Archive for December, 2009

Updated 12:52 p.m.: After a morning of consternation and an intense discussion about its responsibilities to the city of New York, the MTA Board voted this morning to adopt the 2010 budget complete with massive cuts to subway and bus service across the New York Metropolitan area. To cover a budget gap of nearly $400 million, the MTA has preliminarily approved a plan to eliminate two subway lines and numerous bus routes, scale back off-peak service, eliminate a student MetroCard subsidy, cut Access-A-Ride paratransit options and reduce pay for non-union employees by 10 percent. The details of the plan can be found right here.

While passing this budget today, MTA Board members were vehement in their anger toward Albany and stressed their responsibilities toward the city’s millions of daily transit passengers. “I will not let Albany, Washington or the city of New York off the hook for their responsibility to come up with public policy that adequate deal with the needs of the 10 million people we serve on a daily basis,” Staten Island’s Allen Cappelli, a Gov. Paterson appointee to the Board, said.

Doreen Frasca, another Paterson appointee, also pointed her finger toward both City Hall and Albany. “This agency is in an abusive relationship with two dead-beat dads,” she said.

The Board members were unanimous in their feelings that this latest financial crisis represents an utter failure of government and broken promises from those in charge of overseeing the state. “Government has to do their share, the mayor and the legislature,” Frasca added. “That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this mess.”

“They” – meaning our representatives in Albany – “were the ones who put together a deal and said you are fine for the next two years; it was their deal that fell apart,” Jeffrey Kay, a mayoral appointee to the Board, said. “The politics has to stop. The public and the riders have to go through this, and they’re caught in the middle of it.”

All, however, is not lost, and these service cuts are far from definite. Prior to calling for a vote, MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder stressed the preliminary nature of this current budget proposal. “On a personal basis, it was only a weekend ago that I began looking at the service cut package,” he said, noting that the agency will “take some time at the beginning of the year” to reassess the plans to cut service. Hopefully, he says, the MTA will be able to eliminate some of the planned cuts after a deeper look.

In the end, the MTA Board members did not want to initiate these cuts, but they have a legal obligation to pass a balanced budget for 2010 before the end of the 2009 calendar year. The Board will continue to explore the wisdom behind shifting capital and stimulus funds to cover the operating gap, and that debate, which I’ll explore later today, will be rancorous as well. Some MTA Board members were in favor while others were not. “I have great difficulty in moving capital money to operating,” Mitchell Pally, Suffolk County’s representative to the board, said. “That’s the problem we had in the 70s when we did that and it took us a very very long time to change the negative consequences of that.”

The Board will also try to work with New York State and City politicians to find ways to avert cuts to the student MetroCard program and the Access-A-Ride options. Early next year, the agency plans to hold another round of public hearings on the cuts, and although today’s vote was a setback for the MTA, but the agency’s hands were tied. “Service cuts are what we can actually do as an agency to stretch the money we can count on for the 12 months it has to cover,” Mark Page, a Bloomberg appointee, said. “This budget is a part of our responsibility to keep the agency going.”

Clearly, this tale of budgetary woes is far from over, but hopefully, it will spur the beginnings of MTA economic reform that would lead to an equitable and steady revenue stream for the beleaguered agency.

Categories : Service Cuts
Comments (26)

I couldn’t make it to MTA HQ this morning to catch the MTA Board Meeting, but I am watching it live via the MTA website. For those of you on Twitter, I’m also live-tweeting some of the finer points of the hearing. The Board members are currently talking about their views on the budget gap. You can find me on Twitter right here @SecondAveSagas.

Categories : Asides, Service Cuts
Comments (0)

OldMTANYCTlogo Micheal Bloomberg, our third-term mayor who campaigned into office on the back of a platform of transit reform, has been noticeably silent as the MTA’s finances have come crashing down over the last ten days. He hasn’t pledged more support for the beleaguered transit agency, and although his appointees on the MTA Board have vowed to vote against the service cuts, that is largely a symbolic moved aimed to shore up support amongst parents who are dreading the end of the Student MetroCard program.

