Archive for MTA Economics
Report: No pay cuts for MTA admins
Posted by: | CommentsAlthough the MTA is still planning on laying off 680 administrative workers later this year in an effort to save $65 million annually, a report in amNew York today alleges that the authority will not be enacting a 10 percent pay cut as was originally planned. Heather Haddon reports that the MTA was able to “cut expenses to avoid the $49 million pay reduction.” While union officials responded as union officials will to this news, I’m left wondering about the accounting. The total package of service cuts will, for instance, save New York City Transit $77.6 million in annual reductions. As much as I don’t like to advocate for cutting salaries, I’d much rather see Transit enact just $28.6 million worth of cuts and have those administrators take their pay cuts than suffer through the upcoming service cuts.
A groundbreaking at Atlantic Yards
Posted by: | CommentsEarlier this afternoon, Bruce Ratner and a bunch of New York politicos celebrated the groundbreaking of the Barclays Center at the Atlantic Yards. The ceremony was filled with all of the pomp and circumstance one would expect from an oft-delayed groundbreaking, but I can’t help thinking about how the MTA has voluntarily allowed itself to get screwed over by Ratner at a time when it most needs the money.
Less than nine months ago, the Board agreed to sweeten their sweetheart deal for the land rights above the Vanderbilt Yards. Instead of a $100 million payment, the agency agreed to accept $20 million now and $80 million deferred over the next 22 years. Without reappraising the land and without considering other offers, the cash-strapped agency simply forewent money it badly needs.
Over the last few months, a few who pay more attention to the Atlantic Yards happenings than I do have written about this decision. Norman Oder at Atlantic Yards Report tackled it in December, and Noticing New York wrote an extensive post on the topic as well. Today, the Daily Intel calls everyone involved with the deal losers, and the MTA’s fiscal woes march ever onward.
How the state robs from the MTA
Posted by: | Comments
Albany lawmakers used money that should have gone to the MTA to fund other state obligations. (Source: Streetsblog)
When Albany approved a series of emergency budget reappropriations in late November, they did so under the public guise of a deficit. The money wasn’t there, they said, and so they had to take away over $100 million from the MTA.
At the time, an MTA press release sort of highlighted how the state hadn’t been broke but had basically stolen the money for the MTA and reappropriated it. “This is the first time that an existing appropriation to the MTA from dedicated MTA taxes has been reduced after collection by the state,” the release said.
Today, Ben Fried and John Kaehny at Streetsblog explain how this accounting sleight of hand amounts to state-sponsored robbery. Albany took money that should have gone to the MTA and simply moved it to another account. Talk about your two sets of books.
I’ll quote at length what the two had to say, but do visit Streetsblog if you don’t already:
The overwhelming majority of the $143 million reduction in transit funding did not originate from the state budget. Instead, Albany took dedicated transit tax revenues from the MTA and redirected them to the state’s general fund. In effect, Albany stole $118 million from transit to subsidize the rest of the state budget. That’s enough money to restore all the subway and bus cuts currently on the table in the MTA’s austerity plan.
How did they pull off the heist? To explain, we need to give a short intro to the MTA operating budget.
In addition to fares and tolls, MTA service is mainly funded by an array of dedicated taxes, which total about $4.5 billion every year. A smaller portion comes from “state and local subsidies,” of which Albany is supposed to contribute about $190 million. Already, we’re only talking about a small fraction of the MTA’s nearly $12 billion operating budget.
But here’s the thing — Albany’s “contribution” consists almost entirely of tax revenue that’s already dedicated to transit. This year, Albany put just $7 million from the general fund into MTA operations, according to the state Division of the Budget. The rest of its obligation to the MTA — $183 million — came from dedicated transit taxes.
So when the state made off with $143 million from the MTA budget in the December deficit reduction package, lawmakers were not reducing the state’s contribution to transit so much as raiding the MTA piggy bank and robbing transit riders of funds collected specifically to serve them. When all was said and done, Albany had taken $118 million from dedicated MTA taxes…
The dedicated revenue source in question — the Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance Fund (MMTOA) — was established in 1981 and consists entirely of taxes collected in the 12-county MTA region… So $118 million in downstate taxes, meant to fund transit exclusively, disappeared into the Albany money pit. Nothing in New York state law prevents the same thing from happening again.
