A meeting of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee (PCAC) to the MTA was convened at 12:00 noon on September 3, 2009, in the 5th floor Board room, at MTA Headquarters, 347 Madison Avenue, New York City. The following members were present:
• Andrew Albert
• Ira Greenber
• James F. Blair
• William K. Guild
• Ronald Breuer
• Marisol Halpern
• Gerard Bringmann
• Sharon King Hoge
• David Buchwald
• Gerard Kopera
• Sheila Carpenter
• Trudy Mason
• Mark Epstein
• Edith Prentiss
• Shirley Genn
• Michael Sinansky
• Stuart Goldstein
• Burton Strauss, Jr.
The following members were absent:
• Richard Cataggio
• Thomas Jost
• Francis T. Corcoran
• James L. McGovern
• Owen Costello
• Doug McKean
• Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas
• Maureen Michaels
• Rhonda Herman
• Sharon Santa Maria
• Toya Williford
In addition, the following persons were present:
• William Henderson – PCAC Executive Director
• Jan Wells – PCAC Associate Director
• Karyl Berger – PCAC Research Associate
• Richard Brodsky -NYS Assembly
• Chris Valens -NYS Assembly
• Holli Dunayer -MTA LIRR
• Marsha Desormeaux -MTA IG
• Randy Glucksman -Concerned citizen
• Matt Shotkin -Concerned citizen
• Meg Reed Mian -Concerned citizen
• Yvonne Morrow -Concerned citizen
• Christopher Greif -Concerned citizen
• Debra Greif -Concerned citizen
• Clare Stuart -Concerned citizen
• George Haikalis -Concerned citizen
• Carlos Valle -Concerned citizen
• Mark Kobbler -Concerned citizen
Approval of Agenda and Minutes
The agenda for the September 3, 2009 meeting was approved. The minutes of the June 2, 2009 meeting were approved.
Chairs’ Reports
The PCAC, LIRRCC, MNRCC and NYCTRC Chairs’ Reports are attached to these minutes.
Discussion of the PCAC Report
Jan Wells briefly described the content of the report and that the current plan is to release it in October.
Edith Prentiss said there is a problem with inter-system trip planning. She tried to plot an accessible trip using multiple systems and it was not possible to do. She said that the 511 system does not have accurate information about Suffolk County transportation options. Sheila Carpenter wondered if Suffolk County Transit is included. Ms. Prentiss said that the 511 system does not have correct information.
Andrew Albert announced that the Transit Riders Council’s project will be looking at General Order posters and comparing them to the actual service that is operating.
Ms. Prentiss reported that the MV1 accessible taxi is not being developed for New York City. Mr. Henderson said he will revise the Chair’s Report to accurately reflect the information.
Ms. Mason asked that the word ”relatively” modifying “high” in describing the rear door of Design Line buses be removed from the description in the TRC Chair’s Report.
Ira Greenberg noted that the LIRRCC has been very concerned about the performance of the diesel fleet. He reported that the Council has been reaching out to the State Legislators on Long Island to educate them and establish working relationships with them.
Gerard Kopera reported that the MNRCC is working on developing materials for an outreach program for their project.
Old Business
No Old Business was discussed.
New Business
Ms. Prentiss said she noticed that the vertical gap at the Yonkers MNR station is much bigger than it should be. Mr. Kopera noted that this is an issue that affects many of the older elevated platforms and said the size of the gap is inconsistent from place to place. Ms. Prentiss said the gap at Yonkers is eight inches and noted that ramps should have a maximum of 1 inch rise for each one foot run. As a result, a bridge plate used at this location would always be too steep. She also reported that the elevators at Yankee stadium were out of service.
William Henderson said he would give Matt Shotkin a copy of the PCAC letter about Atlantic Yards to him after the meeting.
Ms. Prentiss said that the LIRR piles snow on the walkways at the Ronkonkoma station.
Introduction of Richard Brodsky, Member of the New York State Assembly and Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, to Discuss Public Authority Reform
Ira Greenberg introduced Mr. Brodsky, who began his remarks by providing background information about the initiative for public authority reform. Mr. Brodsky said he assumed the Chairmanship of the Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee six years ago. At that time he did not know what an authority was. After extensive research and experience he has concluded that authorities are primarily set up to borrow money with revenue backed bonds, since the State cannot pledge revenues to secure debt, and to shield politicians from constituent anger.