Yesterday, Bloomberg broke his silence in a way. While at the climate talks in Copenhagen, the mayor stressed the need for congestion pricing in New York City. “I don’t think that congestion pricing and those kinds of things are dead; more and more cities are doing it,” he said while on with CNBC’s Squawk Box. “Next time, come March, [the legislature is] going to have to balance a budget, and I think any kind of revenue source is going to be on the table, and it may in fact still get done.”

Later on, the Mayor tied his congestion pricing plan to the MTA’s current financial woes. Although he didn’t offer up anything more than an “I told you so” comment, he has a point. “You see all of the cutbacks in the MTA budget. The MTA has got to find another source,” he said. “If we had done congestion pricing two years ago, perhaps they wouldn’t be in this situation.”

The Mayor’s comments led me to some thoughts on user fees and service cuts. In the parlance of those who study economics and society, user fees are as they sound: They are charges — fees — of use for public goods. Congestion pricing is a user fee because it is a charge levied on drivers who use the roads, contribute to congestion and bad air quality and lead to overall reduction in economic efficiency in transit-focused areas. Subway and bus fares are user fees because they are charges levied against those who ride public transit. The money is, in part, used to offset the costs of operating the system or, as in the case of congestion pricing, used to offset the societal costs of unnecessary driving.

With user fees, those being charged can oftentimes pass along the costs. If the city were to institute congestion pricing, people who have to drive — delivery vehicles, plumbers, taxis — can simply charge those who are relying on their service for the fees. A plumber based in Williamsburg who makes 15 calls a day — say, seven in Brooklyn and eight in Manhattan — can raise his rates slightly per customer to cover the planned $8 congestion fee. Implemented properly, user fees should maximize the societal benefit from the use of public goods.

The MTA has another option when it is faced with a legal mandate to balance the budget. It can hold user fees steady but provide less service for the same price. Since the agency has promised not to raise fares this year, their only choice is to cut what they offer. Does this, I wonder, make sense?

As a transit-based city — the “most transit-dependent city in the country,” as Andrew Albert said — we as a society are better off with more service. (In fact, that is the beauty of the MTA’s capital budget, but more on that later today.) As a 24-hour city, we need the trains to run efficient service patterns that minimize transfers and waits. We need the buses to provide service where the subways do not and cannot run. We can’t afford to see longer wait times, more crowded trains and fewer buses. We are a service-dependent city used to paying user fees for a barely acceptable level of that service.

In the end, this digression leads me to one conclusion: I would prefer a fare hike — or better yet, congestion pricing — to cover the MTA’s current budget gap while the service cuts are pushed off the table. I will continue to advocate for the end of the MTA’s subsidies of the student MetroCard program; that is very much the city’s and state’s responsibility to fund. But in terms of increase midday headways and reducing weekend service, I will advocate for user fees instead. It might cost us a few dollars more, but it is an investment well worth it for the financial well being of the city as a whole.

Categories : Fare Hikes, Service Cuts
Comments (22)

In an effort to help the MTA stave off crippling service cuts while earning some political brownie points, two New York City Council members urged the MTA to reject the service cuts proposals. Council Member James Vacca (D-Bronx) and Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn joined some transit advocates in speaking out against the cuts. The two proposed an alternate solution to the MTA’s funding gap, but it is nothing more than a temporary fix.

According to the press release issued by the council members, the MTA would use $90 million in “unspent federal stimulus aid” that is supposed to go to capital projects to cover the budget gap while another $50 million would be moved from the capital budget to the operating ledger. Although the MTA may still have to cut salaries, the Student MetroCard program and some Access-A-Ride services, this $140 million accounting trick would avert the death of the W and Z trains as well as the cuts to citywide bus service and midday subway frequency.

Quinn’s press release has some information backwards: It says the MTA Board is voting a week before they issue the cuts when in fact it’s voting less than a week after releasing them. The council members though defending their suggestion as a one-time solution.

“If bus and subway services are cut the way the MTA is proposing, we will be creating mass transit deserts throughout New York City, stranding hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers,” Vacca said. “Once again, we’ll have citizens paying more and getting less. The city, state, and MTA have got to come together and reexamine the agency’s budget so that these cuts never become a reality.”

