• On Long Island’s East End, a move toward secession · The good folks out on the eastern end of the northern fork of Long Island aren’t too happy. Their estimated contributions to the MTA run to approximately $60 million a year, and the service offerings are sparse out to Greenport, to say the least. In its service cut plans, in fact, the LIRR plans to end all but some weekend train service between Ronkonkoma and Greenport in order to save nearly $1 million a year. While only 160 passengers per weekday and 190 over the entire weekend would suffer, Long Island pols are not happy.

    Can you blame for it? Their constituents pay a reasonable amount of money and get very little train service. To solve this problem, the rumblings of secession are growing louder. East End pols are talking about establishing a local transit authority and taking over control of the Greenport Branch from the MTA. A recent study concluded that the trains could be operated on a more local level for approximately $45 million or a good 25 percent less than what East Enders pay to the MTA now. The MTA would be absolved of operating these trains, and the East End Long Islanders would be shelling out fewer bucks. That sounds like a win-win transit situation to me. · (22)
  • Paterson playing electoral politics with the MTA · Here’s a rather amusing story on the state of MTA politics in New York: Gov. David Paterson, facing the potential of a tough primary challenge from current state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, is slamming Cuomo for failing to lead on issues relating to the MTA. Cuomo hasn’t declared his candidacy for governor because, according to Paterson, he can’t answer the tough questions such as what to do with the MTA. “Why do you think he’s staying out?” Paterson said. “What does Andrew Cuomo think about the Wall Street bonuses, the last I checked he was for eliminating them. What does Andrew Cuomo think about the budget plans? What does Andrew Cuomo think about the way to pay for the MTA? He doesn’t have an opinion.”

    There’s no small amount of irony in Paterson’s statement. He’s the current governor, and he doesn’t have any viable solutions for the MTA’s budgetary problems either. The promised payroll tax has been a disaster, and Paterson doesn’t have the political will, capital or power to force a congestion pricing-based funding plan. Paterson’s plan for the MTA has been to cut appropriations, cut state contributions for Student MetroCards, reject the agency’s five-year capital plan and run for the hills. That’s not leadership either, and until Paterson figures out how he plans to do his job and help the MTA through its current funding crisis, he probably shouldn’t slam others not yet in the same position of authority and responsibility. · (3)

Those in charge of the MTA must be really glad Wedneday is over for it was yet another bad time in the long run of bad days for the MTA finances. As we learned late in the afternoon, revised budget projections from the state have opened up a wider gap in the MTA’s budget. Only later in the day did the extent of the cuts come into view.

Basically, the MTA has been fleeced by the state. Promised enough money to avoid either financial ruin or extreme service cuts and/or fare hikes in 2010, the MTA has not been given the millions promised to it. Rather, the State Division of Budget continues to adjust forecasted revenues from the Regional Mobility Tax downward. A statement from the agency yesterday summed up the bad news:

“The MTA anticipates that it may need to reduce the estimated receipts included in its 2010 budget by approximately $350 million (which includes $179 million of 2009 collections whose receipt was previously reforecast for 2010), with revenue loss of up to an additional $200 million a year thereafter. Combined with additional revenue loss previously projected in the Governor’s Executive Budget, the MTA could be faced with up to a $400 million new deficit for 2010.”

And so when we add the new deficit to the old $383 million deficit, we find the MTA looking at a 2010 fiscal hole of $783 million — or nearly eight billion dimes. Got a few to spare?

For its part, the MTA is “closely following” the state’s budget machinations and “remains prepared to take needed actions in order to maintain a balanced budget.” That’s agency-speak for “we’re screwed,” but the MTA, as I see it, has a few avenues it could pursue in order to gain more funding. Many of these approaches are politically unpalatable while others are generally unfeasible or simply not enough. Still, it’s worth an examination of the five proposals that should be on the table.

1. Adopt the Russianoff Plan
As much as I do not yet support moving stimulus funds from the capital budget to the operating budget, this move is clearly the most obvious one to close a budget gap of this magnitude. The only problem is that it falls woefully short of achieving that goal. Even if the MTA moves the $121 million allowed by law over from the stimulus ledger to the operating balance sheet and even if the MTA takes the $50 million PAYGO reserve and reinstates that into the operating budge, the agency would still be $612 million in the red. Plus, the strained capital budget — a necessary part of any future transit system that we will enjoy when the agency’s finances are stronger — would be further drained.

