Regular readers of Second Ave. Sagas know all about the MTA’s budget problems. As the authority has slashed subway lines and bus routes, raised fares, trimmed internal spending by hundreds of millions of dollars and fought to keep costs down, its money is drying up. Its capital plans can no longer be bonded out, and its operations budget is under attack in the form of assaults on the payroll tax. It’s only going to get worse.
In the new print edition of Crain’s New York Business, Erik Engquist and Jeremy Smerd ran down the challenges facing the MTA’s budget, and the picture they paint is a depressing one indeed. From Washington, D.C, where Republicans want to cut infrastructure spending to Albany where an austerity budget will leave the MTA with few capital dollars, the authority’s money is under assault. As I noted on Friday, the worst-case scenario could include 33-percent fare hikes. For New Yorkers who need transit, that’s a scary thought.
In three concise paragraphs, Engquist and Smerd delve into the budget battles:
The budget plan of Rep. Paul Ryan that House Republicans unveiled last week would cost the MTA more than $2.3 billion over 10 years in funding for rail and bus infrastructure and security projects, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-Brooklyn/Queens, calculates. While that plan for 2012 is unlikely to pass, cuts in federal funding for the MTA appear probable.
A larger problem for the agency is that the last three years of its five-year, $26.3 billion capital plan have no state funding, and it’s unclear how it will be raised. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who did not appropriate money for the capital plan in the new budget, has not said whether his no-new-taxes pledge applies to the MTA capital plan. Funding it from user fees alone would result in huge fare and toll increases. The MTA payroll tax imposed two years ago will continue for two decades but funds only the first two years of the plan.
Meanwhile, state Sen. Martin Golden, R-Brooklyn, intends to introduce legislation to eliminate the 50-cent surcharge on taxi rides that goes to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s operating budget. The surcharge brought in $81 million during the state fiscal year that ended March 31.
Now, these problems admittedly sound worse than they are. The federal government isn’t going to cut $2.3 billion from the start, but the MTA has come to lean on federal funds for major projects. The Fulton Street Transit Center has been funded solely through federal dollars, and while we can and have debated the wisdom of that expenditure, nothing would have happened in Lower Manhattan without federal money. Along the East Side and underneath the East River, the Second Ave. Subway and East Side Access projects are powered by large federal grants as well.
Hand-in-hand with those considerations are fears of inaction from Albany. How will Andrew Cuomo address the MTA’s capital budget? The authority’s current five-year plan, which includes the completion of both SAS and ESA as well as numerous station rehab plans, is funded only through this year. As April ticks away, no sign of action on this problem has emerged. The MTA will likely prioritize big-ticket items that have federal money (and thus require completion) over maintenance, and thus, the State of Good Repair will suffer further if Albany stays quiet.
And then finally, we arrive at Marty Golden’s latest plan to strip $81 million from the MTA. Is he aware that $81 million would lead to more subway and bus cuts? Golden, a Brooklyn Republican, is currently serving on the state’s Capital Program Review Board, and so he has — or should have — first-hand knowledge of the MTA’s fiscal woes. Golden has long opposed the cab fare surcharge on that grounds that it is just another tax on New York City residents that somehow winds up in upstate coffers, but it’s undeniable that the MTA needs that money. How will he replace it?
Times are tough right now for the MTA, and they’re only going to get tougher. The folks who end up losing the most though are riders who will wind up paying more for less. Without proper support, our transit system, our wallets and our city economy will suffer.
33 comments
Golden is just another example of the scorched earth cut everything political campaign. It’s sad reading how our politicians refuse to raise any sort of taxes and instead try their hardest to reduce revenues and dismantle the government. This “No New Taxes!” thing by Cuomo and Bloomberg is despicable.
It would be more despicable if it didn’t win elections… this remains a democracy. Cuomo is freshly elected, and was overwhelmingly supported by NYC voters.
Yep, and that’s probably the saddest part, that people have bought into it so much. Even the Democratic party is in line.
Okay, it’s not a tax. A congestion fee or gas surcharge is a “user fee.” We’re simply asking people to cover more of their own costs!
Bloomberg tried that with the surcharge on car accidents if one calls 911. The city council thankfully blocked that from happenning. New fees of any sort to support government operations are political SUICIDE in today’s political climate. Congestion taxing, as things stand now, doesn’t have a snowball chance in hell in passing.
A congestion fee is probably inevitable eventually. The un-recovered costs of driving are just too outlandish, and it comes from money that could be used for real investment. I don’t know what people are complaining about with the accident “surcharge.” At the very least, the person responsible for the accident should be paying for at least some of the wasted time/resources. It ought to deter accidents too.
There is a huge and appreciable difference between a congesion pricing user fee and a 911 services user fee.
There is one constant: the entitlement drivers feel to not have to pay the costs of their driving.
Amen to that! Travelling fairly regularly to London over the last 15 or so years, I can testify that the congestion pricing scheme has been an unqualified success.
A congestion pricing scheme simply will not happen, not in today’s climate where politicians happily GUT customer service. And how do you think politicians get around? Hint, hint, it ain’t public transportation. They drive, so why would they pursue anti driver’s policies?
I don’t like Golden. I saw him at an event back in 2009 right before the mayoral election. He said “We need to work hard and get Bloomberg re-elected, otherwise, God-forbid, we will have Anthony Weiner as mayor.” I was so tempted to say “Really, what’s wrong with Weiner”? And Weiner was not even running so I don’t know why he was so quick to attack him. Golden is just a clasic arrorgant politician.
