It's important to note, before beginning, that at no point did LIRR ever publicly promulgate any success or failure criteria for "LIRR Forward" or give riders (who would have to finance the plan) specifics on when service would improve (and by how much) as a result of the plan. The railroad also never publicly enumerated what specific actions they were taking to bring about improved performance. All we got at the time was a fancy PowerPoint presentation and summary press release, and even a year later the railroad has not put out much, if anything, in terms of actual quantification of the progress and impact of "LIRR Forward". Reports and updates from officials on "LIRR Forward" have been predominately through PowerPoint presentations, which have featured fancy pictures and buzzwords, but have been very light on details. Because the LIRR never publicly established any success or failure criteria, "LIRR Forward" is a failure, by default...
Having measurable goals is critical for performance improvement plans like this, otherwise they can become voids gobbling up money and resources under the guise of improved service, but not actually yielding substantive results. The same thing can be said for the "Subway Action Plan" and Metro-North's "Way Ahead" plan. While both of those included significantly more detail on specific actions to be taken than we ever saw with "LIRR Forward", the overall MO has been the same agency-wide: the MTA can't ignore a problem any longer, so they throw several tens or hundreds of millions of dollars at it...if things improve, even slightly, they get to celebrate and take credit (because the bar was set so low, or not at all). If it doesn't, then they shrug shoulders and blame it on a lack of funding, and the status quo lives on for another couple of years.
Despite touting the benefits of "LIRR Forward" and its impact on reliability, the railroad has not raised any of its On-Time Performance goals (which have remain exactly the same since the system goal was lowered and branch-specific goals introduced in 2015) and actually lowered MDBF goals by an average of 15% this year.
That said, things have gotten better over the course of the last year or so. Reliability is a little bit better, particularly when it comes to the characteristic LIRR rush hour meltdowns, which have become fewer and further between in recent months. Reliability has gotten better overall, with more trains running actually on-time (e.g. zero minutes late and not everything arriving three, four, or five minutes late). Though there are issues, including those driven by controllable delays because of maintenance problems, capital projects, etc. that continue to vex riders.
Communication has also improved somewhat, with the railroad being more proactive with alerting passengers of potential issues that can cause delays (instead of waiting until there are already multiple delays to alert people that there's a problem). They also released in January myLIRR, a new GPS train tracking tool, though significant issues with accuracy and consistency over the LIRR's various communication channels still exist. In particular, TrianTime continues to have a number of longstanding glitches and accuracy issues, and has only seen one real functionality upgrade since it was first released back in 2013. MYmta, the MTA's new agency-wide application was released last summer, and is somehow worse, with a whole host of issues just with the LIRR parts, most of which have not been addressed nearly a year after launch. Announcements from train crews onboard trains has also gotten slightly better, though while the quantity of announcements is much better, the quality is still lacking...announcing "uh, we're being held here, we don't know when we'll be moving again, and we don't have any more information" every 5 minutes is only half of the way there.
There has been little in baseline schedule improvements in the last year, especially in areas where there are few encumbrances to adding trains, like during the off-peak periods, the reverse-peak period (where LIRR continues to run a large number of reverse-peak non-passenger trains, empty), or at the very beginning and ends of the rush hours, where there are still crowding problems. Ronkonkoma Branch riders are still waiting for the half-hourly off-peak service they were promised with the completion of the double track project last fall, and the LIRR continues to not meet its own maximum vehicle headway standards in may locations, particularly on the diesel branches, which suffer from continued issues with the diesel fleet.
When it comes to financial performance, the LIRR hasn't gotten any better (and it's no surprise, as "LIRR Forward" did not include any actions to improve the railroad's financial state). In the last 12 months, overall spending has increased by 5.8% over the same period a year prior, more than doubling a 2.4% increase in farebox revenue during that time (and significantly outpacing a 0.07% increase in the number of trains operated over the last year...). The MTA and the railroad are being roiled over pronounced increases in overtime last year, including the LIRR blowing its OT budget by 35%. In the 12 months since "LIRR Forward", spending on overtime has increased by 9.3% and overall labor expenses are up 4.6%. As riders continue to be frustrated by increasing fares, which fare outpace inflation and the median income on Long Island, dramatically reigning in expenses needs to be a critical part of any real path forward for the LIRR.