2. More service cuts
Right now, the MTA has a full slate of money-saving service cuts on the table. Although many of these cuts can be viewed as service reorganizations that better meet demand and costs, the MTA is still cutting train frequency and increasing load guidelines. These costs will save some money, but by themselves, the cuts can’t cover the deficit. If the MTA opts only to cut services, the cuts would be dramatic — think no overnight train service — and would cripple New York City. Still, if Albany doesn’t have or can’t find the money, this is truly a Doomsday option that remains on the table.

3. Raise fares
On Tuesday, I analyzed the debate between fare hikes and service cuts as budget-balancing approaches. In the end, 77 percent of those who voted in the poll supported fare hikes as a way to close the budget gap. For the MTA to cover this new gap, the agency would have to institute the already-planned service cuts and a fare hike that nets another $400 million revenue. To do so by fares would lead to a fare hike of around 10 percent across the board. Despite the MTA’s desires to avoid a hike, it seems almost inevitable.

4. Congestion Fee/East River Bridge Tolls
While one of these proposals could be passed without the other, I lump them into one item because they are, in effect, the same thing. Charging drivers who exact a cost on the city when they use unnecessarily free bridges would result in a guaranteed source of revenue for the MTA. Charging drivers who exact a cost on the city when they contribute to congestion and pollution would result in more funding for the MTA. The real problem here is that no New York politician seems willing to take the bull by the horns even though the majority of New Yorkers have, at times, voice support for either or both of these proposals. They too seem inevitable but not quite as soon as a fare hike does.

5. Market-Rate On-Street Parking
Last July, I ran some numbers and explored why New York should be charging its residents hundreds of dollars for the privilege of on-street parking. As real estate rates remain among the highest in the nation, the city gives away valuable space to cars for free. If the city instituted a residential parking permit program with tiered fees based upon proximity to transit and guaranteed those revenues to the MTA, the transit authority would be able to close a significant portion of its budget gap. Again, though, this proposal is politically unlikely.

So in the end, we’re left with the same options under consideration for the better part of the last two years. Even though more equitable funding solutions exist, when the dust settles, my money is on a combination of fare hikes and service cuts. The auto drivers — a small percentage of New York City’s commuters — will enjoy their free rides as the MTA limps toward financial ruin.

Categories : MTA Economics
Comments (35)
  • With new state budget release, MTA’s finances head further south · When the MTA institutes its sweeping package of service cuts this summer, the agency will do so in an attempt to save nearly $400 million. It’s now going to have to find double those savings to stave off economic disaster. According to the latest budget totals from New York State, the estimate revenue generated by the payroll mobility tax will now be $700 million less than expected from 2009-2011. With this news, the MTA faces even more economic uncertainty and a 2010 budget gap that will grow to at least $400 million after the cuts are instituted. At this point, fare hikes for 2011 are shaping up to be quite substantial.

    Meanwhile, the ideological divide between those who want the MTA to receive proper funding is growing. In response to this news — a development that highlights the need for a long-term fix — Gene Russianoff sent out a statement again supporting a short-term stimulus fix that won’t even close this new estimated gap. “The MTA’s widening deficit makes it more important than ever for the cash-starved agency to use currently available federal stimulus money to keep running as much transit service as possible,” he said, when in fact this widening deficit makes it more important to find a stable source of year-to-year revenue and not a funding source that will dry up after it’s tapped.

    On the other side of the debate is John Petro of the Drum Major Institute. In a Huffington Post piece, Petro explains why bridge tolls and congestion pricing schemes are both inevitable and beneficial for the MTA and New York. With wider gaps projected for this year and next, Petro’s is the kind of proposal transit advocates need to be supporting right now. A stimulus fix, estimated to provide under $200 million in funding, just won’t cut it right now. · (6)

A Train Departs

The walls of the new South Ferry station, shown here in December 2008, have sprung a leak. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

As the MTA Inspector General yesterday took the authority to task for glossing over its contracting evaluation guidelines, today, we see a prime example of work gone wrong underground. The new South Ferry terminal on the 1 line — a $527 million that has been open for less than a year — has sprung a leak, and according to reports, shoddy waterproofing by the project’s contractors as well as some design failures on behalf of the MTA are to blame.

