Archive for August, 2011
Aug
16
Q Poll: NYCers support MTA funding, payroll tax
Posted by: | CommentsI certainly picked an eventful week to go on vacation, eh? Between signal fires near Coney Island and torrential rains that of course led to some subway flooding, the past few days have been chock full o’ service changes. But much like everything else in New York, the subway system goes on even when people leave for a few days. I’ll be doing some more traveling this week, but this time, my journeys will be within the U.S. I’ll try to post as often as I can.
As I dig through my backlog of news, I start with a story from the end of last week. A new Quinnipiac Poll on all things New York found some intriguing numbers when it comes to the MTA. Despite the fact that most New Yorkers begrudgingly deal with the authority on a daily basis, they want to see more economic support for the MTA.
The first question concerned the overall level of support for the MTA. “As you may know,” the poll asked, “the MTA is the agency which provides rail and bus service in the NY Metropolitan area. Do you think the state government should provide additional funds to the MTA, or not?” The answer shows a clear geographical divide.
A whopping sixty-two percent of New York City residents say the state government should provide additional funds, but only 41 percent of suburbanites and just 30 percent of upstate New Yorkers agree. Of course, that’s not too surprising considering upstate New York’s love-hate relationship with the city. They love to take our tax dollars; they have to use the New York economy to bolster some poor areas. But they refuse to offer up any modicum of support. New York City wouldn’t get much state money if it were up to people who don’t live here. That’s just the reality of New York’s blue state/red state internal divide.
The support from within the five boroughs isn’t too surprising either, but it’s a comforting figure in an age when politicians are loathe to do anything to help the MTA. New York City commuters know that more state support will keep fares lower and keep services running frequently. We’ve seen what happens when the MTA cuts services, and no one wants to live through it. Too bad no one in Albany is listening.
The next question concerned the controversial MTA payroll tax. Passed a few years ago to bolster the MTA’s seriously sagging bottom line, it was the politically viable alternative to any congestion pricing plan. It hasn’t been popular in the seven counties outside of New York City, and politicians such as Lee Zelding keep releasing trumped-up press releases about overturning the tax without offering any real funding solutions instead.
The question: “Currently, employers in New York City and the suburban areas served by the MTA pay a special tax to help the transit agency. Do you think that tax should be increased, remain the same, decreased, or eliminated?”
The results: 46 percent of New York City residents said the tax should remain the same while 15 percent said it should be increased. Just 33 percent of suburban residents said the tax should remain the same while 10 percent said it should be increased and 40 percent said it should be eliminated.
Now, those numbers are far from a mandate on the payroll tax. It enjoys a majority of support within the city and a bare plurality outside. But while politicians make noises about “job-killing taxes” and forensic audits that will magically turn up $1.5 billion in annual savings, New York voters seem to recognize the importance of the revenue generated by the tax. Overturning it without providing for other streams of dollars would be a mistake.
So we like to complain about the subways, but it seems as though enough people understand the dynamics of MTA financing to warrant a closer look from Albany. The politicians though are as silent as they always are.
Aug
11
Vacation Linkdump: Hugh Carey, Apple and more
Posted by: | CommentsI’m off for a four-day vacation this weekend and won’t be here on Thursday, Friday or Monday to provide regular content. In the meantime, I have a variety of smaller stories that have been open in my browser tabs for a few days, and I wanted to share. For the weekend service advisories, check out the MTA’s site on Friday.
Workers replace part of the LIRR viaduct at Nostrand Avenue. (Photo courtesy of MTA, Patrick Cashin)
We start with this photo. It’s from a great photoset the MTA published to Flickr yesterday, and it highlights the replacement of the LIRR viaduct at Nostrand and Atlantic Aves. MTA photographer Patrick Cashin was on hand two weeks ago as workers completed the project, and he snapped some great shots of some welding and the trackbed coming in. Check out the full set right here.