The Speaker herself bemoaned the lack of public hearings on the cuts. “We normally would not favor using capital funding towards operating expenses,” she said. “However under these circumstances, this is the only appropriate action to take. The MTA’s decision not to hold a single public hearing for straphangers to weigh in on proposed service cuts or the elimination of student metro cards is a slap in the face to millions of hardworking families. Before these drastic changes are made, the MTA must pledge to give the public a chance to voice their concerns before enacting these extreme changes.”

Quinn and Vacca should understand the MTA is legally obligated to pass a balanced budget before the end of the year. Without permission from Albany, there is simply no time to hold public hearings and, based on the hearings earlier this year, no real point to them. People aren’t going to like the hikes whether or not the MTA holds some hearings.

In the end, though, it’s not about hearings; it’s about an unsatisfactory solution. For now, moving money from one budget to the other would avoid the service cuts, but it is nothing more than a short-term fix. The MTA has suffered through decades of short-term fixes, and the last thing the agency could do is move money from its capital budget to its operating expenses. The capital budgets ensure that this system doesn’t fall apart and, in fact, continues to grow. The Council should come up with more permanent ways to fund the MTA. The city is depending upon it.

Comments (14)

When an eleventh-hour Albany bailout package earlier this year ensured that the MTA would not need to institute its original Doomsday budget proposal, I ran something of a postmortem on the transit advocates’ roles in the debate. In a rather scathing piece that generated strong feelings on both sides of the divide, I questioned the Straphangers’ approach toward their advocacy campaign and wondered if they were truly taking advantage of their position as the city’s leading — and sometimes only — transit advocacy group.

Since then, the Campaign has seemingly taken a more vocal role in trying to educate the public. Gene Russianoff has been quick to point out that the payroll tax short fall is entirely Albany’s fault, and he has, for better or worse, proposed alternate ways the MTA could close its budget gap without cutting too many services.

But an e-mail I received yesterday made me raise an eyebrow or two. First, it starts out saying, “For the MTA, reviving these cuts would shred its credibility.” Of course, it’s not for another three paragraphs that the Straphangers accuse Albany of not doing its job. Perhaps the MTA does lose its credibility, but who should lose more credibility — the agency tasked with balancing its budget or the state legislature whose empty promises have left the authority nearly broke? I still believe the better strategy for a transit advocacy group is to educate and not to finger-point at the agency that has few options available to it.

It gets better though when the Straphangers bring math into the equation:

Riders have every right to be mad as hell ­– and parents furious. Ending full-fare and half-fare discounts for 550,000 students in New York would be a huge financial burden on families. For example, it would cost a parent at least $1,069 annually to pay to get their full-fare child to school (280 school days x $1.91 x 2. A $1.91 represents 15% off $2.25, the current base fare.) $1069 equal to the costs of a 30-day pass for an entire year!

Now, first, the Campaign’s math is simply wrong. I use a 30-day card every month, and the totally yearly cost to me is $1068. I might be picking a bone over one dollar, but it’s just sloppy multiplication. That’s not the real problem though; the real problem is one of simple common sense. If, as the Straphangers contend, it will actually cost less to buy 30-day passes for a year than it will to pay the full fare everyday for 280 school days, wouldn’t parents just, you know, buy 30-day passes for their school-bound children? So much would it actually cost to send two children to school for 280 days? Let’s find out.

One 2010-2011 school year calendar I’ve seen has school beginning on Monday, Sept. 13 after the Jewish holidays. Students are then in school through Dec. 17, return on Jan. 3, have a week off in both February and April and see the year wrap up around June 17. The fall semester, then, would cover three unlimited ride MetroCards plus five days of paying the full fare. The spring semester would require five unlimited ride MetroCards and another two-week MetroCard plus five days of the full fare. How’s the math look?

(8*$89)+$51.50+(10*$1.91*2)=$801.70

But there’s a further problem: There aren’t 280 school days in the calendar year. There are approximately 180 school days in New York City. The math for a full-fare ride for the actual school year looks like this:

180*$1.91*2=$687.60

No matter how you slice or dice, for many families, that figure will still look expensive. Some who use transit on the weekends will opt for the $800 approach; others may stick with the $687 figure. No matter the cost, it will be a burden to spend those additional hundreds of dollars on student transportation costs, and after enjoying free rides for years, parents will experience an element of sticker shock here.