According to amNew York’s Heather Haddon, the station is already showing an age well beyond its years, and her piece has a photo prove it. She reports of water-stained platform and mezzanine walls as well as tiles falling after the grouting has been corroded. Bad engineering, she says, is to blame. Reports Haddon:

The contractor, Schiavone Construction of Secaucus, botched the waterproofing for the station, which is located deep under the water table, according to the MTA’s independent engineer. For its part, Schiavone claimed that the MTA had flubbed the project’s design. An independent dispute board ruled last year that both parties were at fault and must share costs for the remediation…

Schiavone did not return a request for comment. Next month, the MTA will grout and add new tiles to the station with $3 million, which came from the contractor as part of the settlement, agency spokesman Kevin Ortiz said. The grouting should cure the problem, he said…

But the leaking could continue, as workers will basically fill in joint cracks instead of reengineering the station with better waterproofing technology, Henderson said.

Ortiz further clarified the agency’s approach to this problem to me in an email this afternoon. “We are monitoring the level of seasonal infiltration and will begin any necessary repairs in March during scheduled General Orders to avoid utilizing funds from the settlement for the diversions and to limit the impact on service,” he said.

For the MTA, water damage has been a source of aesthetic issues at numerous stations throughout the system. The walls on the downtown 2/5 platform, for instance, at 149th St./Grand Concourse station have long carried the scars of damage from water dripping out of corroded platforms. In other areas, wall tilings bulge from the pressure of bad waterproofing. Here, a $527 million project that was delayed due to a gap between the trains and the platform and has been plagued with some problems is the latest to carry those scars. Even the newest crown jewels can’t escape the problems of system more than 100 years old.

Categories : MTA Absurdity
Comments (17)

In complementary released yesterday, the MTA Inspector General exposed how contractors hired by the MTA are often given better evaluations than their work suggests so that the agency can maintain business ties with these bidders. For its part, agency heads say the MTA will follow the IG’s recommendations in an effort to improve its business practices.

The reports — available as PDF files here and here — find that the All-Agency Contractor Evaluation program, set up to “screen vendors will poor performance histories,” has not fulfilled that role. The fault, says Barry Kluger, is due in part to managers who are looking to curry favor with the MTA’s long-term clients. Wrote the IG:

Our interviews with managers responsible for implementing NYC Transit’s capital program provided an explanation for these deficiencies: an institutional reluctance, for a variety of reasons, to rate contractors’ work as Unsatisfactory, even when such ratings are the most appropriate.

One particularly disturbing reason given by many of these managers is that they felt pressure to upgrade ratings of Unsatisfactory to prevent important agency contractors from being precluded from bidding on future work – even though under the rules such ratings do not automatically preclude such bidding. In these cases, the managers sometimes allowed what they perceived to be agency “business decisions” to override their true assessments of contractor performance. By doing so, though, they effectively usurped the power and duty of MTA’s General Counsel, Executive Director and Board to adequately review and properly accept or reject contract awards in the future.

The examples in the reports are not unexpected. As Michael Grynbaum, who covered these findings for The Times, highlights, “managers at the Long Island Rail Road waited more than nine months to grade one vendor, DMJM & Harris, as unsatisfactory, after the firm’s work on a 2005 environmental consulting contract was deemed deficient. In the interim, that vendor received five more contracts worth nearly $25 million from New York City Transit, Metro-North Railroad, and the authority’s bridges and tunnels division; none of those other agencies were aware of any problems with the firm.”

Another egregious example of questionable ratings involves Siemens, the company originally selected to update subway signaling technology. Writes Grynbaum: “Under official guidelines, Siemens should have received an unsatisfactory rating. But a top official at New York City Transit instructed managers to instead assign a rating of “marginal,” a higher mark, because of business considerations.” We all get the point.

In response, the MTA has agreed to implement a series of measures designed to better evaluate and assess contractor performance and better oversee those issuing the ratings. “Too often we have let our contractors slide when they fail to perform, and that is why we have accepted the I.G.’s recommendations and are working to implement them,” Jay Walder, MTA CEO and Chairman, said.

For Walder, this report is but the tip of the iceberg of the inefficiencies he plans to combat. It’s a rather in-the-box example of how the MTA’s business practices are run with less oversight than they should have, and it’s a prime way Walder can restore both transparency and accountability to the agency’s contracting. I don’t want to be too cynical about Kluger’s findings or Walder’s commitment to improving the way the agency conducts business, but this is indicative of the organizational problems Walder must solve.

