Reconsidering the Local

I'll admit, living on two local-only lines makes me a little biased against express trains. Expresses are one of the great oddities you encounter when moving to New York. We're conditioned to believe these trains, whisking past station after station, are getting us to our destination so much faster than those poor souls on the local tracks. Those long, uninterrupted stretches feel so much faster, and we arrive sooner than the equivalent local, and so we take for granted that an express train is a great upgrade in service.

Waiting for the local / Photo by the author

Expresses do a lot of great things for the subway, namely add capacity that would not exist in a traditional two-track setup, so that the system has incredible throughput capacity, even with its aging infrastructure (signals, switches, interlockings, and so on). And express trains are faster - that's no illusion. But go through the timetable or take a moment to track just how much time you're saving, and you'll quickly realize that an express, fast as it feels, doesn't offer the sort of mythical time savings we've been conditioned to believe. Take for example a trip from 168 Street to Euclid Avenue. On the local C train, it takes about 63 minutes. If you took the A instead, it would last about 52-53 minutes, depending on the train. In relative terms, that's a big savings (15-16%), and even in absolute terms 10 minutes is something. But that's a ride over the entire length of the C line, not a jaunt from uptown to downtown or Brooklyn to Manhattan. On most trips, the savings offered by an express over an equivalent local is only a couple of minutes - convenient, but not exactly life changing.

That's an important distinction to note when considering our system, because the express good/local bad paradigm seeps into most conversations about subway service. Here on the Culver line, the unused express tracks rear their ugly head on a regular basis. Adding express service would lengthen headways on the local tracks (the MTA has stated it would not add net service and is otherwise constrained by 6th Avenue and Queens Boulevard track capacities) and would add express trains that bypass the some of busiest stops on the line, save for 7th Avenue and Church Avenue, all for a time savings of a few minutes for express riders (and an added wait of 4+ minutes for local riders). Even so, local politicians and advocacy groups love to talk up the prospect of an express, as if that 3-5 minute time savings from Kings Highway will be more than a drop in the bucket. If the line needed more capacity and the MTA were offering more trains, then express service would be a no-brainer, but that's not the situation. Time, effort, and resources spent on advocating for express service could be spent instead on improving service, such as by implementing Communications Based Train Control (CBTC), which would allow faster and more frequent service at all stops.

The express/local dynamic also keeps us from considering other options that could improve service. Local service along the 4th Avenue line was hit hard by the 2010 cuts, which eliminated M service and reduced local stations R service only. The N and D trains run express from Atlantic Av-Barclays Center to 36 St, skipping 4 stops along the way. Late at night, however, the D runs local along this stretch (the N does too, but it replaces the R). Based on the MTA's timetable, an express train from Atlantic to 36 St should take 6 minutes. The local? 8-9 depending on the train. If we could get away from denigrating local service vis-a-vis express, we might be able to consider a new service option: run the D local in Brooklyn (these 4 stops plus DeKalb) at all times. It might sound crazy to make an express service local, but consider the benefits: a new, one-seat ride to areas in Midtown and the West Side for growing areas like Gowanus, South Slope, Greenwood, and Sunset Park; and vastly improved transfer options for F and G riders at 4 Av-9 St (the nearest F-D transfer is at Broadway-Lafayette and no G-D transfer exists). And the costs for such a change are quite minimal: a delay of 2-3 minutes over the entire 36 St-Atlantic stretch - one that could likely be managed away over the length of the route.

This is just one possibility, but it goes to show that by reconsidering our perception of express service, we can find low- or no-cost ways to improve service. And who knows, maybe someone will think this is a worthwhile idea.

Dead in the Water

Transit advocates in the Twittersphere have been (rightly) taking our ragtag group of mayoral candidates to task for their near-universal devotion to five-borough ferry service as a solution to the city's transportation problems. And rightfully so. Even though the city refuses to release numbers for some of their subsidized programs, such as the Rockaway service, it's generally assumed that the subsidy per rider far exceeds what we spend on bus and subway operations. 

The East River Ferry / Courtesy: East River Ferry

But ferries remain an appealing fix in a city where every change to a street or local disruption is subject to unruly community boards, local protests, vitriolic press coverage and, not least, the astronomical cost of doing business in New York City. Ferries, in contrast, require subsidies but are run by private companies. They run on the water, a place with far fewer stakeholders, and as a result require virtually no infrastructure except for relatively simple docks. For a politician looking to win voters, ferries offer an attractive combination of limited capital spending and easy implementation that doesn't kick up opposition the way subway construction or bus lanes do.

