip 33rd Street, 40th Street, 46th Street, 52nd Street and 69th Street due to installation of cable trays and brackets.
From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, December 10 to 5 a.m. Monday, December 12, Bronx-bound D trains operate via the N line from Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue to 36th Street due to station and line structure rehabilitation from 71st Street to Bay 50th Street. (Repeats next week.)
From 4 a.m. Saturday, December 10 to 10 p.m. Sunday, December 11, Queens-bound J trains skip Hewes Street, Lorimer Street and Flushing Avenue due to track panel installation north of Hewes Street. (Repeats next week.)
From 4 a.m. Saturday, December 10 to 10 p.m., Sunday, December 11, M trains run every 24 minutes between Myrtle Avenue and Metropolitan Avenue due to track panel installation north of Hewes Street. (Every 20 minutes overnight.)
From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, December 10 to 5 a.m. Monday, December 12, Coney Island-bound N trains run via the D line from 36th Street to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue due to track panel installation south of 59th Street.
Dec
06
After two weeks, Second Ave. blasting resumes
Posted by: | CommentsThe Upper East Side’s two-week reprieve is over. The MTA had halted blasting underneath Second Ave. shortly before Thanksgiving in order to alleviate residents’ concerns over dust and debris, and yesterday, after implementing a series of remediation measures, the blasting resumed.
As DNA Info wrote yesterday, residents are cautiously optimistic that the fixes will solve the problem. The MTA says it has expanded the blasting window by an hour in order to allow for more time in between charges. That way, the dust can settle before any blast triggers more debris.
The authority and its contractors have also tried to improve the muck houses — the giant structures along the avenue at 72nd St. — to better minimize the spread of blasting dust. New “Dust Bosses” will spray water on the dust in order to contain it within the muck house, and a burlap curtain will help seal some overhangs and vents.
Initially, residents offered some guarded praise for the new measures. “It’s a dramatic difference,” one said to The Post. “I see a big improvement, and I hope . . . it continues.”
Postscript: I made an appearance on Fox 5′s “Good Day New York” yesterday to discuss the Second Ave. Subway blasting issues. Check out the corresponding story right here and watch the video below.
Nov
29
At Grand Central, finding an open use for public space
Posted by: | Comments
Once a restaurant, soon an Apple Store.
As Thanksgiving morphed into Black Friday a few days ago, the transit stories were dominated by something that didn’t happen. Despite rumors stretching back into the spring, Apple did not open its Grand Central flagship store by the time the day of sales rolled around. Instead, construction has continued apace, and the computer giant finally revealed its temporary signage at the former Metrazur space.
According to reports on 9to5mac, an Apple insider blog, rumors are now percolating of a December 9 opening date. That’s just a week and a half away now and still within the frenzied month of shopping that feeds into Christmas. Grand Central, already overrun with tourists during the holiday season, will soon play temporary host to legions of iPad-toting technologists as well.
For Apple and the MTA, the deal for the space is one made in fiscal heaven. Apple paid Metrazur, the restaurant that once called the mezzanine home, $5 million to terminate its lease early, and the deal with the MTA is a lucrative one. Apple will pay at least $800,000 a year for the space and another $300,000 for ancillary storage facilities. The MTA believes the mere presence of Apple could boost sales to other businesses in the landmarked terminal by a few million a year as well.
But what of the store itself? Does it fit in with the ethos of Grand Central Terminal and what it has become in the years after its renovation and renaissance?
A few weeks ago, my dad and I had lunch at the Oyster Bar, another iconic Grand Central locale, and our discussion turned toward the Apple Store. My dad, who has seen his favorite New York stores — the Tower Records locations, the local bookstores, anything on the Upper West Side that isn’t a bank or a Starbucks or a Gap — close over the years, wasn’t too impressed with a corporate behemoth of an Apple Store opening up in Grand Central.
