LIRR Signal Project To Affect Parking At The Wantagh Station
The Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) just e-mailed a press release to announce a signal project will affect parking at the Wantagh station. Here are the complete details:
Work related to the Babylon Branch signal improvement project will affect some parking at the Wantagh Station this coming weekend, November 22 and 23 and again from December 2 through December 7.
November 22 & 23:
Beginning at 6 PM on Saturday, November 22 and continuing through 7 AM, Sunday, November 23, the LIRR parking lot east of Oakland Avenue in Wantagh will be closed and 19 parking spaces in the parking lot west of Oakland Avenue will be unavailable. During this time, five new signal huts will be moved by crane from the parking areas onto the railroad right-of-way area adjacent to the tracks as part of the signal improvement project.
December 2-December 7:
Beginning at 6 PM on Tuesday, December 2 and continuing through 5 AM, Sunday, December 7, up to 20 parking spaces in the parking lot west of Oakland Avenue in Wantagh will be closed off. During this time a signal bridge will be assembled in the lot and eventually lifted by crane onto track level and installed adjacent to and over the tracks.
Both parking lots are operated by the Town of Hempstead. No train service disruptions are anticipated due to the work.
xoxo Transit Blogger
You might enjoy reading these related entries:- 110 New Parking Spaces Created At Ronkonkoma
- Ronkonkoma Parking Lot Renovations Begin May 11th
- LIRR Tuesday P.M. Service Changes
- Buses Replace Trains Bet. Freeport & Babylon
- LIRR Expects Normal AM Rush On 2 Branches
Specific Details Of The Proposed Fare Increases & Service Cuts
In the entry just below this one, I wrote my feelings on the entire MTA Board meeting & subsequent media session. While I was writing that entry, the MTA issued a press release via e-mail with more specific details which I posted some of. Here is the complete release:
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) today released its Final Proposed 2009 Budget and November Financial Plan for 2009-2012. The MTA is required to pass a balanced budget by the end of the calendar year, and a final plan will be considered by the MTA Board at its December 17 meeting. The Board voted today to authorize the MTA staff to begin the public hearing process for potential fare/toll increases and service cuts.
The proposed budget addresses significant budget gaps in 2009 and beyond due to plummeting tax revenues, higher fuel costs and elevated debt service obligations. In anticipation of pending deficits, the MTA undertook numerous cost-cutting measures beginning last year, including integration of its three bus companies, consolidation of back office functions and a 6% reduction in controllable costs over four years. With the vast majority of the agency’s staff devoted to service, operations and maintenance (only 7 percent are in administration), however, the impact of the recent economic crisis could not be covered without service cuts and fare/toll increases.
To bridge the gap, in addition to actions proposed in July, each MTA agency proposed 4.7% cost reductions, including at least a 5% reduction in managerial costs. Proposed service reductions were identified because they could be implemented without compromising safety or security, and still provide MTA customers with alternative options for reaching their destination. The remaining deficit was made up by a 23% increase in the revenue yield from fares and tolls beginning in June 2009. This increase is projected to generate approximately $670 million in 2009.
“The budget presented today fulfills the MTA’s responsibility to put forward a balanced budget for the coming year,” said Elliot G. Sander, MTA Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer. “While we attempted to identify the least harmful cuts possible, they will be painful and no one at the MTA is eager to implement them. Even in a period of austerity, continued investment in the MTA’s critical operating and capital needs must be a top priority for elected officials in Albany, New York City and Washington. That is why Governor Paterson appointed the Ravitch Commission, and we will work hard to ensure that its recommendations are implemented to restore financial stability to the MTA. It powers our economy and we cannot allow the system to move backward at this critical moment.”
“The proposed budget presents the MTA Board with extremely tough choices that we must grapple with over the next month,” said Chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger. “We have an obligation to pass a balanced budget, but we all hope that service cuts and extreme fare increases can be avoided. We will be closely watching the Ravitch Commission and will support its efforts in any way we can, both on the operating budget and also on the critical capital program, which cannot be forgotten.”
Before any gap-closing measures are implemented or prior-year carryover is included, the MTA’s budget deficits are projected to reach $1.441 billion in 2009, $2.394 billion in 2010, $2.647 billion in 2011, and $2.972 billion in 2012. The budget gaps are to be filled through actions from the MTA itself, its employees, governmental partners and customers:
• MTA Internal Actions Proposed in July: The gap closing actions anticipated in July are continued. These include 6% non-service related cost reductions over four years, continuing the 1.5% annual reduction begun last year. In addition to belt tightening, a series of administrative reductions in hiring, travel and food, and telecommunications are being implemented in 2008 and 2009 at all of the agencies.