Of course, that approach also ignores the many shortcomings of ferry services, starting with their private ownership. With the exception of the city-owned Staten Island Ferry, which is free, the services running on New York harbor have independent ticketing and fare structures. That means fares aren't harmonized with local agencies. Worse, it precludes the one feature that could make ferries part of a robust network: interoperability. NY Waterway, the operator of many of the city's ferries, operates its own free shuttle buses in Midtown, but that separate network reinforces the idea that ferries are a different system. If riders could pay with a Metrocard and receive discounts (or free transfers) going between the East River Ferry and the A/F at Brooklyn Bridge Park or J/M/Z at Schaefer Landing, the East River Ferry would become a more functional service. Instead, a one-way trip using both MTA and the ferry costs $6.50 - hardly an incentive to use the service if you're already shelling out the $2.50 for the bus or subway.

That said, I have to defend some of the ferry proposals. Do I think we need five-borough service? Probably not. The Bronx has transit issues, but plodding ferry service to Manhattan will not solve most of them. Ferries simply distract from the more difficult task at hand, which involves making tough choices to improve or augment local bus and rail (like the newly opened Bx41 SBS or new Metro North stations along the Hell Gate line).

But ferries can provide a useful service when linking areas that are transit poor, provided the service is part of a broader transit plan. Ferries by themselves are expensive gimmicks, and their lack of infrastructure means they can disappear as quickly as the are introduced. Ferries such as the free weekend shuttle from IKEA and Red Hook to Pier 11 seem nice, but the City is missing a huge opportunity to tie the service into local bus routes, making the ferry part of the transportation network instead of a standalone novelty. Neighborhoods such as Red Hook, College Point, Hunts Point, or Astoria could benefit from service if an adequate feeder system (buses) were in place. Likewise, launch points such as Atlantic Ave/Pier 6, which are already serviced by multiple bus routes, could make use of an integrated network.

As it stands the proposals by Anthony Weiner, Christine Quinn and co. will do little to improve transportation if their expensive subsidies result in services that burden riders with additional costs and fail to link with existing transportation. And while ferries can provide value in select areas, it is a shame to see our elected officials eschewing important decisions about New York's transit infrastructure at a time when our city is growing again.

I Know Better: Fourth Avenue and the Power of Anecdote

I'd like to take the opportunity to remind anyone reading that Brooklyn Community Board 6 will hold a meeting this Wednesday 10 July to discuss DOT's proposed traffic calming for Fourth Avenue between Pacific Street and 15th Street. As many may remember, Fourth Avenue has received pedestrian safety and traffic calming improvements along virtually its entire length south of 15th Street, and the world has not come to an end. In fact, the improvements north of 15th have received the overwhelming support of our local elected officials, particularly Councilmember Brad Lander. They have had support from all corners, with the sole exception of Brooklyn Community Board 6. 

Left turn reductions and median expansion on Fourth Ave / Courtesy: NYCDOT

Even though CB6's transportation committee overwhelmingly approved the changes, in June CB6 made the surprise decision to oppose DOT's plan. The reason? Last minute opposition from groups which claimed a reduction in traffic lanes and left turn restrictions would result in traffic backups and force - yes, force - more traffic onto Park Slope's bucolic side streets. But here's the kicker - none of these assertions were backed up with facts. As we see in virtually any transportation project that disrupts an established pattern, the war of information is an asymmetric one. 

Contrary to what some might believe, DOT does not simply lay out and implement a vision, a la Robert Moses. Instead, it goes through a study process - one that is filled with opportunities for public feedback that ultimately is incorporated into the final design or decision. So did DOT miss these traffic backups? Were they unaware that trucks would invade Park Slope en masse? Of course not. Even in the summary of the study available on DOT's website, you can see the empiricism that was applied. Cars and pedestrians were counted, and the impact of various changes on both parties were weighed before the final recommendation was made. In the end, DOT used traffic counts to justify reducing travel lanes and weighed average volumes of cars against pedestrians when recommending left turn restrictions. To wit, DOT recommended maintaining 3 travel lanes on the northbound side of Fourth Ave above Union St specifically to avoid traffic backups. Data can always be reanalyzed from different angles, but this is hardly evidence of regulatory fiat by DOT.