Next up comes a rather hilarious juxtaposition. Over the weekend, The New York Times complained that they could not get images of the Grand Central Apple Store from either the computer company or the MTA. In an editorial, the Grey Lady feared that the store would somehow ruin the landmarked building and its grand hallway. Strangely though, the pictures had already appeared in The Wall Street Journal. It’s a rather peculiar story, and I too would like to see more detailed renderings. But they certainly exist.
The Tri-State Transportation Campaign is worried that the new Tappan Zee Bridge will have no space for transit. Clearly, that concern is not a positive development. It would be a shame to mess up this once-in-a-generation bridge replacement project. For more on that, check out my past coverage.
Tom Acitelli from The Observer summarizes the qualifications for the next MTA head.
Finally, former Gov. Hugh Carey passed away earlier this week. Carey has an interesting legacy with the MTA. He was in charge of the state as the MTA tried to escape for the economic doldrums of the mid-1970s, and as Noah Kazis wrote on Streetsblog, Carey is largely credited with saving the city’s transit system. It’s insightful, however, to read the contemporaneous coverage from the late 1970s. The city’s press wasn’t so sure of Carey’s success then. New York Magazine was critical of Carey in a piece in October of 1979 and looked skeptically at Harold Fisher, Carey’s MTA head, in an April 1979 article. If I have some time next week, I’ll delve deeper into those pieces, but Carey’s legacy isn’t as cut-and-dry as it seems.
Aug
10
Map of the Day: London’s Tube with distance
Posted by: | Comments
The London Tube map with distance grid lines. Click the image to enlarge.
I’ve always enjoyed discussing the way subway maps are designed. Schematic-based maps give away to geography which lead to the intersection of the two, and it seems as though there is no right answer in the quest to develop the most useful and visually appealing map.
The London Underground’s map enjoys its place amongst the iconography of world subway maps. Harry Beck’s map is one of the most instantly recognizable around, and it’s also one of the maps least tied to the surrounding geography. Stations in the London core are placed to fit on the map and not the corresponding street grid, and tourists who try to use the map to navigate become hopelessly lost.
One designer has tried to remedy the situation. It’s a map that’s been out there for a few years but recently made an appearance on Boing Boing, and it attempts to bring a sense of distance to the Underground map. It is, simply put, the London Tube Map with a Distance Grid. Take a look at this close-up:
Here’s how the designer explains it: “The only real difference is that it has a fine grid that shows how far apart the stations are in real life. It also illustrates what the real directions between the stations are. In Zone 1 (pink), the squares have 250m sides, and in the other zones they have 500m sides. If there are exactly 3 squares between a pair of stations in Zone 3, then they are 1.5km apart. If a grid line runs between two stations, then one is due North (or possibly due East) of the other.”
I like the idea as a static map, but as an on-the-go pocket tool, it’s not so practical. The lines are a bit too hard to read, and it requires more thought that a map should. But it’s a subtle way to impose distance over a schematic map without distorting the features too badly.
Aug
10
SBS Woes: A summons for a broken machine
Posted by: | CommentsAs New York city and the MTA continue the painfully slow rollout of Select Bus Service offerings and pre-boarding fare payment systems, recurring problems are popping up. New York 1′s Tina Redwine yesterday produced a story on SBS riders getting summonses through no faults of their own. It’s a familiar tale: A rider holding a 30-day MetroCard finds that both SBS ticket machines are broken, boards the bus and receives a summons. “I am upset, because as a paying MTA customer, I should not be subjected to a $100 summons when I have proof I didn’t steal services that I’m being accused of stealing,” Aaron Goldberg, one of the riders highlighted, said.
The MTA isn’t too sympathetic to these plights. While authority officials said the summonses would likely be dropped and admitted that the machines were out of order, the folks who were ticketed on the Upper East Side still have to appear before the Transit Adjudication Board in Brooklyn. But that strikes me as an unfair result. The MTA’s proof-of-payment system is an antiquated one that relies on paper confirmation. If the authority isn’t going to stock the paper machines in a timely fashion so that people can board without risking a summons, something has to give. Goldberg and others are getting ticketing for being victims of the MTA’s own shortcomings.
