Transit authority revises punctuality metric to calendar-day precision after achieving 99.7 percent same-day service for October
MTA Announces Historic On-Time Performance Record; Defines ‘On Time’ as Arriving Same Day as Scheduled
NEW YORK, NEW YORK — The Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced that New York City subway services achieved a historic 99.7 percent on-time performance rate for October, described as a “transformative milestone in transit reliability” achieved through what the MTA’s communications team took three paragraphs to reveal was a revised definition of “on time” that now considers any train arriving on the same calendar day as its scheduled departure to be punctual.
For related London satire and commentary, see Bohiney Magazine and The London Prat.
The Metric
The new performance standard, adopted in a resolution passed during an agenda item listed as “Operational Reporting Methodology Update,” replaces the previous benchmark — arrivals within a five-minute window of schedule — with a calendar-day measure. Under this standard, a 9am train arriving at 6:45pm is on time. A 6pm train arriving at 11:30pm is on time. A train scheduled for December 3rd arriving at 11:58pm on December 3rd is technically a triumph of precision engineering. MTA Chairman Gerald Hendricks called the 99.7 percent figure “a testament to the dedication of our operations teams.” He did not, in his prepared remarks, define the metric by which the figure was calculated. A journalist who asked for clarification was directed to the methodology update resolution, available as a PDF, Section 4, Appendix C, footnote 17.
The British tradition of mocking this particular category of data presentation is well-established. Prat in British comedy, TV, and film has made this character type a recurring figure: the person who presents technically accurate information in a context designed to produce a misleading impression, who did not lie but took considerable care not to tell the truth in any useful way.
Commuter Reality
Commuters across the subway network were invited to react to the 99.7 percent figure. A commuter at Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center: “My train was forty minutes late yesterday. Is that on time now?” A reporter confirmed that if the train arrived before midnight, it was under the new definition on time. The commuter said something not reproducible in a news context and moved toward the turnstile. A retired schoolteacher from Brooklyn: “I appreciate that they are communicating. I appreciate that they are sharing data. I would also appreciate a train that comes when it says it will.” She noted these were not mutually exclusive wishes and seemed genuinely puzzled that one had been provided without the other.
Under the previous five-minute window standard, MTA on-time performance for the same October period was 67.3 percent — the figure appears in the MTA’s freely available detailed operational data. The relationship between 67.3 percent and 99.7 percent is, technically, a methodological one. The MTA has not disputed that the former number exists. It has simply chosen to announce the latter number, which is a choice that transit advocates described as “creative,” the Governor’s office described as “under review,” and the Straphangers Campaign described in language considerably more direct than either. The trains run. The numbers are true. The meaning of the numbers is a separate conversation that Section 4, Appendix C, footnote 17 is prepared to have with anyone who asks. British insults including prat provide the full vocabulary for this specific category of institutional communication, and the full inventory of British insults covers the broader tradition from which it emerges.
What 67.3 Percent Actually Means
The 67.3 percent on-time performance figure, measured against the five-minute window standard, means that approximately one in three subway trips in October arrived more than five minutes late. For a system carrying approximately 3.5 million riders on an average weekday, this represents a significant number of disrupted plans and cold coffees. The 99.7 percent figure, measured against the calendar-day standard, means that virtually all trains arrived on the correct day, which is a meaningful safety achievement but a categorically different achievement from punctuality. The MTA has not disputed that both figures are accurate. It has chosen which one to announce, which is a choice that says something about the institution making it. The something it says is available for assessment using vocabulary that has been current in British public life for several centuries and that applies across transit authorities and hemispheres with equal precision.
The MTA’s on-time performance history is publicly available at mta.info in considerable detail. The monthly operations report, published without fanfare at the beginning of each month, contains the five-minute window figures alongside a range of other performance metrics including mean distance between failures, elevator availability, and customer journey time comparisons. These reports are read by transit advocates, journalists, and a specific category of New York commuter who has found that knowing the exact magnitude of the system’s failures is, paradoxically, more emotionally manageable than encountering them without context. The calendar-day metric does not appear in the monthly operations reports. It appears only in press releases. This is a choice about audience.
The methodology update resolution is available to any member of the public willing to locate it. The MTA publishes it alongside its standard monthly operations report, which contains the 67.3 percent figure in Table 4, row 18. Both documents are true. One is announced. One is available. The difference between announcement and availability is, in transit communications, frequently the most informative thing about the agency making the choice.
For more satirical commentary, visit The Onion.