Unfortunately, opposition doesn't have such exacting standards. Whereas one side makes use of objective counts and models, the other only needs to voice its fears. And that's what has nearly scuttled a sensible project to make a dangerous stretch of road safer for pedestrians and drivers alike. It doesn't matter that cutting down the highway-like design to a more reasonable urban boulevard is not expected to increase traffic. It doesn't matter that left turn restrictions and fewer traffic lanes will create a safer crossing environment for the area's multiple school zones and subway stations. What matters is who can shout the loudest and stir up the most fears. In lieu of facts, opponents present anecdote and emotion. And once we lower ourselves to knowing better than the evidence at hand, the entire process becomes a joke. In the case of Fourth Ave, years of planning and advocacy for safer streets have been placed in jeopardy, not because the project lacks merit, but because its proponents have remained in the land of facts, not fantasy.

It is fortunate that CB6's approval, while desired, is not necessary for DOT to receive. It would be a rare case of override by the Council and the Department, particularly during an election year, but the project is fortunate to have a local Councilmember who remains a steadfast supporter, in spite of the CB's intransigence. I remain hopeful that this Wednesday's meeting will feature a thoughtful discussion of the project's safety enhancements and its minimal impact on vehicle traffic, but I won't hold my breath. As with every improvement to our streets, opponents will have to be dragged to the table, kicking and screaming, only to see when everything is finished that the model was right all along. 

No, We Don't Need Sexy. But We Do Need Functional.

Bogota's famed BRT system. Credit: Streetsblog

Eric Jaffe had a good piece this morning about the city of Wellington's decision to move forward with bus rapid transit instead of a light rail system to meet its transportation needs. Jaffe makes several good points about the effectiveness of light rail versus BRT systems, the most salient of which is LRT's seeming inability to draw additional factors when service quality is controlled for. From the study quoted by Jaffe:

This suggests that routes with higher service levels are more efficient and attract more ridership than low-service routes, all other things being equal...Results suggest that the transit mode does not directly impact ridership but rather acts through vehicle size and service levels.

I can't say I disagree with the notion that level of service, not mode of transportation, is what drives transit adoption and mode shifting rates. If something will get you where you're going both quickly and reliably, you're more apt to use it. But Jaffe uses this level-of-service straw man to make an argument that BRT can be just as good as light rail and, given its lower capital costs, can be a much more cost effective means of promoting transit.

I get it, BRT is cheaper than light rail. But there's a reason that "true" BRT systems are few and far between, and why none exist in the US even as we've built new light rail systems from LA to Denver to Charlotte. Buses are less sexy, but that's not why they have so many opponents. The simple fact is, it is exceedingly difficult to put into place dedicated infrastructure for buses only. Laying rails forces transportation planners to make decisions regarding rights of way, and that typically means separation of LRT vehicles along most, if not all, of their routes.

Here in New York, we've seen just how effective vocal opponents can be at stripping away the "rapid" features of BRT. SelectBus Service on 1st and 2nd Avenues, for example, utilizes painted lanes, which are shared with right-turning traffic. Further down the M15's route, buses run in mixed traffic, rendering the speed-enhancing bus lanes less effective by placing a large bottleneck in lower Manhattan. The end result is a bus that is slightly faster than a local bus, though mainly by virtue of features - offboard payment, all-door boarding, greater spacing between stops - that could be applied to any local bus route without the buzz or branding of SBS.

This isn't to say New York, or any city for that matter, couldn't implement an effective BRT system. But to make the argument that BRT is just as good as LRT (or heavy rail) because only level of service matters is to completely miss the point. By virtue of building rail, planners are forced to make the tough decisions that BRT planners can set aside. These decisions, such as dedicated rights of way and high quality stations, are exactly what provide the level of service Jaffe discusses. All things being equal, BRT is just as good as light rail. But until planners see the two as equal systems, BRT (and New York's SBS in particular) will continue to be an inferior product.