Aug
10
The PA, the MTA and higher fares
Posted by: | CommentsSince the Port Authority announced its new budget on Friday, the New York City transportation scene has been a-flutter with interesting takes on the situation. Yesterday, we discussed how the new toll and fare structure could usher in a congestion pricing scheme that would generate more revenue for transportation and transit while reducing the traffic that currently chokes Manhattan. Today, I want to pick up a different thread involving the lessons New Yorkers should take from the Port Authority’s situation.
While the MTA and the Port Authority are intertwined, the two agencies operate off of a set of very different assumptions. The Port Authority is entirely self-sustaining. It relies on the revenue from PATH fares and bridge and tunnel tolls — mostly those bridge and tunnel tolls — to fund its capital and operating budget. The MTA, on the other hand, does not. While MTA Bridge and Tunnel revenues have long been used to subsidize bus and subway operations, they don’t come close to covering the operating and capital costs associated with running the MTA.
At Transportation Nation last night, Andrea Bernstein wrote an encompassing look at the fare proposal, and she discussed the differences between the PA and the MTA and how they impact each other. She writes:
Unlike, say the NY MTA, which gets (dwindling) subsidies from the government and from taxes, the Port Authority raises all its own revenue from tolls and fees. The bi-state authority is controlled by two governors, in this case, NJ Governor Chris Christie and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. Both men have cut taxes, and have made it clear they don’t intend to raise any more. Which means the Port Authority revenues look increasingly attractive to both men — who, after all, do have to pay for infrastructure one way or another.
Governor Christie has asked the Port Authority to use the $1.8 billion it would have contributed to the ARC tunnel to improve roads, which solves part of the budget hole created by Christie’s decision not to raise the gas tax to fund the state highway trust fund, which is broke. And the NY MTA — controlled by Cuomo – has asked for $380 million from the Port Authority for the NY MTA’s capital plan. “These raids are pressuring the fares,” says Kate Slevin, executive director of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. “Christie is using the $1.8 billion to plug holes in the state’s transportation program.”
But Tom Wright, executive director of the Regional Plan Association, backs the plan to raise tolls. “Tolls should not be off-limits. There has to be some way to pay for surface transportation.”
This difference inevitably leads to another question: Should the MTA be self-sustaining? Should New York’s authority pull a PA and raise tolls and fares to the point where everything can pay for itself? The answer to that question gets to the heart of the meaning of public transportation, and rational minds can certainly disagree.
The general nationwide perception about mass transit is that it’s a way to improve mobility for poor people. In the City Hall News article about congestion pricing, one source even says as much: “How does transportation affect the ability of the region to grow in a sustainable way? It’s a way to invigorate a center city and bolster mass transit, which is what poor people use.”
But in New York, that perception does not align with reality. Because jobs are concentrated on the isle of Manhattan and parking space is necessarily at a premium, people from all classes need public transit, and our city’s economy depends on it. The cost of use then must be low enough for the stereotypical poor people, but it also must be low enough to disuade people who might consider driving from doing so. (Similarly, the costs of driving must be high enough to do the same.)
That argument is a roundabout way, then, of making the case for subsidies. Earlier this week, I discussed the IBO report on the MTA’s uncertain revenue streams. By relying on a volatile mix of taxes and fees, the MTA is risking financial instability. Fares and tolls provide a far more constant source of revenue, but higher fares risk pricing out people who most need transit.
The MTA then is at the fulcrum of a political fight. Some in the state want to further reduce subsidies raised by taxes and fees. Others understand the need to fund transit but only to a certain extent. Eventually, the MTA will have to rely more and more on higher fares and toll hikes to pay the proverbial bills. Without subsidies, that swipe will only get higher. Just ask PATH train riders how they feel about that.
Aug
09
Could the PA budget usher in congestion pricing?
