Should We Trust The MTA?

Not that it matters at this point in time, but it seems that the congestion pricing debate is out of the public's hands and into the state legislature's. Sure we can still protest to our respective Assemblymembers and Senators, but the support and opposition is pretty solid by now and the Governor is working with Bloomberg to make sure what the city council passed this week goes through as planned. One of the big questions in the congestion pricing debate was whether the money would actually go to improving the system like Bloomberg said. Well N.Y.P.I.R.G. and Straphanger Campaign extraordinaire Gene Russianoff sounded off on the issue this morning.

He's telling us to trust the lockbox:

As a transit advocate for the last 25 years, I share these concerns. We all know stories about how money collected by state and city government hasn't gone where it should, such as Lotto proceeds intended for improving schools.

The Congestion Mitigation Commission (on which I served) proposed a "transit lockbox" to safeguard all congestion-pricing revenues. The legislation approved by the City Council and now under consideration in Albany contains this provision - and strengthens it, by ensuring that congestion-pricing funds can only go to improve, not just maintain, the transit system.

This mandates that congestion pricing won't simply replace state funds the MTA would've gotten anyway. And to prevent political funny business, the money generated by congestion pricing goes directly to the MTA, so that Albany can't take it away.

Well thats great that Albany can't take it away. Though the MTA has a history of saying one thing and doing another, like they did last week when the money from fare increase meant for improving service disappeared. Russianoff claims that we should trust this because he sat on the creation of this lockbox (how Gore-esque of him) and that when the MTA started receiving funds from toll surpluses, it went to good use. Also the capital plan has to be signed off on by the Governor, Mayor and both state houses. That sounds great Gene, that is a great wall of protection that we have installed to prevent abuse of the system. However, this is still New York and despite your best efforts, I still find that the money dedicated to improving our transit system can still be used for "maintenance" purposes.

Why is that? Well, for starters, having maintenance for the NY transit system would technically be an improvement.

Gene Russianoff Gives The Fare Increase A Silver Lining

Now that the fare increase is a reality, soon to hit straphangers pocketbooks early next year things are looking pretty glum. Not for the board members of the MTA of course, they get a free pass on Metrocards (if they ever even use them) and E-Z Pass tolls. Yet for the rest of us, Gene Russianoff reminds us that even though the battle was lost, the war against the transit authority is not over. Gene by the way, works for N.Y.P.I.R.G. and specifically for their Straphangers Campaign for the last twenty-five years.

From The Daily News:

The public holds Gov. Spitzer and Mayor Bloomberg responsible for the fare hike. Through their statements and actions, the governor and mayor made this fare hike theirs. Any myth of independence for the MTA was obliterated. Spitzer, like his predecessor George Pataki, now has a huge political deficit on transit which he will have to make up before the 2010 election season.

Spitzer committed to give major new transit aid by 2010. The MTA's financial plan calls for the state and city to contribute an additional $600 million a year to finance operating expenses, beginning in 2010. Just before Thanksgiving Spitzer said, "We are talking about a 2010 commitment of $600 million, shared with the city. That is an enormous commitment that we have made, that I have made, and we will be good for."

There is a lot of support in the state Legislature for helping the MTA and its riders. Led by state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, 61 legislators asked for a delay on the fare hike so they could consider transit needs during the regular state budget deliberations. The Assembly members wrote: "There are many strong reasons for increasing government aid to the MTA. There has been no permanent new state operating aid to MTA New York City Transit in at least a dozen years." The Senate majority and minority leaders also spoke out against the fare increase, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver stressed the possibility for new state aid.

The MTA called its original fare proposal a "modest" hike, but it had to be scaled back. The MTA financial proposal called for regular fare increases every two years to track inflation. But there was little political appetite for a funding strategy that targets only the riding public. As a result, 40% of the original increase evaporated.

The transit fare will now likely be frozen for at least three years. The MTA's financial plan calls for holding fares until 2010, two years from now. But that's an election year for governor, so a fare hike in 2010 is unlikely. If New York adopts a pilot project to test congestion charges for entering Manhattan, there's a good argument for freezing the fare for the three-year trial run.

There is widespread agreement that any fare increase has to be equitable. Better discounts have historically come out of past fare battles, from free bus transfers to 24-hour senior half-fares to unlimited-ride MetroCards. This year's new 14-day unlimited-ride MetroCard is a step forward. It provides a greater discount than the seven-day card, but is more within reach of a 30-day MetroCard. In addition, riders who buy the less expensive pay-per-ride discount will see the smallest increase.

