N. Y. Times story on subway woes

17 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,568 posts
N. Y. Times story on subway woes
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 19, 2017 2:07 AM

After a drumbeat of transit disasters this year, it became impossible to ignore the failures of the New York City subway system.

A rush-hour Q train careened off the rails in southern Brooklyn. A track fire on the A line in Upper Manhattan sent nine riders to the hospital. A crowded F train stalled in a downtown tunnel, leaving hundreds in the dark without air-conditioning for nearly an hour. As the heat of packed-together bodies fogged the windows, passengers beat on the walls and clawed at the doors in a scene from a real-life horror story.

In June, after another derailment injured 34 people, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo declared that the system was in a “state of emergency.”

System Failure

This is the first in a series of stories examining the reasons behind problems plaguing New York City's subways.


But the problems plaguing the subway did not suddenly sweep over the city like a tornado or a flood. They were years in the making, and they might have been avoided if decision makers had put the interests of train riders and daily operations ahead of flashy projects and financial gimmicks.


An examination by The New York Times reveals in stark terms how the needs of the aging, overburdened system have grown while city and state politicians have consistently steered money away from addressing them.


Subway Ridership Boomed, but Maintenance Spending Stagnated


change since 1991





















Ridership rose steadily ...

... but maintenance

spending dipped ...

... while on-time performance

steadily declined.


None of this happened on its own. It was the result of a series of decisions by both Republican and Democratic politicians — governors from George E. Pataki to Mr. Cuomo and mayors from Rudolph W. Giuliani to Bill de Blasio. Each of them cut the subway’s budget or co-opted it for their own priorities.

They stripped a combined $1.5 billion from the M.T.A. by repeatedly diverting tax revenues earmarked for the subways and also by demanding large payments for financial advice, I.T. help and other services that transit leaders say the authority could have done without.

They pressured the M.T.A. to spend billions of dollars on opulent station makeovers and other projects that did nothing to boost service or reliability, while leaving the actual movement of trains to rely on a 1930s-era signal system with fraying, cloth-covered cables.

They saddled the M.T.A. with debt and engineered a deal with creditors that brought in quick cash but locked the authority into paying $5 billion in interest that it otherwise never would have had to pay.

In one particularly egregious example, Mr. Cuomo’s administration forced the M.T.A. to send $5 million to bail out three state-run ski resorts that were struggling after a warm winter.

At the same time, public officials who have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions from M.T.A. unions and contractors have pressured the authority into signing agreements with labor groups and construction companies that obligated the authority to pay far more than it had planned.

Faced with funding shortfalls, the M.T.A. has resorted to borrowing. Nearly 17 percent of its budget now goes to pay down debt — roughly triple what it paid in 1997.

“It’s genuinely shocking how much of every dollar that goes to the M.T.A. is spent on expenses that have nothing to do with running the subway,” said Seth W. Pinsky, the former head of the city’s Economic Developmentorporation. “That’s the problem.” Commuters in a packed train at the Union Square station in Manhattan.

Reporters for The Times reviewed thousands of pages of state and federal documents, including records that had not previously been made public; built databases to compare New York with other cities; and interviewed more than 300 people, including current and former subway leaders, contractors and transit experts.

The examination found that the agency tasked with running the subway has been roiled by turnover and changes to its management structure. Dozens of people have cycled through high-level jobs, including many who left to work for contractors who do business with the M.T.A. Byzantine layers of bureaucracy have allowed transit leaders and politicians to avoid responsibility for problems.

But the theme that runs through it all is a perennial lack of investment in tracks, trains and signals.

On a good day, managing New York’s subway is a challenge. It is the largest urban transit system in the country and one of the oldest in the world. It is also one of the few to operate 24 hours every day. And in the past two decades, M.T.A. leaders have guided the authority through the Sept. 11 attacks and Hurricane Sandy, disasters from which it is still recovering. After the emergency declaration this year, the authority unveiled an $800 million rescue plan that included adding train cars and staff.

But politicians and transit leaders have not acted on a series of chances to turn things around sooner. They ignored decades of warnings from state and city comptrollers. They failed to pass a congestion pricing plan in 2008. They chose not to give mass transit much of the proceeds from large settlements with banks after the financial crisis. They brushed aside the findings of the M.T.A. Transportation Reinvention Commission, a 2014 panel of transit leaders from around the world.

And through it all, The Times found, the M.T.A. has used sloppy data collection and accounting games that hide from the public the true causes of the subway’s problems.