While reliability has improved and the frequency and severity of disruptions and delays have subsided, there is much more to overall service quality in the eyes of passengers than just OTP. In these other areas, the LIRR has struggled to make meaningful progress. While not a scientific survey, the overall sentiment I get from riding with and talking to other passengers is that the service still sucks...on-time trains are great, and very important, but if the railroad is still routinely sending out trains that are a mess inside or have overflowing bathrooms, achieving that higher OTP by burning connections and leaving people to wait for the next train, having errors in timetables, applications, or data for third-parties, and is still being bogged down by controllable delays and disruptions, they very much eat away at whatever good will they have been earning from reliability improvements. The fare increase in April certainly does not help, but it is all part of the overall equation—as public attention over overtime and uncollected fares on trains mount, people are not getting the impression that the MTA is being responsible with their money.
The LIRR has regressed somewhat in June, with a whole host of issues dragging down both peak and off-peak service (which has been particularly frustrating as it has been one of the few periods in recent months when peak service has been running at full strength, and trains haven't been canceled or changed due to trackwork). While I don't think we are bound for a total tailspin, as there can be some rough patches once in a while, it does cast doubt over whether the proper controls and organizational reforms are being put in place as part of "LIRR Forward" to ensure sustained good performance, even after people's attention shifts elsewhere. We have seen this before...the LIRR performed fairly well during the 2017 "summer of hell" peak-hour service disruptions for NY-Penn Station trackwork, but despite a pledge from then-MTA Chair and CEO Joe Lhota that improved service would be "the new norm", the LIRR seemed to take their collective eyes off the ball and very quickly regressed into many of their same old bad habits. Some of the more recent service disruptions, including the Speonk Memorial Day weekend derailment and the late-running Cherry Lane Bridge replacement project outage show that while the LIRR's general improvements in reliability have pushed some of their reactivity and communication issues below the surface, there continue to be significant core organizational issues when it comes to handling disruptions and communicating with riders lurking just below the surface, and they quickly rear their head the moment anything semi-serious happens.
What has not been happening, either as part of "LIRR Forward" or otherwise, have been any sort of real modernization effort...things that regional rail systems elsewhere in the world started three decades ago. There is no talk of adopting any real worldwide best practices, like proof of payment to dramatically reduce labor costs, service pattern standardizations and schedule padding reductions, concerted efforts to improve intra-Island and reverse-peak service (as the LIRR continues to be fixated with a Manhattan-centric mentality), etc.
The LIRR has sometimes referred to its current slate of capital construction projects (and holdovers from prior programs that still haven't been finished) as the "LIRR modernization program", but it's a really far cry from what kind of real transformations rail systems in places like France, Spain, and Germany have gone through. Some new station finishes, a couple of bridge replacements here and there, and a $2.6 billion third track project (which has been split into 38 different projects to fluff out the list) are nice, but they are not going to help enable meaningful increases in frequency and speed systemwide. The railroad needs to be doubling down on expansions in electrification, systemwide substation improvements to allow for faster speeds and more aggressive acceleration, standardization of station platform lengths, expansions of signalization including converting existing hand switches to remote-controlled/interlocked, and the purchase of modern railcar fleets (including taking advantage of new FRA safety standards to buy proven off-the-shelf equipment designs from Europe).
In this area, the LIRR still needs to make significant progress.
Below is an overall "LIRR Forward" report card which goes into more detail on how things have improved (or not) over the last 12 months across ten different categories, since the performance improvement plan was introduced. Overall:
- Are we in a better position than we were this time last year? Yes.
- Are things trending in the right direction? Yes.
- Are we at the point where we need to be? No.
- Are things improving at a fast enough pace? No.
- Are proper controls in place to prevent a relapse of the same issues happening again? No.
Conditions have gotten better, but there is still significant ground left to cover to get the LIRR back to the place where it should have been years ago (a reliable, passenger-focused railroad) and to bring about genuine modernizations and improvements to get us to the point where we should be, a modern, efficient, and affordable railroad fit for Long Island in the 21st Century.