Posted by: | CommentsWhen the Port Authority dropped its new budget on Friday afternoon, the prices were shocking. The proposal — designed to fund a ten-year, $33-billion capital plan — includes steep fare hikes for PATH riders and a significant increase in bridge tolls as well. While the New Jersey and New York state governors have slammed the Port Authority for the proposal, indications are that the two have known about the budget for months. The politics of transportation fare and toll increases are always messy.
While Gov. Christie may be feigning the outrage, in New York, Andrew Cuomo may very well be using the Port Authority’s budget to scheme. According to an article in City Hall News today, Cuomo may use the PA increases to push for the return of congestion pricing. This is, in fact, a thread that Cap’n Transit picked up on yesterday. Let’s start with the latter.
The Cap’n notices first that the planned increases and the political responses represent some fantasyland where everyone recognizes the need for upgrades to the infrastructure but no one wants to pay for it. These projects — such as replacing PATH rolling stock and rebuilding the Lincoln Tunnel helix — aren’t free. The Cap’n also says the PA budget plan exposes the sheer hypocrisy and absurdity of the political fight over congestion pricing. He writes:
One of the reasons the Port Authority is raising fares and tolls is that Governor Cuomo expects it to contribute $380 million a year to the MTA capital plan. This makes sense in a way, because people from New Jersey commute to Manhattan by train, bus and car, and benefit from having people ride the NYC Transit subways and buses. Some people have noted that the $380 million probably wouldn’t be necessary if we were bringing in $500 million a year through congestion pricing on the East River bridges and tunnels. In essence, New Jersey drivers will be paying what the drivers from Westchester, Long Island, Connecticut and the outer boroughs refused to pay.
But even Streetsblog though didn’t pick up on one of the grand ironies involved in having New Jersey drivers subsidizing sprawl in Bayside and Mamaroneck. Back in March 2008, in one of the craziest episodes of the whole crazy congestion pricing debate, twenty New York City Council members signed a letter complaining that the proposed congestion charge would be deducted from any bridge and tunnel tolls paid the same day. This, they wrote, was “blatantly unfair.” They even demanded exactly what Cuomo is asking from the Port Authority this year: that it contribute to the MTA capital plan. Of course it was a total lie: the proposed congestion charge would have remedied numerous unfair situations, not created one.
And now, over three years later, it looks like this will happen without congestion pricing. Now, if there’s a remedy for a situation that is blatantly unfair, and you apply that remedy in a situation that isn’t blatantly unfair, that would be blatantly unfair, right? And yet – I have not heard a peep from David Yassky, Jimmy Vacca, John Liu or anyone else who signed that letter. They only care about fairness when they think their constituents are the ones being treated unfairly.
Since the Port Authority has a monopoly on the Hudson River crossings, it can essentially create a congestion pricing corridor and capture revenues it needs for infrastructure improvement projects. Furthermore, once these toll hikes go into place, the absurdity of free East River crossings will be even more evident.
That situation, according to City Hall News, may be nearing a head. They call the PA budget a potential “catalyst to put tolls on the free East River bridges and impose congestion pricing.” They write:
People close to the discussions believe Gov. Andrew Cuomo will accede to a $2 toll hike despite his public protests. And once Cuomo establishes that a toll increase does not fall under his “no new taxes” pledge, these people believe that would lay the groundwork for a coordinated toll plan that would raise the price to enter crowded Manhattan but reduce it elsewhere. “The bridge tolls will become the way to solve the MTA problem,” said one person involved in the long-term effort. “In this situation, it’s ludicrous to leave some of the bridges free.”
Publicly, the idea of charging drivers to enter Manhattan sputtered to a halt after proposals from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch died in Albany. In the upper levels of the New York City region’s transportation agencies, however, leaders have for months quietly discussed how to impose a coordinated system of tolls that would raise money for transportation needs while also deterring drivers from entering the most crowded part of the city. “You could have a rational system that tries to ease the burden in the outer boroughs while charging people who drive in and cause the congestion,” said one of those high-ranking officials.
