Home Service Cuts Report: Doomsday cuts back on but no fare hike

Report: Doomsday cuts back on but no fare hike

by Benjamin Kabak

Although the MTA will not officially unveil its plans to close a $200 million budget gap until Monday, the Daily News is reporting that the Doomsday cuts are back on the table. As I speculated on Wesdnesday, the MTA will be proposing the same sweeping service reductions the agency nearly implemented earlier this year before Albany’s half-hearted bailout came to be.

The sweeping reductions would include the deaths of the W and Z lines, the overnight shuttering of Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn stations along the BMT Broadway (N/R) line and the elimination of numerous low-ridership bus lines in the city’s outer boroughs. Pete Donohue has more:

Facing a massive budget crisis, the cash-squeezed MTA is moving to implement sweeping service cuts – again – including shutting down dozens of bus routes. Two subway lines also would be wiped off the map and four stations would be shuttered overnight under the plan expected to go before a Metropolitan Transportation Authority committee on Monday. If it sounds familiar, it is. The lineup is the same roster of reductions threatened earlier this year when the MTA was lobbying for a state bailout. The cuts never happened.

But in recent weeks the MTA has been rocked by bad news. The state – struggling with its own budget mess – slashed transit funding by $143 million. And cash from state payroll taxes is coming in about $200 million short of what the state had planned for mass transit. Even with 2010 service cuts, the MTA will have to find other ways to plug the sudden budget gap, sources said.

“We’re not going to rely on anyone else to do anything for us. We’re going to rely on ourselves,” MTA board member Mitchell Pally said.

Transit watchdogs were quick to bemoan the latest news. Relying on its call to use stimulus funds to cover the budget gap, Gene Russianoff and the Straphangers Campaign came out swinging today: “For the MTA, reviving these cuts would shred their credibility. The riding public was told last May that there would be no service cuts when the legislature bailed out the MTA. Riders held up their part of the bargain with a fare hike last June, yet now they are threatened with getting substantially less while paying more. Riders have every right to be mad as hell.”

Russianoff acknowledged that the latest budget problems are a result of “actions by Governor Paterson and the state legislature.” He stressed, however, his opinion that the MTA should do anything possible to avoid cuts to service because those cuts are rarely restored lately when the financials improve. “The Straphangers Campaign,” he said, “believes the MTA has the resources to prevent the service cuts, especially if it uses available federal stimulus funds and capital funds now coming out of the operating budget.”

Meanwhile, in the Daily News article, new TWU head John Samuelsen urged the MTA to look inward. “Before the MTA takes any action that adversely affects riders or workers, they should look to cut their own wasteful spending,” Samuelsen said. Considering the public opinion of TWU workers these days, Samuelsen should be careful with his words. Most riders may not be big fans of the MTA, but they are hardly on the side of the employees either.

In the end, I want to toss the ball to another player. Michael Bloomberg campaigned heavily on a plan to fix the MTA and improve mass transit for all New Yorkers. He has been noticeably silent this week as the MTA’s financial picture has taken a huge hit. It’s time for the Mayor to step up to the plate for the MTA. He can use his political clout to gain some monetary concessions for the authority, and he can show to those who voted for him that they were not misguided in putting faith in his transit proposal. Now’s the time; next week just might be too late.

You may also like

40 comments

John December 11, 2009 - 12:32 pm

I don’t live in New York, and only ride the trains when I travel there occasionally, but isn’t the Z just a J express and the W a subset of the N? I’m not saying service cuts are good, but it seems like these changes might make things a little cleaner, and may not be too bad, if they add a couple J’s and N’s to (partially) make up for it. Long-term it might make sense to consolidate the Z and J and W and N lines – provided, of course, that they do it right.

Reply
Benjamin Kabak December 11, 2009 - 12:35 pm

The Z is a complete subset of the J, but the W serves a purpose. Even though it doesn’t stop anywhere that another train also doesn’t stop, it provides people in Astoria a one-seat local ride through Manhattan. Without the W, people who need to go from, say, Queens to 23rd St. or Spring St. would have to switch to an R at some point. It makes travel less convenient.

Reply
Brian H December 11, 2009 - 12:53 pm

More than that, Ben, I think those lines play an important part in alleviating the overcrowding conditions on the other lines.

For example, my commute takes me from southern Brooklyn along the N-line to Pacific Street, where I switch to the M-train going into Manhattan. That option won’t be available if the M stops at Broad (I assume that’s back on the table). So I have to switch to the 2-train instead. From a routing standpoint, it’s a little inconvenient, but not that big of a deal, really. When you throw in the fact that the 2-line is already packed to the gills and doesn’t have room for any displaced M-train riders… well, that’s a much larger problem.

Also important to point out that there aren’t going to be any extra J’s or N’s, as this is a cost-cutting exercise, and the additional trains would offset those savings.

Reply
Alon Levy December 11, 2009 - 1:20 pm

If you think the 2 is packed, go to Shanghai and take line 1 in the peak direction at 8:40 in the morning.

Reply
Aaron December 11, 2009 - 2:43 pm

Which has what, exactly, to do with this?