Much of this story unfolds in the musty pages of budgets and contracts. But under the jargon and numbers is a world of misery. New Yorkers who depend on the subways are missing court hearings, arriving late for medical appointments, losing out on jobs or being robbed of time with their children.

Last year, for the first time in decades, the number of people riding the subway actually slightly declined — an astounding development in a growing city with a booming economy.

“It’s heartbreaking,” said David L. Gunn, a former transit system president who helped drag the subways out of the 1970s crisis only to see the system deteriorate again. “I actually lose sleep over it. I get so mad when I see what’s happening.”

While many politicians have contributed to the decline of the subway over the years, the problems reached a fever pitch under Mr. Cuomo, who as governor appoints the M.T.A. chairman and effectively controls the authority. Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat who is expected to seek a third term next year and is also seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2020, tried to stave off the emergency by committing additional funding to capital construction and getting involved in decisions about how to spend it. But several transit leaders said that the interference backfired, and that the governor would have helped more if he had introduced any legislation to boost funding for core maintenance.

In a statement, Dani Lever, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cuomo, said the governor was dedicated to improving the M.T.A., including by ensuring a record $8.5 billion in state funding for capital needs.

Ms. Lever acknowledged that the subway was in “unacceptable disrepair” but argued that politicians and transit leaders had done their best with limited resources and a flawed agency. She said the problems stemmed from a lack of accountability caused by the city and suburbs having seats on the M.T.A. board, and the city and Legislature having power to veto capital spending.

“A camel is a horse designed by committee, and the M.T.A. is a train service run by committee,” Ms. Lever said.

At Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan, a clock displaying arrival times is not in use.


Another Monday Morning

On July 17, Chétina Muteba tried to catch a train from Inwood, in Upper Manhattan, to her office in Midtown. Everything that happened next, every seemingly tiny event that turned her commute into a frustrating crawl beneath the city, could be traced to decisions made in Albany and City Hall years before.

It was just another day in what had become a maddening summer for the city’s subway riders.

Ms. Muteba, a 32-year-old advertising strategist, was thinking about a meeting she was supposed to attend that Monday morning when she saw that her usual entrance to the 207th Street station on the A line was taped off.

“There was just someone who was working there, on the outside, on the street,” Ms. Muteba said. “He said, ‘Hey, it’s a block ticket,’ and I said, ‘I don’t know what a block ticket means.’ And he said, ‘You have to transfer.’”

No one told her that a fire, caused by debris on the A line track near 145th Street in Harlem, was slowing whole stretches of the subway.

The humidity that day hovered around 70 percent, and the temperature was climbing toward 85 degrees as Ms. Muteba headed to a 1 line stop down 207th Street. Drawing closer, she saw a long line snaking up the stairs to the elevated station. It was moving only incrementally, like an assembly line feeding into a broken factory. She took her place at the end.

When she reached the platform, she found that trains that usually arrived every four or five minutes now seemed to be coming 10 minutes apart. She pushed onto one and felt lucky to find a seat. It stopped at Dyckman Street, and she braced herself as an enormous number of people got on.

As Ms. Muteba fought to get to work, other commuter dramas were playing out across the system.

Continue reading the main story


Continue reading the main story

A Decline in Performance on Every Line

More than 90 percent of trains reached their destinations on time on most subway lines in 2007. Ten years later, that figure is less than 70 percent for many lines.



Riders on the L train platform in Union Square during rush hour.


A steep decline in cash.



At the Union Square station, signs that once told commuters, “If you see something, say something,” are fading away.


Despite the consternation, the reductions did not immediately cause problems. That paved the way for other city and state politicians to make more cuts.


Mr. Giuliani did not return multiple messages seeking comment.

His successor, Michael R. Bloomberg, used city funds to help finance bonds for a development project — the extension of the 7 line to the Hudson Yards on the Far West Side of Manhattan. But he otherwise left subway funding where it was, which effectively cut the city’s contribution by not allowing it to keep up with inflation.

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, Marc La Vorgna, said the former mayor contributed by fighting vigorously to get the state to adopt a congestion pricing plan that would have provided a huge amount of revenue. “It’s hard to argue any mayor in history has made a greater effort to improve the M.T.A.,” he said.

Mr. de Blasio has been hands off. He committed $2.5 billion in city funds for the M.T.A.’s capital program, but he rebuffed requests to increase operating subsidies and has declined to provide money for the authority’s plan to address the delays. During town hall meetings, he often quizzes attendees to ensure they know the city does not run the subway.