When the MTA renovated the space and agreed to lease it to the restaurants, the balcony spaces were to be open for all as an open-air display of grandiosity and good food. With an understated presence, Metrazur simply blended in, and my dad wondered if the Apple store would do the same. Of course, Metrazur wasn’t exactly an egalitarian restaurant. Lunch combination plates started at $27 with prix fixe dinners topping $50 — before drinks. These weren’t Aureole prices, but they were steep enough.
The Apple Store, on the other hand, is a transient place. To those of us in my generation, the Apple Store is a public realm where we can take a break to check our email, browse the Internet or look up nearby attractions or restaurants. We don’t have to pay $12 for a Caesar Salad just to enjoy the views from the Apple Store; rather, we can walk in, look around and walk out without paying a dime. As long as Apple keeps its own signature stylings to a minimum, it’s hard to imagine a space as all-encompassing and welcoming as a computer store opening up in Grand Central.
The ultimate issue with the incoming Apple Store won’t concern the ease of access though. Rather, it will concern crowds. How will Grand Central cope with an influx of people streaming toward the Apple Store as harried commuters rush to and from their trains? What happens on days with big product launches when the lines at other Apple Stores stretch for blocks and blocks? How can the world’s largest computer retailer co-exist with the nation’s busiest rail terminal? The Apple Store will be open space for the public to use, and perhaps as they climb those stores, they can stop to appreciate the rest of what makes Grand Central so grand.
Nov
02
The trouble with assessing bus satisfaction
Posted by: | CommentsWhen the MTA released its subway satisfaction survey last week, it also published a similar one concerning the buses, and I didn’t pay it much attention. As with the subway survey, the bus examination used a similarly flawed scale and still found 70 percent of riders satisfied with local bus service. In one sense, that’s a shockingly high number considering how unreliable and slow local bus service can be.
This week, Allan Rosen at Sheepshead Bites drilled down on both the results of and the process behind the MTA’s bus service, and he too is less than impressed. As bus service varies wildly across routes and boroughs, Rosen, a former bus planner with the MTA, is critical of the sample size, the rankings and the way the survey ignores customer feedback on proper bus routing. His conclusion on the survey: “They first draw their conclusions, then pick and choose the data they want to show to back up those conclusions. In this case the MTA wanted to show that a majority of riders are content with the service they provide.”
That, in a nutshell, is why the bus surveys don’t tell us much. But there’s a bigger issue at work here: The bus surveys targeted only those who ride the bus. If the MTA wanted to find out why people aren’t satisfied with bus service, the agency needs to find people who don’t or no longer ride the bus and ask them why. In such a survey, one would find routing issues, speed (or lack thereof) and an unreliable schedule to be the prime disincentives and a clear reason why bus ridership is on the decline. That’s a survey worth doing.
Oct
13
Should the next MTA head be a transit expert?
Posted by: | Comments
Joseph Lhota may be an MTA frontrunner, but is he the right man for the job?
Over the past few days, rumors have continued to swirl that former Deputy Mayor and current MSG executive Joseph Lhota will be named the next head of the MTA. At the bare minimum, we know that he’s in the running, and interestingly enough, he’s the only candidate whose name has been leaked to the public without any transit experience in his background.
Initially, I wasn’t too concerned with Lhota’s background. After all, both outgoing MTA CEO and Chair Jay Walder and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo have said that the MTA’s leader need not be a transit expert. As long as he or she surrounds himself with qualified and knowledgeable executives, the MTA head can focus more on big-picture budgetary and management concerns while the sub-agency heads can immerse themselves in operations. A part of a recent article on Lhota by Transportation Nation’s Jim O’Grady has me reassessing that stance.
Yesterday afternoon, O’Grady summed up the rumors and solicited some feedback from various advocates. He writes:
Jonathan Bowles, director of the Center for an Urban Future, a policy think tank, said he didn’t know Lhota well enough to comment specifically. But he said that from a leadership perspective, “It’s important someone be selected who can really make a strong case for transit and can convince legislators that this is so critical to the city’s future and that we’re on the precipice of something bad happening.”
