Home

New Variable-Speed Escalators for New York Subways

Today, The New York Times reports on an MTA plan to begin replacing its standard escalators with “variable-speed escalators”.

Variable-speed escalators

[use] infrared motion sensors, [and] the escalators will slow to a crawl of just 15 feet per minute when no one is on them, compared with the normal full speed of 100 feet per minute. The escalators will gradually accelerate to the full speed, over a period of a few seconds, once a rider steps on them.

The 35 escalators that are part of the experiment include 12 escalators at the 34th Street-Herald Square station on the B, D, F, V, N, R, Q and W lines in Manhattan; 8 escalators (4 of which have been installed) at the Roosevelt Island station on the F line; 5 escalators (2 of which have been installed) at the Jamaica-Van Wyck Boulevard station on the E line in Queens; and 10 escalators (6 of which have been installed) at the Parsons/Archer terminus of the E line in Queens.

According to the article, this will save electricity as well as maintenance costs. MTA projects that each of these escalators will save $1800 per year.

Sounds great – but I have to ask, is this actually going to save any money?

Sure, MTA says it will save $1,800 per escalator, per year – that’s a $63,000 savings per year savings for all 35 escalators. Over the 35 year life span of these escalators, that saves $2,205,000 total. But what is the cost of the new escalators?

A perusal of Volume II of MTA’s 2009 Preliminary Budget yields the following information:

The Jamaica – Van Wyck Boulevard replacement will cost $19.84 Million for 5 escalators, and the Parsons/Archer Terminus replacement will cost $35.06 million for 10 more escalators. That’s a total cost of $54.9 million, or an average cost of $3.66 million per escalator.

Looking through the budget, I saw two other escalator replacement projects – one at the Roosevelt/Queens Boulevard Station to replace two escalators, and another that replaces one escalator in each of the following stations: Bowery, Whitehall, and East Broadway. The total cost allocated to replace these “constant speed” escalators is $1.99 million or an average cost of $.398 million per escalator. That means the new variable speed escalators appear to be nearly ten times more expensive than the constant speed escalators.

Now, construction costs can vary by location, and escalator costs can vary by length, but the stations receiving the new variable-speed escalators are fairly standard – not too deep, or too tall. By contrast, two of the stations set for constant speed escalator replacement are relatively deep – the Bowery and Whitehall stations – and would presumably have comparatively longer escalators.

So we can’t claim that the new variable-speed escalators are more expensive because they are longer than average, or because the construction costs are higher – the stations they are to be installed in are above ground, which leads me to believe they should be easier to access than underground stations on Manhattan.

Why the huge discrepancy in cost then? Is it solely due to the price differential required for the new technology?

If so, New Yorkers may want to rethink this supposed “savings”. You’re going to spend an extra $3.262 million to save $2.205 million over the 35 year life span – in other words, you’re not saving anything, you’re actually going into the hole by over $1 million.

Given MTA’s long list of current troubles: declining revenues from gas taxes, declining revenues from tolls, abysmal maintenance, poor service, filthy stations – all compounded by a record ridership  – shouldn’t New Yorkers be asking themselves if they need to implement new taxes on cars, or fare hikes to fix a problem that partially boils down to poor management oversight. Shouldn’t we ask MTA to get their house in order before we start to look for more handouts? Shouldn’t we expect government workers to exercise fiscal responsibility and not waste millions in the short term to save thousands in the long term?

And a big thumbs down to the New York Times on this one. This is the second time in as many weeks that I have pointed out a lack of diligence on their part – the first instance challenged their use of Transportation Alternatives’ unverified (and in my opinion, wildly exaggerated) number concerning the number of bicycle commuters in New York. 

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of the press for a reason – the press is supposed to be our governmental watchdog and root out fraud, waste, and abuse. Articles like these influence public opinion and affect policy decisions that cost New Yorkers tens of millions of dollars per year. The New York Times shouldn’t just regurgitate MTA’s press release without verifying it, or asking if the “plan” makes sense. The fact that they seem to have done so without any explanation makes me scratch my head and wonder – what’s going on over there?