A City Hall spokeswoman, Freddi Goldstein, said the de Blasio administration “has contributed its fair share year after year.” Ms. Goldstein noted that the city’s police officers patrol subway stations and that its residents provide most of the M.T.A.’s tax revenue. “What the City of New York contributes daily is bigger than the budget alone can show,” she said.

Still, the budget shows that the city’s contribution to M.T.A. operations has dropped by almost 75 percent.

In today’s dollars, the city gave the M.T.A. roughly $1 billion in operating funding in 1990. This year, not counting money for managing some formerly city-run buses, the city gave the system about $250 million.

The mayors stuck to the cuts despite a surge in property values that the subways helped create. New York real estate values — and property tax revenues — have quintupled since the early 1990s, according to the Independent Budget Office.

None of that increased property tax revenue was earmarked for the subways.

Getting Less, Borrowing More

If the city’s cuts hindered the subway, the state’s actions practically hobbled it.


Lawmakers in Albany trimmed funding for subway maintenance throughout the 1990s, records show, even as the state budget grew from $45 billion to $80 billion. Then they kept funding mostly flat for years, despite the surge in ridership.

Under Mr. Pataki, the state eliminated subsidies for the M.T.A., opting to make the authority rely entirely on fares, tolls and revenue from taxes and fees earmarked for transit. It also ended state funding for capital work.

The move rankled the state comptroller at the time, H. Carl McCall, who warned that taxes and fees were unstable.

Mr. Pataki also started a trend of redirecting revenues from taxes. In 1995, he pushed through a state income tax cut and helped pay for it by taking more than $200 million in tax revenues that had been set aside for transit. His three successors followed suit. At least $850 million has been diverted in the past two decades, records show.

Richard Ravitch, the former lieutenant governor and M.T.A. chairman who came up with the idea for many of the dedicated taxes as part of his plan to save the subways in the 1980s, said it never occurred to him that the state would redirect the revenue.

“It’s very disappointing,” Mr. Ravitch said, adding that the diversions were just another in a long list of examples of politicians taking the subway for granted and neglecting to invest in its health.

“This is the lifeblood of the city,” he said. “Everybody depends on it. And yet nobody cares about it enough to think more than four years ahead. They only want to think about the next election. Nobody is thinking about the future.”

Budget shortfalls have led transit leaders to routinely raise fares to stay afloat. The subway now derives more than 60 percent of its funding from fares, a higher rate than almost any other transit system in North America.


Perhaps nothing has hamstrung the M.T.A. more than a maneuver Mr. Pataki introduced in 2000.

That year, Bear Stearns, then a Wall Street powerhouse, approached the governor with a proposal to alleviate an M.T.A. budget crunch: If the authority refinanced $12 billion of its debt, the bank said, it could get a huge influx of cash without having to pay for years.



Graffiti on the L platform at Sixth Avenue in Manhattan.


Within weeks, a Bear Stearns executive was pitching the idea to skeptical lawmakers in a marathon meeting at the State Capitol.

Critics denounced the move, saying it was a “debt bomb” that would hurt future generations. But the lawmakers eventually signed off, and the M.T.A. agreed to the deal in 2002.

The bankers and bond underwriters — many of whom had ties to Mr. Pataki or had donated to his campaign — earned an estimated $85 million.

Mr. Pataki did not return messages seeking comment.

Today, bonds have become the biggest funding source for M.T.A.’s construction needs. The authority has borrowed about $15 billion in the past six years — about 52 percent of overall capital funding, records show. In the 1980s, only about 30 percent of capital work was financed by debt.

The current state budget director, Robert Mujica, who was appointed by Mr. Cuomo, said it was sensible for the M.T.A. to borrow more today because interest rates are much lower than in the 1980s. “Using debt is a responsible way to invest in assets that are going to last a long time,” he said.

Still, most other American transit systems fund their capital work more by government financing than borrowing.

Like the budget cuts in the 1990s, the borrowing did not immediately wreak havoc on the subway. But more than two dozen current and former M.T.A. officials said that years of underinvestment caught up to the system by the mid-2000s. Reliability plunged, they said, and it kept plunging even when Gov. David A. Paterson and Mr. Ravitch raised tax rates to benefit the authority.

“They figured that the subway was fixed, and so they stopped thinking about it,” said a former budget director at the M.T.A., Gary G. Caplan. “You can only stop funding something for so long before it breaks. That’s what happened.”



A whirlwind of commuters trying to enter and exit a train on the 4, 5 and 6 platform in Union Square.


A State ‘Piggy Bank’

The subway’s budget has not only been squeezed. It has been milked.