Unfortunately, we can’t do very much right now, but Fried and Kaehny urge riders and advocates to be protective of our future funding initiatives. We could ask elected officials to prevent against agency theft. We could ask them to own up to their cuts. After all, the same representatives who approved this giant cut are the ones slamming the MTA for being broke. Politicians just shouldn’t be allowed to have their cake and eat it too.
Walder agrees to meet with students over free transit
Posted by: | Comments
As angry New Yorkers have rained scorn upon the heads of the MTA Board, new CEO and Chairman Jay Walder has been acutely affected by the people. “It’s tearing my heart out right now,” he said last week. “Last night at 1 o’clock in the morning I’m turning over in bed trying to figure out how to make the choices” about service cuts. Since Walder himself cannot order more taxes or higher state subsidies, he is left with but two choices: cut services or raise fares.
Despite this dilemma, Walder is willing to listen. The Daily News reported today that Walder has agreed to a hearing with students who are concerned about the impending elimination of the free Student MetroCard program. The MTA head will meet with students next Wednesday as they make the case for the student transit program, and he makes the case for an MTA very short on funds.
So what then can Walder do without money for the program and little political support from City Hall or Albany? When he meets with students, he must explain to them how the city and state should be funding the program and how those two governing bodies have abdicated their responsibilities to the MTA and, more importantly, to New York’s students. He should show him the chart above from Streetsblog and the one below while urging them to turn their rage toward our elected officials. After all, if the politicians won’t listen to students, who will they listen to?

Struggling to pay when the bill comes due
Posted by: | Comments
Once upon a time, in 1991, the MTA’s annual budget clocked in at $2.9 billion. In today’s dollars, that’s approximately $7.6 billion. Yet, for 2010, the MTA’s budget is a whopping $11.9 billion. It is outpacing inflation by nearly 57 percent. No wonder the MTA is going broke.
Just a few years ago, in 2005, the MTA’s operating budget sat at $7.6 billion. That figure was just $800 million over the inflation-adjusted 1991 budget, and it seemed more in line with an expanding transit network that had to hire a few more employees and institute more service to meet demand. What has happened since the mid-2000s, with its origins in the 1990s, goes a long way toward exploring the root cause of the MTA’s current budget.
The problem started with the duel blow of the Pataki and Guiliani Administrations. In 1994, the city cut back massively on MTA appropriations, starving the agency of $100 million or 15 percent of total city subsidies. In 1995, the Pataki Administration cut when the state reapportioned approximately $86 million in taxes that should have gone to the authority. It would be just the beginning.
Over the next 15 years, the city and state systematically withdrew funding for the MTA. Student transit subsidies were cut, and capital funding agreements rescinded. As Fox 5 reported last night, “In 1990, 26 percent of MTA capital projects were paid with state and city funds. By 2004, it was only 2 percent.”
Yet, throughout the years, the MTA continued to build and expand. They continued to pursue a badly-needed State of Good Repair program and began plans to build the Second Ave. Subway, the 7 line extension and the East Side Access project. While some of the big-ticket items are fully funded by the city, in the case of the 7 line, others — including portions of the Second Ave. Subway and many of the MTA’s capital purchases — have been funded through bond issues, and bond issues lead to debt.
The numbers are stark. A 2005 report by the Fiscal Policy Institute highlights the MTA’s debt problem. The 1987-1991 five-year capital plan relied on debt funding to cover 25 percent of the costs. Each successive five-year plan came to depend more and more heavily on debt, and by the time the state approved the 2000-2004 plan, 61 percent of the MTA’s projects were being paid for out of debt. Today, the bill is due.
In the MTA’s overall budget of $11.9 billion for 2010, debt service payments constitute $1.9 billion. Sixteen percent of the MTA’s budget is going toward funding for projects that were built nearly ten years ago. That far outstripes overtime, pensions and health care, and it is the third highest line-item expenditure after payroll obligations and other non-labor expenses.
