Back to All

Meeting Minutes Feb. 25, 2016

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT RIDERS COUNCIL
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2016

A meeting of the New York City Transit Riders Council (NYCTRC) was convened at 12:00 noon on February 25, 2016 in the 20th floor Board Room at 2 Broadway, New York City. The following members were present:

Andrew Albert Sharon King Hoge
Stuart Goldstein Trudy L. Mason
Christopher Greif Scott Nicholls
William Guild Michael Sinansky
Burton M. Strauss, Jr.

The following members were absent:

Marisol Halpern
Edith Prentiss

In addition, the following persons were present:

William Henderson -PCAC Executive Director
Ellyn Shannon -PCAC Associate Director
Angela Bellisio -PCAC Transportation Planner
Bradley Brashears -PCAC Transportation Planner
Karyl Berger -PCAC Research Associate
Sarah Wyss -NYCT
Jonathan Hawkins -NYCT
Deborah Hall-Moore -NYCT
Ken Stewart -Concerned citizen
Dustin Jones -Concerned citizen

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

The agenda for the February 25, 2016 meeting was approved. The minutes of the January 28, 2016 meeting were approved.

Chair’s Report

The written Chair’s Report is attached to these minutes.

Board Report

Andrew Albert announced that $66 million in contingency funds from the Second Avenue Subway project is being shifted into accelerating the project to meet a December 2016 revenue service date. Trudy Mason asked how the delay in closing the long term lease on the MTA’s Madison Avenue properties will affect the project. Mr. Albert responded that it would not affect the project.

Burt Strauss asked whether all of the stations currently under construction are at the same stage of completion. Mr. Albert said that they are not and that the 72nd Street station is farthest behind schedule, according to MTA Capital Construction. Ms. Mason commented that in terms of the physical appearance of the station, 86th Street is in bad shape, but that she could discuss the status of the work with Mr. Albert later.

Sharon King Hoge asked whether NYC Transit’s planners will take the increased use of the M60 SBS into account in developing schedules for the restored W train. She noted that weekend travel to LaGuardia airport is particularly problematic. Mr. Albert replied that the W will not run on weekends.

William Guild commented that one issue with the W was that it did not go near a yard and that historically, routes were laid out to pass a yard. William Henderson noted that, in the previous life of the W train, trains went to and from Coney Island in revenue service at the ends of the day. This allowed some late night and early morning riders to take the W train to and from Brooklyn.

Mike Sinansky said that he wanted to return to the issue of funding. He said that there is little contingency funding left for the Second Avenue Subway and questioned whether the effort to accelerate completion could deplete allocated funds. He also asked about the status of the 2015-2019 MTA Capital Program. It was noted that the Capital Program has yet to be approved by the Capital Program Review Board.

Chris Greif said that placing the Q line’s terminal in Queens until the opening of the Second Avenue Subway would be better than terminating it at 57th Street. Karyl Berger commented that the decision to end service in Manhattan is a financial issue.

Mr. Albert stated the Canarsie tube shutdown plan will be a political issue. He said that the Board received a definitive statement from the MTA Chairman that Freedom Ticket, as well as making the Q70 bus fare free and a proposal for reduced fares for college students would receive serious consideration in the setting of new fares in late 2016.

Mr. Albert noted that Adam Lisberg is leaving the MTA in March and will be missed in his role as chief spokesperson for the MTA. He said that the closing of long term leases on the Madison Avenue property was the subject of an agreement by the MTA Board to delay taking action for 30 days to work out the specifics on payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs).

Ms. Mason asked what will happen if there is no resolution to PILOT issue, and whether the Board will approve the lease if there is no resolution. Mr. Albert said that in all probability the Board would act in either case. Ms. Mason stated that this could affect the City’s position on the MTA Capital Program.

Mr. Henderson stated that along with other transit advocates he had discussed the property at 125 Park Avenue with representatives of SL Green, which controls the property. The issue is that the property is scheduled for consideration for landmarking and that this would limit the improvements that could be made at the southern end of the Lexington Avenue line’s 42nd Street platforms and mezzanine.

Mr. Albert added that he neglected to make clear that the MTA is proposing that the W run for a period of time before the Second Avenue Subway is opened.

Mr. Sinansky noted that the Wall Street Journal published an article about a provision in the Governor’s budget that calls for a new office to monitor MTA construction. He asked whether the Board had addressed this proposal. Mr. Albert responded it was raised at a post-Board meeting press conference, but not in detail.

Old Business

Ken Stewart requested the Council follow up on issues of performers on the platforms. Mr. Albert stated that he will follow up on the situation with Transit Bureau Chief Fox. Mr. Greif commented that there is a continuing problem with “showtime” dancers. Mr. Albert stated that the NYPD is aware of this and that they eject performers not obeying the rules from the system, with arrests or summonses given to repeat offenders. He said that the MTA Board Transit Committee passed a resolution supporting establishing an office within NYC Transit to work to keep repeat offenders out of the subways.

New Business

Mr. Greif pointed out that sometimes elevator “out of service” alerts are not being transmitted from the equipment. At 207th Street work was recently being done on an elevator, but it was not listed as out of service on the MTA website. Mr. Albert said that he believes that the Control Center is aware of defects immediately.

Mr. Greif said that when a bus operator is asked to lower the ramp to allow a passenger to board, the operator sometimes reacts badly. Mr. Albert said that Mr. Greif should report these incidents to staff so that they can be forwarded to NYC Transit

Ms. Mason asked whether the Council could ask NYC Transit to issue a directive that when an up escalator is out of service, an authorized person should be dispatched to reverse a nearby down escalator.