Did this year's fare fight make a difference? I can understand the skepticism of many New Yorkers, but I think so.

I agree, it is hard to see a bright side to paying higher fares, but like everything else in life, there is more than meets the eye, especially when it wants to focus on the bad things. Russianoff has been an expert on fighting fare hikes for a long time and if he can see some good here, then I'll choose to see it as well.

We're Still Going To Have To Pay More To The MTA, While They Save Less

You know all those trains under and above the streets of New York? Those sub-and-above-ways run on an operating budget of $10.8 billion dollars a year. Craziness I know, but what is nuts is that while Spitzer-approved fare increases will net the MTA $163 million, while the transit authority is only trying to save $50 million. That's the MTA, hard at work as usual.

From The Daily News:

The savings in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's 2008 "Program to Eliminate the Gap" are equal to less than one-half of 1% of the authority's proposed $10.8 billion operating budget.

"Most riders think they could do better at saving money," said Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign.

Even with those savings, which include leaving some vacancies unfilled and eliminating other positions, MTA spending will increase by about $500 million, or about 5%, next year, according to the budget going before the board next month.

MTA CEO Elliot Sander has said that the agency can't make deeper cuts than those outlined in the proposed budget and four-year financial plan without curtailing service and maintenance.

Curtailing service and maintenance? That sounds like a scare tactic to me. Their resistance to seeing what the state legislature can do for them in the spring is also disheartening. Sander says he doesn't want to burden them until he asks for larger amounts of money for the second phase of the 2nd Avenue subway and other projects. Well Mr. Sander, those things will come later, relief from a fare increase is needed now.

Enough With The Fare Hike Already!

Despite protests from straphangers, members of the state legislator and the City Comptroller, the MTA is determined to raise the price of a subway ride. Whenever we speak out, they come up with another reason to increase the fare. Their most persistent cry is that they'll be $100 million short if they delay the increase till next year. Well the Daily News poured through their numbers and found a different story than what the MTA is saying.

From The Daily News:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority claims it would lose $100 million if the hikes were pushed back to later next year as urged by leaders of the Stop the Fare Hike Campaign.

But MTA data released yesterday show it could bridge that gap. Real estate tax receipts are $60 million higher than forecast. Though the MTA cautioned that may not last, records also show fare and toll revenue up $49 million higher and health care spending down $25 million.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) said the data "undercuts the argument that the system needs the money immediately."

The News has also learned the MTA is sitting on its $50 million in surplus funds set aside late last year for a stalled program to repaint 200 stations.

Now I have never been particularly good at math, but if memory and a pencil serves me right, those numbers add up to $184 million dollars, then add in their $317 million dollar surplus and that has to take you well over what they are complaining about losing. Oh and by the way, if you need $250,000 to paint a subway station, by all means give me a shout and I'll do it for you and for less than a quarter million dollars.

Now The MTA Wants More Of Your Money

A quarter isn't a lot of money, but if you rely on the MTA to get you here and there in the city, those quarters add up fast. The transit agency already warned commuters it wants to raise fares by a quarter, with plans to offer a reduced rate for off-peak times. That $1.50 off-peak rate got some positive response from New Yorkers, but now it seems that it won't be that cheap.

From The Daily News:

Public notices announcing next month's hearings warn riders that Metropolitan Transportation Authority next year could impose a peak fare of $2.25 - without a discount option that could soften the blow for many rush-hour riders. The base fare is now $2.

The notices also for the first time say an off-peak fare - proposed by top MTA staffers last month to be set at $1.50 - could actually cost $1.75.

MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin said the public notices cite a higher range of hikes simply to give the MTA board, which would adopt any increases, more "flexibility" to raise the same amount of money: $580 million over two years.

"This is not our proposal," Soffin said of the higher figures in the public notice.

If that isn't their proposal, then why the hell is it in there? If it is a question of "flexibility," then why not offer a reduced rate of $1.25 or even $1.00 even? This smells more like a scam being proposed to the city instead of a fair deal. While a little rain seems to create problems on the tracks, like what happened today on the 7 line, why should we have to pay higher and higher rates if we can't even get decent service?

The Gothamist highlights where all the board meetings will be held across the city, so everyone can have a short commute to tell the MTA whats on their minds.

Spitzer Stands Up For Transit Workers Union

Spitzer showed himself to be a Democratic Governor today by announcing his support for the Transit Workers Union. There is nothing better than a strong collective workforce when you want to bargain for fair pay and good treatment. As Attorney General he angered the brass of the TWU by stripping them of automatic deductions from workers' checks to pay for dues but that seems like it might come to an end. He has agreed that they should be able to collect the money to remain fiscally secure.

