If you want to help transit advocacy efforts, find a way to get millions of dollars to groups like NYPIRG, Transportation Alternatives, RPA, and Tri-State Transportation Campaign. It’s not a matter of not having new, fresh ideas or web skills or advocacy skills, it’s a matter of having dollars to pay qualified, smart, trained staff. And to have a staff that is larger than a few people.

Really it’s a matter of capacity and it’s unfair to blame Gene (who arguably has done more for our transit system than anyone in this city). The responsibility to build that capacity partially lies with everyone in this region who pays $200 for a pair of jeans but won’t give $50 a year to a non-profit organization they respect.

And Ben, you should take a trip to Albany with us sometime.

- Kate Slevin, Tri-State Transportation Campaign

In the Second Avenues Saga blog for June 30th, you say the Straphangers Campaign was not “a force” in the recent fare hike. You quote someone who says “we sat on our hands.” That’s just not true. Below I lay out what we did and how it shaped the final outcome.

In December 2008, a State commission headed by former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch issued a report laying out a program to provide the MTA with long-term stable funding, as well as providing incentives to use transit. The specific program called for $5 tolls on the currently “free” East and Harlem River Bridges, a far more modest fare hike than proposed by the MTA and a broad-based payroll tax imposed in the 12-county region served by the MTA. The message of the plan was simple: In a tough economy, transit needed help from those who benefited from the system: riders, drivers and businesses.

Also in December, the MTA proposed massive fare hikes – with the base fare going from $2.00 to $2.50 and the 30-day unlimited-ride MetroCard going from $81 to $103 – along with severe service cuts, including eliminating several subway lines and 20 bus routes.

Given the need for action, the Straphangers Campaign directed its efforts to educating the public on the need for new transit funding for the MTA. We did this in coalition, working with many other groups, including the Regional Plan Association, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Transportation Alternatives, Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resource Defense Council and General Contractors Association.

The Fight

We did a great deal of work, as described in this list below. We think it worked. One State Senator – Bill Perkins of Harlem – said he had never received so many letters and calls on one issue as he had on the fare hike. We:

1. Helped raise widespread public awareness of what we called “the mother of all fare hikes” and the proposed service cuts. For example, we asked the New York City Independent Budget Office to review the original MTA proposals. The IBO concluded (correctly) that a 30-day unlimited-ride MetroCard would go from $81 to a shocking $103. In addition, we convinced MTA to release numbers of what the fare box ratio (the percentage of expenses borne by riders) would be if “Doomsday” budget were adopted. It turned out that the fare box burden on subway riders would grow from 68% to 83% of expenses; in comparison the national average for large systems is 37%, according to the Federal Transit Administration. Our fact sheets on the MTA’s finances our web site, http://www.straphangers.org/fare.

2. Distributed 150,000 education leaflets to subway and bus riders and commuters between November and May, educating riders about the MTA financial crisis, including both its operating and capital needs. Published two fact sheets, one on proposed service cuts, one on the proposed fare hike; distributed at fare increase hearings.

3. Organized turnout for five MTA fare increase/service cut hearings in winter, 2009, with a strong emphasis on specific cuts in service. MTA officials reported a doubling in attendance and testimony from the 2007 fare hearings. Distributed talking points fact sheet at hearing.

4. Held three mock “funerals,” protesting MTA proposal to kill G, M, W and Z lines; public officials participated. The funerals included a bagpipe player, a wreath and eulogies.

5. Sent out 20 global e-mails to Straphangers e-mail list of 18,000. Posted breaking events and news clippings on Campaign website. Global emails were also send to our “fans” on Facebook.

6. Helped direct several events, including a rally in Union Square conducted with a group mounting a transit funding campaign on Facebook.

7. Talked with dozens of decision-makers and spent many days in Albany. Testified at hearing on Ravitch plan held by New York State Senate members Martin Malave Dilan and Bill Perkins.

8. Helped lead the effort for a $125,000 media outreach campaign with an ad on 3,000 subway cars for one month. (The ad can be found at: http://www.mrss.com/clients/kn.....300ppi.pdf )

9. Testified during 17 public comments periods at MTA Board and committee meetings; held a dozen protests at MTA Board meetings.