Fees demanded by the state for bond advice are a prime example.

A bill passed by the Legislature in 1989 included a provision that lets state officials impose a fee on bonds issued by public authorities. The fee was largely intended to compensate the state for helping understaffed authorities navigate the borrowing process. It was to be a small charge, no more than 0.2 percent of the value of bond issuances.

The ceiling of the renovated station at Fulton Street in Manhattan.


Costly Undertakings

This was just one way that officials redirected M.T.A. money that could have gone toward fixing the subway. The remaking of the Fulton Street station in Manhattan was another.

Damaged during the Sept. 11 attacks, the station was eligible for federal renovation money when Sheldon Silver took it up as a cause.

Mr. Silver, who was then Assembly speaker and one of the state’s most powerful politicians, envisioned not just a subway station in his district but a soaring transit hub, “the Grand Central of Downtown,” complete with an enormous glass dome and mirrors to filter sunlight into underground passageways.

By 2008, the cost had shot past its original $750 million budget, and M.T.A. leaders decided to scale back the project. But Mr. Silver sent a letter threatening to veto the authority’s funding if he did not get what he wanted. The M.T.A. quickly fell in line.

In the end, the project cost $1.4 billion — more than the total annual budget of Chicago’s rapid transit system — and did nothing to improve the subway’s signals or tracks.

Mr. Silver, who stepped down as speaker in 2015 after being charged in a federal corruption case, declined to comment.

There have also been costly overhauls at other stations. Bleecker Street in Manhattan got improvements, including a neon light display, at a cost of $135 million — more than twice the initial estimate. The remodel of the Cortlandt Street station in Manhattan, also destroyed in the 2001 attacks, is still not finished, despite $66 million in spending so far.

Last year, Mr. Cuomo pushed the M.T.A. to spend nearly $1 billion on enhanced lighting, signs, countdown clocks and other upgrades at dozens of stations, many of which were not considered most in need of rehabilitation by M.T.A. leaders. The project, called the Enhanced Station Initiative, did not include funding to make all the stations comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Mr. Cuomo also pressured the authority to spend tens of millions of dollars to study outfitting M.T.A. bridges with lights capable of choreographed display, install wireless internet and phone-charging ports on buses and paint the state logo on new subway cars.

Joseph J. Lhota, whom Mr. Cuomo appointed M.T.A. chairman in June, defended the spending.

“Service and reliability shouldn’t just be while passengers are on the train. It should be while they’re on the platform,” he said, adding that not having phone-charging ports was unacceptable in the 21st century.



An entrance to the 53rd Street station in Sunset Park, Brooklyn.


But Roger Toussaint, who ran the M.T.A.’s main union from 2001 to 2009, said the spending reflected a pattern of focusing on flashy projects over maintenance. “The spinal cord of the subway system is the ability to move trains — signals, power and the actual track and infrastructure,” Mr. Toussaint said. “They haven’t been spending money on the spine. They’ve been spending money on the limbs.”

The state has also made the M.T.A. bail out other entities in need of help, including the state-run ski resorts. The $5 million was sent in March last year, after a warm winter in which the Belleayre Ski Center, Gore Mountain and Whiteface Mountain saw a 25 percent decrease in visitors. In 2013, the M.T.A. was made to send $5 million to an affiliate agency, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, to cover the cost of reducing tolls.

M.T.A. board members, who learned of the ski-resort bailout from an article in The New York Daily News, hired a law firm to investigate the payments. The firm concluded they probably were legal, according to records shared with The Times, but several members said they were inappropriate nonetheless.

“It would have been far more responsible for the state to have left that money with the M.T.A. I love skiing, but if you want to ski at a state-owned ski resort, buy a lift ticket,” said James E. Vitiello, an appointee of the Dutchess County executive. Mr. Vitiello is among several board members who have complained that the governor has taken a stronger role in the authority and limited their ability to direct policy.

During this period of spending, subway performance slid. The percentage of trains arriving at their destinations more than five minutes late — the M.T.A.’s cutoff for whether a trip is “on time” — has increased in 14 of the past 15 years. “Mean distance between failure,” the measure of how frequently trains break down, has worsened almost every year since 2010.

The financial crisis in 2008 intensified the problems, in part because of the M.T.A.’s reliance on taxes and fees. Among other issues, revenue from a real estate transfer tax plunged by 75 percent — leaving the authority scrambling to deal with a $1 billion drop in revenue.

The M.T.A. curtailed 40 types of maintenance. Among other moves, it lengthened schedules for routine work on most cars from about every 66 days to every 73, and schedules for comprehensive overhauls from every six years to every seven.