Mr. Brodsky said that as an alternative to establishing authorities we could allow the State to do revenue bonding. He said that many authorities establish subsidiaries that can operate independently and that accountability is lost in the process. Mr. Brodsky said the first investigation that he undertook was on the Fulton Street Transit Center. He said it was clear from the results of the investigation that most of the work of State government is done by authorities. Mr. Brodsky said authorities make things happen, such as the dedication of $4 billion of public funds to build Yankee Stadium, even when it seems that the MTA Capital Program can’t be funded through legislative action.
Mr. Brodsky said the last authority reform bill was introduced in the State Legislature in 2006. This bill did little but did establish a budget office for reporting. The bill never got approved by the Senate largely because the Governor and many mayors were opposed to it.
Mr. Brodsky said this year’s bill passed almost unanimously in the State Legislature in spite of the chaos in the Senate. He said he was able to get various editorial boards around the state to support it.
He noted that at first Mayor Bloomberg was fundamentally opposed to the bill because of its prohibition of sale of assets below their market value. A second reason for his opposition is that the bill defines the primary obligation of authority board members as the promotion of the purposes of the authority that they govern and not as loyalty to the officials who appointed them.
Mr. Brodsky said that the MTA never asked for more funding under the Spitzer administration. He acknowledged that the $2 fare was saved but asserted that in terms of the long term health of the MTA the wrong things were done to maintain the fare.
He said that common law establishes a fiduciary responsibility for the members of public authority boards, but that his proposal makes this responsibility explicit. Mr. Brodsky said the lobbying control provision in his legislation is of concern to Mayor Bloomberg as well. Mr. Brodsky said the bill has not yet been sent to the Governor, but noted that once it is sent, the Governor will have ten days to decide whether he will sign or veto it.
Mr. Brodsky said that the real time reporting requirements in the bill are very important. He said that because of these provisions mistakes may be stopped before they occur. Mr. Brodsky said he is willing to work with the Governor to improve the bill, but made it clear he does not want the bill to be gutted in the process. Mr. Brodsky said he would very much like to have the PCAC as an ally on this legislation. Mr. Brodsky expressed reserved optimism about the Governor signing the bill.
Mr. Brodsky noted that he was criticized today by E.J McMahon. He said that Mr. McMahon decided to criticize those who are advocating for this bill rather than attacking the bill itself. Mr. Brodsky believes that the conservatives don’t like the bill because it does not attack the unions.
Mr. Albert noted that the bill does not include a provision for the rider representatives on the MTA Board to get a vote. He said that some of the opposition to the bill is the perception that it will create oppressive record keeping requirements and that it will just add another level of bureaucracy. Mr. Brodsky said there is no level of bureaucracy presently overseeing the MTA so it should not be considered another level. He said the objections with regard to delays that the bill would cause are mainly in regards to the section on contracts. He said there are sufficient exceptions in the legislation to prevent undue delays. Mr. Brodsky spoke about the New York Power Authority’s daily auctions of power and noted that the bill’s supporters don’t think that the contracting requirements in the bill apply to this sort of transaction.
Trudy Mason said that Mr. Brodsky has almost redeemed himself after not passing congestion pricing. Mr. Brodsky responded by say he does not need redemption because the congestion pricing proposal that was presented was a bad plan from the beginning.
In response to Ms. Mason’s question of what the concerns of the Governor are in terms of this bill, Mr. Brodsky said his concerns mirror those expressed by the Mayor, although they don’t seem as strong as the Mayor’s on the reporting issue
In response to Jim Blair’s inquiry whether Mr. Brodsky felt the authority system was flawed and whether small authority abuses were driving the bill, Mr. Brodsky responded yes to both questions.
Mr. Blair’s asked whether there should be a different standard for the MTA than for smaller authorities, and whether the MTA should operate as a business, which would mean being able to make decisions made quickly. Mr. Brodsky said if avoiding criminality is the standard, then the MTA passes except for isolated cases. Mr. Brodsky expressed reservations about the applying the business model to authorities. He said that the bill’s authors looked at the operations of the NYS Department of Transportation and the Thruway Authority. He questioned the assumption that one of these entities can work with oversight and the other cannot. Mr. Brodsky said he can’t find a lot of places where the bill works for small authorities and does not work for large authorities and vice versa.
