Straphangers Campaign


	Lower Your Fare
	Schedules (MTA site)
	Complaints that get results!
	How Does Your Line Rate?
	Rider Diaries
	Take Action
	Our Reports
	Opinion Poll
	Fun & Games
	Getting Around (maps)
	Links
	HOME

News Release

For immediate release: For more information, contact:

Tuesday, August 7, 2001 Gene Russianoff or Farouk Abdallah (212) 349-6460

Basic Announcements Improve on 17 of 18 Subway Lines, Survey Finds; But Announcements of Delays and Disruptions Remain “Poor”

#3 Line Does the Best; #2 The Worst

Basic information announcements in subway cars improved across the system, but announcements of delays remain "poor," according to a new NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign survey of car announcements.

The new survey found that basic announcements—giving the name of upcoming stations and transfer points—improved significantly on 17 of 18 subway lines between 1999 and 2001. For all lines combined, adequate basic announcements increased from 47% in 1999 to 69% in 2001.

But the survey also found that in eight out of every ten delays and re-routings experienced by surveyors (80%), there was either no announcement—or an inaudible, garbled or useless one.

Official transit guidelines require conductors to make basic announcements when the doors of the subway car are open in a station, including the line, station name and any transfer points. The guidelines also list 17 possible delay announcements with "reasons for the delay" ranging from "unruly person on train" to "waiting for a connecting train." "If there is a delay, the conductor must make an announcement immediately [and again] within 2 minutes," says the policy.

"We congratulate conductors and transit managers on doing a much better job of give riders the basic information they need to get around the system," said Gene Russianoff, senior attorney for the campaign. "Now we’d like to see improved announcements when riders need them the most—when they are delayed or have to cope with service disruptions." (See tables 1 and 2.)

The survey was conducted by 51 volunteers, who made 6,000 observations of opportunities to make subway car announcements on 20 subway lines between February, 2001 and June, 2001. This survey is a follow-up to four similar surveys released by the campaign between 1997 and 2000.

Among the other key findings of the survey were:

The 3 line performed best in making basic announcements, while the 2 line performed worst. Our raters received basic announcements that were clear, ungarbled and audible 81% of the time on the 3 compared to 54% of the time on the 2. (See Summary of Findings.)

The most improved line for basic announcements was the L. The line went from 35% adequate basic announcements in our last comparable survey in 1999 to 72% adequate in this survey. No line deteriorated; 17 of 18 improved. Two lines of the 20 could not be compared.

For all 20 subway lines combined, surveyors found that clear basic announcements were made more than two thirds of the time (69%). Of the 31% rated inadequate, no basic announcement was made at all 34% of the time and announcements were garbled or inaudible 66% of the time.

Of the 80% of delay and disruption announcements rated inadequate, 27% were not made at all; 16% were inaudible or garbled; and 57% were not useful, such as meaningless announcements that the "train is being held by supervision" or "we have a red signal."

A copy of the methodology for the survey is attached.

In 1997, transit officials responded to the campaign’s first announcement survey by setting up a task force "to focus on train announcements, especially those that are made when there is a service change or delay." It made a series of recommendations in September 1997 to improve announcements, including: "maintaining regular communication with conductors regarding delays and changes in service" and "beginning a 'back to basics' announcements training syllabus."

In March 1999, transit officials changed the timing for basic subway announcements. Before March 1999, conductors were instructed that "as the train is arriving, and before it stops in the station, identify the station, and announce any transfer options." After March 1999, a new rule went into effect that: "The routine cycle of announcements should be made in the station with the doors open, not while the train is moving."

The campaign objected to the change in timing. As a result, the campaign conducted a survey of only delay and disruption announcements in 2000. Transit officials have maintained the new timing and this 2001 survey includes a review of basic announcements.

In July 2001, the campaign released our annual state of the subways report, which showed a decline in announcement performance. The difference in findings can be attributed to a difference in time periods covered: The state of subways report used New York City Transit data on announcements and compared the first half of 2000 to the second half of 1999. The campaign’s 2001 announcement survey compares the period from February through June of 2001 with the period from December 1998 to July 1999. According to New York City Transit data, basic announcements improved between the first three months of 1999 and 2001, going from 52% adequate to 79% adequate.

This report was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, a leader in supporting assessment of public services.

-30-

summary of findings | methodology | table 1 | table 2

_____________________________________________________________________ www.straphangers.org | www.nypirg.org