Mr. Lhota said the cuts, which have never been restored, were the biggest reason for the rising delays. “The maintenance intervals were stretched, and they were stretched too far,” he said.

Hurricane Sandy struck a few years later. The M.T.A. drew praise for its response, but transit leaders said the storm took resources away from routine maintenance.

Mr. Cuomo had steered clear of the M.T.A. during his first years in office, but in his second term he took an intense interest. He placed aides within the organization and, in an unusual move, made some report directly to him. He badgered transit leaders about the construction of the Second Avenue subway on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. And over the objections of some board members, he canceled several M.T.A. capital projects to make room for his own priorities.

According to high-ranking current and former M.T.A. officials, the moves interfered with the authority’s plans to address the rising delays.

They also bothered the respected former M.T.A. chairman Thomas F. Prendergast, who retired in January. Mr. Prendergast said his retirement was not related to the governor, but several of his former colleagues said it was a factor.

Continue reading the main story
An atrium in the renewed station at Fulton Street.


Soaring Salaries

Even in the face of the financial crisis and budget shortfalls, the M.T.A. has given concession after concession to its main labor union.

Members of the Transport Workers Union got a total of 19 percent in pay raises between 2009 and 2016, compared with 12 percent for the city’s teachers union over the same period.

The labor contracts also gave members lifetime spousal health benefits and free rides on the Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road. (They already were allowed to ride the subway for free.)

According to a former union president, John Samuelsen, the organization has secured better deals over the past eight years than any other public labor group in New York.

“I look back with satisfaction on what, together, we have accomplished,” Mr. Samuelsen said in a September letter announcing that he was becoming the union’s international president.

Each of three deals signed from 2009 to 2017 cost more than the M.T.A. anticipated, forcing it to take money from other parts of the budget. The 2014 deal, which cost $525 million, was funded by tapping into a pay-as-you-go account that was intended to pay for capital work, former officials said.

New York vs. Other Transit Systems

CityOn-time performance
New York 065%
Mexico City 071%
San Francisco 086%
Washington 088%
Madrid 091%
Miami 092%
Baltimore 095%
Chicago 096%
Vancouver, British Columbia 096%
Toronto 096%
Atlanta 097%
Boston 097%
Montreal 098%
Philadelphia 098%
Paris 098%
Berlin 099%
Seoul, South Korea 099%
Los Angeles >99%
Singapore >99%
Taipei >99%
Hong Kong >99%

Subway workers now make an average of $170,000 annually in salary, overtime and benefits, according to a Times analysis of data compiled by the federal Department of Transportation. That is far more than in any other American transit system; the average in cities like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington is about $100,000 in total compensation annually.

The pay for managers is even more extraordinary. The nearly 2,500 people who work in New York subway administration make, on average, $280,000 in salary, overtime and benefits. The average elsewhere is $115,000.

New York is more expensive than most other cities, but not by that much. The latest estimate from the federal Department of Commerce said the region’s cost of living was 22 percent higher than the national average and 10 percent higher than the average for other areas with subways.

Mr. Samuelsen rejected the idea that subway workers were overpaid, arguing that it is a dangerous job in which assault is common. “We earn every penny that we make,” he said. “This is New York City. This isn’t Mayberry. It costs $700,000 to buy a house in Brooklyn. What do you want us to make? Fifteen dollars an hour?”

Union rules also drive up costs, including by requiring two M.T.A. employees on every train — one to drive, and one to oversee boarding. Virtually every other subway in the world staffs trains with only one worker; if New York did that, it would save nearly $200 million a year, according to an internal M.T.A. analysis obtained by The Times.

Several M.T.A. officials involved in negotiating recent contracts said that there was one reason they accepted the union’s terms: Mr. Cuomo.

The governor, who is closely aligned with the union and has received $165,000 in campaign contributions from the labor group, once dispatched a top aide to deliver a message, they said.

Pay the union and worry about finding the money later, the aide said, according to two former M.T.A. officials who were in the room.

Mr. Cuomo’s office said in a statement that the M.T.A. handled its own labor negotiations and that campaign contributions had not influenced any of his actions.

Commuters on the 4, 5 and 6 platform in Union Square.

A Vast Personal Toll

The cost of increasing delays can be measured not only in numbers, but also in painful absences on special occasions, lost wages and blown opportunities. Over the summer, The Times asked readers to share their experiences with the subway. More than 1,000 responded, mostly with stories of sorrow.

