• Report: No pay cuts for MTA admins · Although the MTA is still planning on laying off 680 administrative workers later this year in an effort to save $65 million annually, a report in amNew York today alleges that the authority will not be enacting a 10 percent pay cut as was originally planned. Heather Haddon reports that the MTA was able to “cut expenses to avoid the $49 million pay reduction.” While union officials responded as union officials will to this news, I’m left wondering about the accounting. The total package of service cuts will, for instance, save New York City Transit $77.6 million in annual reductions. As much as I don’t like to advocate for cutting salaries, I’d much rather see Transit enact just $28.6 million worth of cuts and have those administrators take their pay cuts than suffer through the upcoming service cuts. · (1)

For the last three months, the MTA has firmly insisted that they would not raise fares for 2010. When faced with an initial deficit of under $400 million, Board members said the authority would become a leaner one with more streamlined service options and fewer costly and underutilized runs. When the deficit ballooned to $751 million, they began to dance around the issue, but CEO and Chairman Jay Walder repeatedly said he preferred to stick with the scheduled 2011 fare hike. Well, the best laid plans…

Today, the Post reports that the MTA is considering a fare hike in 2010, not least of all because most people at last week’s hearings expressed a strong preference for a hike over a service cut. I’ve touched on this topic in a few posts since December, and I too prefer a hike over the cuts. Tom Namako has more:

Increasing the cost of a ride on subways, buses and commuter rails in 2010 is just one option out of many that officials have put on the table to overcome the staggering deficit, management sources said.

“I think there is a set of options. And the fare is one of those as we try to get to the bottom line,” a board member said.

“In view of the reaction we got to the service reductions we have out there, I think that asking most board members if they’d rather see more service cuts or a fare increase, I think, at the moment, many would pick a fare increase.”

In a statement to the Post, the MTA denied exploring the hikes. “Our position has not changed. It remains our intention to raise the fare in 2011 as agreed upon last year,” spokesman Jeremy Soffin said.

Yet, the truth remains that to cut $751 million worth of services would cripple the MTA and the New York City economy. Without massive layoffs and an agency-wide restructuring, it is nearly impossible to cut that much while meeting ridership demands.

Meanwhile, Bill Henderson of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Council to the MTA raised some interesting points about the fare hike. He first noted that a hike this year could be viewed as an acceleration of the 2011 hike, but it is my understanding that the MTA’s fare hike in 2011 is a foregone conclusion whether they raise fares this year or not. Henderson noted, however, that if the MTA were to announce a fare hike within the next few weeks, it would go into effect right around Election Day. Hopefully, straphangers would be angry enough at the way Albany robs from the MTA to vote the anti-transit representatives out of office.

And so we are where I expected us to be. The MTA is broke, and it needs to offer transit service to the millions of New Yorkers who rely on it a day. It doesn’t enjoy any sort of political support in Albany and has become a scapegoat for the politicians’ inabilities to defend their constituent interests. Soon, we’ll be paying more for, hopefully, the same amount of service. Cutting service and raising fare would lead to a dark day for New Yorkers indeed.

Categories : Fare Hikes
Comments (10)
  • A night off · I had grand plans to travel to West Palm Beach to spend some time with my grandparnets this weekend. In the last four hours, however, my second computer in as many months died, and my flight was diverted to Orlando due to storms in the Palm Beach area. So I’m hanging out in the Orlando airport with nothing to do. I’ll get some posts up during the day. For now, I’ve got nothing for you. · (1)
  • A groundbreaking at Atlantic Yards · Earlier this afternoon, Bruce Ratner and a bunch of New York politicos celebrated the groundbreaking of the Barclays Center at the Atlantic Yards. The ceremony was filled with all of the pomp and circumstance one would expect from an oft-delayed groundbreaking, but I can’t help thinking about how the MTA has voluntarily allowed itself to get screwed over by Ratner at a time when it most needs the money.

    Less than nine months ago, the Board agreed to sweeten their sweetheart deal for the land rights above the Vanderbilt Yards. Instead of a $100 million payment, the agency agreed to accept $20 million now and $80 million deferred over the next 22 years. Without reappraising the land and without considering other offers, the cash-strapped agency simply forewent money it badly needs.