So what is there to do? We can sit here and blame the state for reducing its capital commitments from a high of 20 percent in the 1982-1986 five-year plan to a low of 0 percent in the 2000-2004 plan. We can finger the city too as its contributions plummeted from 15 percent of the overall bill to 2 percent. But we can’t change the past, and while it’s easy to scapegoat labor costs, those haven’t risen nearly as dramatically as the MTA’s debt obligations have.
Maybe then the MTA needs to reconsider its capital plan. The state’s capital review board recently rejected the MTA’s next five-year plan because it had a funding gap of nearly $10 billion, and the Authority simply cannot afford to take on even more debt. Adequate funding for mass transit in New York City is a must, but that funding must be responsible and thorough. No longer can we saddle the MTA with crippling levels of debt.
Is the subway fare too low?
Posted by: | Comments
Take a look at the table above. It’s from the Feb. 22 Transit Committee meeting materials, and it presents an overview of how much straphangers paid for their subway rides in 2009. To me, it almost suggests that the fares are too low.
As you can see, despite a base fare of $2.25, the average New Yorker paid just a $1.41 per ride. Yes, this represents an increase of eight cents over 2008, but in real dollars, New Yorkers are getting a good deal on their subway rides.
This cheap ride, of course, comes from pay-per-ride bulk discounts and the prevalence of unlimited-ride MetroCards. In presenting this fare information, the MTA also provided a breakdown of MetroCards by type. In 2009, 49.6 percent of all subway riders paid with an unlimited ride card, and another 36 percent took advantage of the pay-per-ride discounts. The remaining 14.3 percent of subway and bus riders used cash or didn’t buy enough to qualify for the pay-per-ride discounts. Those are the tourists, the infrequent riders and those who cannot afford to spend more than the cost of the next ride they plan on taking.
For New Yorkers who complain about higher subway fares and fare increases, this real cost of a ride skews just about everything. In the packet, Transit mentions the cost of a subway ride in 1996 before the MetroCard discounts went into effect. That year, the average cost per ride was $1.38. Based on inflation alone, we should be paying an average fare of $1.89 or 33 percent more than what we pay today. Instead, we pay an average fare that equates to $1.03 in 1996 dollars. That’s a cheap ride indeed.
Maybe, then, the MTA’s problems aren’t only declining state subsidies, lower-than-expected tax revenues and the loss of student transit support. Maybe the MTA’s problems are that the fares are just too low. The agency might be in a weaker financial position today than in 1996 because fare revenues have not kept pace with inflation, and as labor, fuel and other costs have risen, the fares have declined markedly since 1996.
So, who wants to advocate for a 33 percent fare hike?
A student protest with the right message but wrong audience
Posted by: | Comments
Later this morning, at 9:30 a.m., the MTA Board will convene for its monthly meeting. Unlike previous months’ gatherings, February’s will be a fairly routine one. The service cut proposals are being digested, and while MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder will field some questions on yesterday’s announcement on job cuts, the big-ticket budgetary items won’t arise again until after next month’s public hearings.
Yet, the meetings will not be without some raucous controversy. Each month, the MTA begins its meeting with a public comment period, and today’s should witness some strident comments. TWU officials will speak out against the plan to lay off 500 union workers, and rider advocacy representatives will again bemoan the cuts. The biggest group there to present demands of the MTA will be the Students for Transportation Justice, an alliance of students seemingly organized with the help of the Working Families Party.
According to a release emailed out to writers last night, this coalition of student groups will attend the board meeting in an effort to gain an audience with Walder and to protest the planned elimination of the free Student MetroCard program. The students, said the WFP, “will attempt to deliver a letter to Chairman Walder signed by thousands of students, parents, and activists asking that the MTA hold an open meeting with student leaders and act to save student MetroCards.”
This isn’t the first time these students have tried to get Walder’s attention. Students for Transportation Justice sent Walder a letter in early February that went ignored, and the Working Families Party volunteered its services in a petition drive. As of this writing, the petition has received 13,391 signatures, and the WFP is trying to drum up support from a total of 50,000 New Yorkers.