Ashley Patterson, 24, from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, began having anxiety attacks on the subway this summer and now follows a careful routine to keep calm during delays.

“I think that that’s something that the M.T.A. should be thinking about,” Ms. Patterson said. “It’s not just about the inconvenience of being late to work. There’s this mental health aspect.”

Laura Hernandez, 34, a city employee from Woodside, Queens, missed an appointment to inspect the housing conditions of the clients of a social service agency. “I am a new employee on probation, and it does not look good to arrive over an hour late for an appointment,” Ms. Hernandez said.

Juliana S. Karol, 30, from the Upper East Side of Manhattan, is a rabbinical student at Hebrew Union College downtown. She was late to a meeting to discuss her senior thesis, ordination and job placement. She was also 38 weeks pregnant.

“I actually ended up writing my High Holy Days sermon about the subway,” Ms. Karol said. “About the opportunities that the subway crisis gives us to reframe both the gratitude we have when things are going right and how we respond when they are not.”

The entire fifth-grade class at Public School 32 in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, had to cancel a field trip to see a movie — a reward for completing math exams.

“They had actually gone to the station, and they just ended up waiting forever,” said Dawn Reed, 52, whose son was one of the disappointed students. She said she used the experience to teach him about managing expectations. “It’s getting progressively worse,” she said of the subway. “And delays are a part of life, and it’s difficult to have any sense of consistency.”

Ariel Leigh Cohen, 26, from Sunnyside, Queens, missed an interview for a job painting scenery for a major Broadway show. It would have paid twice her salary as a salon receptionist and brought her closer to her dream of working in show business.

“I was trying to change my life and do what I came to New York to do,” Ms. Cohen said. “It would’ve opened up another world of possibilities. Opportunities like that don’t come around often at all.”

And then there are stories like Rosalie Osian’s. A chaplain who comforts the terminally ill for Caring Hospice Services, Ms. Osian, 58, got word one Friday that a patient was dying in Brooklyn, and she struck out on a 2 train from 72nd Street in Manhattan.

She made it as far as Fulton Street downtown before an announcement told her to switch to the 4 or 5. Problems on that line forced her to switch trains again, and at one point she was left standing on a platform, racked by the need to be with the patient and prepare the family for grief and pending loss. She was late getting there but made it before the patient died.

“I’m not the only one,” Ms. Osian said. “There are people traveling the city all day helping people. There are home health aides and others. And if the subways are delayed, they can’t get to their work.”



A teeming train stops at the 4, 5 and 6 platform in Union Square.


Avoiding Culpability

Although riders have bemoaned delays on the subway for years, they often have no idea what is causing them.

This is a byproduct of 30 years of transit officials seeking to avoid blame for the system’s problems, The Times found.

Every day, officials collect data that could be used to improve the system. For every incident that causes a delay, workers are supposed to log the time, location, duration, cause and department responsible. In theory, the data could be studied to identify patterns in delays and shed light on how they might be fixed.

That has not happened.

In 1986, the M.T.A.’s inspector general discovered that the delay records were “seriously flawed” — and shot through with biased reporting, unauthorized adjustments, illegible entries and omissions. In the 1990s, investigators twice concluded that the count was riddled with errors and misrepresentations.

John Gaul, then the assistant chief of rapid transit operations, acknowledged at the time that the process was susceptible to fraud because operators were being asked to collect data on their own performances. “In many cases, undue pressure had been imposed on supervisors in the field to meet on-time performance goals,” he said.

Three former high-ranking subway officials told The Times that little had changed since the 1980s. Before final delay reports are issued, M.T.A. departments argue about who should be blamed. Sometimes, the reports reflect more on a department’s arguing ability than on its actual performance.

The officials also said that different tactics had been used over the years to avoid culpability.

From September 2009 to May 2010, records show, some 530,000 delays — 80 percent of all delays recorded — were lumped into a category called “supplement schedule.” The officials said that whenever maintenance work in the system caused a scheduling change, virtually all delays were put under this label, regardless of their cause.

In recent years, the M.T.A. has stopped using the category.

Today, M.T.A. documents say that the most common cause of delays is “overcrowding.” More than 111,000 delays were put into that category in the first four months of 2017 alone. That was 37 percent of all delays.

New York politicians and transit leaders have seized on the figures to suggest that most of the subway’s problems come down to its popularity.

But the M.T.A.’s own records call that into question.

In March 2015, records show, more than 153 million trips were recorded, making it one of the busiest months on record. There were 19,000 delays attributed to overcrowding.