    Over the last few months, a few who pay more attention to the Atlantic Yards happenings than I do have written about this decision. Norman Oder at Atlantic Yards Report tackled it in December, and Noticing New York wrote an extensive post on the topic as well. Today, the Daily Intel calls everyone involved with the deal losers, and the MTA’s fiscal woes march ever onward. · (6)
  • Transit wraps 7 line work three weeks early · For Queens residents who live along the 7 train, the last few weekends have been headache-inducing, to say the least. With no 7 trains between Times Square and Queensboro Plaza, those heading east (or into the city) had to find alternate routes involving transfers, shuttle buses or the N and R trains. This work was to continue for the next three weekends, but Transit announced earlier this week that the work had wrapped up ahead of schedule. For Queens residents, this came as welcome news indeed.

    “We were able to accomplish a lot of extremely important work in a shorter time period than we had planned and we are grateful for the patience of 7 Line riders for whom this service is a lifeline on the weekend,” NYC Transit President Thomas F. Prendergast said in a statement. “After meeting with the community, we took another hard look at what we could do to restore service as quickly as possible.”

    Transit says they replaced the tracks on the curve leaving Vernon-Jackson and installed a new switch at Hunter’s Point station. Workers shored up the tunnel wall in the Steinway Tube and installed the elevator shaft at Court House Square. With this announcement of an early completion, 7 train riders are in for a smooth ride until after the baseball season when Transit plans to conduct track work near the 111th St. station. · (5)

I grew up at 91st St. and Broadway in Manhattan, and I remember learning from an early age of the subway stop that, one day, years before I or my parents lived there, had been open at our corner. The station was a local stop on the IRT from 1904 until February of 1959 when modernization and platform expansion rendered it useless. Today, it is a graffiti-covered relic from another era.

These days, whenever the elimination of a service is mentioned or the partial shuttering of a subway station finds its way into the news, community groups react with a vehemence reserved only for the biggest of issues. Protests are planned; letters are written; politicians put pressure on the MTA to find a way to keep that station open. Even a station as lightly used as, say, Broad St. with its 7200 daily riders and its 589 weekend riders might garner some community support.

Once upon a time though, the Transit Authority engaged in a bit of system improvements that led to the shuttering of a good number of stations. A few were deemed redundant because they were simply too close to the next stop, and with longer trains and platforms that stretched an extra block or so, these stations were casualties various modernization programs. Surprisingly, the media reception to these closings were slight.

In 1959, when the TA closed 91st St., The Times mentioned it in the context of a 1000-word article about the $100 million West Side IRT upgrades that led to a clearing of the 96th St. bottleneck and a lengthening of that station to include a southern entrance between 93rd and 94th Sts.

Buried after the jump on page 18 of the paper was a solitary paragraph about 91st St. “One other change,” Stanley Levey wrote, “will be made on Feb. 6. The local station at Ninety-first Street will be closed. In its place an entrance to the new mezzanine of the Ninety-sixth Street station will be opened between Ninety-third and Ninety-fourth Streets.” It was rightly deemed pointless to double the length of the 91st St. stop with an express station just two blocks away.

A few of the other shuttered IRT stations received barely more coverage than that. When the city announced in 1948 that the 18th St. stop along the East Side IRT would be closed, The Times devoted three paragraphs and 123 words to the news. The reason given then wasn’t because Union Square’s northern entrances were three blocks away but because the 23rd St. station now had access points at 22nd St. “Trains will now run non-stop between Fourteenth and Twenty-third streets,” the unsigned article said.

The long-forgotten Worth St. stop, just a few hundred feet of the original Brooklyn Bridge station, received a scant send-off as well. It closed in 1962 as part of a $6 million overhaul of what we now call Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall on the East Side IRT. The TA had to lengthen and straighten the platforms to better accommodate 10-car trains, and when they did so, the Worth St. stop became pointless. Charles Grutzner of The Times was seemingly the only person to mark the occasion. “The rebuilt station, to be known as Brooklyn Bridge-Worth Street, will go into full service at 11 P.M. At the same time, the old Worth Street local station near by will shut down,” he wrote. “No ceremony will mark either event.”