"LIRR Forward" Report Card
Performance in 10 different categories have been assigned letter grades (from A to F), and compared to scores from six months ago. The scores in individual categories are combined to give an overall composite score, which is shown at the bottom. Additional information, including scoring rubrics and breakdowns, are shown below and in this file.
NOTE: If you subscribe by e-mail or RSS, you may need to view this page in your web browser to see tables/headings properly formatted.
| Reliability |
(was: C-)
|
C
|
Much of this improvement can be attributed to the comparatively gentle winter we saw this year...there were no real major snow storms, no extended cold spells (and it wasn't exceptionally cold much at all). We got a small handful of snowstorms that saw mostly 6 inches of snow or less, which all melted within days. Compared to the first 5 months of last year, the railroad has seen 3,699 delays—56% of that reduction is just weather and environmental delays. If the officials are going to blame the weather in every third sentence when the weather is bad, they need to really acknowledge the rather notable absence of severe weather so far this year (not that the weather we saw in 2018 was particularly exceptional).
Laying aside weather effects for the time, I have definitely noticed a discernible improvement in reliability in recent months...and not just the reduction of 6 and 7 minute delays, but also 1 to 3 minute nuisance delays, with more than 0% of trains arriving truly on-time. Intermediate OTP continues to be a challenge in many areas (particularly through Jamaica), but progress has been made.
While OTP has generally improved, the LIRR has achieved this in part by heaping on schedule padding. In their annual report for 2018 earlier this year, the railroad said it targeted the 20 most frequently late trains, and when I compared schedules to several months prior, before "LIRR Forward", I found 18 trains that had time changes, and in most cases these changes were just the addition of schedule padding to inflate the OTP statistics, not actually addressing the cause of delay. The LIRR has also become more neglectful when it comes to holding scheduled connections, whether at Jamaica or eastern transfer points. When the railroad intentionally lets a connection leave without its connecting passengers, they get to count the train as on-time, even though everyone who meant to be onboard arrived at their destinations late. When pressed on this, officials usually give some nonsense answer about having to manage the entire operation or limited track capacity in Jamaica, none of these are credible and it's a plain lapse of passenger focus.
The table below summarizes various operating statistics for the 12-month period before and since "LIRR Forward" was introduced. Also included is a comparison to the same May to June period from 2011-2012 (the first year for which information is available for in the delay database). While the LIRR has generally produced improvements in reliability over the prior year (with the exception of the AM peak period), we are still many miles behind where we were 7-8 years ago.
| Month | Before LIRR Fwd May 2017-Jun 2018 | With LRR Fwd Jun 2018-May 2019 | YoY Change with LIRR Fwd | Change vs. 2011-2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trains scheduled | 246,924 | 247,087 | +0.07% | +6.21% |
| Trains late | 19,105 | 18,656 | -2.35% | +63.35% |
| Trains >15' late | 3,566 | 3,070 | -13.91% | +16.69% |
| Trains incomplete | 846 | 573 | -32.27% | +24.57% |
| Trains canceled | 1,450 | 901 | -37.86% | +4.28% |
| System OTP | 91.33% | 91.85% | +0.57% | -2.82% |
| % adversely impacted | 2.37% | 1.84% | -22.53% | +8.17% |
| % trips completed | 99.07% | 99.40% | +0.34% | -0.03% |
| Average delay | -12.60 | -11.97 | -4.96% | -13.34% |
| Mins of delay | 240,666 | 223,362 | -7.19% | +41.57% |