But my main point is that the Straphangers should be presenting an honest expense figure here. It will cost between $687 and $800 to send one student to school for the entire school year, excluding summers. The public deserves to know that, and the Straphangers, a ridership advocacy group, should not be releasing widely inflated figure as they did yesterday.

As news got around of the MTA’s new plan to cut services yesterday, New Yorkers acted with predictable outrage. Many were sympathetic to the plight of the MTA while others wondered how the authority could target two vulnerable groups — students and the disabled — with the bulk of their cuts.

The truth is that yesterday’s announcement was the first in an intricate six-month political game the MTA will now play with the city and state. On Monday, the MTA Board’s Finance Committee approved these service cuts with an eye toward closing a $383-million budget gap. Tomorrow, the full MTA Board, under a legal mandate to pass a balanced budget before the end of the 2009 calendar year, will listen to MTA CFO Gary Dellaverson’s proposal and will debate it. The mayor’s appointees to the MTA Board probably won’t approve it, but in the end, the Board will pass this plan.

From there, everything slows down. The bulk of the cuts — those involving subway and bus service — will not be implemented until mid year. Right now, June 2010 is the target date for the elimination of the W and Z as well as the cut backs to buses. After that, the student Metrocard program will be reduced from a free ride to a half-price scheme in September with a full elimination of the subsidies the following year.

Those representing the MTA are well aware that these cuts are far from certain. “If this budget were to get passed, it’s nothing but a plan,” Jeffrey A. Kay, one of Bloomberg’s MTA Board appointees, said to The Times. “There are many, many other steps and changes that will be made before things get implemented.”

Despite Kay’s seemingly optimistic approach, Jay Walder, MTA CEO and Chairman, was more pessimistic. Outside of a politically unpalatable fare hike, the cuts are all the MTA can do to fulfill its legal budgetary obligations. “I don’t want to leave you with the sense that this isn’t very real,” he said. “There are few other ways to look at balancing a budget hole of the magnitude that it is right now.”

Still, there is an element of politics here, and Michael Grynbaum of The Times explored that today:

There appeared to be a bit of political brinkmanship at play. Leaders at the transportation authority were quick to point out that the [Student MetroCard] program used to be fully financed by the city and state, which have reduced or limited their contributions in recent years. An authority spokesman, Jeremy Soffin, said that it was uncommon for transit systems to shoulder the costs of student travel.

Charles Brecher, research director at the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonprofit fiscal monitor, said that while cutting student discounts underscored the pressures facing the authority, it could also be used as an effective negotiating tool.

“It helps create the notion that other parties share some of the responsibility,” he said. “It’s not just a general holding out of the cup. It says, ‘If you, the city, would increase your share, we wouldn’t have to do this.’”

I disagree with Brecher here in one sense. It isn’t about creating the notion of shared responsibility; rather, it is about educating the public about the city’s and state’s neglect of their responsibilities toward the MTA. It is politics because the politicians are the one who can deliver. The politicians are the one who told the MTA not to institute drastic fare hikes and service cuts last year because Albany would deliver an appropriate bailout package, and the politicians are the ones who refuse to implement an East River Bridge tolling plan or congestion pricing scheme that would equitably fund transit.

In the end, these cuts are simply on the table. It will be six months until they go into effect, and that gives New Yorkers six months to urge their representatives to find solutions for the MTA’s funding problems — problems which Albany created. Six months seems to be a good amount of time, but it’s not. If ever there were a time to pressure New York’s politicians, it is now. The city’s transit network depends on it.

Comments (10)

MetroCardContributions

In an effort to close an unexpected budget gap of nearly $400 million, the MTA this morning unveiled a plan to cut services across the city. While two subway lines and a few bus routes will be eliminated and service on others severely reduced, the city’s students and disabled are the hardest hit in the latest round of cuts.

As the Gary Dellaverson, MTA CFO, explained this morning, this new budget gap developed early last week when payroll tax totals came in at around $200 million below expectations. The state has since revised that number upward to $100 million below expectations, but that $100 million combined with lower expectations for 2010, a late-year cut of $143 million in appropriations to the MTA and a labor arbitration ruling that will add $91 million to the MTA’s bottom line next year has led to a deficit of $383 million. Since the agency has promised to avoid a fare hike until 2011, cuts are on the table.