From The Daily News:

In a move sure to spark controversy, Spitzer will support the financially struggling TWU Local 100 if it seeks to win back the right to automatically deduct dues from workers' paychecks, according to a labor leader familiar with the governor's plan.

"The governor is trying to position himself to see a productive collective-bargaining season in 2008," the union leader said, noting that the historically bad relationship between the TWU and the MTA has long complicated contract talks.

"He'll take the public relations hit now because at the end of the contract, he doesn't want to go through that kind of problem again," the leader concluded. "He's positioning himself, putting himself and the MTA in a better position for the future."

Yeah the MTA will be pissed, but sometimes you need to act for everyone's own good. The men and women that keep our trains and buses humming deserve the best conditions out there. The people at the top of the MTA often do not have it all together, something that helped prompt the strike two years ago. If the TWU can sit up straighter at next year's round of talks to renegotiate their contracts, that will not only help transit workers' future, it will keep the MTA working as smoothly as possible.

Get Ready To Shell Out More $$$ To Ride MTA

Nobody wants to deal with a fare increase when it comes to the troubled MTA in the city. After using the Tube in London, our system feels like something out of the third world. A regular ride here costs $2 ($1.60 when you count the buy 5, get one free system) and in London it is 1.60 in Pounds (or one quid and 60 pence). The difference in service is not even close. They have friggin couches in the cars for crying out loud, not to mention up-to-date service announcements on their website, clean stations and boards on every platform telling you when the next two trains are coming.

So after seeing how Londoners do it, it pisses me off to see the MTA getting ready to charge us even more for a woeful ride on the subway. The board is meeting in December to decide how much and based on comments coming out of the Mayor's office, he won't put up much of a fight. He'd rather possible congestion-pricing revenue go to system expansion projects instead (though it isn't even guaranteed).

The MTA needs more pressure put upon it to wait for a fare increase until next year. I am against any fare increase in three months and instead wait until more develops on the congestion pricing front. In addition to little ol' me, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign and many civic organizations feel the same way. I'm guessing a few million New Yorkers might be on our side as well.

Subway Fare Increase A Fair Deal?

MTA officials are contemplating an increase in fares for next year despite a billion dollar surplus. They claim that because of a massive debt service (around $32 billion) most of that extra money needs to go there. The New York Times wrote an article today on the story, showing opposition the increase by State Senator Dean G. Skelos (R-Long Island) but countered his arguments with a "measured response" by Straphangers Campaign Representative Gene Russianoff. The NYT made it seem like accepting a small fare increase now would be better than an even larger toll in 2009 (6.5% vs. 15%).

But hold on a second, there is more to this than the Times lets on. First of all, service is terrible on the subways. My friends in Brooklyn refer to the F train as the F*** train and I've got plenty of shit to say about the Lexington local by me. All the lines have their problems and it doesn't seem like much is being done about service yet they want to raise rates while having more cash than they have ever had???

Oh and another thing, the Times grossly misrepresented Russianoff and the Straphangers Campaign. What did they actually have to say about this mess? Not quite what the Times lets on. Here's a little snippet from their press release yesterday:

Who should contribute to solving the MTA's financial woes?

The MTA now receives billions in financial support from riders through fares, motorists through tolls and gas taxes, and corporations, consumers and property owners, all through dedicated transit taxes. That makes sense. All who benefit from the biggest transit system in the U.S. should support it.

Shouldn't riders pay the whole tab?

Riders are already paying more than their fare share. In 2005, MTA told federal transit officials that the fare burden on its riders was 58% - with subways at 68% and buses at 42%. The national average for big transit systems is 40%. MTA CEO Lee Sander told a state legislative committee this January: "In 2007, MTA expects to generate $5.4 billion, or 60%, of its total $9.2 billion in operating revenues primarily from fares and tolls. This is a phenomenally high fare box return."

How do we make sure riders aren't the only ones asked to help out?

Any proposal to raise fares should only be seriously considered if and when the state legislature approves Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal and/or other transit aid to raise billions of dollars to fix transit and take pressure off the budget. As was the case in 2003, the decision on fares should not be made before the early spring - specifically no earlier than March 31st, 2008, the date the state legislature is due to decide the fate of congestion pricing.

Yes, we need to wait for the congestion-pricing situation to complete its course. Those revenues would greatly offset the need for any rate increase. Meanwhile we pay for a greater percentage of the MTA's costs than any other city in the country. Financing the debt should not be laid on the backs of subway riders, especially those that have the most trouble paying for it.