| Passengers late | 9,819,005 | 9,674,583 | -1.47% | +58.45% |
| Passenger impact | 173,347,442 | 151,858,871 | -12.40% | +35.78% |
| AM Peak OTP | 90.7% | 89.8% | -0.85% | -4.80% |
| AM Peak trains | 37,670 | 37,652 | -0.05% | +7.38% |
| AM Peak delays | 3,521 | 3,840 | +9.06% | +93.06% |
| AM Peak adversely | 893 | 869 | -2.69% | +69.73% |
| AM Peak avg delay | -11.62 | -11.87 | +2.21% | +0.46% |
| AM Peak pax late | 2,859,408 | 3,230,744 | +12.99% | +95.44% |
| % adversely impacted | 2.37% | 2.31% | -2.64% | +58.07% |
| PM Peak OTP | 87.6% | 89.7% | +2.14% | -1.97% |
| PM Peak trains | 32,503 | 33,079 | +1.77% | +0.82% |
| PM Peak delays | 4,034 | 3,399 | -15.74% | +22.22% |
| PM Peak adversely | 1,303 | 830 | -36.30% | -14.52% |
| PM Peak avg delay | -13.13 | -11.64 | -11.36% | -22.74% |
| PM Peak pax late | 3,045,536 | 2,578,957 | -15.32% | +22.84% |
| % adversely impacted | 4.01% | 2.51% | -37.41% | -15.22% |
| Controllable delays | 6,352 | 7,482 | 17.79% | 59.25% |
| MofW | 445 | 531 | 19.25% | 100.25% |
| Engineering | 2,687 | 3,029 | 12.71% | 78.36% |
| MofE | 1,939 | 1,975 | 1.86% | -0.45% |
| Transportation | 656 | 399 | -39.11% | -33.20% |
| Capital Programs | 625 | 1,548 | 147.70% | 911.84% |
| Weather delays | 3,578 | 2,088 | -41.63% | N/A% |
| Other/3rd party delays | 5,292 | 3,644 | -31.13% | N/A% |
| Miscellaneous_Other | 3,578 | 2,088 | -41.63% | N/A% |
| Miscellaneous_3rd Party | 1,714 | 1,556 | -9.21% | N/A% |
| Public delays | 7,526 | 7,184 | -4.54% | 55.70% |
| Public_Police | 2,268 | 2,004 | -11.64% | N/A% |
| Public_Customers/Events | 5,258 | 5,180 | -1.48% | N/A% |
| Standees/consist compliance |
(was: C)
|
C
|
| May-Jun 2017-2018 | May-Jun 2018-2019 | YoY Change with LIRR Fwd | |
|---|---|---|---|
AM Peak-East of JAM
| 178 | 205 | +15% |
PM Peak-West of JAM
| 213 | 155 | -27% |
PM Peak-East of JAM
| 134 | 200 | +49% |
PM Peak-West of JAM
| 238 | 308 | +29% |
Total / 4
| 191 | 253 | +33% |
The railroad continues to struggle to provide adequate seating on all trains, particularly the diesel branches during the summer. The LIRR has not taken any steps to address the limited capacity of its diesel fleet, with short trains and partial or outright cancellations becoming the norm over the last couple weeks. Not leasing the MARC cars this summer was a major lapse. The LIRR has also struggled to the new M-9 electric cars into service to provide additional seating as the M-3 fleet continues to deteriorate (missing a milestone to put the cars into service in May).
| Schedule improvements |
(was: D-)
|
D-
|
| Peak service |
D
|
| Reverse-peak service |
F
|
| Intra-Island/alternative terminal service |
F
|
| Off-peak service |
D
|
| Communication |
(was: D)
|
C
|
| Alerts |
A-
|
| At stations |
A-
|
| At terminals |
D+
|
| On trains |
D+
|
| Applications |
F
|
| Real-time data for third parties |
D+
|
| Planned service changes |
C-
|
| Customer service |
(was: D)
|
D+
|
| E-mail/phone |
D
|
| Social media |
B
|
| Employees |
D
|
| Promptness |
C-
|
| Responsiveness |
C-
|
| Follow-through/resolution |
F
|
The MTA has not kept their passenger feedback dataset up-to-date, as it is still missing significant chunks of time and has not been updated past 2018 Q4. As of that quarter (halfway through the first year of "LIRR Forward"), complaints to the LIRR were still significant in number and increasing, and there's no evidence that trend has changed direction.
| Passenger focus |
(was: D-)
|
D
|
There has been some improvement in this area, but overall progress has been slow on this front. Reliability has improved slightly, but the railroad continues to make boneheaded decisions that show a clear lack of passenger-focus. Whether it's marooning passengers at 2 stations during the Cherry Lane bridge replacement outage, or the recent rash of robbing Peter to pay Paul, where the railroad's commuters get the short stick (whether for the US Open, the Belmont Stakes, or any summer weekend).
