February 27, 2007
APOLOGIES TO THE MTA. BOO ON THE SUN
Let me begin by saying that I'm occasionally an idiot with lapses in reading comprehension ability. Not often, but occasionally, so that is me over there in the dunce cap. I will deflect some of the blame, however, to whoever wrote this piece for The New York Sun on which I based the entry below. Upon close examination, it appears to be a textbook example of a wanting piece of reporting: full of mathematical non sequiturs, lacking complete information for evaluation and context, and oversimplified to the point of being misleading.
A fellow web publisher and metrophile, Jen, was nice enough to point me towards the article the Daily News ran on the same stats release from the MTA. Its article included an actual breakdown of delay numbers and causes:
Delays in one month (December 2006)
1. Track work/work crews –– 1,640
2. Signal trouble –– 532
3. Guard-light trouble –– 415
4. Sick customers –– 392
5. Customers holding doors –– 346
6. Emergency brakes triggered/no cause found –– 332
7. Broken rail –– 316
8. Unruly customers –– 313
9. System maintenance equipment –– 262
10. Emergency brakes triggered by cause –– 229
(Total: 4,770)
Right away one can see where my subway article jumped the rails. When I read:
A 45% increase in delays caused by customers who got into verbal or physical altercations on the trains brought December's total up to 313 incidents from an average of 195 per month in 2006.
I thought 313 was the total number of delays during December. I didn't associate it with the unruly passenger category because 313 is not a 45% increase over 195; it's a 61% increase. That's what led me to estimate the number of unruly passenger incidents; because I thought that figure was unstated. Also, the reporter used the phrase "December's total up to 313" (emphasis mine). What definitely was unstated is highly relevant: if unruly passenger incidents (UPIs) spiked to 313 during December of last year and the monthly average was 195, does that average include December? If so, the disparity between December and prior months is being understated. Excluding December, 2006's monthly average is 184 UPIs, not 195.
Let us turn to The Sun's original figures though. December 2006's 313 UPIs was a 45% increase presumably over December 2005, which means there were 216 UPIs the prior year. What this shows me is that the real story behind these numbers isn't that UPIs increased 45% year over year, but that there may be an annual spike in UPIs over the monthly average every December. Is this some sort of Christmas Effect in reverse, where tired grumpy shoppers laden with bags and packages, sick of lines and crowds, and perhaps with a few eggnogs in them are more likely to get into it with their fellow passengers?
The Daily News also points out that blocked door incidents (BDIs) were the real gainers. UPIs may have cracked the top 10 for the first time, but BDIs have risen from 20th place to 5th over the past five years, totalling 346 in December 2006.
About the only thing I had correct in my prior piece [see BLAMING THE VICTIM, 2/27/07] is that there seems to be an awfully strong focus on system delays being the fault of passengers. But while UPIs may have been up 45% year over year in December, they still only accounted for 6.6% of delays. This percentage is overstated of course, because the total I used was only the sum of the top ten categories, not the actual total number of delays, which was not released. Without seeing the figures for 2005, it is difficult to judge the magnitude of this change on the whole, but it still seems like a rather small-fry figure to be focusing on. I wouldn't mind seeing some serious clarification regarding this whole issue in The Sun soon.
Followup: I recently received some strong constructive criticism from someone who works the transit beat for an area news outlet letting me know that my original story about subway delays [see BLAMING THE VICTIM, 2/27/07] was very wrong and completely mischaracterized the MTA, as well as the press's treatment of the story. And he is correct, as this piece admits. Perhaps I'll put the self-admonishing disclaimer in bold for future readers. My constructive criticizer also noted that an MTA spokesperson specifically contacted reporters via an e-mail emphasizing that the MTA was in no way trying to blame riders for service delays. I appreciate his insight into the matter and thank him for setting me straight.
Tagged:Posted by Lexiphane at February 27, 2007 8:09 PM
| JournalismTrackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lexiphane.com/mt/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1093