Categories : MTA Absurdity
Comments (11)
  • SAS, BRT to receive federal transportation money · Earlier today, the Federal Transit Administration released the list of local transit projects set to receive New and Small Start Grants, and New York’s big-ticket projects are set to benefit. Both the Second Ave. Subway and one of the City’s planned Select Bus Service routes will see federal funds flow its way. Elana Schor of Streetsblog was all over this story this morning, and she reports that SAS will get $197 million in federal funding and that the Nostrand Ave. BRT route will receive $28 million. FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff praised NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Kahn for her “leadership on this and other related projects.”

    The BRT grant is an interesting one because the Nostrand Ave. corridor has been subject to some car-based politicking. Local business owners who will lose their personal parking spots are not too happy about the project, and the vocal minority voices often tend to trump the silent majority who stand to benefit from faster surface transportation and a less congestion business area. While 19 elected officials have support the 1st and 2nd Ave. Select Bus Service plan without federal funding, politicians who represent the Nostrand Ave. neighborhoods have yet to speak out in favor of the Brooklyn-based plan despite the obvious need to speed up the painfully slow B44. Noah Kazis hopes that federal funds will change that anti-transit attitude. Either way, these grants are good news for some of the city’s cash-strapped projects. · (10)

Meet the latest addition to New York City’s extensive bus fleet. The Nova Bus LFS, which debuted in mid-January along the Bx12, is being called the bus of the future by New York City Transit. First announced last June, these articulated buses feature three doors, low floors and clean engine technology. Better still, this vehicle was built by workers in Plattsburgh, New York, and it truly is a product of the MTA’s state-wide impact.

Right now, the bus above is one of the 90 Transit expect to receive. These new buses will run along the city’s Select Bus Service corridors and these buses were designed with an eye toward speeding up bus service. “This is the perfect operation for a low-floor bus with three wide entry/exit doors,” Joseph Smith, Transit’s senior vice president at the Department of Buses, said. “Our SBS service is designed to move large numbers of people quickly and efficiently. Adding one door and subtracting two steps helps to accomplish that.”

The MTA recently provided a fact sheet about the new bus model, and it seems to be a nice one. The LFS is 62 feet long — or slightly longer than the standard subway cars on the lettered lines. It can fit 54 seated customers and another 58 standees for a total capacity of 112. “Boasting corrosion-free outer skin panels and frame along with improved fuel economy from its clean diesel engine and smart transmission, this technically advanced bus is expected to cost less to operate and maintain during the course of its service life,” Transit’s release said. It also features a rear window — a relic of buses from decades past when the engine components did not block the back.

With the addition of this bus to the fleet, the MTA is moving ahead with its plans to support the bus system and make it more than the inconvenient transit step child. The low floors allow for faster street-level boarding and combined with the pre-boarding fare payment systems, should help speed up what can be painfully slow bus service. Now if only the city would propose those physically-separated bus lanes.

After the jump, a view of the inside of the Nova Bus LFS with the rear window barely visible in the back. All photos courtesy of New York City Transit. Read More→

Categories : Buses
Comments (32)

At the end of this post is a poll about how you think the MTA should balance its budget. Scroll down or click here to vote.

For 44 years, from 1904 to 1948, subway fares in New York City cost riders one nickel. The Buffalo Head became the symbol of a subway ride for millions of New Yorkers, and by 1948, the five-cent fare had become a political issue. Those running the city’s transit systems could not sustain the system on five cents per ride — or the 1948 equivalent of two cents in 1904 money — but politicians ran populist campaigns focused around saving the low subway fare.

If that sounds familiar, well, that’s because it is. History has a funny way of repeating itself in local politics, and the subways have long been used as a political football of sorts. Fiscal improprieties and fare hikes have been the cause of politicians for decades even as the very same politicians refuse to find adequate funds for the underground veins of New York City.

Recently, we’ve seen all sorts of fare and fiscal shenanigans involving the MTA. When the Board had to raise fares in 2008 to cover an expected economic shortfall, then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer pushed to maintain a $2 base fare while upping the price on the rest of the MTA’s fare options. In 2009, the MTA raised fares by approximately 10 percent as part of the Albany funding package.