Things like not holding scheduled connections, not having cross-honoring agreements with buses or being stingy with cross-honoring on the subways to keep people moving, and the lack of alternative transportation during service disruptions continues to exacerbate what delays remain.
| Holding scheduled connections |
D
|
| Cross-honoring |
D-
|
| Ticketing flexibility |
D-
|
| Accountability |
F
|
| Resolution of issues |
C-
|
| Availability of staff |
C+
|
| Progress on actionable suggestions |
D
|
| Advancement of new programs |
C
|
| Alternatives during planned outages |
F
|
| Learning from mistakes |
D
|
A good assessment of overall passenger morale is the MTA's annual customer satisfaction survey, however the MTA only conducts this yearly. The 2018 satisfaction survey results showed improvement in some categories, but overall lower marks than when the survey was first started several years ago. The LIRR also receives lower marks than Metro-North pretty much across the board, with LI earning higher scores in only 5 of 65 questions.
Quantifying passenger input is a critical component of any normally functioning feedback loop. The MTA only does their main satisfaction survey once a year, typically in June, so the 2019 results should hopefully show marked improvements nearly every category, if "LIRR Forward" has had any effect. The LIRR should be taking and publishing more frequent surveys of passenger satisfaction, along the lines of what NYCT does (which has been doing quarterly "customers count" surveys).
| Disruption handling |
(was: D+)
|
C-
|
No progress has been made on fairly elementary measures to keep people moving during delays, like cross-honoring with local buses (NICE/SCT/HART/etc.) on Long Island, and establishing (and promulgating) clear policies and procedures for when cross-honoring on NYCT subways and buses should be used. Included in this is a more aggressive use of cross-honoring with subways during delays, including systemwide cross-honoring with NYCT (where you can enter at any station for no additional charge to incentive people to travel to alternative terminals, where there might be fewer delays).
The LIRR continues, in many ways, to fail to live up to the MTA's "Pledge to Customers" during disruptions, with particular regard to the continued practice of holding trains off-platform and/or with the doors closed (stranding people onboard trains with no way to seek alternative transportation), and providing timely notification of delays, including accurate estimates of when service will be restored, so people can plan accordingly (delay estimates are seldom provided).
| Financial performance |
(was: D-)
|
D
|
While farebox revenue has increased by 2.4% (and total revenue up 5.5%, mostly due to higher reimbursements,. which doesn't really count), expenses are up 5.8% over the same period last year, far outpacing growth in fares. Labor expenditures are up 4.6%, about double the rate of fare increases, and non-labor expenses are up 8.2% over the same period last year.
The LIRR's overall cash deficit is up by about $68 million, or 6.1% over last year. Note: all values in the table below are in millions of dollars. Several categories have been rolled up or combined, but you can see the full line-by-line breakdown in this Excel sheet.
| Apr-May 2017-18 | Apr-May 2018-19 | YoY Change with LIRR Fwd | Grade | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | ||||
| Fares | $729 | $747 | +2.4% | B |
| Other | $48 | $45 | -7.3% | F |
| Total Revenue | $1,225 | $1,292 | +5.5% | A- |
| Labor | ||||
| Payroll | $646 | $676 | +4.6% | D- |
| Overtime | $197 | $215 | +9.3% | F |
| Benefits | $657 | $668 | +1.6% | C |
| Total Labor | $1,395 | $1,460 | +4.6% | D- |
| Non-Labor | ||||
| Power/Fuel | $105 | $108 | +2.8% | D |
| Insurance/Claims | $36 | $45 | +23.1% | F |
| Contracts & Other | $347 | $376 | +8.4% | F |
| Deprecation | $353 | $389 | +10.2% | F |
| Total expenses | $2,341 | $2,476 | +5.8% | D+ |
| Deficit | -$1,116 | -$1,184 | +6.1% | F |
| Passenger environment |
(was: C-)
|
C
|
| On trains |
C-
|
| At stations |
C
|
| Modernization effort |
(was: F)
|
F
|
Overall grade:
| Category | Score |
|---|---|
| Reliability | C |
| Standees/consist compliance | C |
| Schedule improvements | D- |
| Communication | C |
| Customer service | D+ |
| Passenger focus | D |
| Disruption handling | C- |
| Financial performance | D |
| Passenger environment | C |
| Modernization effort | F |
| Total score (was D) | C- |