Bowles added that the stakes are enormous: “If there’s one thing Governor Cuomo could do now to boost the city’s economy, it’s shore up the transit system.”
…Sources differed on Lhota’s ability to rise to those challenges. The NY MTA needs someone “who can handle the union relationships, the crisis of money, and Lhota will get it faster than most people,” said one. Another thought the Republican Lhota could help the Democrat Cuomo beat back a Republican-lead push in the state legislature to eliminate the payroll mobility tax.
But a third believed Lhota was the front-runner precisely because he won’t speak up too loudly for the needs of mass transit: “He’s gong to be the person who makes the cuts without making any demands on the state budget. He may even then turn around and say to the city, ‘It’s all your fault.’ He’s going to protect Andrew Cuomo from the hard choices.”
Of these statements, I believe Bowles’ comment and the third anonymous source raise some valid concerns. The MTA is at a point where it needs someone to advocate for a capital funding plan solution. That requires a detailed knowledge of transit operations and construction as well as a thorough understanding of how Albany works. Furthermore, at a time during which the MTA’s finances are in flux, the authority needs someone who will be more than just a Yes Man for Cuomo.
Over the past few years, Walder has taken an aggressive tone in arguing for investment in public transit. If the next MTA head is someone will be more willing to make cuts without pressuring the state for solutions, New York City’s subway system and the millions of riders who depend upon it will suffer. Even without transit experience, the next head must advocate for the system.
With speculation flying, Cuomo has expressed a desire to name a replacement for Walder before he departs next Friday. One way or another, this saga will come to a resolution soon.
* * *
Update (3:24 p.m.): As I was writing this piece, Colby Hamilton at WNYC’s Empire blog offered up his take on the appointment, and he is highly critical of Cuomo’s intentions here. “A Lhota appointment look based on political calculations more than anything else. The Cuomo people are signaling an interest in reducing their exposure to potential political problems, not in solving the agency’s unsustainable financial crisis. This of course was created over the years by politicians worried about their political exposure,” he writes. “If you add in the push-out of Chris Ward at the Port Authority, it’s Cuomo’s top priority is having his people in key, highly-public posts who will put the governor’s political interests first.”
Oct
05
Quietly, a new old look for the subway map
Posted by: | Comments
When the MTA cut service last June, they took the opportunity to refresh the subway map as well. The changes were, by and large, cosmetic. The giant bus callouts were cut down in number and size while the colors were changed to better highlight the the subway lines. Yet, with parks turning light brown and a shadow tracking the route lines, the changes were not met with great acclaim.
Recently, though, the MTA has rolled back some of the changes to the old map. Without much fanfare, the latest iteration of the map returns the parks to their green color. While the route lines still feature that shadow and station names run off at odd angles, the colors are looking a little more vibrant and lifelike.
I got wind of the changes earlier in September and saw the excerpt you see above. I asked the authority if they had a comment on the redesign. This is their statement:
We reprint the map several times a year, and we are continuously trying to make it easier to use. In June 2010 we issued a fairly significant redesign aimed at reducing clutter. Most of the changes we made as part of that redesign were successful and remain in place for the September edition of the map. One exception to that is the background land color.
In response to feedback we received after the 2010 redesign, we’ve returned the background land color to the more traditional beige. (For those with a detailed interest in graphic design, the underlying land color in the new map is a slightly screened back Pantone 468. The green-shaded land color had been a Pantone 614 with extra black added.) The colors of water and parks have also been adjusted slightly in concert with the new background land color. Also to continue to build on earlier clutter reduction, we’ve removed some streets and cemeteries that were not directly served by the subway.
The September 2011 map is posted online in jpg and pdf formats, and is being distributed to station agents for individual distribution to customers. The maps posted in stations and trains are updated less frequently, and will not receive this version of the map.
