The MTA’s current fiscal situation pales in comparison with the budget wranglings that have enveloped Albany and Washington, D.C., over the past few weeks, but for New York City’s economy and productivity, a relatively stable MTA is vital. Over the past 25 years, the authority has worked to upgrade its massive infrastructure, and while the system isn’t yet at a State of Good Repair, it has made great strides since its nadir thanks to the five-year capital budgets.
Today, though, there is a problem: The capital fund is nearly empty. The MTA has a $10 billion gap in its current five year plan — and that’s a gap that I’ve heard may be a few billion dollars higher — and after this five year plan, it can no longer bond out construction projects. It has reached the limits of debt it can take on and pay off in the future, but it must continue to invest in its system. That is, after all, the problem with running a modern subway system through a 110-year-old physical plant.
Last Friday, in this space, I examined how the MTA could close the gap in its capital budget through fare increases, and my conclusion wasn’t an optimistic one. The MTA would have to raise fares significantly to generate enough revenue to close that $10 billion gap, and the riding public has little appetite for fare hikes these days. So what happens if the fares don’t go up and the capital budget remains unfunded? That’s a topic Noah Kazis tackled on Streetsblog yesterday.
Evoking the “disrepair” of the 1970s, Kazis warns of a long, steep fall for the MTA. If you look closely, it’s sort of starting to happen now as the MTA simply cannot keep up with the demands of its aging infrastructure. He writes:
At the other end of the spectrum from fare-backed borrowing, the MTA could decide that it cannot take on any additional debt. In that scenario, the MTA would simply have to cancel or postpone every unfunded maintenance and expansion project — most of the next three years of the capital program. You can see those projects at the MTA’s capital dashboard, here. The result will be breakdowns, delays, and a slide back toward the decrepit and dangerous subway system of the late 1970s.
“You can expect to see the condition of the system decline pretty rapidly if you’re not doing this work,” said Felice Farber, the director of external affairs for the General Contractors Association of New York. “It’s not too hard to get back to the poor quality service of the past,” she said.
“You’ll have older buses, so they’ll be breaking down more often,” explained Pete Foley of TWU Local 100. “Subways will have to go slower,” as they pass over worn out tracks, he continued. “Eventually you’re going to have cracks. You’ll have derailments if you have a crack in the rail.”
Delays will be more common during rush hour as well, due to the lack of regular preventive maintenance. “You’ll be fixing things when they break,” said Foley. “They’ll wait until it’s an emergency.”
That is a grim picture made worse by the reality of the way the MTA spends capital dollars. For every dollar in capital spending, 23 cents go to expansion plans, 27 cents go “basic repairs,” 35 cents go toward rolling stock replacement and the remaining 13 cents are used to upgrade communications and technology infrastructure. The MTA can ill afford to let any of these projects stop, let alone all of them.
“In reality,” Kazis writes, “the MTA can choose to mix and match between fare-backed debt and deferred maintenance, putting off the features that might be nice to have and charging riders for the ones they need to have. The MTA could also potentially swap in service cuts or layoffs for fare hikes.”
That’s a bad reality. We’ve seen the MTA cut the Second Ave. Subway from three tracks to two; we won’t enjoy a station at 10th Ave. and 41st St. along the 7 line extension. What else will go before some action is taken to rescue the system from the slippery slope of the 1970s? Let’s hope we can avoid making the same mistakes of the past; that’s one history I’d rather not see repeated.
Leave a Reply