Outer-borough elected officials who said it was unfair to charge New Yorkers to cross into Manhattan quashed previous toll and congestion pricing plans. Now, the transportation leaders believe they could change the dynamic by cutting tolls on crossings between Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, focusing the charges on Manhattan commuters. “The outer-borough leaders that fight congestion pricing are the ones that use the Whitestone and the Throgs Neck,” the official said. “Why do people in Staten Island have to pay so much?”
This plan — which would supposedly raise $1.9 billion — would include a $13 fee to enter Manhattan south of 60th St. with tolls on the four free East River bridges. The cost to cross elsewhere would either stay the same or be lowered. Tolls could drop on the Verrazano, the Triboro, the Throgs Neck and Whitestone Bridges.
Forces are moving toward a plan involving congestion pricing and bridge tolls. The health of our region’s infrastructure and economy may, in fact, depend on it.
Aug
09
DNAInfo: On MTA’s mixed accessibility record
Posted by: | CommentsA few weeks ago, the MTA settled a pending lawsuit concerning the Dyckman St. rehabilitation and the handicapped accessibility in Upper Manhattan. The authority agreed to install an elevator on one side of the station, and the settlement was a clear victory for advocates of the disabled subway riders in New York City. Still, the authority has a long way to go before the system is up to par.
A DNA Info article today highlights the challenges disabled riders face when the confront the subways. While it is a story we’ve heard before, it’s one that constantly serves as a reminder of the costs associated with Access-A-Ride and the progress the MTA must make. Right now, 73 of the 100 key stations that must be accessible by 2020 have been completed, and the remaining 27 have been planned for the currently capital plan and the next. Once the funding situation is addressed, these renovations will move forward.
The article itself showcases the other challenges. Even if stations are supposedly accessible, it’s still hard to get around. Chris Noel, a wheelchair-bound straphanger, took the reporter with him as he highlighted broken-down or offensively smelly elevators as well “steeply sloped walkways, gaps between platforms and trains and elevators that only access one platform.” Accessibility is improving but only ever so slowly.
Aug
09
Musings on the problems with bus maps
Posted by: | Comments
A glimpse at the Queens bus map shows intricate lines in overlapping colors but little usable information.
An article in last week’s Queens Courier made me laugh. “Queens Buses Lack Helpful Maps,” the headline read. Of course, Queens buses aren’t the only surface vehicles suffering from a map deficit. Have you ever tried to use an MTA bus map?
The article itself covers some familiar territory. The maps are hard to read; drivers don’t announce enough stops or connecting services; and bus arrival times are a mystery. Take a read right here. The big news seems to be that the MTA is hoping to beef up the information offering on buses. Says The Courier:
Traveling on MTA buses in Queens is dizzying for even the most experienced commuters – let alone the every day New Yorker. On most Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) buses, the only route indicator is a map located directly behind the driver’s seat.
The red, green and blue lines that wind and swerve across the borough’s bus map look like a board game gone terribly wrong. For most bus riders, the map is the only way to navigate neighborhoods unknown to them, and the over 100 lines that operate throughout Queens further complicate their commutes…In compliance with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the MTA requires bus drivers to announce bus stops at “transfer points, major intersections and terminal arrivals, as well as any stop requested by a customer,” said Charles Seaton, an MTA spokesperson.
In many cases, there are vandalized and torn maps or no map at all. Buses also lack route identification, providing riders with little to no assistance in planning their trips…According to Seaton, the authority has plans for audio and visual improvements, which will follow the MTA protocol for bus stop announcements. Riders can also use their phones to find directions from online services such as Google Maps and Hopstop.com.
The problem is one of familiarity. Those who know the Queens bus system, for instance, can use the map to supplement their own knowledge. A quick glance will reveal approximately where various routes intersect with each other and where they provide connections to nearby subways.
Problems arise, however, for those who aren’t regular users well versed in the ways of the map. The current MTA bus maps make planning a trip on the fly awfully difficult. Stops aren’t delineated, and frequencies are nowhere to be found. While the MTA has relied on apps to fill the information gap, those riders without the ability to check their phones will be left guessing or waiting if they don’t opt to drive instead.
