We know the MTA is facing a financial crisis; we know the threat of a second fare hike in two years looms large; and we know the MTA has planned to cut services — but not yet service — to address what is now being labeled a $700-million budget gap.
Today, we find out that New York City Transit has been ordered to cut $61 million off its budget. Those cuts will come mainly from maintenance and service jobs. Much of that figure will come in the form of bureaucratic maneuverings. Jobs currently unfilled will remain unfilled while few others will lose their positions.
Matthew Sweeney, amNew York’s transportation writer, has more:
The search for savings is part of an overall Metropolitan Transportation Authority goal of reducing costs by 6 percent over the next four years as the agency faces a financial crisis. For its part, NYC Transit has projected saving $251.3 million from 2009 through 2012. The bulk of the savings in 2009 — $39.4 million — will come from reductions to maintenance…
Transit officials worked to reassure straphangers yesterday, saying in a statement that none of the proposed savings “will have an impact on safety, security or customer service levels.”
While Sweeney’s article notes that “subway service has been on a gradual but steady decline,” to me, this seems like a baseless assertion. The MTA has gone out of its way to stress that they would rather cut maintenance and upkeep positions before taking an axe to frequency of trains. In fact, NY1 reports that the MTA is doing just that.
According to reports, the services cut will include 12-year upgrades for buses, numerous platform controllers in the subways and efforts to fight strachiti along some of the more vandalism-prone lines. For those of us relying on the subways to take us to and from spots in New York, this news is guardedly optimistic, but the system suffers from it. We’ll see the same old train service, but an aging and ugly system badly in need of physical upkeep and upgrades will continue to deteriorate.
Critics of the MTA’s cuts will think back to the 1970s when the system fell out of its state of good repair, but for now, the MTA is dedicated to maintaining subway cars and track beds in that state of good repair. The rest of the system, however, will continue to slide, but as long as the trains run and as long as the system is safe from crime, the aesthetics can take second place to the system operation. For now.
4 comments
If the MTA tries to run trains with the same frequency, but cuts maintenance, this will cause a “decline in service” as the AMNY writer notes, because riders will experience more delays. The upshot is still that it will take longer to get to work most mornings, same as if frequency has been cut.
I wonder if the MTA is overvaluing the frequency of trains. During rush hour, I’ve noted the 4 and 5 comes frequently, but there are so many trains running that they travel really slowly. I realize that with less frequent trains the overcrowding on the line would get really bad, or at least even more noticeable, but maybe the MTA’s current way of handling the issue is putting lipstick on a pig.
Also, would it be feasible to just shut a subway line down completely? For example, the G which in its current form is pretty useless anyway? Would that generate savings that could be used to keep the rest of the system operational, or would it wind up actually costing more, as the idea of not providing 24 hour service would really wind up costing more?
Shutting down lines, particularly the G, is a non-starter politically. It would get ugly. The G serves a lot of newly gentrified areas(read rich) and a lot of traditionally poor and minority areas(Bed-Stuy), shutting it down would unite them.
Also re the Lex lines, until they resignal them where you can run the trains physically closer together, the solution they have there is the least worse answer.
The G may have lower ridership than other lines, but it still manages to pack up four 75-foot cars every morning at six minute intervals. Not quite bus material.