In response to Stuart Goldstein’s question whether the lobbying provisions of the legislation would present problems for him in his role as a member of the PCAC and the NYCTRC, Mr. Brodsky said he does not believe that these provisions would apply to Mr. Goldstein.
Ira Greenberg said he did not think these provisions would apply to the PCAC, and Mr. Brodsky said the bill does not affect information gathering, but would have an effect only when an effort is made to change a policy. Mr. Brodsky said he would look at this portion of the legislation again.
In response to Mr. Buchwald’s question as to what prevents additional requirements from being placed on new authorities at their creation, Mr. Brodsky said nothing prevents this and indicated that legislators added reform provisions in proposals to establish two new authorities, but this legislation is still under consideration.
In response to Mr. Greenberg’s question of whether, if a citizen approaches an authority official to note the condition of a station and ask if anything can be done to improve it, the conversation is a reportable event, Mr. Brodsky said he did not believe so but indicated that he would be open to looking more closely at this issue.
Mr. Brodsky stated that the Mayor has said that by instructing his MTA Board members how to vote on particular issues he has made himself accountable for these decisions.
In response to Burt Strauss’ question whether the contract value thresholds in the legislation could be raised, Mr. Brodsky said that if the change would get the bill signed by the Governor, he would consider changing these provisions. He said that he is open to proposals to resolve issues with the legislation but does not care to negotiate with himself.
Christopher Greif from Brooklyn Family Advocates expressed concern that quality of life issues in the subway system are not being addressed. Mr. Brodsky said that he would not challenge others’ motives and assumes that MTA officials wish to do the right thing but may fail in their efforts. He said that he believes that openness in decision making will help efforts to improve the system. Deborah Greif asked if the oversight provisions would provide teeth so that things in the system get fixed.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Karyl Berger
Research Associate
Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee
PCAC Meeting
Chair’s Report — Ira R. Greenberg
September 3, 2009
In the months since our June meeting three new members have been appointed Please join me in welcoming them:
NYCTRC
• Stuart Goldstein, recommended by the NYC Mayor’s Office. Mr. Goldstein resides in Brooklyn and is the director of Transportation and Special Projects for the New York City Administration for Children’s Services.
LIRRCC
• Sheila Carpenter, recommended by Suffolk County Executive. Ms. Carpenter resides in Lake Ronkonkoma and is a social worker who travels throughout the region using the LIRR, NYC Transit, and the Metro-North Railroad in the course of her practice.
• Owen Costello, recommended by the Nassau County Executive. Mr. Costello resides in Port Washington and works for the New York State Banking Department in downtown Manhattan.
I was confirmed by the State Senate to be the LIRRCC non-voting member on the MTA Board and I attended my first round of meetings during the June cycle.
As you all have read, the choice of Jay Walder as the new Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the MTA was announced in mid-July by Governor Paterson. Mr. Walder must be confirmed by the State Senate, but the Senate has extended the process. It is likely that Mr. Walder’s confirmation will be considered by the Senate on September 10. As noted in an email that PCAC staff sent to the members, one hearing on his nomination is being held today on Long Island, with a second hearing scheduled for next Tuesday in upper Manhattan. I plan to testify on behalf of the PCAC at this second hearing.
In the unlikely event that Mr. Walder is not approved by the Senate, the Governor would have to recommend another person for Senate confirmation. This subject is of particular interest to LIRR commuters, as Helena Williams is serving as the interim leader of the MTA as well as LIRR President. Each of the Councils and the PCAC as a whole has strongly expressed to Senate leaders our view that the confirmation process must be completed promptly to restore permanent leadership to the MTA and full time leadership to the LIRR.
On Monday August 10 to our surprise the MTA’s 2010–2014 Capital Program was released, which was placed on the MTA website along with the MTA’s 20 Year (2010-2029) Capital Needs Assessment. The MTA called this a “soft release.” As part of the projected capital program each operating agency made assessments about the state of good repair for each category of investment in their system.
As Maureen Michaels noted in her report, the LIRRCC has some questions about the LIRR’s assessment, as they rate all investments except for line structures, which include bridges and viaducts, as 100 percent in a state of good repair. Since having a realistic assessment of each investment category is helpful in deciding where capital investment dollars should flow, the LIRRCC is pressing the LIRR to justify their assessment.