“To present a balanced budget despite losing hundreds of millions of dollars in State funding over the past two weeks requires measures that are painful to the MTA, our employees and our customers,” Dellaverson said to the MTA’s finance committee. “Given the ongoing downturn in the broader economy and the resultant economic crisis facing the State, we have worked to balance the budget while maintaining our commitment to riders not to increase fares in 2010.”

And the cuts are severe. In addition to reviving the Doomsday service cuts, the MTA will rollback the student discount for MetroCards and will pare down services to the disabled until they meet the bare federal minimums under the Americans with Disabilities Act. At a time when the agency has few choices, it’s certainly taking the ones bound to attract the most political attention. The financial summary and board presentation, available here and here, respectively, as PDFs, tell a tale of reduced service across the board.

The MTA plans to:

  • Discontinue W and Z subway routes; terminate G subway route at Court Street;
  • Increase subway headways on weekends and early mornings; increase off-peak subway load guidelines;
  • Adjust express bus service to reflect demand and eliminate low performing weekend express bus service;
  • Discontinue and restructure local bus service on low-performing routes;
  • Eliminate Rockaway-resident Cross Bay toll rebate program;
  • Reduce car consists and increase load standards; and
  • Reduce service, on Commuter Railroads.

Although everyone will suffer from reduced service, more crowded midday trains and fewer overall options, students and disabled passengers will see a drastic change of transportation quality. As I noted this morning, the MTA seemed ready to axe student MetroCards, and that plan is now official. With Gov. David Paterson starting the day by saying that his hands were tied and the Daily News reporting that state contributions to student transit costs were down to just $6 million, the MTA could no longer afford to fork over nearly $170 million in voluntary subsidies for student travel.

Under the new plan, the MTA will move to a half-price discount for students in September 2010 and phase out the Student MetroCard program entirely in September 2011. By delaying the elimination of these free rides, the MTA is giving Albany ample time to find money for the program. The MTA should not be expected to foot the bill for a program the city and state once promised to fund in full. “The MTA” the financial summary says, “can no longer afford to subsidize this free service and, therefore, is proposing a roll back of the discount for school transportation.”

As for paratransit service reductions, the MTA is vague on the specifics. Michael Grynbaum reports that the authority will provide paratransit service only to the nearest handicap-accessible subway station and that door-to-door service will be eliminated entirely. The agency’s documents call for cost savings of $40 million in 2010 and $80 million in 2011 through “improvements in scheduling efficiency, an increase in the use of vouchers and taxis, better coordination of feeder service with accessible fixed route service, improved eligibility screening, and the elimination of the most expensive carriers.” No matter the end result, the MTA’s services for the disabled will be simply, as I said, the bear minimum required by law.

I’ll have more on these catastrophic cuts over the next few, but I want to leave you for now again with Andrew Albert’s quote. This is a mess of Albany’s doing, and our elected representatives are trying to wash their hands of it. That injustice just cannot stand. As Albert said, “To have this situation in the most transit-dependent city in the country is a complete failure of government.”

Categories : Service Cuts
Comments (15)

Unfortunately, I’m in the middle of a long take-home exam for one of my law school classes and do not right now have the opportunity to go in-depth on the MTA’s planned service cuts. They are very extensive though with students and the disabled getting hit the worst. In a way, it’s a great political ploy by the MTA, but it’s sure to engender more outrage toward an agency with few other choices. I’ll have a detailed post on the cuts up as soon as I’m through with this final.

Categories : Asides
Comments (13)

A brief New York Times article summarizing the various service cuts the MTA will consider over the next few weeks as it struggles to balance its budget and close a gap near $500 million ends with a kicker. After running through the service changes — subway and bus elimination and less frequent midday service, student MetroCard Cuts and a plan to scale back Access-A-Ride service — Michael Grynbaum drops in a devastatingly effective quote from Andrew Albert, an MTA Board member and chairman of the New York City Transit Riders Council: “To have this situation in the most transit-dependent city in the country is a complete failure of government.”