And that is the way history had it. No ceremony marked the events as various stations faded into subway lore.

Categories : Subway History
Comments (37)

The news out of MTA HQ tonight is a rather wonky bit of restructuring, but I think it’s an important item nonetheless. In a letter to the MTA Board, CEO and Chairman Jay Walder announced a streamlined committee roster. In an effort to make the MTA’s various subagencies “more effective and more efficient,” the Board committees will be consolidated.

The biggest changes are how these committees are now grouped by service area. Instead of having two separate committees overseeing Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road, one committee will take care of commuter rail lines. Walder wants to encourage these agencies to work together in a “more consistent and cost effective manner.” Similarly, all MTA bus operations will now be under the control of one committee as well.

Meanwhile, two committees — the Capital Construction and Real Estate groups — are being eliminated outright. The Board oversight for these projects will be subsumed by the respective committees. So, for example, New York City Transit’s committee will oversee the Second Ave. Subway and the 7 line extension while the LIRR/Metro-North committee will have oversight of the East Side Access project. The Finance Committee will take over the duties for the Real Estate group.

In a sense, this is how the MTA itself would be structured if the organization were to be built from the ground up. One group would oversee commuter rail and another the buses. Major projects would be under the purview of the agency tasked with operating the eventual new line. It would just make sense.

In other Board news, the six non-voting members who lost their seats when Albany failed to reauthorize their seats on the MTA Board are back in business. Because of eventual action in Albany and inaction by the governor, the law has been restored, and the non-voting Board members — including Andrew Albert of the New York City Transit Riders Council and Norman Brown from the Metro-North Railroad Coalition — have been reinstated.

Categories : MTA
Comments (20)
  • MTA reassessing bus cuts, but larger deficit looms. · Although I referred to the MTA’s public hearings last week as political theater, I recognize that, as happened in 1990, these hearings can impact the MTA’s decision to cut services. Today, the Daily News reports, unsurprisingly, that the MTA is reconsidering some bus route eliminations. The report is light on details, but the Post says Walder will try to encourage $5 million in internal belt-tightening over eliminated some bus routes. For local neighborhoods who are on the verge of seeing their buses disappear, this is a good news indeed.

    On the other hand, the MTA has a larger problem. When the cuts were first proposed the authority’s deficit was around $350 million, but today, it is approximately $751 million. Walder says the agency will eliminate administrative positions and stop some technology-based projects, but those cuts will save just $50 million annually. At some point, the authority is going to have to find big bucks, and if that means massive service cuts or a steep fare hike, New Yorkers who rely on the subways and buses for their daily needs are going to be feeling the pain. · (6)

Currently, New York City’s 422 subway stations are staffed by 3000 station agents. These folks are supposed to serve as the eyes and ears of the MTA. They sit in their booths to help passengers in need, assist those who can’t negotiate the turnstiles and, ideally, guard against crime. In a few months, their numbers will drop by 450, and although every station will still be staffed, people will be inconvenienced.

For the MTA, the elimination of station agents should allow them more flexibility. Many of the station agents provide help that can be centralized. For example, if a person in a wheelchair or with a stroller needs to use the emergency exit, that person could readily call an MTA employee at a centralized location who could, with the use of closed-circuit camera technology, verify the need for help and press a button to activate the emergency door. This employee could oversee multiple stations at once, and the agency wouldn’t need to staff the stations with as many people. The same can be down for people who need directions as well.

In fact, the MTA has already been promoting their Customer Assistance Intercoms as solutions for those straphangers who encounter an agent-less station. Bright red signs direct customers to the intercoms, and on the other end should be another station agent who can offer assistance. The problem, reports amNew York’s Heather Haddon is that these intercoms are hard to find and don’t always work.

The subway intercoms that straphangers must increasingly rely on for help have left many riders stumped about how to use them — if they can find them at all. “I’ve never noticed it,” said Queens rider Maryanne Bannon, 58. “Most New Yorkers are not trained for this.”