• Labor: The plan assumes that MTA employees will make a modest contribution to the plan through negotiation of new contracts. In addition, the plan expects efficiency measures, notably the Business Service Center, which will consolidate back office operations for all MTA agencies. This will require downsizing the workforce and this plan, as previous plans, provides funds to cover the expected cost of downsizing, but anticipates annual savings to begin in 2012. Savings are also assumed from other reorganization initiatives.
• Cash actions: MTA will take an inter-agency loan of $135 million to reduce the gap in both 2009 and 2010, which it will pay back in 2011 and 2012. The plan also identifies funds that had been allocated from the 2006 surplus but not yet committed that will be transferred back to the operating budget in 2008 to be used for future gap-closing. Projects that would have used these funds will instead be included in the next capital program.
• Government partners: The plan proposes legislative changes to federal mandates for commuter railroad employees that, beginning in late 2009, are projected to save $15 million, then roughly $62 million annually without affecting employee benefits. The plan also continues to propose asking the State to eliminate tax loopholes affecting real estate transactions, which is expected to generate $50 million annually beginning in 2009. However, the plan no longer anticipates the $600 million in new State and City contributions beginning in 2010 or reimbursement for school fares and senior discounts, which had been expected to generate $104 million annually beginning in 2009. Nor does it assume that the City and the MTA share paratransit costs, which would have provided $113 million in 2009 and more thereafter or the restoration of the fall off in State tax aid.
• Additional actions for budget balance: To make up the remaining deficit, each agency identified actions to reduce their budgets by an additional 4.7%. Each agency identified additional administrative cuts that could be taken over and above the normal, recurring 1.5% reduction program proposed in July (as discussed above). For the additional reductions, each agency was required to meet an independent target of no less than 5% of its managerial expenses. The proposed service reductions were guided by two principles: first, reductions should not compromise safety, security or reliability; and second, to target cuts to services where an alternative exists for customers to reach their destination. The proposed reductions, which are described in more detail in the budget documents, are summarized below.*
• MTA customers: Finally, the plan proposes a fare and toll increase designed to yield a 23% increase in fare/toll revenue in June 2009. The revised fare structure has not been determined, but will be developed and discussed in the coming months. The plan also assumes alternate year fare and toll increases starting in 2011 to keep pace with the growth in consumer prices.
o In addition, customers who use paratransit services and express buses, two services with extremely low fare recovery ratios, will see additional increases. Paratransit fares will increase to twice the regular Transit base fare, as allowable by law and consistent with other bus agencies, and express bus fares will increase from $5.00 to $7.50.
o The plan also increases Long Island Bus fares by 20% over and above the general proposed fare increase in the absence of additional support from Nassau County.
As a result of these and other gap closing actions, the MTA expects to carry a modest cash balance of $65 million into 2010, with deficits still projected for 2010 ($266 million), 2011 ($454 million) and 2012 ($608 million). Without these measures, budget gaps are expected to grow to nearly $3 billion in 2012.
*Specific agency budget reductions include:
NYC Transit: Savings of $167 Million in 08/09, $280 million annually 2010-12:
• 7.5% reduction in managerial, professional and clerical positions
• On top of 1.5% cuts taken prior to service reductions.
• Subway reductions:
• Route modifications – shorten G, operate N via Manhattan Bridge late nights, eliminate W and extend Q to Astoria, operate M to Broad rush hours, eliminate Z, add J local service.
• Increased headways and loading guidelines during non-rush hours – headways increase from 8 to 10 minutes on ADEFGJMNQR on Saturdays and the ADEFGNQR on Sundays; headways increase from 20 to 30 minutes from 2 a.m. to 5 a.m.
• Reduced station booth and station customer assistant staffing; elimination of enhanced station area track cleaning program.
• Bus reductions:
• Reduce or eliminate low ridership services, especially during weekends or late night, and services that largely duplicate subway service.