Personally, I know these pains quite well. I’m very familiar with buses in Manhattan as my parents allowed me to take buses long before I could take the subway on my own, and I have a working familiarity with some Brooklyn bus routes. But if I’m going somewhere new and considering the bus, I’ll have to meticulously plan the route ahead of time or use my phone while out. The current maps, in their PDF or physical form, are a mess of contrasting colors, overlapping route lines and bare outlines
Better solutions are out there. Cap’n Transit has explored the idea of frequency maps for bus service, and others have taken a stab at streamlining the visual presentation. Yet when the MTA overhauls its maps, the subway diagram gets some cosmetic upgrades while the bus maps are left to their own confusing devices. As one rider — Matt Klopfer of Glendale — said to the Queens Courier, “It is very difficult to figure out where you’re going, when to get off and whether you’ve passed your stop or not once you’re on the bus. You need a magnifying glass and a college degree to both read and understand the map that is provided on the bus.”
Aug
08
Cuomo announces MTA CEO search committee
Posted by: | CommentsWith a little over two months left before current MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder jets for Hong Kong, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has named a powerhouse search committee of transit and labor leaders who will be tasked with finding the next MTA head. While they won’t be landing Richard Sarles, the committee is going to recommend and evaluate candidates who could see the MTA through a tumultuous few months.
“This committee will help conduct a national and international search to find and recommend the most talented candidates for the next chairman of the MTA,” Governor Cuomo said. “I am committed to appointing a new chairman who will put straphangers first and who will continue to reform the MTA by reducing costs and waste, while improving efficiency and service.”
According to the release from Cuomo’s office, the committee is staffed with “leading public transportation and experts and management professionals in the public and private sectors.” Many have experience in government, including a few former U.S. Department of Transportation officials, various former MTA and Port Authority executives and, of course, Richard Ravitch and Gene Russianoff. Krauthamer & Associates, an executive search and recruitment firm, will help in the hunt as well.
“Governor Cuomo has charged this committee with assisting in the selection of a new chairman for the MTA and over the next months we will help evaluate and review top public transportation professionals from across the nation,” Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association and committee member, said. “I commend the Governor for assembling this committee to assist with finding a new chairman, and I look forward to continuing to work together to revitalize our state’s public transportation system.”
While numerous labor officials are on the committee, they are closely related to the AFL-CIO. The TWU, it seems, does not have a seat at the table while only Fernando Ferrar, former Bronx Borough President and recent MTA Board appointee, is representing the agency. It is somewhat curious that no one from either of these two key players is on the committee, but their interests should be well represented.
After the jump, the full list of committee members and their bios. Note how Howard Glaser, a senior adviser to the Cuomo, has no bio. Peculiar. Read More→
Aug
08
WMATA head Sarles turns down Walder’s job
Posted by: | CommentsAs Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his cadre of transportation experts scrambles to replace Jay Walder as head of the MTA, they haven’t found many takers yet. One high-profile transit official from down south, in fact, said no. According to both The Examiner and The Washington Post, New York officials asked current WMATA General Manager Richard Sarles if he wanted the MTA top spot, and he turned them down.
Sarles, who has worked as an executive at Amtrak, New Jersey Transit and the Port Authority, has been with the WMATA since April of 2010 when he was named interim General Manager. The Metro Board made his tenure as GM and CEO official this past January, and the struggling system has seen marked improvements under his tenture. Still, he has no plans to leave. “He was flattered but he’s committed to Washington,” he said through a spokesman.
Approaching Sarles makes sense. He’s a northeastern with decades of experience in the New York area and has enjoyed success improving and expanding transit systems. That New York approached him though so soon into his time with the WMATA and that he turned them down speaks volumes of both how prepared Gov. Cuomo was for Walder’s departure and the ways in which outsiders view the MTA’s top position right now.