Meanwhile, I have also seen a full-fledged PDF with the following in the upper right corner. I can’t share the whole thing, but take a peek here:
All I know about this map is that it is apparently based upon a few old ideas. Back in the mid-1990s when Manhattan Bridge service changes caused radically different peak and off-peak service patterns, the MTA printed a few maps that had featured both service offerings. In April of this year, one blogger offered up his own version of the night map. “It’s the MTA’s,” he said, “if they want it.”
The MTA would not confirm to me that this night map could become a reality. Oftentimes, the authority produces internal documents for testing that do not see the public light of day. Some projects — like the Weekender map – are launched; others are left as good ideas on the cutting room floor. Perhaps this is one of them. Still, it strikes me as a useful representation of the subway system late at night when some trains do not run and others run truncated routes. At least someone’s thinking about.
Sep
30
North Shore options include light rail, bus improvements
Posted by: | Comments
The MTA is consider light rail as a possible way to bring transit to Staten Island's North Shore. (Click to enlarge)
Could Staten Island be the home of New York City’s first true light rail line? Based on an analysis conducted by the MTA concerning ways to improve transportation along the borough’s North Shore, it very well might be.
The North Shore Alternatives Analysis, presented last week at Snug Harbor (and available here as a PDF), has been a long time coming. Nearly two years ago, the MTA announced a engineering study that would examine ways to reactivate transit along the old North Shore Rail Line right of way, and the agency started the Alternatives Analysis phase of the project in April 2010. New York’s Empire Development Corporation has called upon the MTA to reactivate the rail line, and now the MTA has whittled its options down to three.
The sexiest choice concerns a light rail network that would run from the Ferry Terminal to the West Shore Plaza. The 15-stop line is estimated to cost $581 million (in 2010 dollars) to construct and would improve travel times from St. George to West Shore Plaza by as much as 35 minutes. The MTA says that light rail would be ” more
compatible than heavy rail with potential plans for connecting services.” I optimistically take that to mean a connection across the Bayonne Bridge.
As far as the light rail details go, the Alternatives Analysis made a few assumptions. First, the Clifton Staten Island Railway shop could be modified to include light rail maintenance. Second, any work would have to include a new car wash, body shop and fueling station in Arlington.
The next option would involve tearing up any rail tracks, paving the right-of-way and turning it into an exclusive busway. By adding eight stops, this alternative could speed travel by as much as 33 minutes end-to-end, but it would carry a substantial price tag as well. The MTA estimates $352 million in capital costs, and for a only a busway, that seems excessive.
The third alternative is called the Transportation System Management. Similar to the required no-build option added to environmental impact statements, this alternative examines ways in which the MTA could improve service by essentially restructuring existing service but doing nothing else. For $37 million, TSM would improve travel times by a whopping 60 seconds.
So what happens next? The MTA is essentially trying to determine which of three alternatives will improve mobility while preserving and enhancing the North Shore’s environment, natural resources and open source and maximizing limited financial resources for the so-called greater public benefit. Over the next few months, the MTA will assess potential ridership figures, conduct traffic analysis for station sites and beging some conceptual engineering and cost refinements. It is, in essence, a pre-environmental impact review designed to identify the locally preferred alternative. They have already begun to solicit community feedback on this plan.
As a believer that no transit options are going to be faster than a dedicated rail line, I’d love to see the MTA pick light rail. It would provide a fast ride across Staten Island and the opportunity to connect into New Jersey. But of course, light rail would present its own set of challenges. New York City has no light rail infrastructure, and bringing it to Staten Island would require the MTA to build up from scratch a light rail support system. It’s not impossible, but for the current MTA, it’s ambitious.