I am also concerned with the process of making the $28 billion Capital Program available to the public. As a result of the release outside of an official meeting, there was no public presentation of the Program, no questions and answers on the document in a public forum, and it appears that there will be no discussion of the proposal in public session prior to the final vote at the September 23rd MTA Board meeting. Also, MTA Board members were generally not aware of the release of the Capital Program until well after the media had been informed.
I can assure you, this lack of advance notice did not sit well with many members of the PCAC Executive Committee and its members are raising pointed questions about who is setting the agenda at the MTA. It is especially important that there be transparency and public discussion about proposed budgets that involve $28 billion dollars of taxpayer money; and that the capital plan is promoted as much as possible considering the myriad budget, funding and public relations problems facing the MTA.
After discussion among the Executive Committee, I sent a letter to the Governor, with copies to MTA-region State legislators and City officials, objecting to the way in which the proposed Capital Program was released, calling for the prompt confirmation of new MTA leadership, and noting the capital funding gaps that the MTA continues to face. A copy of this letter is in your packets today.
We should discuss the Capital Program under new business at this meeting. A number of us were briefed on the Capital Program by MTA officials prior to this meeting, and it’s important to recognize that while the capital program is a very large amount of money at just over $28 billion, the projects that are included in the program are about $10 million short for the needed work for 2010-2014 identified in the MTA’s Twenty Year Capital Needs Assessment.
In early June PCAC staff met with Chris Boylan, Hilary Ring, and staff from the Government and Community Affairs offices of the LIRR, MNR and NYCT to discuss how to implement the mandate of the office of Legislative and Community Input, of which PCAC is one of the legislatively mandated players. The report to the legislature from this office is due October 1.
I hope that each of the members received the PCAC Annual Report, which was mailed to you. While it took a while to get the graphics right, I’m sure you will agree that it’s a huge improvement over our old annual report format and is much more inviting than in past years. Also included in the report was our new organization graphic. Associate Director Jan Wells and our Outreach Assistant Manzell Blakeley worked very hard on this document’s content and presentation and they should be commended for their efforts and creativity with the new materials. We have mailed an information packet with these new items to all of the elected officials in New York City (as well as to those in the service areas of LIRRCC and MNRCC). The report and organization chart can be found on the PCAC web site at www.pcac.org.
Speaking of the PCAC website, I want to encourage everyone to visit the website from time to time. Not only is it a great source of information, such as approved minutes and the schedule of upcoming Council and PCAC meetings, but it also includes articles about our activities. Currently, we have posted on the site articles that touch on MTA Capital Program, new members, Council issues and guest speaker presentations. In the Accessibility section there are pictures and comments from NYCTRC members’ inspection of the Design Line bus last week, which are being evaluated by NYC Transit. Please take a look when you have a chance and go back often because new items are added weekly.
On a concluding note, you will find in your packet a draft of this year’s research report on regional transportation mobility. Please send your comments to Jan Wells within the next two weeks so that we can finalize the report for release. We want to thank Chris Jewett, our graduate assistant this spring and summer, for his assistance on this project. Chris has now returned to his studies at Rutgers University.
Long Island Rail Road Commuter’s Council
PCAC Meeting
Chair’s Report-Maureen Michaels
September 3, 2009
I am pleased to announce that the LIRRCC has two new members. Sheila Carpenter has joined the Council from Suffolk County and Owen Costello from Nassau County has also been appointed to the LIRRCC by Governor Paterson. We are thrilled to have them join our growing ranks. We have several other prospective members under consideration by the Governor and hope to have more new members to report in December.
The Council and staff worked on several capital, operational and customer relations issues in June. The major themes included our on-going concern for the performance of the diesel fleet, increasing communication with our state legislators and needed improvements to the Hicksville station.
On June 4th, Bill Henderson, Ellyn Shannon, Ira Greenberg, who was there via telephone, Gerry Bringmann and I had a meeting with LIRR President Helena Williams, which was informative. Ms. Williams discussed her desires for the next capital plan, which included improvements to the Hicksville station and drainage improvements for the Mineola track area. The performance of the diesel fleet was also extensively discussed.