Metro-North Railroad: $35 million annual reduction
• Administrative cuts in management, clerical and other areas
• Increase loading guidelines and reduced service to both East and West of Hudson
• Maintenance reductions
• Reduce car and station cleaning
Long Island Rail Road: $36 million savings in ‘09 and $53 million annually 2010-12
• Reduce administrative positions
• Reduce ticket offices, sellers and windows
• Reduce train crew staffing
• Service reductions on special service trains and select weekend and off-peak trains
• Extend select maintenance cycles
Long Island Bus: $5 million of savings in 2009 and $6 million annually thereafter
• Reduce managerial headcount up to 10%
• Reduce/eliminate service on low ridership routes
• Savings associated with CNG and service contracts
• Increase employee health and welfare contributions
Bridges and Tunnels: $17 million savings in 2009, $59 million over the plan period
• Administrative savings
• Close some manual/cash lanes during low-traffic periods
• Reduce facility security and truck weight enforcement personnel
• Reschedule some bridge painting projects to align with structural work in the next capital program
• Eliminate the Cross Bay Bridge Rebate Program, reduce frequency of E-Z Pass paper statements, and tighten E-Z Pass controls
MTA Headquarters: $9 million annual savings
• Reductions in managerial headcount, service contracts and purchases of goods and services.
These proposals are drastic but not surprising when you look at the financial mess the MTA is currently in. What is really sad is the fact these proposals are mainly a result of the continued disrespect our government shows public transportation in terms of funding. The most telling stat is how these proposals would lead to fare revenue accounting for over 80% of operating costs. I dare anyone to find a transit system anywhere in the world that at any point had fare revenue account for this much of operating costs!
As far as the service cuts go, lets start with NYC Transit first. I feel some might actually be happy about the N running over the Manhattan Bridge late nights. I have heard & read many complaints about how slow service is when traveling through through lower Manhattan on the Broadway lines due to the sharp curves below Canal Street. Plus to be honest the ridership is next to nonexistent at those stations during the overnight hours. So I don’t see this proposal as being a bad one.
The next service cut I will talk about is the shortening of the G train. I do not support this proposal at all even though I realize the MTA was setting this one up prior to any sort of financial meltdown. The G serves a very good purpose running along the Queens Blvd corridor & considering that it ends just short of a major transfer point illustrates how this line has been a regular customer of “The Shaft” for years.
The Q train extending to Astoria is an idea that has been proposed by many transit buffs on different forums like Rider Diaries & SubChat. I am sure many will be excited about this if it comes to fruition. I think the change could be a good one as the Q’s current northern terminal would be better suited as a non-terminal.
As far as headways go, common sense would tell you that this is not a positive change for riders & their riding experience. In a time where we have huge ridership numbers, the last thing we need is less service on longer headways. This proposal alone is worthy of the MTA getting more funding as this will only worsen the system in the long haul.
In terms of bus service, I think it is a good idea to decrease or eliminate routes that have low ridership or are slower versions of available subway service. One of the first routes I thought of that might get a cut in service is the Bx4 which is covered from start to finish by subway service from either 2, 4, 5, or 6. I do hope the Bx5 does not see any cuts in service as while its terminals have subway service, it serves many residential commuters who use the bus to get to the subway.
As far as the railroads are concerned, I can’t comment too much on Metro-North as I rarely ride it. So I am not sure if cutting service east or west of the Hudson is a good thing. In general I would assume that as the amount of people living in the suburbs rising, more service would be needed, not less.
In terms of the Long Island Rail Road, I know it well & can guarantee you that the last thing needed is a reduction in service. It is clear to anyone who is a frequent rider that more service is needed especially on the Ronkonkoma line. Overall more reverse peak service is needed & the “Third Line Project” would be a big help in terms of accomplishing this. However considering the current financial outlook & the always annoying NIMBY’s, that project has a long road ahead of it. Overall a reduction in waste for both railroad agencies can’t be a bad thing.
Poor Long Island Bus never seems to catch a break. The service is usually pitiful which is why I never would ride it. I know way too many who have & the majority of them had legitimate complaints about it. They also get shafted on a regular basis in terms of funding from Nassau County. Now the riders who depend on this under performing service have to look forward to more of the same along with huge fare increases.
When it comes down to fare increases, no specific details were announced in regards to local bus & subway routes. All we learned is that under this proposal, express bus fares would rise 50% to $7.50. Also Paratransit riders would see their fare rise to double the base transit fare.