Mr. Stewart stated that on 8th Avenue line there is construction taking place, and he has been told that accessibility of the area is the responsibility of a private developer. He asked whether the NYCTRC could find out about this.

Introduction of NYC Transit Senior Director – Bus Service Planning Sarah Wyss to discuss the Staten Island Bus Study

Ms. Wyss said that one of the exciting things that is happening in bus planning is that planners now have better bus data from automatic vehicle locator (AVL) and fare collection systems. NYC Transit’s planners have dug deeply into this information. Previously they completed a study in Co-Op City in the Bronx, talking to the people on the buses who do not normally come to public meetings, and they built on this experience in a study of northeast Queens bus service. After the Queens study, they went on to the Staten Island study. On Staten Island, the existing bus system is largely modeled on historic street car routes, but the development served by transit has changed considerably.

Jonathan Hawkins noted that that Staten Island’s bus operations would be the nation’s twentieth largest transit agency if it were split off from the MTA. The impetus for the study came from Borough President Oddo, who has received numerous complaints from commuters to Manhattan.

The characteristics of Staten Island affect the design of the bus system and what is possible there. The largest concentration of people is on the North Shore of the Island, and in these areas the street network is more conducive to transit. As a result, 67 percent of bus boardings occur on the North Shore. The mid-Island area is served by an SBS route, which speeds travel on major arteries. The South Shore has fewer boardings, but Transit very important to many residents.

Mr. Hawkins said that NYC Transit went into the study with a number of questions, including the impacts of demographics, employment and neighborhood changes on transit needs, the most significant reliability issues in bus service, the optimal spacing of bus stops for the borough’s needs, the impact of traffic in Manhattan on express bus performance, differences in weekday demand due to differences in Friday travel patterns, and places where operational changes can be made and routes and schedules can be shifted to improve performance.

In trying to answer these questions, the study team took a number of inputs, including MetroCard data, information from the Bus Time system, and the output of a model of boarding and alighting that was derived from these two types of data, to gain a picture of existing bus travel on Staten Island and identify potential problems and areas for improvement.

Mr. Hawkins said that NYC Transit is trying to keep the study grounded in reality and focused on discrete and implementable actions that can improve the performance of the Staten Island bus system. There will be an end to the study and a set of recommended actions, but NYC Transit will not necessarily wait for the study to end to make changes to the bus system.

Mr. Hawkins asked for questions. Mr. Goldstein asked whether there is any single finding that jumped out from the study. Mr. Hawkins responded that one thing is the prevalence of intra-Island travel and the importance of looking this use of the bus system. Most elements of the bus system on Staten Island are focused on the Staten Island Ferry or on other ways to travel to other boroughs. He also said that he wanted to highlight the Hack-a-Thon scheduled for March 5 to consider ways of improving bus travel on Staten Island. NYC Transit provided data for use by those attending the event and is interested in the solutions that are proposed.

Mr. Goldstein asked whether the study has received any complaints about the span of service on Staten Island or its frequency. Mr. Hawkins said that these comments have been made and that in particular the study had received comments about a lack of weekend service.

Mr. Sinansky asked if they looked at changes to the cross-Island bus network. Mr. Hawkins replied that they had. He said that the routes servicing Staten Island were designed when conditions on the subways and streets were different. On express buses about 35 percent of riders are transferring to subways at their first opportunity because the drive through Manhattan is so slow. He noted that the X21 bus is very popular because it makes a limited number of stops along its route and is perceived as an efficient option.

Mr. Strauss asked whether riders frequently drive to their bus. Mr. Hawkins said that they do and noted that there are many formal park and rides, but also other informal park and ride areas that Staten Islanders use.

Mr. Greif wanted to know if the study could include a survey focused on riders who are elderly or have disabilities. He said that there are some buses that do not operate on weekends and that they are important in serving these populations. Mr. Hawkins said they will look into adding this element to the study.

Mr. Albert asked whether people are talking about the need for a bus to Newark Airport and whether they are talking about an extension of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail system to Staten Island. Mr. Hawkins responded that both of these issues have been discussed.

Mr. Albert also asked whether Grimes Hill weekend service, which was curtailed in 2010, had been raised. Mr. Hawkins said that it had come up.

Update on Freedom Ticket Proposal

Bradley Brashears noted that due to interest in supporting economic development in surrounding areas, the Nostrand Avenue and East New York stations have been moved to Phase I of the implementation strategy. These stations lie at the heart of areas targeted by the City for revitalization, and that Freedom Ticket could serve to attract new residents and businesses.

Mr. Henderson stated that they are holding off on formal issuance of a revised report that includes the Brooklyn stations in the first phase in part because of uncertainty about the impacts of closings of the L line resulting from repair of the Canarsie tube.

Mr. Greif stated that the Brooklyn Borough President is very interested in Freedom Ticket, as are a number of City Council members. He said that the staff is going to present at the Brooklyn Family Support Service Advisory Council and the Queens Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Mr. Goldstein asked about the Queens Borough President’s position on Freedom Ticket. Mr. Sinansky said that he spoke to the new Transportation Coordinator at the Queens Borough President’s office. He stated that the Borough President’s office is not opposed to the proposal, contrary to previous information attributed to the Brooklyn Borough President’s office.

Ms. Mason suggested that the NYCTRC speak to Councilmember Daneek Miller. Mr. Albert said that the Council is in communication with his office.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

William Henderson
Executive Director