And so we arrive in 2010. Nearly a year ago, the agency vowed to avoid a fare hike this year, and we’re seeing that political drama in the form of service cuts play out. Were a fare hike on the table, the agency would be in line to raise the fares in four consecutive years and potentially five out of seven years for a biannual cost-of-living fare adjustment is likely in 2011. This hike — a centerpiece of the Ravitch Report designed to free the MTA from some economic uncertainty — remains up to the discretion of Albany as Ravitch’s recommendations were not adopted.

As the MTA unveiled its fiscal problems to the city in December, the agency clearly did not believe it to be politically expedient to put forth a budget balanced on the backs of a fare hike. In fact, not once did anyone at the authority mention a fare hike. Rather, as the end-of-year returns and 2010 projections rolled in, the MTA quickly embraced service cuts. Although many of these service cuts could be viewed as refinements that should better help the MTA address transit needs, the fact remains that these are cuts through and through. In particular, the Student MetroCards are a prime example of that trimming.

Over the last few weeks, many have asked me why the agency didn’t consider a fare hike and what a hike proposal would potentially look like. We’ll start with the latter question. In general, a one percent increase in fare yield — or money collected — will lead to an increase in revenue at the MTA of approximately $50 million. To cover the 2010 budget gap — estimated right now at around $350-$400 million — the MTA would have to increase fare yield by eight percent. That doesn’t correspond directly to a fare increase of eight percent because of the agency’s discounts, but we could assume an increase of 10 percent. A 30-Day Unlimited Ride Card would probably be nearing that magical $100 mark, and everything else would increase accordingly.

So why didn’t the MTA go this route? As I explained above, politics played no small role in this decision. The agency seemingly did not believe it could renege on its promise to avoid a fare hike this year, and it had a better card to play. By throwing down the Student MetroCard issue and forcing politicians to respond to charges of underfunding student transportation, the MTA could hope to generate more political agita that should result in more student funds. At the least, it’s a safer bet than anything fare related. There, politicians would stomp their feet and approve another fare hike.

In the end, though, we pay through service cuts. We will see train headways increased, load guidelines revised, neighborhood bus routes restructured and eliminated and service generally slowed down. Eventually, we’ll have to pay higher fares or else the MTA won’t be able to sustain an adequate transit network for New York City. With these cuts, the authority is beginning to run up against that boundary.

So in the grand tradition of bloggers who don’t have the right answer to tough questions, I leave you with a poll. Would you rather have a service cut this year or fare hikes? I err on the side of fare hikes simply because services rolled back take a long time to restore; the fares will eventually go up anyway. Not everyone agrees.

To balance its budget, the MTA can either resort to fare hikes or service cuts. Which option would you prefer?
View Results
Categories : Fare Hikes, Service Cuts
Comments (50)

The countdown clock rollout along the MTA’s A Division stations continued this past weekend as two more stops along the 6 line in the Bronx are now enjoying the real-time train arrival message screens. Buhre Ave. and Middletown Road, two lightly used stations along the IRT Pelham Line saw their PA/CIS systems activated on Friday.

With PA/CIS at these two stations now online, Transit has activated screens at seven of the 152 stations set to enjoy the new technology by the end of the first quarter of 2011. At numerous other stations throughout the system, the screens sit wrapped but unused as Transit continues to install the underlying software and accompanying communication systems. Officials at Transit say that PA/CIS will be activated at other stations not necessarily in the Bronx or along the 6 line as soon as everything is in place.

The new iteration of the countdown clocks features automated in-system announcements as well as screens in the fare control areas so that straphangers know how long they will have to wait before swiping in. Each screen features the next two trains to arrive and can be used to display and announce information related to service delays and emergency situations. For now, Transit has activated these clocks only at low-ridership stations, and Buhre Ave. and Middletown Road — the 367th and 405th most popular of the system’s 422 stops — fit that bill. I’m looking forward to seeing these debut at some of the more higher trafficked stations throughout the city.

Anyway, the photos come to me via New York City Transit, and the one below shows the clock at Middletown Road in the fare control area. As this system slowly comes online, New Yorkers can finally enjoy transit technology that others throughout the world have experienced for over a decade.

Categories : MTA Technology
Comments (25)
Page 2 of 191«12345»...Last »