Last March, two million fewer rides were recorded, but 30,000 delays were said to be caused by overcrowding.

Mr. Lhota said that quirks existed in all data and that M.T.A. officials handled the classification consistently. He rejected any suggestion that officials were manipulating numbers to make themselves look better or blame customers for problems. “The delays are solely the responsibility of the New York City Transit Authority,” he said, referring to the agency that runs the subway.

Still, the murkiness of what is truly causing delays only feeds frustration for riders like Ms. Muteba, the advertising strategist whose 30-minute commute became a two-hour odyssey of packed cars and angry riders after a track fire in July.

Though the number of passengers on the 1 line swelled temporarily that morning because riders were avoiding the blocked A train, dozens of delays were not attributed to the track fire. They were attributed to overcrowding, records show.

“You’re just kind of like, ‘It’s a lost cause,’” Ms. Muteba said. “It’s kind of like beating a dead horse.”

An entrance at the Court Square station in Queens is taped off.


Agustin Armendariz and Vivian Wang contributed reporting. Doris Burke contributed research.



  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,568 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, November 20, 2017 11:57 PM
Broken L train triggers chaotic morning rush-hour commute

Broken L train triggers chaotic morning rush-hour commute


Thursday, September 21, 2017, 10:00 AM

Inline image

The disabled train forced the MTA to cut L line service in and out of Manhattan, from Myrtle-Wyckoff and Eighth Ave.

(John Minchillo/AP)

A disabled subway train made a mess of commutes on the L line during Thursday morning's rush hour.

Riders were posting pictures of the immense crowds building on L line platforms after a train reported mechanical problems at the busy Bedford Ave. stop in Brooklyn around 8:12 a.m.

The train, which had door problems as it was leaving the Bedford Ave. station, forced the MTA to cut L line service in and out of Manhattan, from Myrtle-Wyckoff and Eighth Ave. Trains had to be held at Brooklyn stations because of the stalled train.

“L train is a mess this morning. Can't wait to see what Bedford ave looks like," wrote Ali Philippides on Twitter.

"Don't try to get on the #ltrain right now. @MTA fail. @Uber win," wrote Heather Viggiani on Twitter.

Riders were told to take the A, C, J, M, and G lines for alternative routes into Manhattan.

By 8:50 a.m., L train service had returned with delays.

But the respite from the subway chaos on the L line didn’t last long — signal problems disrupted service from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., forcing the MTA to hold L trains at their stations on the entire line, from Eighth Ave. to Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway.
  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 15,923 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:26 AM

Maintenance - You can pay now and keep things in good repair or you can pay much more later as the failures mount.

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 1,401 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Tuesday, November 21, 2017 3:56 PM

Andy Byford announced today that he is resigning as CEO of the TTC effective Decemeber, to take over the New York transit system. I hope he knows what he's getting into. Good luck to him! 

  • Member since
    February, 2016
  • From: Texas
  • 1,264 posts
Posted by PJS1 on Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:29 AM

Pasting the whole story from the "Times" into the forum chews up a lot of space and may turn off readers who are just interested in the highlights.  Placing a link to the story along with a summary of its most important points probably would be more effective.   

I lived in Brooklyn for many years.  I left in 1976 for Texas.  Numerous factors caused me to do so.  One of them was the realization that the New York City unions were imposing a heavy burden on the city's taxpayers, which is one of the highlights in the story. 

Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 7,068 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:47 PM

Placing a link to the story along with a summary of its most important points probably would be more effective. 

Or would if the Times site weren't afflicted with pop-ups, paywall tracking, and the usual selection of secret cookies and dancing ads that so frequently characterize media sites.  A quick synopsis is usually enough for me, and even a few paragraphs of quoted text beats clearing the crap out of a phone browser after the fact.

  • Member since
    March, 2013
  • 711 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:16 PM


Pasting the whole story from the "Times" into the forum chews up a lot of space and may turn off readers who are just interested in the highlights.  Placing a link to the story along with a summary of its most important points probably would be more effective.  

Not everyone subscribes to everything, I've copied & pasted paywalled stuff here before for that exact reason.  Not having to deal with the ads and tracking software is just another bonus.  

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,568 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 23, 2017 3:38 AM

[quote user="JPS1"]

Pasting the whole story from the "Times" into the forum chews up a lot of space and may turn off readers who are just interested in the highlights.  Placing a link to the story along with a summary of its most important points probably would be more effective.   

I lived in Brooklyn for many years.  I left in 1976 for Texas.  Numerous factors caused me to do so.  One of them was the realization that the New York City unions were imposing a heavy burden on the city's taxpayers, which is one of the highlights in the story. 