Weiner kind of worries me. He’s really the NYC status quo candidate, even compared to Bloomberg – more or less Weiner is a conservative (a real conservative, not what TV calls conservative) jackass. He’s just less mean-spirited than a Republikan, which accounts for the bulk of his policy differences with them.
I think the Second Avenue Subway (phase 1) and the ESA will be finished. I think the MTA will end up cutting service to save money, such as slaughtering the bus service in Nassau, additional cutbacks in service to the fringe parts of Brooklyn and Queens. Perhaps they’ll have to start charging for the Staten Island Ferry again.
The MTA doesn’t operate the SI Ferry, does it?
It doesn’t, it’s operated by NYCDOT.
I’m always confused as to the circumstances in which modes of transportation should be free or be charged a fare. Were it not for political reasons, the SI Ferry should have a fare, I’d say at least the base MetroCard fare with free transfers for incoming and further travel. The only reason I would justify the free ferry (or a smaller charge like the previously 50 cent) is that SI is not walkable to any other borough.
It doesn’t matter. MTA doesn’t fund taxis either, but part of that fare goes towards the MTA.
They need to find a way to give a $2.25 surcharge per person if the taxi route mirrors any subway line at all. (So crosstown on 34th Street would be immune, but uptown on 8th Av would get slammed with the fee). Watch subway fairs wither back to the nickel fare days!
Yes, but the MTA carries a huge load by rail and by bus so that the cabs can at least operate in Manhattan.
Slashing service doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Nassau’s bus service is extremely under-financed. As long as the variable costs for a line are covered by fares, it probably makes sense to keep the line. It’s very likely that many under-performing services would ultimately be more expensive to get rid of than keep, especially given how difficult labor is to fire.
paying less for a monthly *unlimitied* transit pass than most others pay for car insurance alone (not to mention the capital costs and maintenance costs of a vehicle, taxes, or fuel costs) is scary how?
I tend to agree. The scary prospect is not fare increases, which would strengthen the MTA in the long-term. The scary thing is the fact that our welfare system is so inadequate that increasing transportation costs represent a significant, possibly disastrous imposition on the working poor.
If it’s the working poor that need more money, then the minimum wage should be raised.
I’d disagree on the specifics – better just to add new tax credits than implement more aggressive labor price controls, especially in an economy where there is already a surplus of labor and we needn’t reduce demand for it. But to the general idea, yes. The MTA should be able to set its fares, and grow them with inflation or faster if quality increases, without too much concern for how the worst-off will be affected.
How many people still buy the monthly pass? I buy day passes now for the days I know I will have to take more than two trips. Otherwise, it’s swipe/ride for me!
While I agree with you re: the cost analysis from my individual perspective, what it ignores is the greater benefit to all of NYC that comes from having a workforce that is highly mobile on a cheap basis. My major worry is that as costs go up, hordes of unlicensed vans and trucks will step in to fill the cheaper spaces.
What day passes? The MTA stopped offering them in the last round of fare increases.
What will it take for the MTA to stand up to the pickpockets that keep pilfering the MTA’s budget? I’d love to see them turn this around into an “event”. Publicize how much it costs, per day (whatever that is), to keep the MTA running, and when $81 million is cut by Marty Golden, hold a “Golden Blackout Day” where the MTA operates no services whatsoever (no bridge toll collection either). In the weeks leading up, replace those Improving- Non Stop signs systemwide with “Golden Blackout Day: Sunday May 7. Due to the loss of MTA funding by Sen. Marty Golden, the MTA will not operate any subway, bus, or rail services on Sunday May 7.”
Perhaps that gets followed by a Dean Skelos blackout day or even an Andrew Cuomo blackout day. If they play it right, where the cuts in dollars equate to days of operation, the public, and the politicians will get the message. (I intentionally picked Sundays as low traffic days).
It’s not unprecedented for government entities to take their gripes with other government entities public. Look at the Washington D.C. license plates.
The MTA could shut down service in protest all it wants, this will do nothing to stop pending cutbacks in federal service.
Even on a state level, most New York state voters don’t use public transportation. As the first poster said, government services in general are all subject to budget cuts.
Basically, the riding public will simply pay more money to use public transportation. Its just like how state subsidies to state universities are cut, who in response raise tuition to get in more revenue.
The irony is that bus service in Golden’s area would likely be cut. Remember the B37? Now the B70 wanders aimlessly through his district.
Having heard Sen. Golden speak, I think you’re asking for a feat of imagination and foresight beyond his limited capacity. Per the ADA, we should cut him some slack.
On the bright side, things are so bad that there’s opportunity for major reforms, which simply do not happen when things are going well.
1. The MTA could lobby Albany to change the capital projects rules to mirror those in places like Spain that get way better results for way less money.
2. The MTA might be able to seriously renegotiate its labor contracts, not just to get concessions on specific things like hourly wages now but on general stuff like work rules, stuff that will allow serious productivity improvements.
Assuming the MTA even wants to do those things. About the only body that can push that kind of reform is the state legislature, and they’re more beholden to the TWU than to the riders who suffer.
We can rally state government all we want for support, but in an austerity/spending reduction environment, it will take a demonstration of monumental need. Even then, it will likely come at the expense of other programs, creating a localized version of the budget showdowns in DC. As the political pundits say, “it’s the economy, stupid!”, and the longer ours remains in a funk with no strong growth on the horizon, the worse it will be for all of us.