On June 10, Bill, Ira, Gerry, Ellyn, and Jan Wells headed to Albany to meet with our state legislators. Meetings were held with Senators Flanagan and Padavan and the staffs of Senators Skelos, Brian Foley and Toby Stavisky. The group was also able to meet with several Assembly members, including Charles Lavine, Catherine Nolan, and Mark Weprin. The meetings with Senator Flanagan and Senator Skelos’s office were particularly enlightening. Our group expressed the importance of the next capital program, and also explained some of the issues we raised in our performance assessment of the LIRR. Unfortunately our group arrived at the very beginning of weeks of turmoil in the State Senate. Now that the leadership situation has become more stable, we plan to do more of this type of outreach over the next several months.
On June 24, Jan Wells attended the Long Island Vision 2035 meeting, where RPA presented a draft outline for the Phase I report. This report is based on the findings of the Regional Visioning Workshop that was held March 26, 2009, which Jan attended. This initiative is an intergovernmental effort funded by NYMTC and is an integral component of the Long Island Regional Planning Council’s 2035 Sustainability Plan. The goal is to develop a regional public consensus for future development patterns and identify institutional actions needed to achieve “a prosperous, equitable and environmentally sustainable Long Island.”
On June 23, Ellyn Shannon attended the Vision Long Island Smart Growth Awards. Senator Schumer attended the event and implored the audience to talk to members of Congress regarding the upcoming transportation bill and to let them know what Long Island projects should be included in the bill.
Ellyn also had the opportunity at the awards ceremony to meet and speak with members of the Hicksville Chamber of Commerce. She arranged for a tour of the station area in Hicksville to better understand the role the MTA could play in improving this important station that carries more than 16,000 passengers each day (second only to Ronkonkoma on Long Island). The tour took place on June 29, Jan Wells also attended. Staff now has a better understanding of the long term needs and next steps that are needed for the station.
The LIRR acknowledged that they have incorporated into their procedures our suggestion regarding sending a note of apology to riders when major service disruptions occur on the LIRR. The first letter of apology was sent out on June 24 regarding the Amtrak derailment. Although we had a few suggestions for the next event, it was a very good effort on behalf of the LIRR.
Also on June 30, Holli Dunayer of the LIRR responded to a question raised by Gerry Bringmann about there being two “one-seat ride” morning peak trains inbound from the Montauk Branch but only one of these trains operating outbound from Penn Station to the Montauk Branch in the afternoon peak. Gerry questioned the wisdom of operating a non-revenue train to Speonk to position equipment for the morning inbound trip. She responded that there are no available afternoon peak slots for an additional “one-seat ride” train and that the locomotive of the second morning train is sent to Jamaica for servicing and for use in the afternoon rush hour. No non-revenue trips are being made to Speonk in the afternoon peak. The equipment for the second inbound train does not return directly to Speonk, but is used in other service.
The news of the LIRR in July was dominated by the fallout from an allegation that on July 2 the engineer of an LIRR diesel train in regular revenue service allowed one of the passengers to operate the train between the Hicksville and Hunterspoint Avenue stations. The engineer and passenger involved were subsequently arrested and charged in connection with the incident. We’ll have to await the completion of the legal process to reach a final conclusion whether the allegations are true, but we are very aware of the substantial danger to riders and the public at large if this incident occurred as it was reported.
In addition to the allegation itself, the Council is disturbed by the way that the MTA and LIRR handled this situation. While there is a disciplinary process that the Rail Road must follow with respect to the engineer, the LIRR’s public response to the situation mainly consisted of a series of weak statements and terse replies to members of the media. An effective response to this situation would have involved the leadership of the MTA and the Rail Road holding press briefings and working to explain to commuters the steps that the LIRR is taking to ensure public safety. The riders don’t want to hear that operating personnel have been “reminded” of the rules; they want to be sure that the operating personnel know that if rules are not followed there will be swift and severe disciplinary action. I also believe that it both undermines and embarrasses LIRR management to be receiving tips on how to better manage its workforce from Nassau County DA, Kathleen Rice.