Alon Levy December 11, 2009 - 3:25 pm

The 2 is not at capacity – not even close. It can absorb the extra riders.

Joe December 12, 2009 - 10:07 pm

Ok cutting back the M would suck, but shouldn’t you just transfer to the R, Brian?

Reply
R2 December 11, 2009 - 4:03 pm

I’m pretty sure what would happen w/ the W elimination is that N would run local while the Q would be extended to Astoria. Also, the N would run over the Manhattan Bridge at all times leaving the lower Manhattan stations (whitehall, rector, cortlandt, and city hall) closed and perhaps also court and lawrence in brooklyn closed at night.

Reply
Marc Shepherd December 11, 2009 - 1:25 pm

The Z isn’t just a J express. During the hours it operates, both are skip-stop services, with each skipping different stops. When the Z is eliminated, the J will make all stops at all times, making commutes longer along that route. The W, as Ben noted, is not just a subset of the N.

These cuts don’t “make things a little cleaner,” because they aren’t going to add J’s and N’s to compensate for the loss. The whole point is to eliminate these services entirely, not to replace them with differently-labeled services. They will get the savings by running fewer trains, which makes commutes worse along these routes.

Reply
Alon Levy December 11, 2009 - 2:07 pm

Eliminating the Z would make the rush hour J five minutes slower.

Reply
John Price December 11, 2009 - 4:46 pm

Also since the W terminates in lower Manhattan and the Q has a much longer route, service in Queens will be much less frequent because while it’s the same number of trains (N/W replaced by N/Q) they have a longer overall distance to travel.

Reply
Brian H December 11, 2009 - 12:58 pm

BTW, where I work, I’m pretty sure people are supposed to get fired for $200 million mistakes. Can we fire Carl Kruger for this?

Reply
Marc Shepherd December 11, 2009 - 1:25 pm

The people to fire are your state legislators.

Reply
Caelestor December 11, 2009 - 2:08 pm

Frankly, the Unlimited cards make rides way too cheap. About $1.30 per ride the last time I read about it. That’s a steal when you consider how much car maintenance costs (hundreds of dollars a month).

I’m sorry, but the price of the Unlimited cards has to go up with inflation (which is skyrocketing in this country). As compensation, perhaps raise the discount of the Pay-per-ride cards.

Reply
Aaron December 11, 2009 - 2:44 pm

Inflation is skyrocketing? Really? Link please.

Reply
John December 11, 2009 - 2:49 pm

Yeah I’d like to see that citation too. Last I heard we were actually experiencing mild deflation in many areas.

Reply
rhywun December 11, 2009 - 7:49 pm

Too bad the cost of employing a TWU worker isn’t experiencing deflation–rather the opposite.

Reply
Scott E December 11, 2009 - 2:56 pm

I disagree (on the cost of unlimited, not the inflation issue). I’d much rather see the Pay-Per-Ride cost go up. As it is now, the unlimited MetroCard cost is about equal to a month’s worth of weekday round-trips (typical commuter use). Meanwhile a monthly MNR/LIRR pass is equal to 3 weeks of weekday peak round-trips. The discounts should be given to the heavy users, not the occasional ones.

Reply
Real Deal December 11, 2009 - 3:00 pm

I still say kill the Unlimited Ride cards as well as the bonus.Honestly there should be a hard fare for the bus and subways.WAY too many people abuse the cards and the swipers at unmanned stations take funds away from the system.Problem solved on both areas,everyone pays their fair share and swipers in unmanned stations have to find a plan B.If transit was bold enuff to do this,SURE it would P!SS off a lot of commuters,but the big picture no cuts in service and no more dependency of our joke of a state government.

Reply
Real Deal December 11, 2009 - 3:02 pm

And technically it wouldn’t be a fare hike.

Reply
jon December 11, 2009 - 3:13 pm

So long as we can charge every driver the full price of driving on every road. Also, no discounts on toll bridges for those with EZ-Pass or traveling at odd times.

Finally, to apply this to the wider world. Sam’s Club, Costco, BJ’s, Walmart and every other retailer that gives you a discount for buying/using in bulk must change their pricing policies.

If you want to eliminate the illegal swipers, don’t allow the pay per ride cards to be used anymore frequently than once every 20 minutes. That is a much easier solution. They already have a limit of 4 swipes for every twenty minutes. Except so far as I know there no warning about this.

Reply
Benjamin Kabak December 11, 2009 - 3:14 pm

I don’t see how either of those plans eliminate illegal swipes. As it stands now, you can use a pay-per-ride 4 times every 20 minutes, but that would mean four paying fares. The Unlimited Ride cards time out every 18 minutes. So if you swipe once, you can’t swipe again for 18 minutes.

jon December 11, 2009 - 3:19 pm

Ben,
I mean to limit each pay per ride card to one swipe per 20 minutes, just like the unlimited ride cards.

At least at the GWB subway stop, I used to see guys selling swipes for $2 each. I can’t believe these guys are so dumb to use a full fare metrocard.