A Bus Boards in Brooklyn

Like plenty of other 20-somethings in New York with limited disposable income (after accounting for craft beers and other dalliances), I tend to take the bus when I travel out of the city. It's a little slow and subject to occasionally absurd traffic delays, but it's also cheap. My last minute bookings to Boston run around $20-25 per person, each way - and that's on the expensive side. Compared to $100 each way on Amtrak, there isn't much of a choice.

And for the most part, lines like Megabus or Bolt aren't that bad. I can remember taking early Chinatown buses and Greyhounds to NYC nearly a decade ago, and they were decidedly miserable experiences. It might be cramped and habitually late, but the ride on Megabus itself is hardly terrible. The bad part of the ride has everything to do with getting to and from the bus in New York. 

Over the years, curbside boarding locations have migrated, from the ultra-convenient (Penn Station) to the passable (PA Terminal - not as accessible from NJ or Long Island and a longer ride from Brooklyn, but more subway lines), to the hellish current location outside the Javits Center. For a Manhattanite, the new location is an inconvenience, but if you are coming from Brooklyn or Queens, the added trek to 11th Avenue is virtually a deterrent to riding. The original location outside Penn put locations from Jersey City to Jamaica within 30 minutes of the departure point. Today, only a handful of subway stations outside of Manhattan can claim to be so close.

30-minute accessibility from Penn Station. Credit: Mapnificent New York.

30-minute accessibility from Megabus' current stop.

I like saving money, but having to travel for 45 minutes to reach the least convenient form of travel - and one that requires a long walk or bus transfer to get to - can be a trying experience. Quite frankly, there's no reason for service to and from New York to work like this. Cities such as DC and Boston have companies that pick up and drop off outside of their downtown terminals. New York was made for just such a service. Brooklyn in particular is home to virtually every subway line - and every trunk line except the 7 - as well as LIRR and East River Ferry service. In short, it would be an attractive place to add supplemental (or competing) intercity service with curbside pickup/drop-off.

Imagine being able to pick up the bus to Boston, DC, or Philadelphia from a curbside stop near Atlantic Terminal. You would have easy access to Brooklyn and Manhattan on the 2, 3, 4, 5, B, C, D, G, N, Q, and R trains, and to Jamaica on the LIRR. It's not a route that would be as popular with "traditional" tourists interested in seeing Midtown, but Brooklyn has grown into a destination in its own right, and such a stop would place most of the borough's 2.6 million people within convenient range of the bus.

30-minute accessibility from Atlantic Terminal.

Just as the outer boroughs deserve better transit options from the MTA and our city government, we also deserve a shot at better intercity options. Adding service from Brooklyn's most transit-oriented areas - a difficult, but not impossible proposition - would give large portions of the borough access to cost effective travel without subjecting them to an unreasonable commute to or from the bus. And in the end, that means more passengers - and more profit - for the operators. Seems like such a good business idea I almost don't want to give it away.

Alley Markets and Urban Oases

A post about this weekend - but better late than never, right?

This weekend I had a chance to swing by the opening of the Grove Alley Nite Market in Downtown Brooklyn. The small alley - touted in the ads as being one of the worst streets in Brooklyn, once upon a time - has been cleverly repurposed into a pedestrian plaza, with lighting strung across and vendors selling food, drink, and clothing. It also makes for a rather intimate concert space, nestled as it is between the alley walls with the lights overhead. 

Looking into Grove Alley. All photos from the author's Instagram.

Events like these add a level of vitality to Downtown that doesn't currently exist (our walk back to Boerum Place along Fulton was about as dead as it gets until we reached Shake Shack). A 24 hour neighborhood is safer and better for business than one that closes down at 8 or 9pm. And judging by the crowd braving Friday's rain, there are plenty of people dying for more things to do Downtown. I'm sure we'll see that number grow, too, as the neighborhood's long list of new residential towers is completed.

And adding to the excitement of Friday's night market, I had the pleasure of working my required shift at the Carroll Gardens CSA. Plenty of fresh kale, zucchini, and cucumbers all around, and all in the beautiful setting of the Transit Garden.

Setting up at the Carroll Gardens CSA

Berries growing in the Transit Garden

If you've never been, take a look the next time you're near 2nd and Smith. It's amazing what has been done to this MTA property (it's located on the empty lot next to the Smith St. Substation). What might have been a barren spot next to the subway is instead a little oasis, thanks to the community members who have made a point of improving the neighborhood. Sometimes, it's the little things that make our city a great place to live.