…In a small survey of straphangers by amNewYork, no one was familiar with the rather cryptic-looking boxes. “They have to come up with a better design. It’s not consumer friendly,” said Karl Kronebusch, 54, a Park Slope rider.

Even MTA CEO Jay Walder recently admitted that he had a hard time finding the intercom in a station he frequents, saying he was “disappointed” by the obscure system. “We’ve almost hidden them away,” Walder said last week.

The boxes also periodically break, with an entire bank of them out recently, union officials said. Furthermore, many stations where the station agents are being removed don’t have the safety devices installed yet, said MTA board member Andrew Albert. “Before we remove booth agents, we should have a method of contacting the police,” Albert said.

Albert’s quote speaks for itself. The MTA has chosen to replace people with a centralized system, but they’ve done so in an obtuse way. Transit needs to install easy-to-see intercom boxes in convenient places, and the agency must ensure that someone is always on the other end. Many college campuses have a blue light phone system, and the MTA should use that visible approach as inspiration.

As more station agents are eliminated, riders may encounter more problems with their commutes. As station agents seemingly field only a handful of requests a shift, it may seem that not many will be inconvenienced, but a few people per day will quickly add up.

Categories : Subway Security
Comments (2)

Albany lawmakers used money that should have gone to the MTA to fund other state obligations. (Source: Streetsblog)

When Albany approved a series of emergency budget reappropriations in late November, they did so under the public guise of a deficit. The money wasn’t there, they said, and so they had to take away over $100 million from the MTA.

At the time, an MTA press release sort of highlighted how the state hadn’t been broke but had basically stolen the money for the MTA and reappropriated it. “This is the first time that an existing appropriation to the MTA from dedicated MTA taxes has been reduced after collection by the state,” the release said.

Today, Ben Fried and John Kaehny at Streetsblog explain how this accounting sleight of hand amounts to state-sponsored robbery. Albany took money that should have gone to the MTA and simply moved it to another account. Talk about your two sets of books.

I’ll quote at length what the two had to say, but do visit Streetsblog if you don’t already:

The overwhelming majority of the $143 million reduction in transit funding did not originate from the state budget. Instead, Albany took dedicated transit tax revenues from the MTA and redirected them to the state’s general fund. In effect, Albany stole $118 million from transit to subsidize the rest of the state budget. That’s enough money to restore all the subway and bus cuts currently on the table in the MTA’s austerity plan.

How did they pull off the heist? To explain, we need to give a short intro to the MTA operating budget.

In addition to fares and tolls, MTA service is mainly funded by an array of dedicated taxes, which total about $4.5 billion every year. A smaller portion comes from “state and local subsidies,” of which Albany is supposed to contribute about $190 million. Already, we’re only talking about a small fraction of the MTA’s nearly $12 billion operating budget.

But here’s the thing — Albany’s “contribution” consists almost entirely of tax revenue that’s already dedicated to transit. This year, Albany put just $7 million from the general fund into MTA operations, according to the state Division of the Budget. The rest of its obligation to the MTA — $183 million — came from dedicated transit taxes.

So when the state made off with $143 million from the MTA budget in the December deficit reduction package, lawmakers were not reducing the state’s contribution to transit so much as raiding the MTA piggy bank and robbing transit riders of funds collected specifically to serve them. When all was said and done, Albany had taken $118 million from dedicated MTA taxes…

The dedicated revenue source in question — the Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance Fund (MMTOA) — was established in 1981 and consists entirely of taxes collected in the 12-county MTA region… So $118 million in downstate taxes, meant to fund transit exclusively, disappeared into the Albany money pit. Nothing in New York state law prevents the same thing from happening again.

Unfortunately, we can’t do very much right now, but Fried and Kaehny urge riders and advocates to be protective of our future funding initiatives. We could ask elected officials to prevent against agency theft. We could ask them to own up to their cuts. After all, the same representatives who approved this giant cut are the ones slamming the MTA for being broke. Politicians just shouldn’t be allowed to have their cake and eat it too.

Comments (0)
Page 1 of 20012345»...Last »