There is but one problem with the WFP and its platform: It’s completely directed at the wrong people. Sure, these students can show up at MTAHQ later this morning and speak their minds during the opening minutes of the board meeting. They can also make a show of calling on the MTA to save Student MetroCards, but they will be preaching to the choir. It’s a matter of economics, and right now, the MTA does not have the money to fund free transit for students and shouldn’t be picking up the political slack on student transportation either.
The MTA said as much to me last week. “We agree that school children should not have to pay to get to school, but funding this service is the responsibility of the State and City,” Jeremy Soffin, agency spokesperson, said. “The MTA has been called the yellow school bus for New York City, and that’s a good analogy. All over the state school kids get picked up by yellow school buses, and they don’t pay to ride. But the bus doesn’t show up unless state or local government pays the bus company.”
Still, the Working Families Party, a pro-teachers union organization, is turning to the MTA and not to politicians who control the purse strings. Were the WFP to spend their efforts speaking out about Albany’s and City Hall’s dereliction of duty when it comes to funding for student transportation, attention would inevitably fall on the Department of Education. Why doesn’t the DOE fund student travel as DOEs do throughout the state and country? Eventually, pressure would build on the education officials, and the DOE would have to find more money for transportation. Pressure on the DOE would bring nothing but scrutiny to a beleaguered teachers union, and the Working Families Party can’t have that.
So we’re left with a movement with a message that winds up falling on the wrong ears. The WFP can rile up the crowd. They, as so many politicians do these days, can dump on the MTA. But it will be all for naught. Until activist groups and political parties put real pressure on Albany and City Hall, the MTA will be left flapping in the wind with empty pockets and no plans for free student MetroCards.
The psychology of the $100 MetroCard
Posted by: | Comments
As the MTA acts out its political charade of threatening service cuts and the elimination of the student MetroCard program in the hopes of spurring some politicians to action, fare hikes remain the 800-pound gorilla in the room. The Authority could always attempt to avert cuts by drastically raising fares. When I last posed a fare hike solution, 78 percent of my readers said they preferred paying more to suffering through service cuts.
Yesterday, fare hikes and other more equitable funding solutions for the MTA crept back into the news. In a report for the Drum Major Institute on Public Policy, John Petro studied the potential fare hike that will come as early as 2011 and called upon the city to enact congestion pricing. Although congestion pricing remained Petro’s main focus, his fare numbers are alarming. The MTA could have to raise fares by 15 percent or more next year, leaving us with 30-day Unlimited Ride MetroCards that cost over $100.
For the MTA and for New Yorkers, that $100 mark seems to be a bit of a psychological hurdle. The agency, after all, has always had the fare option on the table, and the powers-that-be could have opted to jack up the prices of a ride years ago. By doing so, they should shift the fare burden onto the backs of their riders to a nearly unprecedented level the world over. Already, New Yorkers pay far more through farebox revenue than their international peers do for what is ostensibly a public good. Why not make the system fully dependent upon fares?
The main problem here is one that gets to the very root of the subway system. Is mass transit in New York City a vital part of city life that the government should support or is it an unnecessary luxury that should fund itself? To become self-sustaining, the MTA would have to raise fares to such a degree that ridership would necessarily decline. Many people simply would not be able to afford paying $100, $125, $150 for a monthly pass, and the per-ride cost would soar past $3. Ridership would decline, and thus, to compensate for that missing revenue, the MTA would have to raise prices even more. It would be a vicious, vicious circle indeed.
If the MTA is a vital part of city life and the state economy — which it is — then the government should be assisting it more than it does. If the MTA makes New York City possible, if the subways allow for people to live far from their offices in affordable neighborhoods in commute in over many miles for just the current swipe of a MetroCard, then the government shouldn’t be allowing the MTA’s services to slide, their fares to creep up too high or the agency’s finances to slide into turmoil.
And so we arrive at the threat of a $100 MetroCard. When the unlimited card was first introduced on July 4, 1998, the card cost $63. Today, it costs $89, and that increase is outpacing inflation by over seven percent. When the MTA breaks that $100 barrier, many people will no longer view the 30-Day as a necessity. Rather, a triple-digit price tag makes it a luxury. Even if the card remains a good deal — and it will because the pay-per-ride price continues to ride — many people will be hard pressed afford that $100 outlay every month.
