(Newsday posted the following article by Joie Tyrrell on its website on December 18.)
NEW YORK — It’s another C+ for the Long Island Rail Road.
In the annual LIRR Report Card that looks at everything from on-time performance to bathroom cleanliness, riders gave the railroad the same grade they have since 2000. Statistically, however, the railroad’s score has dropped.
“I think it had a lot to do with the fare raise,” said James McGovern, chairman of the LIRR Commuters Council, the group that issues the report card. “With more money, people are expecting better service.”
The report details the results of a survey taken this summer of 1,278 LIRR riders asked to grade the railroad’s performance.
Riders assigned good grades, a B- or B, to one-quarter of the 48 performance indicators, compared with one-third in 2002. Surveys were taken in July and August, a few months after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority instituted a fare increase that raised LIRR ticket prices an average of 25 percent.
Last year, scores jumped significantly in 27 categories. This year, they increased in just nine. Only 33 percent of the respondents said the LIRR was improving, compared with 45 percent last year.
“First of all, you have to look at the report card and say ‘What can we do better?'” said LIRR president James Dermody. “When I went to school, I didn’t like a C plus; I wanted an A.”
Restrooms on board the trains and those at the Flatbush Terminal received the lowest score, a D+.
Riders also indicated improvements over last year in seat availability and home-station ticket selling hours. Declines were noted in evening on-time performance, although the railroad has posted record on-time performance the past two years. Riders say announcements should improve and cleanliness could be better.
In comparing branches, commuters gave the highest grade for overall service, a B-, to the Port Washington, Long Beach and Far Rockaway branches while riders on the Ronkonkoma line were the most dissatisfied, giving the line a C-, a decline from the C given in 2002.
“I would say a C- is a pretty accurate grade,” said Martin Sullivan, a commuter on the Ronkonkoma line yesterday. “I understand it’s a long commute, and the farther you go, the more obstacles there are.”
Dermody said the railroad is aware of concerns on the line and is looking into it.
The report recommends the LIRR upgrade its communication capabilities, especially in relaying information about delays and problems to commuters in a timely manner. The railroad should equip all frontline personnel with text messaging pagers to back up communication systems, the report said.
There should be special communication “go-teams” in times of emergencies who can provide information about transportation alternatives. The railroad should require more frequent announcements, the report said.
“We spend a lot of effort on working on announcements,” Dermody said. “This report has valuable information that we can go through and analyze and see if we can take some steps.”
Regarding cleanliness, the railroad should review cleaning schedules to improve maintenance of its facilities, the report said. And, the railroad should create a more proactive campaign to educate riders about and garner support for plans to improve service frequency.
There are several projects in the works designed to increase service, including the East Side Access, which will link the LIRR to Grand Central by 2012, and the construction of a 16-track storage yard east of Huntington by 2010. “I would love to be able to provide more service,” Dermody said.
The commuters council has been evaluating the LIRR since 1987. The sample represents about 1 percent of LIRR ridership.
Some critics say the survey doesn’t go far enough. Peter Haynes, president of another transit watchdog group, the LIRR Commuters Campaign, questioned its worth. “Every year they say there’s been improvement but then again the grade is a C+ or a C,” he said. “What are they improving to?”
Grading the LIRR
A commuter advocacy group surveyed 1,278 riders on the railroad’s quality of service. Results of the annual survey are compared with the previous year.
2002 2003
OVERALL SERVICE C+ C
On-Time Performance
— Morning B B
— Evening B- C
Seating Availability
— Morning B- B- o Evening C C
Onboard Announcements
— Morning B- C
— Evening C+ C
Cleanliness
— Onboard C+ C
— Onboard rest room D+ D
Onboard Security B- B
What Riders Wanted Most
(As a percentage of all responses)
More frequent service 19%
Improved cleanliness 11%
Improved on-time performance 10%
More new trains 8%
Lower fare 8%
SOURCE: Long Island Rail Road Commuters Council
To grade the Long Island Rail Road and to read the text of the report, go to www.newsday.com/li.