Then there is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I can see Staten Island becoming one of the MTA’s next great mega-projects, but it’s going to take some time. The $580 million (in today’s money) won’t materialize over night, and the MTA has to finish part of the Second Ave. Subway and the East Side Access project before funding another megaproject. Still, that a potential light rail line would cost something with millions at the end of it instead of billions could be its saving grace. Furthermore, New York City wants to redevelop Staten Island’s North Shore, and providing better transit is a key part of that plan. The dollars might somehow materialize.
So for now, there are rumblings of a plan. Nothing is concrete, but over the next few months and years, transit developments could come to Staten Island. It’s about time.
Sep
23
At 63rd Street, Adi emerges
Posted by: | Comments
Adi breaks through at 63rd St. (Photo via Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Patrick Cashin)
On a chilly day in April of 2010 with skies grey and intermittent rain drops falling into a giant hole in the ground 70 feet below street level, MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder gathered with local politicians to launch Adi, the giant tunnel-boring machine that would be responsible for creating the Second Ave. Subway tubes. Yesterday morning shortly before 11:30, Adi completed her second run, and as a broke through into the preexisting station cavern at 63rd St. slightly east of Third Avenue, the MTA could celebrate a major milestone in a project that has taken 80 years and may still last at least another five.
“At street level it can be hard to notice progress sometimes, but down here you can see the Second Avenue Subway becoming a reality right before your eyes,” Walder said. “The completion of tunneling is an enormous milestone and further proof that the Second Avenue Subway is for real this time.”
Those two themes — street-level impact and progress that is “for real this time” — have dominated the coverage of the Second Ave. Subway work. In fact, on Wednesday night a few hours before the TBM finished its run, Second Ave. business owners again called upon someone, anyone to provide them with aid during the disruptive construction. “This is our 9/11,” one of them said less than tactfully during a meeting of Community Board 8.
The progress for real though is what officials came to celebrate yesterday. The Second Ave. Subway has come to stand for the city’s inability to see big projects through, and the jury is in fact still out on this one. Originally planned for construction during the 1930s, SAS ran into the Great Depression, a World War, the rise of the automobile and an economic slump in the 1970s. Along the way, politicians such as Sheldon Silver tried to kill the project by demanding the MTA fund it in full from one end of Manhattan to the next before starting construction, and even now, the FTA believes the MTA won’t meet its planned December 2016 revenue date.
Still, politicians were effusive in their praise. “This is a remarkable — and very welcome — milestone,” City Council Member Dan Garodnick said. “From above, it’s difficult to appreciate everything that is happening to move this project forward. But while it hasn’t always been smooth sailing, things are moving, and we can’t wait to see the first train come down the line. For straphangers on the overcrowded Lexington line and businesses in the construction zone, this is a moment to celebrate. It’s a moment that brings us closer to transit relief and to the additional infrastructure that will aid our City for many decades to come.”
Adi, the TBM, begin this journey through the east tunnel in March. The 485-ton, 450-long machine used a 22-foot diameter cutterhead to mine 7789 linear feet of rock at an average depth of 70 feet. Now that the tunnels are dug out, workers will line it with concrete as part of the permanent tunnel structure. While yesterday was a major milestone for Phase 1, though, the MTA has a long way to go. Stations must be built, ventilation shafts dug, money apportioned and future phases to consider.
Sandhogs pose in front of the Second Avenue Subway tunnel boring machine. (Photo via Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Patrick Cashin)
Ultimately, though, SAS is keeping construction workers on the job, and as the MTA looks ahead to some debt-filled years, I have to hope that the parts of the SAS we’ll see in my lifetime don’t just involve a northern extension of the Q train. One day, the T should arrive.
“This milestone is a tribute to the skilled contractors and trades people who work tirelessly every day to solve the complex engineering challenges and build the Second Avenue Subway in the most dense construction environment in the country,” Denise Richardson, managing director of the General Contractors Association of New York, said. “With this milestone, New York comes one step closer to completing a vision of the Second Avenue Subway first planned in the 1920’s. Let’s make sure we continue to have the vision and fortitude to continue to build the transportation network that is so critical to New York’s economy and basic mobility.”
