What I Learned About Cars

Hello, my beloved Signal Problems friends! It has been a while, and I come bearing news. Starting Monday, I will be the new senior writer at Motherboard, VICE’s tech website, where I’ll be covering the intersection of infrastructure, transportation, and climate change.

In many ways, this beat will be a successor to the work I did for Signal Problems. Here, my ongoing project was to figure out why the MTA works (or, perhaps more often, doesn’t work) the way it does, why it undertakes the projects (or, perhaps more often, doesn’t undertake the projects) it does, and what that means for us, now and in the future. This is basically the beat I outlined for my new bosses, but beyond New York.

In particular, I want to write about what America gets wrong about infrastructure. There’s a lot of material! But I want to take a hyper-local approach.

I feel like everyone I know grew up frustrated by a bridge, highway, train station, road, or pothole in their home town that either never got fixed or was constantly under construction. Or maybe there was a low-key project that cost a head-scratchingly large amount of money for no clear reason. If you know of one of those, hit me up. I’d love to look into it for you.


Now, this means I have said goodbye to my colleagues at Jalopnik, the car and transportation website I’ve called home for the past eight months. It’s been, a, uh, interesting time, no doubt about it. But corporate shenanigans aside, working at Jalopnik was a tremendously fun and valuable experience. I got to go to a Hyperloop conference, do a deep dive into Uber and Lyft’s fare structure, spend months diving into the history and current day ramifications of urban highways, and so much more. And I learned how to drive stick.

Even more importantly, I got a crash course on the automotive industry. I don’t think there are many reporters who can say they’ve covered public transit and the car industry back-to-back.

So, I thought it might be fun, and perhaps useful to some folks, to share a little bit about what I learned about cars and the automotive industry in general, with a focus on things that matter to people hoping to reduce the number of single-occupancy car trips. Some of them might seem real obvious, and indeed they do seem that way to me in hindsight. But I didn’t fully appreciate their implications for the policies I favor and the future I want to live in. Perhaps that’s the case for some of you as well.

Car Buying Is Not Rational

There is a man who lives on my block who drives a relatively new Toyota 4Runner, which, for those who might not know, is a pretty large SUV. A couple of times a week, I watch him attempt to parallel park this vehicle. Typically, the spot is plenty large for a sedan, but a tight squeeze for his 4Runner. He’ll be out there five, ten minutes trying to get the angle just right. I have never seen another person in the SUV with him or any stuff in the trunks or seats. Why, I think to myself every time, is he doing this to himself? Why doesn’t he just drive a smaller car?

I don’t know this guy’s deal. Maybe he has a really good reason for driving an SUV. But I suspect not. And this reflects the first and most important lesson I learned at Jalopnik: car buying is not rational.

Car buying is aspirational, not practical. Most people purchase cars not because of who they are, but because of who they want to be. Car companies know this, which is why they collectively spend billions upon billions of dollars every year on advertisements. The total market domination of SUVs over the last decade, which are impractical vehicles for the majority of people who buy them, speaks to their success. (For more on the SUV trend and car buying being an aspirational purchase, I highly, highly recommend the book High And Mighty by Keith Bradsher.) Nearly every purchase of an SUV is a mild-to-moderate self-own, and yet people keep doing it, over and over.

So every time I asked my colleagues why people don’t purchase more plug-in hybrids, or why electric vehicle sales remain stubbornly low, or why perfectly fine small, cheap commuter cars continue to do poorly in the American market, I always got the same answer: car buying is not rational. And auto companies have ample incentive to keep it that way, since they charge more, and make more profit on, the big vehicles that are the least practical.

This observation doesn’t directly impact any one policy choice or goal, but it is worth keeping in mind when considering nearly any of them. Car buyers do not respond to clear incentives in the traditional economic sense. It is a mistake to assume they do.

Millions Of Americans Make And Sell Cars For Their Livelihood

Americans buy around 16 million to 18 million cars, trucks, and SUVs a year. Between making and selling those vehicles, the auto industry employs some three million people. Many of those factories and parts suppliers are in swing states and therefore have outsized political influence, as do the unions that rep many of those workers.

People who advocate for banning cars, disrupting car culture, or anything along those lines often do so from the perspective of the use of street space, efficient transportation, the environment, etc. That’s all well and good. But, rarely, if ever, do these plans wrestle with what that means for the three million people who are employed making and selling these things, in an industry where even a few percentage point drop in sales amounts to a bad year. Advocates for those policies should be aware of how they sound to people whose livelihoods depend on robust car production and sales.

Any proposal to wean Americans off widespread car ownership—more than nine out of ten American households own at least one car—needs to have at least some way to address this concern. Because to the people working in the auto industry, calls for people to stop owning so many cars sounds an awful lot like a call for them to be out of a job.

I don’t have any great answers here. One possible tactic is to talk less about defeating car culture without defining the term and talk more about how street space is allocated.

In any event, our country is hooked on cars, in more ways than one. Getting it unhooked will be a very hard problem to solve. But I am increasingly of the belief relying on purely rational arguments will not be sufficient, because 1. those are never sufficient and 2. too many people have their livelihoods at stake.

Beware The Cult Of Innovation

As a reporter, there are some words that I consider red flags. They’re terms that often signify a lack of underlying thought, examination, or justification for the topic or policy at hand. One is “safety.” Another is “innovation.”

To be sure, these are real words with actual meaning. But they’re often not used that way. In my experience, they’re deployed as cover for policies that either have no rationalization or ones that the powers-that-be prefer to keep hidden.

Working for Jalopnik, I heard the word “innovation” or one of its derivatives a lot, especially arround autonomous vehicles (AVs). To be sure, AVs are genuinely incredible engineering feats (the ones that don’t kill people, at least). But, just because you can build something doesn’t mean you should. But once you spend a couple billion dollars building something, you probably want it deployed as widely as possible, no matter what. That could be bad news for transit advocates.

As I wrote in one feature, AVs are not going to solve the problems people think they will. In fact, they very well may make those problems worse, because all of the people involved in developing these technologies are experts in, well, developing these technologies, not in urban studies, road planning, or traffic engineering. For example, one of the earliest and most influential AV funders and evangelists was Google’s Larry Page. And the people who are experts in those things are very worried.

More often than not, when I heard the word “innovation” it was deployed as a tautalogy. Why will this new thing be better? Because it is new, and therefore better. I’m sure I don’t have to convince you, my beautiful subway, bus, and bicycle riders, why that isn’t the case.

Unfortunately, the purveyors of these innovation myths are often very rich and politically connected. Moreover, politicians like to use the “I” word themselves—none more so than our friend Governor Cuomo—because it makes them appear hip. After all, it is no coincidence he called Elon Musk to ask him to fix the subway.

“Car Commuter Culture”

Well before my time there, Jalopnik writers used a term I quite like: car commuter culture. It is the culture of nine out of ten Americans needing a car to be productive members of society. It is the culture of car companies churning out identical econoboxes that inspire none of the fascination or joy that car enthusiasts have. It is a culture where cars become appliances (for more on that theme, read this hilarious post about “What a Car Enthusiast Looks Like to Everyone Else”). It is a culture where the production and maintenance of cars is a major sector of the economy.

Many car enthusiasts are on our side, the side of people who want public transit to be better. I’m not going to say all of them, but I have learned the divide is not as clear as many people assume.

"You Know What You Did"

Over the last month, Andrew Cuomo has made it quite clear what he thinks of the subway. He believes it is a crime-ridden, dangerous place. He thinks the subway needs hundreds more police officers to make it safe again. And he has ordered the MTA to spend $50 million a year on 500 cops to make that happen.

Now, it is factually untrue that the subway is unsafe. It is even untrue that the subway is getting more dangerous. Even the cops, who normally jump at any chance to talk about how dangerous it is out there to get more cops hired, say this Cuomo narrative is a load of crap.

This policy of sending hundreds of cops into a place where there is no crime problem to speak of has resulted in the only possible outcome: lots and lots of bored cops. And the bored cops are doing what bored cops do: either nothing at all or finding something to do. In the case of officers of the law, finding something to do means finding people violating it no matter how trivial the offense.

To pick the highest profile examples:

It’s not strictly necessary to a pick a worst or most galling example from this sordid lot. They’re all horrifying in their own way. But for whatever reason the churro ladies seem to have captured the media’s attention in ways the others didn’t.

“In the past I was just given tickets and it has never been violent,” one of the women, identified as Elsa, said during a rally Monday. “I’m afraid of going through the process of getting a license. It’s too much money.”

Perhaps the churro ladies made more news than others because we are a society that worships the entrepreneur. Or perhaps it’s because immigrant rights is on a lot of people’s minds. Maybe it was the fact that police officers handcuffing peaceful, nonviolent middle-aged women with a cart of pastries is emblematic of our worst fears of what our society has become. Or maybe there doesn’t have to be a reason, it’s all grotesque.

The most despicable aspect of it all is that this couldn’t have gone any other way. It was the only possible result of sending 500 police officers into the subway in a city with a long, troubled history of over-policing people of color and criminalizing homelessness. There was no other theoretical end result of sending a ton of cops to solve a non-existent problem.

The pointlessness of it all was highlighted in a video of the aforementioned incident of the man getting kicked out of the subway for putting his bag on the bench while he waited for an L train for 17 minutes.

The cops told him it was against the rules to put his bag on the chair. When the train finally came and he boarded, they pried him off of it even though he had paid his fare. The man asked “What did I do?” and the woman filming asked “What did he do?”

The cop replied, “you know what you did.”


If you would like to help Elsa and other street vendors caught up in the NYPD dragnet, you can donate to the Street Vendor Project at the Urban Justice Center. Carina Kaufman-Gutierrez, deputy director of the Street Vendor Project, told Signal Problems “all donations made to SVP go directly towards helping vendors fight tickets, providing legal consultations, and fighting for just working conditions.” She added Elsa, the churro vendor quoted above, has an appointment with SVP tomorrow afternoon to figure out next steps, including applying for a license and fighting her ticket. Join me in donating here.


If the NYPD come for the dogs in bags there will be hell to pay.

Photo credit: Dan Miller

Happy 115th Birthday To The One And Only

New York City makes me feel very rich and very broke. I will be strolling through Prospect Park on a crisp fall evening as the sun slowly descends across the longmeadow forcing thin rays of light through the changing leaves wondering how this can possibly be mine. I’ll be coasting down the Manhattan Bridge on my bike as the city rapidly comes out to meet me wondering how life can be any better. I’ll hop on the 2 at Chambers Street and be at 96th St less than 20 minutes later like a superhero. No amount of money in the world can buy those feelings, but I have them.

But then I leave the park or get off my bike or walk up the steps at 96th Street and remember how much of this city is either off limits to me or prohibitively costly to experience. Barring some miracle, living in Manhattan (and an increasingly large swath of Brooklyn) won’t happen. Regardless of which borough I live in, I’ll be renting even though I’m a Grown Ass Man. Eating in a restaurant is a once-a-month indulgence. I was charged $7 for a coffee last week after I ordered their house drip and it was not a mistake. That’s just what coffee costs now, I think to myself, wrongly. But, increasingly, that is what New York feels like.

For these reasons and more, people are leaving. I don’t blame them. But when this city makes me feel rich—spiritually rich, of course—I feel like there’s nowhere else I could possibly live.

This week, I spent a day working from the Rose Main Reading Room in the New York Public Library main branch while researching this story about the subway’s opening day of service 115 years ago this Sunday. The Rose Reading Room is one of those miraculous New York City rich places. How can it possibly be true that I can just walk in here and be here? How is this mine?

I don’t presume everyone feels that way about the Rose Reading Room, or Prospect Park, or the subway. But reading through the stories of the subway’s first day, I know I’m not the only one.

Anyways, here’s a little bit about what I found reading through those accounts:

What is immediately clear reviewing newspaper accounts from that momentous first day is that, right from the start, the subway came into the city not like the typical immigrant or visitor awed by its surroundings or shy in welcome, but with a personality and character of its own, one that transformed not just the people who rode it but the city as a whole. It was not a mere piece of infrastructure, but the closest thing to an organism, a being, one can imagine tunnels and steel and concrete being.

For all the subway’s flaws then and since, it has always been special, because it has always been itself.

Please do check out the whole thing here. I wrote it for myself, but I also wrote it for you all, my dearest Signal Problems readers.

Happy birthday, subway. We wouldn’t be the same without you.

Dog in a Bag

MTA Rules of Conduct Section 1050.9 Subsection (h) Paragraph 2: no person may bring any animal on or into any conveyance or facility unless enclosed in a container and carried in a manner which would not annoy other passengers.

Have a dog in a bag photo? Reading this on the subway and see a dog in a bag? Take a picture and send it to aaron.wittes.gordon@gmail.com.

I forgot to attach a dogged bag in my last email so here are two:

Photo credit: Bailey Bretz

And a fitting nostalgia train Dog in a Bag photo for the occasion:

Photo credit: Nora

The Good News and Bad News About the MTA Capital Plan

About a month ago, the MTA released a list of $54 billion worth of major projects to be done over the next five years—a twice-a-decade rigmarole known as the Capital Plan—and an outline of how to pay for it.

Only a few weeks later, NYCT President Andy Byford handed in his resignation letter to his bosses, in part because he, as Dana Rubinstein of POLITICO put it, is “disinclined to preside over possible service cuts or layoffs.”

OK, don’t panic, people. Byford rescinded his resignation and issued a statement saying he’s “not going anywhere.” (I believe the 😬 emoji was designed precisely for this moment.) But the fact that Byford was ready to resign because service cuts and layoffs are likely provides a stark contrast to just a few weeks ago when the MTA had a plan to fund $54 billion of system upgrades in five years.

How, it is fair to wonder, can the MTA both have a $54 billion repair plan and need to slash service and lay off workers just to make ends meet?

The answer is: debt.

As is so often the case with the MTA, to understand what’s going on here, we have to go back in time. This capital plan tradition originates from the subway crisis of the 1980s, a crisis that was the result of decades of underinvestment and deferred maintenance that literally resulted in dozens of trains falling off the tracks. The idea of coming up with a plan every five years for how to consistently and strategically invest in the MTA to keep the system in working order, otherwise known as a “State of Good Repair,” came as a result of that failure.

However, this capital plan, mammoth as it is, is not one about deferred maintenance. It is about modernization. About $37 billion of the total cost is earmarked for the subway alone. Among those expenses: $7.1 billion for CBTC upgrades and $5.2 billion for station accessibility, including elevators at 66 more stations. To give a sense of scale, the first capital plan, funded in 1981, cost $7.2 billion, or about $20 billion in 2019 dollars, and was considered an historic investment and re-dedication to the city’s mass transit system.

To be sure, there is a lot to celebrate about this plan. At least in this preliminary form, it checks off every box that requires major investment that was included in the Fast Forward Plan Byford released way back in May 2018, which at the time received widespread acclaim from reporters including myself and the transit advocacy community.

Likewise, the Capital Plan was similarly lauded (the MTA sent out no fewer than three press releases stuffed with quotes from politicians and business leaders praising the plan) for, in the MTA’s words, vowing “unprecedented investments” 70 percent larger than its predecessor, which cost $32 billion for all of the MTA combined.

This is all good news until we remember that one word: debt. Because at the root of this plan is a fundamental fallacy. The MTA is trying to spend its way out of a spending crisis.

The MTA, you may remember, is in a fiscal crisis. Now, bear with me as I talk about budgets, the single most exciting thing in the world. The MTA has two budgets: the annual operating budget that has to be balanced every year by law, or the board goes to jail or something, and the capital plan. When the capital plan racks up debt, the MTA pays it off with the operating budget, money that would otherwise go towards running trains and buses or paying for workers and their benefits.

In other words, the debt accrued by the capital plan doesn’t just magically disappear. It shows up in the annual operating budget as an expense, right alongside payroll and health care and pensions. Here, I even annotated the MTA’s 2019 budget to show you:

As you can see, the MTA has a lot of debt. Currently, about 16 percent of its annual operating budget goes straight towards paying off its debt. Do not pass Go, do not fund a single train, go straight to Debt Service.

That number will only keep rising in the years to come. In August, after the MTA approved the 2020 budget, the Citizens Budget Commission warned the transportation agency’s budget woes are dire. The MTA’s plan (like, their actual plan) going forward is to amass a cumulative deficit of $740 million by 2023, even though by law they must balance their budget every year.

That’s not even the worst of it. The CBC warned this forecast, dire as it is, is based on “four assumptions that point to an even more alarming fiscal outlook.” Mainly, the MTA is assuming it can execute its transformation plan flawlessly and realize its “highly optimistic estimates” (in the CBC’s words) for savings. The MTA also assumes it will be able to save $251 million by running its organization more efficiently (or cutting service) in 2023—not by 2023; in 2023—but doesn’t say how. Nor is it clear, the CBC warns, how these two plans—the operations savings plan that originated within the MTA years ago and the state-mandated transformation plan hyped by Cuomo’s people—interact, or if they double-count savings, because each is too vague to sufficiently interrogate.

But most worryingly, the plans continue to assume “unprecedented continued economic growth” (again, CBC’s words), a state of affairs that many experts not only caution may come to an end but may do so in disastrous fashion.

It’s obviously difficult to predict economic winds, but there are serious warnings the good times are coming to an end. For example, I now spend my days paying close attention to the auto industry and, as I have come to learn, car companies have some of the finest economic forecasting departments in the world because they plan product cycles four to six years in advance. They simply must have some idea of which way the economic winds are blowing so they can plan their global supply chains and product offerings accordingly (like the MTA, these highly bureaucratic organizations sometimes do not listen to the smartest people on the ground and make bad decisions as a result). To that end, both Ford and GM are hunkering down for a recession in the next 12 to 24 months. They’re not alone. About three out of every four economists forecast a recession by 2021.

Now, economists are more or less always forecasting a recession on the horizon, but the slowed growth of major index funds like the S&P 500 seem to at least confirm that the angst is hardly limited to car companies and the 200 or so economists surveyed by a trade group.

At the very least, the modest prediction that this unprecedented period of growth may, in fact, turn to the other end of the business cycle soon hardly seems outlandish. Many companies and investors are taking steps to shore up their cash reserves for this very scenario.

But not the MTA. In his annual report, State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli warned the transportation agency of the recession risk. Why is a recession especially bad for the MTA? Because 86 percent of its annual budget comes from dedicated taxes, toll revenue, and fares. All of those revenue streams are highly vulnerable to economic downtowns. So, DiNapoli urged the MTA to build up its reserves to avoid severe service cuts. Such cuts, by the way, are already on the table for the agency to slash operating costs as it services its increasing debt load even in good economic times.

The problem is, the MTA responded to this warning by…adding more debt. Prior to the new Capital Plan’s release, the MTA was anticipating a debt load in 2022 of $3.5 billion, or about 19 percent of the operating budget. That’s three percent higher than the current budget. The Capital Plan will add an estimated $9.7 billion of additional debt load even after estimating revenues from congestion pricing revenues, federal grants, and additional taxes levied to fill the MTA’s coffers, all potential windfalls subject to change.

The very, very thin window of opportunity here is that the MTA need not acquire so much debt during the next capital plan, because the capital plan itself is so bloated with extremely high cost projections way out of line with industry standards—one of the key problems that resulted in the debt to begin with—that there are plenty of theoretical opportunities for savings. The MTA is budgeting something like $78 million per accessible station, which as the Times and Slate pointed out is a ridiculous sum way out of line with other cities. And Ben Kabak of Second Ave Sagas detailed how the Second Avenue Subway Phase II costs are still projected to be in the $6 billion range—although the number fluctuates even within the MTA’s own plan—meaning Phase II is projected to overtake Phase I as the most expensive subway per mile of track on Earth.

Whenever this issue of exorbitant costs comes up, MTA officials say something to the effect of “We know, we’re working on it.” At a TransitCenter panel about the Capital Plan, the guy responsible for all MTA capital projects, Janno Lieber, was a good sport fielding tough questions from moderator Colin Wright about this very topic. I do believe Lieber when he says they’re making progress on delivering projects on time and at cost—he often cites LIRR’s Third Rail project as a pioneering and replicable example—but “at cost” is not good enough for this Capital Plan.

If, as I suspect, the MTA’s long-term fiscal health relies on this plan coming in roughly 15 to 17 percent under budget, then I don’t see any evidence they can deliver on that (nor does it make any sense for the MTA to budget absurd costs for projects only to promise to trim those costs later). There is nothing in the agency’s history that suggests they can deliver that. There is nothing in any public transit agency’s history anywhere in the world that suggests this is a reasonable expectation, because megaprojects invariably cost more than expected, not less.

The only conclusion, then, is that this is a plan to mire the MTA further into debt it can’t afford right as some of the world’s leading economic forecasters are projecting an oncoming recession. Rather than batten down the hatches, the MTA just bought a bigger yacht and is sailing out to sea.

To be clear, some amount of debt is healthy for the MTA, since it has a reliable source of revenue to pay off bonds and can typically borrow at favorable interest rates. Yes, congestion pricing gives the MTA more revenue off which to borrow. But there’s a balance to be struck, and the MTA has been on the wrong side of that balance for years now. Rather than using congestion pricing to get on the right side, the MTA is borrowing more.

Why has the MTA borrowed so much to begin with? Because when Governor Cuomo promised the MTA $8.3 billion towards the current capital plan in 2016, he did so under one condition. The MTA could only have $7.3 billion of that after it became “fiscally exhausted,” or, in the words of Reinvent Albany, “after the MTA borrows until it can borrow no more.”

Anyone who’s faced having to pay off student loans or credit card debt knows that borrowing money to cover short-term costs just means greater pain when the bills come due. With each successive capital plan, the MTA continues to kick the can down the road in a way that will inevitably result in higher fares and service cuts, perhaps dire ones. And in 2016, Governor Cuomo gave that can a big ol’ wallop.

At the root of this issue is a fundamental difference between the 20th Century subway crisis and the 21st Century one. In the 1980s, the MTA really did need a huge fiscal injection to pay for badly needed repairs of track, cars, and other infrastructure simply to keep the system functional. That is much less the case today.

As I have repeatedly argued, the subway crisis of 2017 was one primarily of gross mismanagement. My proof is in subway service today, which is about as good as it’s ever been, even though the MTA has received very little in the way of additional funds. Even if every single dollar of the $836 million Subway Action Plan made the subway better—something I do not myself believe—that is still only about five percent of the MTA’s 2018 budget. Even granting the dubious premise that “The Subway Action Plan Is Working,” it still begs the question: If all it took was $836 million to fix the subway, why couldn’t they find it before in the agency’s annual $16 billion budget?

No, the problem was never how much money the MTA received, but the way in which that money was spent. The rampant waste in megaprojects—in a more sensible world, East Side Access and it’s $11.4 billion price tag would be on the receiving end of several different independent investigations by city and state government officials—forced more borrowing to pay for exorbitant costs, and that borrowing must be paid off from the operating budget, taking dollars away from running trains, buses, and conducting maintenance and repairs. And there’s plenty of waste on the operations side, too. The money is there, but it’s going elsewhere.

I am hardly the first, nor will I be the last, to raise this alarm. In 2014, the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA published a review of the MTA’s entire capital plan history and found much the same:

Unfortunately, over these thirty years the MTA has been forced to incur an increasing level of debt in order to finance the continued rehabilitation of the transit system. Today, the MTA has $32 billion in long-term debt (bonds) on its balance sheet. This debt is supported by farebox revenues and tolls, and a bevy of dedicated taxes, all subject to economic cycles. These bonds currently require a $2.3 billion annual debt service, which must come out of operating revenues.

Since then, the only thing that has changed is the debt has increased. These forces, “all subject to economic cycles,” will continue to be subject to the economic cycles when those cycles are no longer favorable. Then what?

The 2020-2024 plan is a plan to continue this trend, of passing the “then what?” question along like a hot potato in hopes that whatever bad thing happens waits until the hot potato is out of your hand. This plan sinks the MTA’s operating budget further into the grip of bond service, meaning more of your fare will go towards paying off the ill-considered promises that have only delayed the inevitable.

The Capital Plan has been hailed as a triumph that will finally usher the MTA into the 21st Century. In a vacuum, that praise is well placed. But the MTA does not exist in a vacuum. It inherits the mistakes of its predecessors. The subway is running better than it has in years because of the reversal of a small fraction of those mistakes. There is a lot more work to be done. I believe a lot of people at the MTA, and at NYCT, are up for the challenge. I also believe the only prudent move is not to saddle those dedicated public servants with the burden of having one out of every five dollars in their budget go straight to debt service.

The MTA could have its cake and eat it too if costs were under control, but they’re very much not. Instead, it would behoove the MTA to prioritize what it can afford and save other projects for the next plan. Maybe the Second Avenue Subway—for which the federal government is budgeted to foot about half the bill—needs to wait until the East Side Access boondoggle is behind them. Perhaps this isn’t the time to be spending $704 million on 375 electric buses, or $1.87 million per bus. But that’s not what this plan is about. This plan is about making everyone happy.

It is for this reason I’m worried the MTA is, in some ways, getting what it needs at the precisely the wrong time. For all of its transformative promises, the 2020-2024 Capital Plan is more of the same from our leadership. More promises. More spending. More debt. Eventually, something is going to snap the MTA out of its spending problem. You wouldn’t know it from our elected officials, but it can’t go on forever.

Miracle On 14th Street

In the history of Signal Problems, I have never dedicated an entire edition to good news. I mean, let’s be honest, the MTA hasn’t given us an awful lot of good news. And in keeping with my cynical personality, whenever there is good news, there is also plenty of other bad news.

But today is different. Welcome, Signal Problems readers, to the Miracle On 14th Street.


Two weeks ago, I walked along 14th Street from Eighth Avenue to Union Square. I walked along the sidewalk, as people tend to do, but I could, in an alternate world with different social norms, clambered atop the line of stationary vehicles idling along the road without my feet touching pavement, so complete was the gridlock, as if each vehicle had separation anxiety from the one in front of it. I not only moved faster on foot than the buses stuck in that traffic, but reached my destination quicker than many of the cars, too.

Speaking of alternate universes, I made that same exact walk a week later, Friday at 6 p.m. Instead of the cacophony of honking and steady drone of idling engines, there was this:

And this:

While no bus had passed me the week before, no fewer than five buses past me that evening during the same walk. And they didn’t merely pass. They zoomed by at or near the 25 mph speed limit, for there were no obstructions in their paths. And the buses that did pass me were not empty. They were full.

This turn of events is because, on Thursday, the city was finally able to implement the 14th Street Busway, a plan originally hatched to cope with the erstwhile L shutdown, but kept in place for reasons that had always been clear to those of us who prioritize the movement of people above private cars in dense cities.

Today, the reasons for keeping it in place are more obvious than ever. As has been well-covered elsewhere, the M14 has been one of the slowest routes in the city for some time, bleeding ridership as a result. To reverse this trend, the city proposed making 14th Street local access only, except for buses, trucks, and emergency vehicles. All other cars must take their first right turn off the road.

There were worries about how well this would work. There was also a legal challenge of such erroneous merit I refuse to spend any longer discussing it. Thanks to a (disturbingly narrow 3-2) ruling from an appellate court that reversed a previous injunction against the busway, we no longer have to pontificate about what would happen if cars were mostly banned from 14th Street and the surrounding area. Instead, you can see for yourself.

Instead of only catching single words of passing conversations, I could hear entire sentences. The hullabaloo of whatever was going on at the Union Square steps echoed for half a block in every direction instead of dimming by the corner of University Place (which, by the way, is pedestrianized now as well). I found myself leaning against a LinkNYC kiosk street-watching. Delivery workers zoomed past unconcerned about getting doored and without interfering with any pedestrians. Two kids rolled by on their skateboards just off the sidewalk instead of weaving in and out of pedestrians. The only disturbance from this peaceful scene was an ambulance screaming by at great speed, something it could not have done a week ago. I thought about how often a hypothetical disruption of emergency services are erroneously used as a counterpoint to safe streets infrastructure like bike lanes and busways. I couldn’t help but wonder, as the ambulance did not merely crawl through an intersection but sped by, did this busway already save a life?

(As for traffic on 12th, 13th, and 15th streets, I saw the usual half-block backups at red lights during rush hour. It was certainly nothing remotely close to the apocalyptic scenario detractors anticipated. As far as I could tell, the most significant downsides so far have been Uber customers needing to walk half a block to meet their ride. Also the owner of Joe’s Pizza apparently thinks a lot of people take taxis to get his $3 slices, which, LOL.)

Reporters who flocked to the M14 during the first few days of the busway found jubilant bus riders shaving up to ten minutes off their normal commutes. As the WSJ noted, bus drivers had to slow down to keep on schedule. I echo AM New York reporter Vin Barone’s observation that it is exceedingly difficult to find someone calling New York City buses “amazing,” yet here we are:

The totality of this shift from a miserable, traffic-clogged thoroughfare to a pleasant urban street with speedy, efficient bus service feels like a miracle. It is a miracle, when you consider how hard it is for anyone to accomplish anything positive in this city’s transportation scene.

The forces for conservatism in this city are strong, especially when it comes to maintaining the status quo of streets as spaces for private cars. So we must not forget that this miracle was not, in fact, magic. It did not happen by itself. Like most “miracles,” it is the result of years of hard work by hundreds of people who imagined something better and fought to make it reality. Groups like Transportation Alternatives, TransitCenter, Riders Alliance and others have been fighting for years to have this busway implemented. In the past year and a half especially, many at the MTA have fought hard for it, too. And I know there are folks at DOT right alongside them.

The MTA recently proposed a $54 billion plan to make getting around this city and the entire New York region faster, more reliable, and more sustainable. One of these days, I’ll get around to sharing my thoughts on that plan. But it is worth noting this busway, which is going to provide trip time and reliability improvements on par with any of the billion-dollar efforts that plan includes, did not cost very much money.

For all the hand-wringing and court hearings, in the end it was always a simple problem with a simple solution. For a city that pathologically over-engineers and over-spends on seemingly every solution to every problem including but hardly limited to transportation, they just. Fucking. Did it. That is the real miracle.

If we want more of these miracles to happen, I urge you to go to 14th Street, ride the M14, and see for yourself what bus service could be right here in New York. If you like what you see, write to your city councilmember and the Mayor’s office. Let them know you want more of it, that you want to live in a city where fast buses don’t have to feel like a miracle.

Dog in a Bag

MTA Rules of Conduct Section 1050.9 Subsection (h) Paragraph 2: no person may bring any animal on or into any conveyance or facility unless enclosed in a container and carried in a manner which would not annoy other passengers.

Have a dog in a bag photo? Reading this on the subway and see a dog in a bag? Take a picture and send it to signalproblems@substack.com.

Photo credit: Erica Lourd

Loading more posts…