MTA must heed audit findings on service changes, customer feedback

In his latest audit of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli focused on one of the MTA's most significant efforts: the opening of the Long Island Rail Road's new terminal at Grand Central Madison. But his central findings that LIRR officials did not do enough to address and account for customer concerns and or increase overall service as much as they suggested they did are troubling. 

The LIRR consistently suggested service was increasing by 41% after the opening of Grand Central Madison, but the real increase across the branches was only 23%, according to the audit. It also said of the LIRR's 271 "new" trains, 118 were actually shuttle trains from Brooklyn to Jamaica, part of an effort to improve navigation through Jamaica's complex maze of tracks.

What's more, the audit rightly concluded the MTA didn't always address customer feedback promptly, and did not have appropriate, comprehensive ways of documenting the comments the authority received — and the responses to them.

DiNapoli's analysis illustrates how the MTA must become more precise in service expansion and changes. While some LIRR customers certainly benefited from the shuttle service to Brooklyn, it's clear that other Long Islanders didn't see those same service gains. The MTA should have been clearer in laying out expectations for riders before the terminal's start.

More importantly, the MTA should seriously reassess how it handles customer feedback -- or even seeks it before making changes to better understand the impact on commuters' lives. Too often, the authority received the same comments again and again and never responded. Sometimes, real change only came after elected officials loudly demanded a better answer.

MTA officials have pushed back against DiNapoli's report, suggesting that service expanded significantly, passengers' comments were consistently received and addressed, and schedules were changed in response to concerns.

MTA chief of policy and external relations John McCarthy told the editorial board that instituting schedule changes and other shifts in response to rider feedback takes time, because the authority has to consider the "rippling impacts" from every change it makes, especially in terms of the potential effects on other trains, branches, employees and riders. 

In its official response to DiNapoli, the MTA acknowledged the comptroller's nine recommendations, but agreed to take action on only two.

That's unfortunate. There's no doubt that the opening of Grand Central Madison was an enormous and complex task and that the MTA did provide opportunities for rider input. But the MTA should welcome all ideas, including DiNapoli's, on how to address riders' needs more quickly. It starts with thoroughly documenting rider feedback and response. And the authority should be as specific as possible with the public. The more information riders are given, the better.

Grand Central Madison is broadly a success story. But the MTA should still take the opportunity to learn from its newest terminal — lessons both good and bad.