In the end, as Petro details in his report and urges in a Daily News op-ed, congestion pricing should hold the solution. Implementing congestion pricing to avoid fare hikes and the end of the student MetroCard program would save a family of four $2300 a year while contributing to the overall economic and environmental health of New York City. As those prices creep ever higher and the MTA slides closer to financial disaster, it is time again to consider congestion pricing. That $100 MetroCard may be inevitable, but we can try to push it off for as long as possible.
Times: Albany must find a ‘lasting solution’
Posted by: | Comments
Calling New York a failed state in its current iteration isn’t too much of a stretch. We have a governor with no public support, and a State Senate that can’t stop its in-fighting long enough to pass any sort of legislation. When they do get their collective acts together for a long enough period of time to get something done, the results fall far short of what is promised as is the case with last May’s MTA funding package.
Over the weekend — unfortunately on a Saturday when fewer people are around to read it — The New York Times took Albany to task for its MTA failures. In a scathing editorial, the Gray Lady called upon Albany to find a better solution for the MTA. With a budget shortfall of nearly $800 million, the MTA is on borrowed time, and The Times succinctly outlines the sources of the shortfall. Tax revenues are down; the payroll tax brought in $200 million less than expected; fare revenue is down by $100 million; Albany cut $143 million; the upcoming TWU raises will cost the agency $100 million. It is a perfect storm of bad circumstances.
The Times though is concerned with the machinations in Albany right now. Writes the paper:
Now Governor Paterson is threatening to make things worse. In a clear pander to suburban voters in this year’s governor’s race, he is calling for cutting the payroll tax in seven suburban counties around the city while increasing the payroll tax in the city’s five boroughs.
A Legislature that is heavy on representatives from New York City is unlikely to go along — at least on raising the city’s taxes. The danger is that legislators, also facing voters this year, will decide to cut suburban payroll taxes without making up the loss to the transportation authority.
Some advocates are suggesting the agency shift some of its federal stimulus money — supposed to be reserved for maintenance, subway construction and upgrades — to use for operations. Transportation experts warn that if that happens, the system would deteriorate. Remember the ratty old subways of 30 years ago?
Albany must come up with a lasting solution for the M.T.A. That means leaving the payroll tax alone and finding new revenue sources — starting with tolls on Manhattan’s free bridges that could raise an estimated $600 million a year. It may mean raising fares, although that should be a last resort. It will mean supporting the new Metropolitan Transportation Authority chairman, Jay Walder, including in his plans to lay off workers as he streamlines the system.
What it should not mean is doing away with free passes for needy students. Both the state and city will have to contribute more to help pay $214 million a year to help keep these students in school.
The transit system that feeds the New York City area is crucial to the welfare and commercial vitality of the entire state. Governor Paterson and the Legislature have a responsibility to make sure it has the money it needs to keep working.
In a nutshell, this editorial tracks closely with everything I’ve been writing over the last few months. Albany must find a better solution. It’s time to renew the push for East River Bridge Tolls. It’s time for a sensible solution for transit in a city more heavily dependent on its subways and buses than any other in the nation.
On the brink of bankruptcy, some fingerpointing
Posted by: | CommentsAs the MTA rushes headlong toward financial ruin, a few questions have repeatedly popped up in the debate over the authority’s future: Could the agency declare bankruptcy to escape its debt obligations? Who is to blame for the the fiscal state of such a vital part of the New York City (and state) economy? In today’s Post, Nicole Gelinas and E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute tackle those two questions. Although the piece features some of Gelinas’ concerns over the MTA’s escalating labor and pensions costs, it mostly focuses on those who have allowed the MTA to slip toward financial ruin.
The two point fingers at Mayor Bloomberg, Gov. George Pataki, MTA heads, labor heads and the state legislature all for failing to rein in costs, and on that front, they’re right. More important, however, is the discussion on the parallels between the Urban Development Corporation’s fiscal state in the 1970s and the MTA’s in 2010. When the UDC defaulted on its short-term debt obligations, it triggered a crippling financial crisis in 1970s New York. If the MTA has to do the same soon, the outcome could be disastrous for everyone.