[/quote above

Sorry if some of the material I posted from the NY Times was of no interest to you.  But it may have been of interest to other readers.  I do try to be selective of what I post, and in fact did remove some stuff where the story continued.

Other people can way in on this, and I certainly will consider cutting further in the future if more than one person complains about my present editing.

  • Member since
    August, 2006
  • From: Matthews NC
  • 240 posts
Posted by matthewsaggie on Thursday, November 23, 2017 11:26 PM

Dave, I appreciate having the whole story in one place. Thanks.

  • Member since
    September, 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,094 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Friday, November 24, 2017 4:05 AM

I don't mind.  I just scroll past things that don't interest me.  It isn't any more anoying than following a link to a site that says you must be a subscriber to open it.


Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 9,216 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, November 28, 2017 8:35 PM

NY MTA lets contract for "L" line additional power supplies.  Goes along with Dave's hope for the "L" line ?



  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,103 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, November 28, 2017 8:51 PM

Several other cities listed have unionized workers and high costs of living.  Their workers and managers are paid considerably less yet seem to have much better on-time performance.  Sometimes you don't get what you pay for.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,568 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:34 AM


  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 14,568 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:07 AM

NYC Transit to Host Open House For Customer Feedback on Design of New Subway Cars

Customers Invited to Offer Feedback on New Technology R211 Cars Through Survey, Twitter, Facebook

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority today announced that it will offer tours to the public – and solicit feedback – of a prototype of its newest class of subway cars over the next week.

Customers will have the opportunity to see the new car design and its features up close from Thursday, Nov. 30 through Wednesday, December 6. at the 7 line subway station mezzanine at 34th Street - Hudson Yards. The prototype will be open for public viewing from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m on weekdays and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.  MTA staff will be on-hand to take feedback and help customers fill out surveys on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Customers are welcome to tweet their thoughts to @MTA, @NYCTSubway or write to us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/MTANewYorkCityTransit. There will also be a link available on mta.info for customer feedback.

“Developing a first-in-class subway car is an essential part of modernizing our subway system,” said MTA Chairman Joseph Lhota.  “It is important that our subway customers provide their feedback in this process and we hope they will do so after visiting the prototype. Ultimately, our customers will be riding these cars each day and their input is very important.”

The New Technology R211 cars feature 58-inch door spans, which are eight inches wider than standard doors on existing cars.  The expanded doors are designed to reduce delays and speed up train movement by speeding boarding and reducing the amount of time trains sit in stations.  The cars also include digital displays that will provide real-time information about service and stations, new grab rails including double-poles, brighter lighting, signage, and safety graphics.  Some of the initial R211 cars will feature, as a pilot program, an “open gangway” located at the ends of the cars. This open design features soft accordion-like walls, and allows riders to move freely between cars to reduce crowding and distribute passenger loads more evenly throughout the train.

The feedback will be shared with the car’s designers and the Car Equipment Division of NYC Transit to help better inform how the cars are ultimately produced.

Delivery of new cars for testing will begin in 2020.  The new cars will ultimately operate on the “B Division” of the subway, which are the lettered routes, as well as the Staten Island Railway.

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 11,181 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:58 AM

charlie hebdo

Several other cities listed have unionized workers and high costs of living.  Their workers and managers are paid considerably less yet seem to have much better on-time performance.  Sometimes you don't get what you pay for.

The implication that union labor is part of the problem is unfair on its face.  Comparing the on-time performance of a three-route light rail system to that of the NYCTA Rapid Transit division is really an apples-vs-oranges comparison.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,103 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:03 AM



charlie hebdo

Several other cities listed have unionized workers and high costs of living.  Their workers and managers are paid considerably less yet seem to have much better on-time performance.  Sometimes you don't get what you pay for.



The implication that union labor is part of the problem is unfair on its face.  Comparing the on-time performance of a three-route light rail system to that of the NYCTA Rapid Transit division is really an apples-vs-oranges comparison.

I suggest you read the on-time chart carefully.  Chicago, Boston, Paris and Berlin are not "three-route light rail" systems, last time I rode them.  They are also unionized and have numbers ~98% on-time, yet do not have bloated pay scales, which in NYC are even more extreme for managers than workers.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 15,923 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 7:12 PM

  • Member since
    August, 2006
  • 366 posts
Posted by alphas on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:14 AM


Do the NYC transit workers still get to retire after 20 years with their retirement determined by the highest paid year [which is always the last one due to overtime]?   

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy