N.Y. Subway, Facing a $16 Billion Deficit, Plans for Deep Cuts

[Wallyhorse]

11 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Wally is obsessed with tinkering with the train.... over the years he suggested it be sent to Forest Hills, 96th, 145th and now Bay Ridge-95th street.

Leave the line alone, Middle Village, Ridgewood residents don't want the brown back.

Actually, in my new one, the is eliminated entirely and replaced by the  running all times except overnights to 168. 

[B35 via Church]

19 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Wally is obsessed with tinkering with the train.... over the years he suggested it be sent to Forest Hills, 96th, 145th and now Bay Ridge-95th street.

Leave the line alone, Middle Village, Ridgewood residents don't want the brown back.

Who (on here) even missed the on 4th anyway? It was embarrassing how ill-utilized those trains used to be.

[R10 2952]

@B35 via Church well the RFW on the West End used to be fun when the R42s were still on the ; I stopped caring about that years ago though...  the 4th Avenue ridership began to really drop off after the M was relegated to rush-only in 1995. 

[CenSin]

47 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Actually, in my new one, the is eliminated entirely and replaced by the  running all times except overnights to 168. 

By any chance, is Broadway-Brooklyn your home line? Kinda late to notice, but pretty much all your proposals involve spreading BMT Eastern Division to the rest of the system. If I were to guess a more specific locale, probably East New York.

37 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Who (on here) even missed the on 4th anyway? It was embarrassing how ill-utilized those trains used to be.

Those trains also got in the way at Bay Parkway and 36 Street. They’re about as desirable as the on Culver.

Edited July 27, 2020 by CenSin

[Wallyhorse]

Just now, CenSin said:

By any chance, is Broadway-Brooklyn your home line? Kinda late to notice, but pretty much all your proposals involve spreading BMT Eastern Division to the rest of the system. If I were to guess a more specific locale, probably East New York.

No.  That just happens to be the line here with some flexibility.

I'm simply working within the parameters of available tracks.  That is why in the new version I now have the combined with the Brooklyn portion of the  as the  would basically be what used to be the rush hour  but now a 24/7 line and the  replacing the  that is eliminated completely, with there still being midtown service from Middle Village but now via 8th Avenue instead of 6th and also becoming 17-19/7 for Middle Village residents. 

The idea was to cut but make sure every station was served by at least one line at all times. 

[Maxwell179]

16 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

You are aware the would have to be cut to eight cars, but yes, I can see where that could be done.

Nvm

Edited July 27, 2020 by Maxwell179

[Wallyhorse]

1 minute ago, Maxwell179 said:

Why

That was my misreading an earlier post on the , thinking it would run a Jamaica Center-Jamaica Center loop running via Archer, QB, 53rd, 8th Avenue, 6th Avenue, Chrystie and Broadway-Brooklyn.  

[Maxwell179]

Just now, Wallyhorse said:

That was my misreading an earlier post on the , thinking it would run a Jamaica Center-Jamaica Center loop running via Archer, QB, 53rd, 8th Avenue, 6th Avenue, Chrystie and Broadway-Brooklyn.  

Yeah I realized

[Bay Ridge Express]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Who (on here) even missed the on 4th anyway? It was embarrassing how ill-utilized those trains used to be.

Because its route sucked. It shared tracks with the  and had to perform excruciating switches onto the 4 local tracks when at that point, most would opt for the  or  to get to (Midtown) Manhattan anyway. Rerouting it to 95 St would simply make it become an  without direct (Lower Manhattan) SIF/WTC connections.

 

[Mtatransit]

I would prefer the system be less interlined at higher frequency, instead of more interlining.

 

Simply put, there is no reason to send a subway line all over the place, just so that a station is "covered"

Edited July 28, 2020 by Mtatransit

[shiznit1987]

Not for nothing, but if/when another QB Local service is available, I'd like to see the upper level of Myrtle rebuilt and the  permanently shuttle-ized. To be honest, that would go a long way towards making Broadway-Brooklyn work a whole lot better. The TPH slots saved could go towards a peak direction  running express between Marcy and Broadway Junction then down to Canarsie. The local stops on Broadway would have all 's stopping there so that'd be a service increase in it's own right. 

[R10 2952]

19 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

Not for nothing, but if/when another QB Local service is available, I'd like to see the upper level of Myrtle rebuilt and the  permanently shuttle-ized. To be honest, that would go a long way towards making Broadway-Brooklyn work a whole lot better. The TPH slots saved could go towards a peak direction  running express between Marcy and Broadway Junction then down to Canarsie. The local stops on Broadway would have all 's stopping there so that'd be a service increase in it's own right. 

I'd prefer that option as well, but if the TA did that, it would probably increase crowding on the and at the lower-level platforms on the / , which aren't very wide to begin with.  Maybe if the Myrtle Line was extended somewhere (tied into the IND Crosstown, BMT Franklin or whatever) it could work, but I don't see them doing that anytime soon.

I could see the being pushed off 6th Avenue, maybe as a replacement for the to 95th-4th, but people would complain.  🤷‍♂️

Edited July 28, 2020 by R10 2952

[Deucey]

6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Mine is far from perfect, but this is about making the best of a really bad situation:

So I was wrong on the , I was thinking in terms of running a Jamaica Center loop (Upper to lower level and vice versa).  The return of the Brown  basically becoming a 24/7 version of the old "bankers special" had more to do with people looking for midtown and so forth often transferring to the  or  as it was the first chance they got.  Plus, such gains a major transfer point at Fulton between (in my proposal) the  and  trains at Fulton. The  would simply be replacing the on 6th Avenue in this and running to 96th-2nd actually means a service increase for arguably the most densely populated area of not only New York but arguably the entire country.  Having eight-car trains are NOT ideal, but it's doing the best with what you have.

Anyway, this is attempt #3 at this:

and  run as they do now, except the  northbound stops at 79th and 86th Street (skips such southbound). 

is a shuttle between 148-Lenox Terminal and 96th Street at all times. 

runs at all times from Woodlawn-New Lots Avenue, express in Manhattan

runs all times except late nights between Dyre Avenue and Brooklyn Bridge as a local in Manhattan (late nights runs as it does now) 

 and run as they do now, but no express service peak hours 

runs all times between 207th and Far Rockaway.

, , ,  and are eliminated. 

 runs 168th Street-Metropolitan Avenue, replacing the along the Broadway-Brooklyn and Myrtle El lines.  Late nights runs as a shuttle as the currently does, runs to 168 all other times. 

, , , , and  run as they do now except the now becomes a full-time local to/from Jamaica Center. 

 is extended to 95th Street-Bay Ridge at all times and replaces the now-defunct  in Brooklyn.

 runs full-time as a 4th Avenue local through the tunnel.

Grand Central-Times Square  runs rush hours only

Franklin Avenue and Rockaway Park  run as they do now except the Rockaway is full-time.

There is also a Euclid-Lefferts  at all times with some  service to/from Lefferts rush hours.

But what’s your Fulton St Local?

[RR503]

I know service cut arrangements are fun to tinker with, but the reality is that unless we expect depressed ridership to last for years, cuts won't save nearly enough money to have an impact on a hole of this magnitude; demand elasticities are a thing, and they mean that the more you cut, the less you earn in fare revenue. Now of course, I don't think the MTA will end up having to fill this full budget hole by itself, but even if they only have to cover 500m, simple cuts as proposed here are really not that effective at closing the gap -- not from a ridership loss perspective, and certainly not from an agency political capital perspective.

[Caelestor]

OPTO, no overtime, and overhauling the labor requirements for weekend/overnight maintenance have to be the primary way forward. Labor requirements have to be the bulk of the MTA's costs, and this is a great opportunity to bring the agency in line with late 20th-century standards.

As for service cuts: Do them well if it comes down to that. Keep the off-peak service and hit the rush hour trains and peak-hour only extensions, reflecting how all office jobs are WFH these days and to reduce the expensive labor requirement associated with them. Also, no express service should be cut because that's just effectively halving the trunk lines capacity where ridership is expected to be the heaviest.

As for the : it's basically just a short-turn , and its New Lots Ave segment can easily be taken over by the  during all service hours. If we're reducing the  to a full-time shuttle, might as well just axe it and the relatively low-ridership 148 St branch completely and run more trains to Nereid Ave. Such a move wouldn't be completely negative because in the long run:

• No  removes the flat junction north of 135 St from normal operations and associated delays
• The Bronx will get more train service overall to Harlem and the West Side. Increasing  service will reduce  service, but  service can be increased in response.
  • In a deinterlined IRT, the  would serve both the upper White Plains and Dyre Ave lines, the  would handle Jerome and Lexington Aves, and the  and  would just be replaced by increased service on the . The only thing stopping this from happening is the admittedly awkward transfer at 149 St - Grand Concourse.

Otherwise, I don't see any full weekday services being cut. During the last service reductions, the  wasn't really cut, only the  in lower Manhattan and its not cost-effective peak hour extension along the West End. The  was only cut because the  could be extended to Astoria, but that's not an option since SAS is open. I see the  being cut to 145 St, but removing it entirely should only be done if there is no economic activity going on. Granted this could happen if a second wave happens, but let's hope that doesn't happen because in that case the  are gone as well.

And the , not the , should be running to Brooklyn. The  serves the busy Broadway corridor and the  makes 6 stops in Manhattan.

[Mtatransit]

54 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

OPTO, no overtime, and overhauling the labor requirements for weekend/overnight maintenance have to be the primary way forward. Labor requirements have to be the bulk of the MTA's costs, and this is a great opportunity to bring the agency in line with late 20th-century standards.

As for service cuts: Do them well if it comes down to that. Keep the off-peak service and hit the rush hour trains and peak-hour only extensions, reflecting how all office jobs are WFH these days and to reduce the expensive labor requirement associated with them. Also, no express service should be cut because that's just effectively halving the trunk lines capacity where ridership is expected to be the heaviest.

As for the : it's basically just a short-turn , and its New Lots Ave segment can easily be taken over by the  during all service hours. If we're reducing the  to a full-time shuttle, might as well just axe it and the relatively low-ridership 148 St branch completely and run more trains to Nereid Ave. Such a move wouldn't be completely negative because in the long run:

• No  removes the flat junction north of 135 St from normal operations and associated delays
• The Bronx will get more train service overall to Harlem and the West Side. Increasing  service will reduce  service, but  service can be increased in response.
  • In a deinterlined IRT, the  would serve both the upper White Plains and Dyre Ave lines, the  would handle Jerome and Lexington Aves, and the  and  would just be replaced by increased service on the . The only thing stopping this from happening is the admittedly awkward transfer at 149 St - Grand Concourse.

Otherwise, I don't see any full weekday services being cut. During the last service reductions, the  wasn't really cut, only the  in lower Manhattan and its not cost-effective peak hour extension along the West End. The  was only cut because the  could be extended to Astoria, but that's not an option since SAS is open. I see the  being cut to 145 St, but removing it entirely should only be done if there is no economic activity going on. Granted this could happen if a second wave happens, but let's hope that doesn't happen because in that case the  are gone as well.

And the , not the , should be running to Brooklyn. The  serves the busy Broadway corridor and the  makes 6 stops in Manhattan.

I completely agree here. OPTO should've been here 10 years ago. Those cameras and screens on the  were designed exactly for that.  Station agents is another position that should be phased out. POP should be implemented on the RR system in order reduce each train to one crewmember.

Regarding overtime, it is hard to completely eliminate it due to the nature of the job (shifts and runs don't end exactly at 40 hours), but reductions of overtime and contract changes could play a part in improving efficiency.

Labor shouldn't be the only ones to give here, management has to show that they could manage money properly (which is a tall order for them). Hiring consultants to please Cuomo's ego doesn't paint a very good picture of an agency trying everything they could to save money. 

Regarding service cuts, MTA was pretty successful in changing service patterns to be more consistant throughout the day in 2010. I do agree though, that bulk of the service cuts should be targeted on those rush hour trips (Express buses and heavily peaked service). Union contracts I don't believe currently allow split shifts, which means these trips are extremely inefficient unless the MTA increase the midday service as well, which they probably won't do

However, the  are primarily short turn trains to alleviate overcrowding on the  and   . If we were to cut these trains and add service to the  and the  that would be a net service increase, and will cost more money.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

19 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I completely agree here. OPTO should've been here 10 years ago. Those cameras and screens on the  were designed exactly for that.  Station agents is another position that should be phased out. POP should be implemented on the RR system in order reduce each train to one crewmember.

Regarding overtime, it is hard to completely eliminate it due to the nature of the job (shifts and runs don't end exactly at 40 hours), but reductions of overtime and contract changes could play a part in improving efficiency.

Labor shouldn't be the only ones to give here, management has to show that they could manage money properly (which is a tall order for them). Hiring consultants to please Cuomo's ego doesn't paint a very good picture of an agency trying everything they could to save money. 

Regarding service cuts, MTA was pretty successful in changing service patterns to be more consistant throughout the day in 2010. I do agree though, that bulk of the service cuts should be targeted on those rush hour trips (Express buses and heavily peaked service). Union contracts I don't believe currently allow split shifts, which means these trips are extremely inefficient unless the MTA increase the midday service as well, which they probably won't do

However, the  are primarily short turn trains to alleviate overcrowding on the  and   . If we were to cut these trains and add service to the  and the  that would be a net service increase, and will cost more money.

Reducing labor costs, especially at the management level and doing away with pricey consultants should definitely be at the top of the list of what to cut. Your last paragraph is largely why I haven’t said much about cutting subway services. It’s likely to just be a drop in the bucket. The cutting of the  and , combining the  and  and cutting the  to Court Sq permanently didn’t really save all that much money back in 2010.

On 7/27/2020 at 8:50 PM, Mtatransit said:

I would prefer the system be less interlined at higher frequency, instead of more interlining.

 

Simply put, there is no reason to send a subway line all over the place, just so that a station is "covered"

But then wouldn’t that increase the costs of operating the higher frequency services? Unless ridership levels stay down and you just run the deinterlined services at the same level as the current services are running right now.

[paulrivera]

My ideas:

 207-Far Rockaway, express and  207-Lefferts local. the A and C would swap crews interchangeably at 207 much like the  and  do today.

 145-Brighton Beach, CPW local, 6 Av-Brighton express rush hour only and  205-Coney Island Concourse local, CPW exp rush hours (local all other times), 6 Av-West End express.  Some B crews would take over D intervals during the midday to reduce crew costs, which means some B trains could go to/from Bedford Park anyway during shoulder hours to get crews in position.

 remains as is. I thought about swapping the  and  south of 53rd Street to get some of the homeless off the E but cutting the E down to 8 cars would do more harm than good.

 Unchanged.

 cut back to Smith-9th.

 skip-stop service discontinued, J frequency during rush reduced to 6 minutes

 single track shuttle Bway Junction-Canarsie all times except rush hours.

 shuttle cut back to Myrtle, and starts at 8:30pm permanently. Rest of route unchanged

 and  : W discontinued, replaced by N- Astoria to Whitehall local branch running every 20 minutes during rush hour only. Rest of N route unchanged.

 unchanged

 Whitehall shuttle extension discontinued and remaining shuttle from 36-95 goes OPTO. Rest of route unchanged

 one track used on 42nd Street shuttle on an alternating daily rotation. All other shuttles unchanged

 midday frequency reduction. Route unchanged

 Local service in Manhattan starts at 8:30pm. 6 minute headway on weekends to replace  and . also on weekends, two branches: 241 to Flatbush every 12 minutes, Dyre to Utica (both via 7th Avenue) every 12 minutes (12 min headways could be trimmed down to 16 depending on how bad financials are.)

 Shuttle runs 148-14 8:30pm-11pm, 148-Times Sq 11pm until end of night, no weekend service.

 two branches on weekends: Woodlawn to Utica every 12 minutes, 149 St to New Lots every 12 minutes. Weekday route unchanged (like the 2, the 12 min headways could be trimmed down to 16 on the 4 also depending on how bad financials are.)

 Shuttle runs Dyre-E180 8:30pm-end of night weekdays, no weekend service (shuttle runs Friday night/early Saturday and Sunday night/early Monday). Cutting the Nereid branch back to E180 would be tempting tho.

 Bronx express runs rush hours only (winter weather schedule, but permanent), midday Parkchester trips cut back to 3rd Av. Rest of route unchanged.

 Weekend frequency reduction. Route unchanged.

[Mtatransit]

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Reducing labor costs, especially at the management level and doing away with pricey consultants should definitely be at the top of the list of what to cut. Your last paragraph is largely why I haven’t said much about cutting subway services. It’s likely to just be a drop in the bucket. The cutting of the  and , combining the  and  and cutting the  to Court Sq permanently didn’t really save all that much money back in 2010.

But then wouldn’t that increase the costs of operating the higher frequency services? Unless ridership levels stay down and you just run the deinterlined services at the same level as the current services are running right now.

What I was referring to was some’s proposal to send the M into Brooklyn and/or J into Bay Ridge. These services are railfans dream but wouldn’t necessarily make sense in revenue service

But you are right, if we were to run an ideal system and ridership rebounds, this will cost more.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Mtatransit

[LGA Link N Train]

9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Reducing labor costs, especially at the management level and doing away with pricey consultants should definitely be at the top of the list of what to cut.

I need more elaboration on this part right here because I’m having a hard time trying to understand what it means. I also remember hearing a friend of mine who happens to work in the  make a statement similar to this but instead of “pricey” they mentioned “outside consultants” in addition to mentioning that  isn’t using their own consultants effectively. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I need more elaboration on this part right here because I’m having a hard time trying to understand what it means. I also remember hearing a friend of mine who happens to work in the  make a statement similar to this but instead of “pricey” they mentioned “outside consultants” in addition to mentioning that  isn’t using their own consultants effectively. 

I meant “outside consultants.” For example, did they really need to award a 1-year contract at $4.1 million to reorganize the organization last year? Do they not have people in house who are capable of figuring how bloated MTA management is? I mean, it’s not exactly a well kept secret.

On 6/30/2019 at 5:19 PM, Union Tpke said:

A cost-cutting overhaul is about to shake the MTA to its core, sources familiar with the plan tell the Daily News.
Departments will be consolidated, employees will be canned and many expect the changes will undermine one of the agency’s most important bosses: NYC Transit President Andy Byford.

Under state legislation passed in April, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is required to produce a money-saving reorganization plan by the end of June.
A recent draft of that plan included measures that would drastically reduce Byford’s influence at the agency, say several sources familiar with the recommendations.

AlixPartners, the firm hired to consult on the reorganization, proposes separating New York City’s subways and buses into two different operating agencies. Both services are now part of NYC Transit and are run by Byford. The draft plan leaves Byford running only the subways.

Byford is also expected to lose control of subway construction projects. If that change goes through, he would no longer oversee big ticket initiatives like upgrading the subway’s signal system or making stations more accessible.
Sources said the reorganization plan would move those projects to the purview of the MTA’s Capital Construction department and its head Janno Lieber.
Gov. Cuomo declared a state of emergency for the MTA in mid-2017, and in January 2018 brought in Byford — who won accolades for turning around Toronto’s transit system — to run NYC Transit. Byford was tasked with putting in effect Cuomo’s $836 million Subway Action Plan, which was meant to rapidly fix the system.

This year, as subway on-time performance rates hit five-year highs, he and Cuomo have jockeyed for credit for the improvements, sources with knowledge of the situation told The News.
Cuomo’s program to quickly make up for years of neglect — like clearing 10,000 clogged subway drains ― has helped curb delays. Byford’s day-to-day management of the system and his initiative to reconfigure faulty signaling equipment and remove cumbersome subway speed limits have also helped better service.
But sources say Cuomo is frustrated by pushback against his rework of NYC Transit’s plan to repair the L-train East River tunnel — and by Byford’s quasi-celebrity status.

Some MTA officials fear Cuomo is using the reorganization plan to pull one over on Byford. “There is a strong suspicion that the report was already mostly written by the time AlixPartners came in,” one high ranking MTA source said.
Many parts of the AlixPartners reorganization plan — like the consolidation of the MTA’s seven different finance offices, seven legal departments and seven human resources divisions — have been considered by Cuomo, other politicians and agency officials for decades.
“We have spoken about it (the reorganization) for months and commuters and taxpayers have had enough delay and the path forward is clear,” said Cuomo spokesman Patrick Muncie. “The Subway Action Plan has demonstrated the system’s failings and the necessary corrective actions.”

AlixPartners — which in April was awarded a 12-month, $4.1 million contract to complete the MTA reorganization plan — is well-versed in major corporate overhauls. It oversaw the reorganization of General Motors when it filed for bankruptcy amid the financial crisis in 2009, and has consulted for other large companies like Enron and KMart.
But critics say the firm seems flummoxed by the MTA’s Byzantine workings.
“It didn’t appear that they (AlixPartners) have a lot of large transportation agency knowledge,” said Lisa Daglian, executive director of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA, one of seven advocacy organizations who met with AlixPartners this month to speak about the reorganization. “Restructuring Enron and restructuring the MTA are two different animals.”

Several MTA officials who have dealt with AlixPartners told The News that its employees don’t understand civil service laws that protect public employees.
Breaking up subway and bus services poses a series of legal and logistical issues. MTA buses are run by three separate organizations: Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority and NYC Transit Bus, which run local and select bus services, and MTA Bus Company, which runs most of the interborough express routes.
Splitting up the operation of subways and buses would require the MTA to restructure its collective bargaining agreements with its bus operators, who are represented by four different unions. If they attempt to consolidate the three bus organizations, it may also require the state Legislature to amend provisions of civil service laws that would block such a change.
[More New York] Boy, 5, stabbed while walking with mom in Bronx, attacker nabbed after cops get tip »
“They (AlixPartners) initially didn’t understand the distinction between non-civil servant and civil servant bus operators at the MTA,” a source who met with its consultants. “They thought they were going to be able to create a bus company without regarding that roughly half of the bus operators are protected civil servants, the other half are not.”
AlixPartners declined comment.
MTA spokesman Max Young defended AlixPartners as “a world class management consulting firm.”

AlixPartners is required by law to submit the plan Sunday. It will go to the MTA board for approval in July, and will be posted on the agency’s website by August 31. The plan will be executed by a new “director of transformation,” who will report to the MTA board.
Transit advocates and analysts worry about the plan’s lack of transparency and to changes in Byford’s role.

“I think the fact that we’re talking about these radical changes and adoption is just days away and no one knows about it speaks to the deficiencies of this process,” said TransitCenter spokesman Ben Fried. “These aren’t decisions that should be made lightly and they need to be deliberated on publicly.”
Riders Alliance spokesman Danny Pearlstein said that Cuomo’s main role at the MTA should be to “recruit and retain the people who can get the job done.”
“What riders want most from the governor and his MTA is a clear focus on the plan to fix the subway and bus systems,” said Pearlstein. "That means faster trips and more reliable commutes, modern signals and hundreds of new subway cars and station elevators. That’s the real deal. The rest is distraction and noise.”

 

[R10 2952]

13 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Reducing labor costs, especially at the management level and doing away with pricey consultants should definitely be at the top of the list of what to cut.

The cutting of the  and , combining the  and  and cutting the  to Court Sq permanently didn’t really save all that much money back in 2010.

THIS. These two sentences should be pinned to the top of the thread.

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I meant “outside consultants.” For example, did they really need to award a 1-year contract at $4.1 million to reorganize the organization last year? Do they not have people in house who are capable of figuring how bloated MTA management is? I mean, it’s not exactly a well kept secret.

If they did, do you think management would be bloated?

Also, you typically always hire an outside firm to consult/write reorganization plans when you have large bureaucracies and/or represented labor forces because 1) everyone in charge has a friend or fiefdom they’ll use to prevent change, and 2) you want the lawyers at consulting firms to review all the laws and regulations that apply to labor agreements and firms’ remits (governmental or financial) to prevent the chance of anyone having legal standing to sue and stop it.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Deucey

[T to Dyre Avenue]

16 hours ago, Deucey said:

If they did, do you think management would be bloated?

Also, you typically always hire an outside firm to consult/write reorganization plans when you have large bureaucracies and/or represented labor forces because 1) everyone in charge has a friend or fiefdom they’ll use to prevent change, and 2) you want the lawyers at consulting firms to review all the laws and regulations that apply to labor agreements and firms’ remits (governmental or financial) to prevent the chance of anyone having legal standing to sue and stop it.

Maybe so. It is possible management could still be bloated. It could be yet another thing they know is wrong, yet either can’t or won’t do anything to fix. Most likely, in this case, to prevent change.

I’ll agree that outside help is needed for reorganization for the reasons you stated. It just seems like this particular firm, from what I read in the Daily News article, was a bit in over their heads because they were unfamiliar with civil service laws. Things like bus operations alone being run by three separate organizations don’t help. 

I don’t claim to know what the answer is to dealing with the big budget chasm the MTA are facing, other than increased Federal funding, but that seems to be a real long shot.  

Edited July 30, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Maybe so. It is possible management could still be bloated. It could be yet another thing they know is wrong, yet either can’t or won’t do anything to fix. Most likely, in this case, to prevent change.

Of course it will -  is a civil service organization, so layoffs aren’t very likely. Add to it that government tends towards having “specialists” and focused areas of competency - versus corporate where one could be a manager of operations but also be assigned to the procurement and labor negotiations teams - and the bloat will still be there.

The question is how much more effective will the reorganized company be? General Electric was bloated with managers and was effectively a bank that owned a TV network and manufactured stuff, and was a top performer in every line of business until it reorganized and sold NBC to Comcast.

Bloated management isn’t necessarily a bad thing for an organization IF it makes sure that decisions that take long to make result in a superior product. “Lean” organizations don’t necessarily make better decisions - the airbags recall, that press juicer with the pouches from a few years ago, and that startup formerly called Bodega being notable recent examples. ’s problem was the management couldn’t make better decisions because every department operated as petty kingdoms one moment and vassal states to a governor who claimed to not control it at others.

You can’t get effective operations if the organization is warring against itself at the c-suite level and at the middle management level. That’s why Feinberg issuing that Org Chart weeks ago was a big deal - it’s the way the c-suite and the board tells everyone underneath who runs what, and who’s in charge.

As to how they’ll use their authority for better ops and planning remains to be seen.