Benjamin Kabak December 11, 2009 - 3:21 pm

I think you’re conflating two issues though. Selling MetroCard swipes isn’t a rampant problem in the subway, and it’s one that could be stopped through some high publicity enforcement sweeps. On the other hand, for the millions of valid pay-per-ride repeat swipes — for families and such — you would be unnecessarily penalizing them by institute a 20-minute-per-swipe freeze out period. That doesn’t help to encourage system use.

Real Deal December 11, 2009 - 3:51 pm

Ben…I am not trying to be prejudice,but from what I see esp working in stations with an Asian community,they have 1 person swipe someone in and run off,come back and let someone else on 18 mins later and the cycle goes on and on.I can understand the average rider maybe what 60 times per month using a 30 day card but when you see someone come to you with an unlimited with 600 swipes or more,how would YOU describe it?What do you see?

Benjamin Kabak December 11, 2009 - 3:56 pm

Based on the average fare numbers I’ve presented from the MTA, that doesn’t happen enough to make changing the way the entire system works worthwhile. Just ramp up enforcement measures against people selling swipes; don’t screw over everyone else.

Aaron December 11, 2009 - 4:16 pm

Is there a reason this blog tolerates hateful (and unsourced) slurs against Asians from this guy on very post? I’m getting sick of reading this sewage on ever page.

Benjamin Kabak December 11, 2009 - 4:18 pm

I haven’t noticed any others beyond this one. If you feel it’s a problem, drop me a note, and I’ll look into it. I’m certainly not going to tolerate unfounded racist attacks on ethnic groups here.

AK December 11, 2009 - 5:00 pm

He’s said similar things about Asians in the past re: the misuse of Metrocards. He is speaking anecdotally, and I wouldn’t classify them as “racist attacks,” even though they very well could be grounded in subconscious/conscious prejudicial thought. I would certainly not ban him from posting, but hey, its not my blog 🙂

Real Deal December 11, 2009 - 5:05 pm

First off I am not any kind of a racist in any way shape or form.If I offended anyone which wasn’t my intent I apologize and I am very contrite about it and will be a little more sensetive next time.

John December 11, 2009 - 5:05 pm

Then maybe a better solution is to increase that lock-out time from 18 minutes to an hour, rather than screwing over the people who are using the system as intended. If they had to wait an hour per person I don’t think very many people would be patient enough to do it.

Alon Levy December 11, 2009 - 5:38 pm

That’s a bad idea. What if I use my unlimited monthly for a short trip and back?

Aaron December 11, 2009 - 5:51 pm

I’ve regularly used my card to take a train 1-2 stops, stop and buy something (usually Union Square) and get back on the train. I’m in a wheelchair so it’s taken me a bit longer than most people, but if I go from Herald to Union on the Broadway BMT I bet the swipes are around 30 minutes apart.

Real Deal December 11, 2009 - 3:56 pm

Uh Jon….the illegal swipers use Unlimited Ride cards.Trust me,I see it a lot more than you do.As per Costco,Sams Club,BJ’s and walmart what does that have to do with anything.The above mentioned is private industry and with the exception of Walmart have a registration fee as the MTA is a public entity.Also YES make even the EZ Pass users pay the full share too.

AK December 11, 2009 - 4:18 pm

Why would we get rid of the EZ Pass discount? EZ Pass allows fare payment without a toll-taker earning $65,000/year and limits carbon output. We should INCREASE the disparity between cash tolls and EZ Pass and eventually require EZ Pass everywhere. In fact, I have heard that the East River Bridge tolls would be ALL EZ Pass and that if you didn’t have a tag on your car, a camera would snap a picture of your license plate and you’d receive a bill from the State of New York for the fare + 50% surcharge. Sounds good to me!

E. Aron December 11, 2009 - 6:01 pm

Wont dropping W and Z service save like $5M? It’s too bad they’re cutting service and lowering the quality of life for the commuters relying on these lines for scraps, but I guess that’s the position they’re in thanks to the bozos upstate.

Reply
rhywun December 11, 2009 - 7:57 pm

Are these the same set of service cuts that will make up less than 10% of the shortfall (at the moment–who knows what it will be tomorrow)? Or do they propose 10x the cuts to make up the whole thing…? Or… is this just the same posturing that takes place every time there’s a budget problem? Grab some attention with some high-visibility, but ultimately insignificant, service cuts, in the hopes the Albany will pull another gimmick out of its sleeve to make the problem disappear for awhile.

As for Bloomberg, he’s too busy gallivanting around Denmark nurturing his future gubernatorial/presidential ambitions to pay any attention to this mess.

Reply
Non-union employees to face 10 percent pay cut :: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog December 12, 2009 - 1:50 pm

[…] the MTA looks to seal an unexpected $343 million gap in its budget, we know that last year’s Doomsday cuts proposal is back on the table. Today, Sewell Chan of The Times reports that the MTA’s non-union […]

Reply
Abba December 12, 2009 - 7:16 pm

Benjamin’ could you link me to the article when the mta wanted to do more drastic cuts?

Reply

Leave a Comment