In a sense, that’s what Second Ave. Sagas is all about. Although this site started out on the wheels of the Second Ave. Subway, it has, over the last three years, morphed into an all-encompassing platform for transit advocacy in New York City. I try to explore every facet of MTA operations within the five boroughs (and often outside the city), and one major theme has been the utter lack of financial respect Albany and City Hall give the MTA. Albert is right; this situation is an embarrassing failure of government in a city more reliant on its transit network than any other in the country. For now, though, I’ll just keep fighting the good fight in my corner of the Internet and hope for a better transit future in New York.

Comments (11)

studentmetrocards Faced with a budget gap of a few hundred million dollars, the MTA may be targeting a politically sensitive giveaway that is bound to get New Yorkers riled up over the looming service cuts. According to a report in the Daily News, the authority is considering eliminating student MetroCards as part of a multi-faceted approach to closing its new-found budget gap.

Amongst the TWU’s arbitration award, the payroll tax short fall and the state appropriations cut, the MTA may face a budget gap as large as $500 million this year, and the Student MetroCards have long been a sore subject for the agency. According to Pete Donohue, the authority doles out approximately 550,000 Student MetroCards each year that allow the city’s pupils to ride the rails for free. Once jointly fully funded by the city and state, both political bodies have cut back their student-based contributions to the MTA, and the agency runs annual deficits on this program.

In fact, two years ago, City Comptroller William Thompson reported on the student MetroCard funding programs. Because the city and state contribute just $90 million to a program that costs $161.5 million to administer, the agency effectively loses $71.5 million per year on Student MetroCards. To make matters worse, this has been the status quo for these student passes since the mid-1990s. Why should an authority tasked with balancing its budget dole out free rides when the city and state have long ago reneged on their pledges to fully fund student transit subsidies?

The Student MetroCard program is based solely on how far away a student lives from his or her school and not on need, and parents are up in arms over the rumored cuts to it. The comments three Daily News reporters dug up are as expected. Parents say they won’t be able to afford to send their children to school via public transit, and kids say some of their classmates simply won’t go to school because they would have way to get there. Education experts too worry about the loss of free transit.

“If you’re going to eliminate neighborhood high schools as the mayor has in most of the city, it’s absolutely critical to have free transportation for kids, especially because children are required by law to go to school,” Clara Hemphill, a New School education expert, said. “Some kids are traveling up to 90 minutes by public transportation. There’s absolutely no way to get there without the subway and bus.”

In a rather absurd column, Michael Daly goes after the MTA for this plan as well. He claims that smart kids may “risk arrest” by jumping turnstiles to get to school and that the city will lose federal education funding because the authority’s cuts to the MetroCard program will cause truancy rates to rise. With this charge, we might be nearing the point where someone has managed to blame the MTA for just about any potential problem in the city.

The reality, though, is far from simple. It’s true that, for an eight-month school year, 30-day unlimited ride MetroCards would cost families $712 per child, but the MTA could opt to go for a reduced rate for students. Even a $1 or 50-cent student ride would enable the MTA to capture additional revenue while eliminating a $70-million loss from the agency’s books.

Furthermore, the agency should not be expected to simply foot the bill when the city and state refuse to pony up for a program they originally promised to fund. The MTA provides student MetroCards at the request of New York’s politicians. It is under no legal obligation to do so, and it is well within its right to threaten to eliminate this program as a way to draw more attention to its fiscal plight and more funds for its severely strained coffers.

Cutting Student MetroCards and those three free rides a day will hurt. Families will be forced to pay more money to send their children to school, and others won’t be able to attend schools far from home. But the MTA has its back against the wall, and it is fighting back with all of its might. End the great student MetroCard swindle and that huge budget gap will look a little bit smaller.

Categories : MetroCard, Service Cuts
Comments (55)
  • Extended Stay

    Featuring a wide range of sophisticated furnished apartments throughout the city and surrounding areas, ExecuStay can help you enjoy a New York extended stay that's both productive and relaxing.

  • Corporate Apartments

    As a resident of ExecuStay New York corporate apartments, you'll find that getting around is a snap, thanks to the many MTA subway lines, buses and yellow cabs.