Despite protests from transportation advocates, including the members of this Governor Paterson on July 28 appointed Senator Craig Johnson as a member of the MTA Capital Program Review Board. Senator Johnson was recommended for appointment by Senator Malcolm Smith, in his capacity as Temporary President of the New York State Senate. I sent letters of opposition to the Senator’s appointment on behalf of the LIRRCC to the Governor, Senate leaders including Senator Smith, and the majority members of Long Island’s Senate delegation. We also expressed our opposition in a news release to local media outlets. A Newsday editorial several days later called on Senator Johnson to expand his view to encompass the interests of all of Long Island.
We opposed Senator Johnson’s because of his strong position against the LIRR Main Line Corridor improvement program, which this Council has long stated is necessary for the future of efficient rail service on Long Island. Although this project has been stalled and was replaced in the proposed 2010-2014 capital program by less costly projects designed to enhance capacity, ultimately it will be needed to fully realize the potential of the East Side Access project. To place Senator Johnson in a position where he would have veto power over this project was an affront to the hundreds of thousands of daily riders of the LIRR. I fully intend to communicate our discontent to the Governor and to the elected officials on Long Island who failed to take action to prevent this appointment. It is not okay and we will not be deterred in continuing to push for improvements to the Main Line Corridor.
Since our last meeting, the members of the Council have kept in touch regarding a number of issues, including trains rerouted with insufficient information given to passengers, ADA accessibility, the lack of email alerts and poor communication during delays, and problems caused by outdated ticket stock. Our members are particularly disturbed by the last of these issues; we recently had an incident reported on the LIRR where a rider was accused of using a counterfeit ticket and held by police for several hours because her ticket was printed on old ticket stock. The Council is seeking additional information and clarification from the LIRR regarding this issue. In addition, we issued a statement in opposition to the closing of ticket windows in twenty LIRR stations. We were disappointed in the LIRR’s portion of the Capital Program and are seeking a meeting with senior Rail Road staff to discuss our issues with the document.
Metro-North Railroad Commuter Council
Chair’s Report-Gerard Kopera
PCAC Meeting
September 3, 2009
Ellyn spoke to Tobey Ritz, MNR Director of Facilities – Capital Engineering, regarding the scheduled capital improvements to be made to the New Haven Line’s New York Stations. Mr. Ritz was very helpful and said they held a kick off meeting for the Port Chester and Rye station contracts in late July. Doug McKean travels from the Rye station and has several concerns regarding its condition. As Mr. Ritz told Ellyn, several other New Haven line stations have also since been included in the proposed 2010 – 2014 capital program. Mr. Ritz also said a separate catenary tower painting project, which will paint the tower columns up to a certain elevation, is currently underway on the line.
We received a letter from Howard Permut in response to our 2008 MTA Year End Performance review. Ellyn spoke to Donna Evans, who arranged for a link to the report on Metro-North’s website. You can see it by clicking on http://www.mta.info/mnr/index.html ; our report is listed second from the bottom under the News column.
The Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor Project Scoping Summary Report is now available and can be found at: www.tzbsite.com. Ellyn is also an alternate on the study’s Land Use and Traffic and Transit Stakeholders Advisory Working Group,
We received a copy of the Status Summary Report and fact sheet update on the North White Plains Parking and Access study. For two years Metro-North examined the possibility of building a 1,300 space multi story customer parking facility on the west side of the station. The County and Metro-North determined that the structure was not financially viable. The study team has refocused its energies on the east side of the station, where Metro-North now owns a building that may have the capacity to add up to 600 spaces for Metro-North riders at 525 Broadway. The need for additional spaces at the station has been forecast to be 1,600 spaces in 2015 and to approximately 3,300 spaces in 2025.
We sent a letter to Danny O’Connell, MNR Director of Operations Planning and Analysis, recommending that the Railroad’s policy about honoring West of Hudson weekly and monthly tickets on Hudson line trains of equivalent zone be printed in published timetables. The impetus for this recommendation was an encounter that Randy Glucksman had with a poorly informed conductor.
Bill Henderson sent a letter of appreciation to George Walker, who retired this summer, for the time and effort he spent working with the MNRCC. George had stayed on at MTA Headquarters through the end of July to work on a special project aimed at standardizing rail performance measures across the MTA.
We are continuing to refine outreach materials for the Council and have begun sending a synopsis of our meetings to the local news media.