Overall the saddest part of this proposal is that it only helps with the current budget deficit. After 2009 the agency would carry a small cash balance in 2010 while projected deficits would be $266, $454, & $608 million in 2010, 2011, & 2012 respectively. I seriously hope our elected officials see how grave of a situation the MTA & its ridership faces if the way business is conducted doesn’t change. The MTA is not just its employees but its ridership as well & we all need help! Will our so called leaders heed our call or ignore us yet again? Only time will tell……….
xoxo Transit Blogger
You might enjoy reading these related entries:- MTA’s Preliminary 2009 Budget & Four Year Financial Plan
- MTA To Vote On Budget Savings Plan
- MTA Approves 2009 Doomsday Budget
- Cuomo Plan Axes $100M From MTA Budget
- LIRR Politicians Urge MTA To Reconsider A Fare Hike….
MTA Lays Out The Pain We Might Soon Embrace
The day has finally arrived in which the MTA Board would be presented with budget proposals to help trim an over $1 billion dollar budget deficit. These proposals included an even bigger fare increase then originally planned along with job losses & service cuts. Details of these proposals began to leak over the last few days from different newspapers such as the New York Daily News & New York Times. I decided to make sure I was able to watch the complete board meeting & subsequent media session which ended literally under 5 minutes ago from the time I started this entry.
Let me first start out by talking about the public speaker session which preceded the budget proposal presentation. I was impressed with the messages echoed by most of the speakers. However I would like to focus on two individuals who I felt were an embarrassment to themselves. The first person is known as Mr. X.
He is someone that I have seen comment at many meetings in the past. He has a certain swagger to his delivery however I felt he did more harm than good in trying to deliver his message. It is one thing to focus on the lack of attendance of board members to public hearings. I completely agree with him that people who don’t make the time to attend important meetings should not have the ability to vote on issues such as fare hikes & service cuts.
However I felt it was distasteful of him to repeatedly focus on the relationship between Paul McCartney & MTA Board member Nancy Shevell. I am no fan of the lack of action she brings to the table but focusing on this just cheapened his legitimate points.
I do not recall the name of the other man who spoke. I just recall that he seemed completely disjointed & had absolutely no sense of direction with his comments. I seriously sat there wondering if he was drunk or high as he spoke. He really did not seem to be all there & made himself look foolish. If that is how he normally speaks, I suggest he refrain from public speaking as it is not his strong point.
Now let me focus on the actual presentation which contained no surprises in my eyes as I was expecting it to be bad. Even with saying that, I can understand why MTA Board Chairman Dale Hemmerdinger said “I think I speak for all the board members when I say wow. That’s quite a presentation and not something any of us wanted to hear.” after the presentation concluded.
The presentation started by focusing on past slides from projections that were made back in July & outlining the changes since that time. Eventually we got to some general outlines in terms of what changes might be coming for the different divisions. I will first start with:
New York City Transit:
7.5% reduction in managerial, professional and clerical positions )on top of previous 1.5% reduction)
Route modifications
Headways and loading guidelines during non-rush hours
Reduce or eliminate bus routes with low ridership
Long Island Rail Road:
Eliminate 173 positions
Service reductions on special service trains and select weekend and off-peak trains
Extend select maintenance cycles
Cancel or combine some trains
Metro-North Rail Road:
Eliminate 88 positions for a savings of $70 million over 2 years
Increase loading guidelines and reduced service to both East and West of Hudson
Reduced car & station cleaning
Long Island Bus:
Eliminate 42 positions to save $5M in 2009 & $6M in 2010 & beyond
Elimination or reduction of low ridership routes
Reduced managerial workforce
Increase employee health & welfare contributions
Bridges & Tunnels:
Eliminate 28 positions at a savings of $17M in 2009 & $24M in 2010 & beyond
Eliminate Cross Bay Bridge rebate program
Reduce number of cash lanes during low traffic periods
MTA Headquarters:
Reductions in managerial headcount, service contracts and purchases of goods and services
In the next entry I will go into more detail about some of these proposals as I was e-mailed a press release which talks about the proposals in greater detail.
Now after the presentation, we got to hear various board members share their sentiment. As I have come to expect, Jeffrey Kay was vocal about the MTA making sure it can find ways to possibly avoid potential fare increases & service cuts. In his eyes the way the MTA does business needs a complete “fundamental reform” as business as usual is not getting the job done.
Norman Seabrook took the opportunity to share his feelings as well. He felt that the board needed to think outside the box to come up with ways to get a steady stream of revenue. He even went as far as to pitch the idea of a “Sin Tax” which would call for a 30% tax on the purchase of cigarettes & alcohol. He admitted that he was a smoker & would not want to pay more. However he felt when push came to shove, it would be more fair for people like him to pay more instead of riders having to shoulder the burden with huge fare increases.
When listening to the overall consensus, it is obvious the board wanted to send a message out to not only our elected officials but the riding public. The message to the elected officials, mainly in Albany is that the way business is done needs to be changed. Albany created them & the way they do business & are a culprit in why things are not well. To the riding public, it was they can only legally do so much in terms of executing actual policies to bring in money. They realistically are stuck with only 2 options in their control which is to determining fares & how much service we get.
I’ll be honest the general riding public will not take the message well. In their eyes the MTA is public enemy #1 & are at fault for everything wrong with our system & its infrastructure. Unfortunately there are not enough people such as transit bloggers or supporters who understand that much of the fault lies with our elected officials.
The perception to many is that politics don’t matter & the things they do or don’t for that matter trickle down to me. However that could not be further from the truth. I will be the first to call out the MTA for their mistakes but I will also be the first to acknowledge that our so called “leaders” are the reason we could potentially see the system return to the state of disrepair & disgusting culture that was rampant in the 70’s & 80’s.
If our city or more accurately region is to remain as the capital of the world, it needs a strong transit system & infrastructure. This means our so called leaders need to recognize that the MTA does not need a bandaid or patchwork solution to cover just the next 1-2 years.
They need to find a way to make sure the MTA not only closes its operating budget but has money to help fund its “Capital Plan” which is just as important as the day to day operating budget. One budget will never be more important than the other. A strong transit infrastructure & system includes balanced funding & budgets for both & this is something that must get done one way or another.
Our transit system is the engine or backbone that makes the region’s economy go & arguably the world as well. What does it take for our leaders to realize this, especially in the state legislature? Without NYC, the state is pretty worthless. This is not the heyday where NYS helped fund NYC. NYC funds NYS & our elected officials need to realize that & get with the program of funding the MTA with legitimate sources of non-fluctuating revenue.
The MTA is clearly depending on the recommendations of the Ravitch Commission to be seriously considered & implemented as that was pretty evident in my eyes. When the Ravitch Commission report is released in a few weeks, will our elected officials step to the plate & find a way to do the right thing? Or will they continue to give a middle finger to the millions of people in our region who continuously get shafted at every turn!
xoxo Transit Blogger
You might enjoy reading these related entries:- MTA Faces Backlash At First Public Hearing (West Nyack Version)
- The Bleak Reality Of The MTA Financial Picture
- Do We Really Need All These Executives?
- MTA Releases 2010 Preliminary Budget & Financial Plan
- Editorial Blasts MTA Board Over Free Perks
MTA Worries About How It Will Fund The Next Capital Plan
Amidst all the talk of budget deficits & probable service cuts, one huge issue is overlooked by the general public. What issue might that be? The next 5 year “Capital Plan” which is the separate budget that pays for things such as construction, maintenance, & new equipment. As of right now, the huge operating budget deficit is not the only issue on the MTA’s plate as they don’t know how they will fund the next 5 year “Capital Plan”. William Neuman of the New York Times delves into this topic in a report which will appear in tomorrow’s print edition:
Even as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority seeks to overcome a $1.2 billon shortfall with fare increases and service cuts, an even weightier problem looms: The authority is uncertain how it will pay for a five-year capital spending plan that could cost as much as $30 billion.
The fare increases and cutbacks are meant to keep the system running next year. The capital plan is meant to keep it running for years beyond that through the purchase of new equipment, maintenance of tracks and renovation of stations.
“The need for investment in the system is gargantuan,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County who is chairman of a committee that oversees the authority. “Twenty-five years from now what we do on the capital plan will resonate much more loudly than what the debate is going to be about fare increases.”
The authority has two budgets.
One is the operating budget, which pays for things like fuel for buses, electrical power for subway trains and the salaries of the people who operate them. (On Thursday the authority will propose a 23 percent increase in fare and toll revenues and deep cuts in subway, bus and commuter rail service to balance its operating budget for next year.)
The other is the capital budget, which typically is renewed every five years and pays for major items like new trains and buses and for projects, like replacing subway tracks, that keep the system in good repair. It also pays for expansion projects like the Second Avenue subway.
The current capital plan expires at the end of next year, and the authority must submit a new five-year plan to the state for approval even as it seeks additional money to plug its operating deficit. Officials have estimated that the capital plan could cost $25 billion to $30 billion, much of which would be financed through bonds that the authority would repay over many years.
Both budgets are important, but Mr. Brodsky and others worry that the long-term needs will be lost in the tumult of settling the more immediate need.
Click here for the complete report.
As usual look who is in the forefront expressing his views on what needs to be done, none other than Westchester County Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. It never fails that he will throw in his two cents when it comes time for the MTA to potentially raise fares. I used to side with this guy for saying what needed to be said but my opinion on him as soured as regular readers know. All this man seems to do is provide lip service & no results in terms of helping the MTA get the funding it deserves & is quite frankly owed to them by our elected offcials.
All the talk of potential service cuts & fare hikes aside, the “Capital Plan” must be funded & there is no if, and, or buts about it. The plan is vital to keep our infrastructure sound & running for the long term & even under the current financial climate, its needs must be met one way or another. What needs to happen is for our elected officials to finally (excuse the language) wake the fuck up & do what needs to be done to get the MTA the funding it needs.
One way or another the money has to come or our system will fall apart. Instead of trying to nickle & dime drivers & riders, find the money from other sources such as the tons that gets wasted yearly on various favors & programs that benefit next to nobody. The time for being diplomatic about this is over & heads need to roll if the MTA once again gets shafted in the funds department. When will enough be enough?
xoxo Transit Blogger
You might enjoy reading these related entries:- The MTA Prepares For Next Budget War
- MTA To Vote On Budget Savings Plan
- MTA Board Approves Capital Construction Plan
- Fare Hike Saviors?
- Gov. Spitzer Says Not So Fast…..
City Councilman Releases A Report On Lexington Ave Lines
A direction many have to follow on the usually crowded uptown 51st Street platform. Resized photo courtesy of Eye On Transit.
Earlier today I posted a statement the MTA released via e-mail about crowding on the Lexington Avenue subway corridor. I wondered why they suddenly released a statement about an issue that is known by many. It turns out that the office of City Councilman Daniel R. Garodnick released a report about the Lexington Avenue lines. The report was to highlight how crowding is so bad, a decent percentage of riders are not able to board the arriving train. Sewell Chan of the New York Times has more in this report:
The three Lexington Avenue subway lines — the Nos. 4, 5 and 6 — have gotten so crowded that riders are routinely stranded on the platforms during peak periods, unable to board the cars, according to a report released on Wednesday by the office of City Councilman Daniel R. Garodnick, who represents parts of the Upper East Side.
The problem is not new, but Mr. Garodnick said it was probably worse on the East Side lines than anywhere else in the system, citing the passenger-loading guidelines used by New York City Transit, the arm of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that runs the subways and buses. Mr. Garodnick urged the authority to spare the three lines from the service reductions being contemplated as the authority struggles to close a growing budget deficit.
Even at full capacity — 27 trains per hour — during the morning rush, the two Lexington Avenue express lines, the Nos. 4 and 5, frequently are too full to accommodate all the passengers, who must wait for the next train. Transit guidelines call for a three-square-foot space for each passenger to stand; often, such space is unavailable.
The result, Mr. Garodnick said, is not only commuter frustration, but also lost economic activity, and safety concerns.
Although the evidence from the report is more suggestive than scientific, the findings suggested heavy crowding.
* More than 130 riders were kept off of each downtown No. 6 train at 77th Street during the morning rush, defined as 8:15 to 9 a.m. On two days, the number of stranded passengers exceeded 400.
* At least 75 commuters were unable to board each No. 4 and 5 train at 59th Street on the nights of Yankees home games in August.
* During the two commuter rush periods, an average of 25 riders were left stranded by every train at the stations observed.
Click here for the complete report.
Well the report issued reveals nothing that millions of riders didn’t already know. However the MTA is not lying when they say that they have maxed out capacity on the corridor. Under the current conditions it would be impossible to add anymore trains. If anything this report just further illustrates why we need a properly setup Second Avenue Subway. What I mean by properly setup is in terms of actual stops & service patterns.
The goal of the SAS should be to encourage riders to use it & you can only do that by providing service that matches the needs of riders. Unfortunately the SAS is over budget & nowhere near being ready to be what it can & needs to be. So for now, riders of the Lexington Avenue subway corridor will continue to suffer.
xoxo Transit Blogger
You might enjoy reading these related entries:
