Transit Advocates Say Nay To Paterson's Plan

Paterson may be happy that the new 1% payroll hike (and that's it) plan might have enough support to pass, but that doesn't make transit advocates happy in the least. The Ravitch Commission recommendations have been thrown by the wayside in Albany, and political expediency is the name of the game now. Unfortunately, so too does a real solution for the woes of the M.T.A.

From PolitickerNY:

ALBANY—Even if it is palatable enough to pass both houses of the legislature, the plan to bail out the M.T.A. that David Paterson formally unveiled this weekend is not getting a warm welcome from the alliance of labor leaders and transit advocates that pushed firmly for the Ravitch plan. They write, with charming understatement, that the plan "may not" adequately address the system's capital needs.

"The current worsening of the MTA's finances combined with the difficulty of passing new sources of revenue in election years, like next year, adds up to a very real threat," say Kevin Corbett and Bob Yaro, the co-chairs of the Empire State Transportation Alliance, in a letter sent to Paterson and legislative leaders Friday. "As members of the business, civic and labor community, we call on the state's leadership to act on a final package that responsibly and adequately provides a long term source of funding for the transit system's rebuilding needs. Now is the window of opportunity. The future health of the transit network and the region itself depend on the state meeting these long term needs."

The problem though, is that state senators' idea of long-term is election day of next year. They could care less whether or not the health of the M.T.A. improves, so long as their constituents re-elect them (and their contributors are made happy, which is part of the whole "re-elect" thing) again and again. Meanwhile, New Yorkers will have to deal with an increasingly expensive and less comprehensive mass transit system.

Schumer Helps Businesses That Subsidize Workers' Commuting Costs

Here in New York, if you have to commute to work (and this applies to most workers) your employer can pay for your commute costs, whether it is by driving or on the subway. The M.T.A. makes MetroCards specifically for this purpose. It has always been a smart decision to enroll in this program as a boss and definitely as an employee. Now thanks to Senator Schumer, the deal is even nicer for those that take the bus or subway to work.

From The NY Daily News:

The politicians keep saying the economic crisis is also an opportunity. It certainly was for Chuck Schumer today, who managed to stick a break for transit riders into the Senate’s stimulus bill.

Basically, Schumer’s amendment would double the break employers get for subsidizing the commuting costs of workers, from $115 a month to $230.

Oddly, they already got a $230 pay roll tax break for help out drivers, so doubling it for straphangers is especially sweet for the Park Slope senator.

This is great news, not only for the tax break, but the relief it will have and further justification to implement one specific part of the Ravitch Plan. That is, to institute an additional payroll tax on employers so that we can keep the subway running and the M.T.A. fiscally afloat. If Schumer's language is passed within the economic stimulus bill, there should be no objections whatsoever to the additional payroll taxes.

The Sad Story Of The Second Avenue Subway

I caught a link to SecondAvenueSaga's latest post on, you guessed it, the ill-fated subway line that the MTA continues to attempt and fail at building. The speed of construction is terribly slow and the funding for the project is tenuous at best, possibly running out by the time we reach year's end. They mentioned a Crain's article talking about the suffering businesses on 2nd Ave due to the construction, but the misery we all will have from not having a better MTA system is just too much to handle.

From SecondAvenueSagas:

In an article in Crain’s that explores how business along Second Ave. is suffering due to the ongoing construction, Kira Bindrim hints at some fiscal troubles ahead for the seemingly cursed subway line. She writes:

The city is preparing to break ground on the stretch from East 68th to East 73rd streets. Construction is currently moving in three-month intervals on alternate sides of the avenue, and Phase I is slated to be finished in 2015. But three months has become six months in some locations, and work between East 83rd and East 86th streets could be stalled by lawsuits over displaced residents. The MTA has funding for contracts through year-end, but additional money must come from its next capital plan. Prospects for that budget are grim.

Indeed, economic crises have derailed the line’s building twice, in 1929 and in the 1970s. The completion date for the $3.8 billion Phase I has been postponed two years. “I’m afraid they’re going to run out of cash,” Mr. Pecora says. “We might be faced with just a hole in the road.”

In reality, based on what we’ve learned in the past, this dire report isn’t quite true. With the Feds kicking in so much money for this project, Phase I will, at some point, become a reality. Considering that a tunnel running north of 96th St. already exists, there’s a good chance that Phase II — the extension north to 125th St. — will see the light of the day sometime over the next fifteen years.

Fifteen years is a long time, a decade and a half on top of nearly eighty years of promises for this T line. It is nice that the author has some hope, but frankly I do not see it. If there was anytime to fully fund the line and get it done in a respectable ten years (Shanghai built a full system in that time), it would be now. With President Obama in office and a Democratic Congress behind him, all the Senate has mustered is $9.5 billion for mass transit...across the country. Unless that is all going underneath 2nd Ave, I doubt we'll see much progress in fifteen years. A safer bet is hoping for completion in fifty.

Senate Gives Even Less Than The House For Mass Transit

In a shameful display, the Senate is even more disappointing for mass transit funding than the House. Out of all the billions being doled out for economic recovery, too many are going for tax cuts and woeful amounts for the solutions to transportation in this new century. When the Democratic leaders talk about hundreds of billions in aid, the only number for trains, subways and the like is $9.5 billion.

From TPM:

The Senate Appropriations Committee's draft stimulus includes just $9.5 billion for mass transit projects -- "very frustrating," in the words of Adam Terando, who's done great work on this issue.

Aside from the fact that mass transit is among the biggest proven job creators under consideration, expanding high-speed rail and Amtrak is undeniably better for the environment than spending highway money without strict limits on new road construction. As Matt Yglesias notes, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is taking the lead on mass transit in the House ... so who will step up in the Senate? The appropriations panel is marking up its stimulus tomorrow.

Here's a list of senators on the committee, in case anyone wants to place a friendly constituent call.

Seriously, where is Joe Biden in all of this? Dick Durbin should be spearheading this, not shortchanging the mechanisms to make Chicago move smoother. The same goes for top Dem Chuck Schumer, with our own NYC needing billions just to keep the MTA running as is. Tax cuts can only be economic stimulants for so long, but creating jobs to build and maintain the infrastructure of tomorrow is a solid investment for years to come.

Congress Trades Mass Transit Investment For Tax Cuts

Harry Reid was right when he claimed that lobbyists are people too, but the intentions of some may differ from what the country needs at the moment. Over in the House chamber, the effects of K Street can be seen in the tweaks made to the upcoming economic stimulus, valued at around $850 billion dollars. The additional tax cuts tucked in there aren't just being tacked on, they're taking away funds from the budget to repair our nation's infrastructure, especially mass transit. The chair of the House transportation panel, Jim Oberstar (D-MN) has the goods on what happened.

From TPM:

That is why we set forth this $85-billion initiative from our committee. It's been reduced in the final going. We expect that it'll come out somewhere around $63 billion, but $30 billion for highways.

The reason for the reduction in overall funding -- we took money out of Amtrak and out of aviation; we took money out of the Corps of Engineers, reduced the water infrastructure program, the drinking water and the wastewater treatment facilities and sewer lines, reduced that from $14 billion to roughly $9 billion -- was the tax cut initiative that had to be paid for in some way by keeping the entire package in the range of $850 billion.

But I'll say that our portion is the one that really creates the jobs. Our portion of it is the one that's going to put people to work because unlike anything else, these jobs can't be outsourced to Bangalore, India.

The money is coming out of all the wrong places and you can thank the House leadership for that. Kudos to Oberstar for saying something to someone about the matter, but this cannot be the end of the story. We desperately need investment in our nation's infrastructure, far more than just another tax cut. The dividends a job pays is so much more than what too many lobbyists in D.C. are advocating for.

Obama's Stimulus Sounds Good For The MTA

Word is that when the legislative session gets going, a massive amount of money is going to spread from Washington to kick-start infrastructure programs and get people to work. Of course, with powerful leaders like Schumer, we are sure to get a sizable amount for New York City. What people like him are talking about sounds fantastic.

From The NY Daily News:

President-elect Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan may get New York an extra station for the extended No. 7 train line, upgraded subway stations and 1,500 new hybrid buses, Sen. Chuck Schumer said yesterday.

Though details of the massive package Obama wants to sign in his first days in office are still being worked out, Schumer said he expects about $4 billion for mass transit in New York.

That's enough to create 180,000 jobs and leave the city with lasting improvements to its subway, bus and commuter rail systems.

Four billion is a lot of cash, and so is five for Medicare and closing our state budget gap. Though with all this money coming in, I wonder how much of it will actually go to where it is meant for. Medicare needs to be fixed, not just thrown a few billion. The M.T.A. is almost as much a mess as NY's Medicare system. New buses and clean subway stations sound great, but the Authority has a way of moving around cash and not getting much done once it's gone. Especially with the passage of the draconian budget for next year (service cuts and fare hikes) the stimulus needs to be guarded with extreme care and put to maximum usage.

So Much For Thompson's Driver's License Plan

The budget deficit for the MTA's budget is steadily growing larger, but the plan to help solve the flailing in the air. The MTA proposed to cut service and increase the fare, which sucked. The Ravitch Commission offered to put tolls on the bridges and raise taxes from businesses in the area. Then Comptroller and official Mayoral candidate William Thompson came up with a plan to increase driver's license fees. The only problem though, is that Thompson and his ally in the Assembly, Micah Kellner, didn't do their math correctly for the public.

From Second Avenue Sagas:

Right now, those of us with New York State drivers licenses pay, more or less, around $50 once every eight years to renew our licenses. It was my understanding that this alternate plan would simply raise this rate to $100 every eight years. The way I figured it, this new fee would generate an additional $42 million a year and not the promise $300 million Kellner and Thompson had noted.

The catch, you see, is that Kellner and Thompson would charge New Yorkers that $50 fee every year. Instead of paying $50 for eight years, we would instead be paying $400 extra over that eight-year period to enjoy the privileges and benefits of having a drivers license no matter how little or how much we drive.

And of course that means that everyone gets charged (those with licenses) no matter how much you drive and whether you use the bridges or not. So at least the tolls are part of a usage program where Thompson wants it across the board. It isn't exactly a fair proposal and the way it was presented hinted that it doubled the fee, not 8x. As SAS says, this proposal is bogus, I agree.

Even With Gas Prices Falling, More Americans Using Mass Transit

I haven't filled a tank of gas since I rented a car in Quebec three months ago, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that gas prices have been plummeting (and no, not for a good reason). In a span of a few months, we've gone from $4 or even $5 dollar gas to under $2 dollars. So with lower costs, people are naturally driving more and taking that dusty old Hummer out for a spin, right?

Wrong:

Americans rode subways, buses and commuter railroads in record numbers in the third quarter of this year, even as gas prices dropped and unemployment rose. The 6.5 percent jump in transit ridership over the same period last year marks the largest quarterly increase in public transportation ridership in 25 years, according to a survey to be released today by the American Public Transportation Association.

So what's going on here? Are people's love affair with the automobile being broken by a new heartthrob that runs on rails? The data is only over three quarters, but the numbers are encouraging. Perhaps more Americans would rather relax on a train (not the 6 train of course) than sit and silently rage in their cars as the highway commute gets longer and longer. Or maybe we're all getting a little more environmentally conscious.

Whatever the reason, the less we use our cars, the better off we'll be. And of course, having an Administration that cares about mass transit in a few short weeks will help provide the leadership we need to make sure this new phenomenon becomes a national fixture.

Protesting The Fare Hike From Inside The MTA

New York is aghast at the job cuts, service slashes and fare increases that have been proposed by the M.T.A. It is just another way to punish the middle and working class, more so as the percentage of what you make is dedicated to transit. An extra 50% hike isn't so bad when you make six figures, but for someone struggling to make the rent, it is a big deal.

For a long time it has always been the public versus the M.T.A., but now in these trying times the transit authority isn't able to count on its ranks to support their decisions.

From The NY Daily News:

Describing the cutback package as "terrible," MTA director of government affairs Hilary Ring urged people at a public forum to express their anger at public hearings in January.

"Please come," he appealed to the crowd of about 125 at Swinging Sixties Senior Center in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, last night. "The only way it's not going to be implemented is if you express outrage."

"The budget we presented to the board is not the budget we want to see adopted," he said. "We had to make very tough choices. We don't want to make these cuts. We think the state and city should increase their contributions to us."

I agree they should too. The problem is the city and state do not have enough money themselves. Unless the state agrees to raise taxes on the rich, the poor will be paying the highest price during this economic mess. People can rant and rave to the board all they want, but no amount of unbridled passion expressed with yelling at a suit will make money magically appear. The Authority needs to cut the fat in the Administrative office, but it isn't a cure all.

Now if the city and state could make the M.T.A. less reliant on real estate taxes and more so on a straight budget that keeps it afloat, then City Hall and Albany might be making some progress. And of course, bring on the Federal money to make our system meet the needs of a 21st century New York City.

Thompson Wants To Save Straphangers With Vehicle Tax

City Comptroller and candidate (not official yet of course) for Mayor Bill Thompson added a new idea to the mix on how to save the troubled M.T.A. from its hard times. Instead of cutting services and jobs, he wants to throw the burden onto those that drive into and around the city. Unlike the current Mayor though, he isn't even mentioning the words "congestion pricing" in his plan.

From The NY Daily News:

Thompson's plan would stick all metro-area car owners with supersized-vehicle use taxes based on the weight of their car.

The sliding-scale tax would be in addition to the sliding-scale, weight-based state registration fee they already pay every two years. That means about $200 extra for cars and $400 or more for heavyweights like SUVs.

"We need to assure that all those who benefit from a healthy transit system will pay their fair share," said Thompson, noting that transit ridership reduces congestion.

Thompson's proposed tax would affect all 12 counties of the so-called Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District served by the MTA - and raise as much as $1.8 billion annually, he said Sunday.

Well first off this is much better than cutting service and hiking the fair by fifty cents or a dollar. The only question is will all of that money go directly towards running the M.T.A.? While the DN only interviews two drivers that sound supportive, many other car owners will not be as thrilled. At least for Thompson he only has to deal with voters in five of those counties and most of the upset New Yorkers will be in the outer boroughs. With that said, if certain guarantees could be made for that money, then eventually more people will be accepting of the raised fees.

For far too long we've put more money into the transit authority without seeing much improvement. Their current proposal makes us pay more to get less, so Thompson at least shifts the burden from those that use mass transit. For the money though, the M.T.A. has to get serious about their finances and run their operation with much less fat. They can toss the public relations team for starters. I do not want to hear how good they're doing with little messages about the 2nd Avenue line and how fares in 1986 weren't that much different than now. Save that space for advertisers. Don't tell us about good things, show us damnit!

The M.T.A. Cuts Show They Mean Business

Although the public relations department is still fully staffed (or more aptly overstuffed) many jobs at the M.T.A. are going to disappear along with the service that they brought. Unless some serious cash infusions from the state or federal level come in soon, straphangers will be paying 50% more for a lot less.

From The NY Daily News:

The MTA's doomsday budget will wipe out the W line, zap the Z line and ax more than 1,500 NYC Transit jobs, the Daily News has learned.

The list of bus and subway cuts the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will unveil at its monthly board meeting Thursday is extensive and potentially bruising, sources said.[...]

According to sources, the cuts include:

- Elimination of at least a handful of bus and subway routes, including the W and Z subway train lines.

Fewer transit workers in the subways because 600 or so station agent positions will be axed and about 350 administrative posts.

- Longer gaps between scheduled trains at midday and between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m.

- Expanded subway loading guidelines to allow for more crowding of trains.

- Eliminating bus service during late nights and weekends on dozens of routes that have low ridership.

The cuts at Administration and the low-ridership routes are good ideas, but everything else here stinks. It is obscene that they are reducing the quality (meh) of service to such a degree when the authority expects us to pay $2.50 or $3.00 per ride. Cover the place with advertisements if you like and beg for state and federal assistance like there is no tomorrow, but please stop making the people that use the system take this much of the burden. We've been paying too much already for being crammed into trains as it is.

Steve Behar Speaks Out Against MTA Fare Increase

Steve Behar's city council campaign still has over a year to go, but that isn't stopping him from speaking out for straphangers and against the MTA's proposed fare increases. Steve is running in District 19 and that means his potential constituents need more and better mass transit solutions in Northeast Queens. Taxing commuters with fare increases (that haven't done anything thus far from this year's increase) isn't the answer. However, there is a better way.

From Steve Behar's Op-Ed in The Astoria Times:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has proposed two additional transit fare hikes on top of the fare hike enacted earlier this year. Gas is over $4 per gallon and we all agree it is in our best interest for our environment, economy and national security to use more public transportation.

It does not make sense to call for the increased use of mass transit and increase the cost and lessen the service of our current mass transit system. But elected officials, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson, continue to hide behind the MTA and allow it to hoist fare hikes onto the shoulders of Queens' hard-working middle class.

Any additional fare hike is unacceptable. For far too long, opaque authorities have operated in the state without public oversight. We do not elect MTA officials to their positions and, when the MTA raises fares and the public protests, it provides cover for our elected officials.

Patterson has asked the MTA to look its books. Bloomberg has stated, "That's just bad management." State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli is looking at the MTA's books and will release the results of his investigation by September. As our elected officials criticize the MTA administration, the same high-paid officials remain in their posts. Even MTA board member Andrew Saul urged lawmakers to re-examine legislation that would restructure the MTA and streamline its operations.

For once, it is time to take a long-term view. The city and state need to focus on getting more people to use mass transit. Driving less means a cleaner environment, a more stable economy less dependent on foreign oil and a stronger nation no longer dependent on oil from unfriendly nations.

We need more local bus service to make it easier to commute to and from work. Since most trains travel straight through most of Queens, we need more Long Island Rail Road service. We need more express buses, including the use of "rapid transit buses" to make a Queens-Manhattan commute without a car easier for residents not near an LIRR station. We need more energy conservation, substitution of carbon-based fuels and advances in technology to create biofuels and cheaper and more efficient solar and wind powered energy.

We had our first energy crisis in the 1970s. Why have we not learned our lesson yet? We need lower-cost mass transit, not more expensive mass transit. Without leadership and vision from an MTA that answers to the public, this will never happen.

The first step must be a moratorium on all proposed MTA fare increases. Second, the MTA must be audited and restructured in a way to streamline its operations and make its officials accountable to the people it serves. Third, city and state officials must make a real effort to increase mass transit and make it an easy and inexpensive option for the hard-working people of the five boroughs.

A long-term view is exactly what the MTA needs. The city and the state must realize that our subway system is vital to our economic health and not let it continue to deteriorate. Getting the MTA to tighten it's budget and learn to audit itself is another must. Plenty of cities around the country and the world operate fantastic subways, shouldn't New York be able to say the same thing?

The Silver Lining To High Gas Prices

When a forest fire burns out of control, not only does it burn grass, shrubs and trees, it takes out cars, homes and even lives. The damage is incredible and the personal loss can be devastating. Yet from those ashes lives begin anew, the enriched soil, wet from winter rains blossoms with wildflowers and hopefully, those that build homes there do so with care, caution and respect for their environment.

The same can be said for gasoline and our global environment. The amount we consume combined with a society and economy that is addicted to oil has made prices skyrocket. We never really cut enough "brush" back from our homes in the form of clean energy (like wind and solar) and now it is hurting us in our pocketbooks. Though in this fiscal mess, there is promise on the horizon.

From The NY Times:

Some cities with long-established public transit systems, like New York and Boston, have seen increases in ridership of 5 percent or more so far this year. But the biggest surges — of 10 to 15 percent or more over last year — are occurring in many metropolitan areas in the South and West where the driving culture is strongest and bus and rail lines are more limited.

Here in Denver, for example, ridership was up 8 percent in the first three months of the year compared with last year, despite a fare increase in January and a slowing economy, which usually means fewer commuters. Several routes on the system have reached capacity, particularly at rush hour, for the first time.

“We are at a tipping point,” said Clarence W. Marsella, chief executive of the Denver Regional Transportation District, referring to gasoline prices.

That tipping point could possibly turn our national car culture into a transit society. Instead of building our homes in forests that burn every year, we might just start respecting our local, and consequently, our global environment.

The more people use mass transit, the more we win as a collective society. Instead of wasting money sitting in traffic, handing it over in fist-fulls to the oil industry and polluting our planet, we can invest in more and better transit systems. As the Times points out, people are starting to get it and if these ridiculous prices continue, we might have hope for the future.

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.

Eliminating Pollution And Cars In NYC

Bloomberg's plan to implement congestion pricing for Manhattan has sparked much debate since he unveiled the idea. Studies have shown that the areas with the most vehicle-trips into the city come from expected areas, such as eastern Queens, lower Staten Island and southern Brooklyn. The odd one out though, is the Upper East Side. The richest and also highly dense section of Manhattan has over 7,000 residents who drive to work daily.

Those cars add considerably to the traffic, the congestion and the carbon monoxide output on the island. Eight dollars a day might not do much to their pocketbooks while residents of the outer burroughs are going to be hit harder. Some UES'ers might switch to mass transit, but we'll see if it comes to be if and when congestion pricing is implemented. Commuters that take the heavily traveled Lex line worry that crowding on the train will get even worse, especially since it is the only line on the Eastside. The Second Avenue subway would help, but who knows if that will ever be built.

As an almost daily rider of the Lex local, my opinion is let them come on down. If it helps the environment in and around the city, then I won't mind the extra riders. Manhattan is a unique city in the United States where cars are really unnecessary. I was glad to give my car up to come to New York, so the natives that do sit in traffic shouldn't mind it too much to do their part.