We held a business meeting in July, where we discussed the Council’s outreach efforts. At our August meeting, John Kennard, MNR Director – Capital Long Range Planning gave a presentation on MNR’s portion of the proposed Capital Program. We had originally scheduled MTA Board Member James Sedore to join us in August, but he was forced to cancel due to a family illness. We hope to have him as our guest in the coming months.
New York City Transit Riders Council
PCAC Meeting
Chair’s Report-Andrew Albert
September 3, 2009
We are pleased to welcome our newest Council member, Stuart Goldstein who has been recommended by the Mayor’s Office. Mr. Goldstein resides in Brooklyn and works for the City of New York.
We held our annual President’s Forum on Wednesday, June 17 at 2 Broadway. President Roberts and a number of his staff were on hand to answer questions from 25 people. Unlike last year when the majority of questions were about service, this year’s question focused on accessibility, fares, flooding and customer communication. Thanks to Council members Mike Sinansky, Shirley Genn, Trudy Mason and Edith Prentiss for attending the event.
On June 9, Karyl Berger attended the BRT Visioning session for Phase II in Brooklyn co-hosted by NYCDOT and New York City Transit. This was the first of two sessions that were held in Brooklyn. Forty participants were split into five groups to discuss the concept of BRT and routes that they would like to have considered for this type of service. It was very clear that people like signal prioritization and subway-like spacing for stops as well as the off-board fare collection system. Parking concerns and route enforcement were the two most talked about negative aspects of the service. Shirley Genn attended the second session which was held on the campus of Brooklyn College, her Alma Mater.
Bill Henderson attended the BRT workshop on Staten Island and Ellyn Shannon went to the session at the Fashion Institute of Technology. The group that Bill was with recommended adding BRT service that, along with the Phase I Staten Island BRT route along Hylan Boulevard, would create a ring linking major activity centers on Staten Island. The Manhattan BRT workshop showed the currently planned BRT for First/Second Avenues and 34th Street routes, and identified potential BRT routes on the west side of Manhattan and another south of 34th Street. The group Ellyn was with recommended two cross corridor BRTs, one from the upper east side down to the lower west side and another that would go from the upper east side up to Columbia Presbyterian in Washington Heights. A 125th Street corridor was also strongly recommended.
Bill Henderson attended New York City Transit’s public hearing on the Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Second Avenue Subway 72nd and 86th Street stations. The hearing was made necessary by design changes in these two stations. Community reaction to the design changes varied according to the station. Residents from the 72nd Street area complimented the design team on the changes to the station in their area, which compensated for the removal of escalators with additional ADA elevators. These elevators were made possible by the purchase of a building at 300 East 72nd Street that had been offered for sale by its owner. At 86th Street, neighbors were not nearly as happy about the new station plan
On Wednesday, June 10, Karyl Berger went to see a new accessible taxi. There was a very positive reaction from the wheelchair users who came to see the taxi.
We voted to send a letter on the sale of property at the Atlantic Yards to the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), and we entered the letter and a statement of the Council’s position into the record at the ESDC’s hearing on revisions to the General Project Plan for the development. Because it addressed a topic that involved the interests of the LIRRCC, the letter was reviewed by the PCAC Executive Committee, in accordance with the PCAC bylaws. The Empire State Development Corporation must approve any changes to the original project, including changes in the terms by which MTA property will be acquired. A thirty-day public comment period on the changes ended this past Monday.
Last week NYCTRC members had the opportunity to see a new bus design. The members traveled to Quill Depot on the far west side of Manhattan to inspect a low floor hybrid turbine powered bus manufactured by Design Line, a company that was founded in New Zealand and has come to the United States. The turbine that powers the bus is contained in a cube that is about two feet in each dimension. The interior is similar to the new Orion hybrid buses that are now entering service, and issues were raised about the elevated rear section of the bus, the rear door step, and the limited space available for wheelchairs and scooters. NYC Transit is currently testing these buses on the M42 route.
In June, Cosema Crawford, NYC Transit senior Vice President/Chief Engineer – Capital Program Management briefed the Council on the Station Rehabilitation work. In July Judith McClain, NYC Transit Senior Director – Rail Service Planning briefed the Council on the service changes that will be necessary due to the Culver Viaduct project. In August, in lieu of a formal meeting we took a tour to the site of upcoming work on the Culver Viaduct, as well as to see some of the stations on the Sea Beach line where rehabilitation work has been deferred.