10. Collected over 1,000 handwritten letters addressed to State Senators, Assembly Members and other State leaders.

The Outcome

In early May, the State adopted an MTA “bailout” program worth $1.8 billion annually. In many ways, it tracked the Ravitch program. Both plans called for $1.5 billion in a new payroll “mobility” tax; both called for a moderate fare increase; and both called for new taxes and fees on automobile use.

It is in this last part of the adopted plan that it differs from the Ravitch Commission proposal. Ravitch had called for a $5 toll on the East and Harlem River Bridges, although he had stated his support for a subsequent proposal for $2 tolls, which would have produced about $300 million annually. The final State bailout called for a similar amount of revenue from four sources: increased drivers license and registration fees, an increased automobile rental tax and a 50-cent taxicab drop off fee.

The impact on motor vehicle use of the tolls as opposed to the adopted measures is not fully known. That said, it is likely that it is not significant. In addition, the original plan for improved bus service – which included 300 new buses – was eliminated in the final plan.

Lastly, the final plan fully funds the MTA’s five-year capital program for only its first two years out of five. The issue will be back before the State, although the hope is that the economy will improve and that already-dedicated existing transit taxes will yield added revenues.

So there is a lot more transit work to do. And, as in the past, we – and others – will continue to do it.

Gene

I think he’s pointing out a very important issue:

Straphangers Campaign needs to seriously beef itself up if it wants to continue to be effective in this new world we’re entering.

For one thing, Straphangers could be doing much much much more with web technology and communications. And who is Gene’s deputy? Who is his successor? Who is he training to lead transit advocacy into the future? Why isn’t anyone ever hitting me up for money for the Straphangers Campaign? I’d be very happy to send them $100/year if only they had the organizational capacity to ask!

New Yorkers are hard to activate – breaking through the din ain’t easy, but Straps does it better than anybody else, both on the ground and in the press. As for developing nimble web advocacy, I’d second Lindsey’s call for supporting NYPIRG with a healthy check to make it happen.

I’d like to stress this point you just made, Veronica. It’s certainly not my intention to slam Gene himself. He’s a tireless advocate for the subways and the right man for the job. But for the purposes of this post, he’s also the public face for the largest riders organization around and becomes the one I picked one. It’s definitely an institutional issue and not a Gene Russianoff issue.

Right now, he’s working within a system that isn’t supporting the message we all have to get out. That seems to me to be a broader failure of the PIRG structure.

I don’t mean to slight Gene and the Straphangers for their behind-the-scenes work. As your co-TransAlt official Lindsey notes above, they’ve been organizing the trips and the funerals, but in terms of getting the word out on a grassroots level, it hasn’t taken. We routinely hear people — and politicians! — talking about “two sets of books” and “lack of transparency” and such, but where’s the response to this?

Look at the Straphangers’ website for example. That’s a bare-bones outfit, and it should be a full-fledged advocacy site. It starts with little things like that and extends beyond it.

Gene is an invaluable person to have there. He’s been fighting the good fight for a very long time, but it’s not working right now. Maybe he needs more staff, and maybe as Lindsey said, we should advocate with our check books too. But I believe, as Hanger said above, that they need some new blood. I know we’re all allies, but I think we have to admit that the group needs to be refreshed and expanded.

Unfortunately, as is pointed out in the post, the learning curve on MTA background, funding and history is extremely steep. The numbers and public documents are fairly complex; the funding sources are little understood outside of the Comptroller’s office and transit advocates; there is a dearth of political champions for transit; and the general riding public is often unwilling to put aside its disdain for the MTA to absorb hard facts. All of these factors make for a very challenging campaign with very costly stakes.

This is an important discussion, but the responsibility does not rest with Gene and Straphangers alone. The blogs, commenters, advocates, and everyday riders all need to step up the game to get the facts out and alter the existing discussion. There should be at least 8.5 million voices making sure transit issues are better prioritized in government, the media and public discourse.