For more on this milestone, check out Ben Heckscher’s post at The Launch Box. He snapped some great photographs of the event, and there’s a video as well that I’ve embedded after the jump. Read More→
Sep
21
From LI Bus, a case study in the purpose of transit
Posted by: | CommentsHere’s an interesting question for you: Should public transit systems and the public authorities that run them be trying to turn a profit? In other words, at what point should authority heads such as Jay Walder cease running a transportation network as a public good and start running it as a business?
The answer to this question isn’t an easy one in an age of austerity. By and large, public transportation networks are inherently not operated as a business as the service level. In New York, for instance, the MTA runs mostly empty trains at 3 a.m. and allows buses to run routes with a cost-per-passenger high enough to make any private CFO cry. That’s how New York City exists as a huge economic hub and tourist destination today, and that’s how mass transit is operated as a public good.
On the other hand, though, are a few competing demands. First, the MTA must operate these services efficiently through a streamlined bureaucracy and a procurement process that isn’t beset with red tape. Second, it cannot become an organization beholden to pension costs and lifetime benefits. Third, it will require public subsidies from a government whose constituents depend on public transit for their daily lives, and politicians will have to recognize that the MTA or a similarly situated organization may not operate as efficiently as a corporation that answers to stock-holders. The demands are different, and the expected benefits are different.
Recently, a few good minds in the transit realm have been debating the way transit authorities operate. David Levinson has called for financially sustainable mass transit systems while Jarrett Walker has called upon those funding transit systems to better outline their goals. The competing demands of ridership vs. coverage are at odds with financially self-sustaining transit systems. I’ve simplified their arguments, and it’s worth reading their pieces at length because we’re seeing this debate play itself out in real life on Long Island.
The Long Island Bus saga has been a debacle. In its original agreement with Nassau County, the MTA agreed to operate the service as long as the county paid for it. Over the years, the county’s contributions had decreased while the MTA’s had increased, and the authority threatened to pull out of Nassau if County Executive Edward Mangano didn’t agree to upping the county’s contributions from $9 million to $26 million. Mangano called the MTA’s bluff and decided he could run the bus system for less by farming it out to a private company. He claimed no service cuts or fare hikes would follow.
From the start, the privatization process has been a mess. The county used a non-transparent process to pick Veolia, a company with close ties to Mangano’s campaign, and they failed to meet a July deadline for an agreement. The MTA will operate the buses until December 31, and at that point, Nassau County will reduce its contributions to just $2.5 million — $6 million less than the cost of fuel alone. Veolia will then be expected to cover the difference. Without subsidies, no one, including the company’s CEO, knows how.
Earlier this week, Michael Setzer spoke about how the company would save the millions it stands to lose from the MTA and state when it takes over the LI Bus network. “You can’t save $35 million by turning off the lights,” Setzer said. In other words, there’s virtually no way Veolia can operate the bus system with its current route structure and fare system while breaking even or turning a profit.
On their website, if you read closely enough, Veolia has said as much. They are threatening “adjustments” of bus timetables that will reduce frequency, and while they say there is no plan in place to raise fares next year, they also say that “it’s possible that modest service redesigns and fare increases will be recommended.” You can’t just save $35 million by turning off the lights.
Veolia is a private company long used to operate bus systems with large public subsidies. If they can’t turn a profit in Nassau County with a meager subsidy and the current route plan or fare structure, something will have to go. Relatively empty buses that provide a transit lifeline for people who can’t afford anything else will be cut, and fares will go up. A public good won’t be so public any longer.
As this grand experiment rushes toward a launch, we’ll watch Nassau County closely. It could be a model for how transit agencies can operate, but it sounds as though it’s going to be an example in government failure and the decline of a once-proud bus system. Perhaps Nassau County will come to its senses and recognize the purpose of its bus system before it’s too late, but I’m not counting on it.
