Over the last few months, I’ve repeatedly touched upon issues of cost in relation to the MTA’s decision to cut student MetroCards. As I explained again on Monday, it should cost between $687-$800 a year for one student’s school year travel without the option of free transit.

But what of the costs to the state to fund student travel? Tom Namako of The Post tackled this subject this week, and his findings are both staggering and unsurprising. The state won’t pony up more than $25 million — down for $45 million, up from $6 million — a year for student MetroCards, but it is content to spend over $1 billion busing students to school via the fleet of yellow buses. Namako also notes that the MetroCard program “help[s] move four times as many students at one-fifth of the cost of school buses.”

Namako continues:

The agency said it spends about $214 million to transport 585,000 students for free every year, with the city and state putting in only $45 million and $25 million respectively. Meanwhile, the Education Department’s $1 billion school-bus program moves only about 140,000 students, city statistics show.

That’s $786 million more for 445,000 fewer students. But city officials insist that money can’t be taken from one group and given to the other. “Busing requirements are set by state law. The city does not have the option of using busing money to fund MetroCards,” said one mayoral aide.

The DOE determines who is eligible for both yellow bus and free MTA services.

This is a staggering failure of politics and common sense from the city and state of New York City. Both of the entities responsible for getting students to school have been handed a literal golden transportation ticket, and they are both on the verge of letting the plan lapse. Meanwhile, these governments are content to flush money down the drain via a costly and inefficient yellow school busing system.

The MTA remains the nation’s only transit agency tasked with footing the bill for student transport, and there is simply no justification for it. It’s time for the state and city to swallow their anger and do the right thing. If the students are left stranded, it will be the fault of City Hall and Albany and not the MTA.

Categories : MetroCard, Service Cuts
Comments (11)

The MTA’s proposed service cuts and the plan to eliminate the student MetroCards will come under fire at this week’s hearings. (Map via NYC Transit’s book of service changes)

Ed. Note (11:30 a.m.): An earlier version of this post focused on the critique of the MTA’s proposed bus service changes. Because of some conflicts in the arguments, I’ve updated this post.

Last night, the first of the MTA’s service cut hearings invaded New York City. Due to some law school obligations and assignments this week, I don’t believe I’ll be able to attend any, but I can tell from the coverage (Times, Daily News) that I’m not missing much. A bunch of people are railing against the MTA, and a bunch of politicians who have the checkbook power to stop the cuts are grandstanding instead of paying up. Been there, done that, and we know how that story ends.

This year’s format differs a bit from last year’s, and the MTA has taken some flack for the change in schedule. As the hearings hit the five boroughs and outer-lying areas this week, the authority has decided to double-book. For example, tonight, both the Bronx and Brooklyn host hearings, and MTA Board members and top officials will have to determine which of the two events they should attend.

Politicians and some rider advocates claim that this packed schedule does a disservice to angry riders who want their voices heard. The MTA has a different take. Authority heads want “to hear from folks throughout the region, not to allow the same people to testify nine different times,” MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said to The Times. After watching the same people say the same thing over and over again last year, I can understand why the MTA would want to eliminate that noise at their hearings.

Despite my inherent skepticism of the impact of these hearings — after all, nothing short of a miracle that happens at these hearings will help generate the $750 million the authority needs — some interesting ideas come out of these hearings. Some people stress the human element of transit and call for certain bus lines to be maintained. Others express their opinions on the cut package as a whole. And sometimes the MTA is listening.

Take, for instance, this report from December 1990. Nearly twenty years ago, the MTA found itself in a similar situation. The Authority was short over $200 million and had planned to eliminate numerous bus routes and scheduled trains. After vehement public protest, the authority decided to approve a 10-cent far hike and engaged in some serious internal belt-tightening.

Today, though, while I’ve long advocated raising the fares, especially in light of the fact that we don’t pay enough as it is, the MTA may be left with no choice. They will have to cut services to cover its gap, and they may, as officials have started to hint this week, raise the fares as well. The politicians can squawk; the people can protest; but with a deficit representing nearly seven percent of its overall budget and no funds from Albany on the horizon, the MTA will simply just sit there, listen and enact its planned cuts in the end.

Categories : Service Cuts
Comments (34)

The latest DOT plans for the 34th St. Select Bus Service call for physically separated lanes. (Click to enlarge. Courtesy of NYC DOT)

Over the last few years, as the New York City Department of Transportation and the MTA have worked together to develop plans for a comprehensive city-wide bus rapid transit system, the proposals have all fallen short on one front. None of the routes set forth have included physically separated bus lanes. The 1st and 2nd Ave. Select Bus Service routes suffer from this flaw, and although DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan has long promised a true BRT network, she had not yet delivered those separated transitways.

Today, though, NYC DOT has revealed bold plans for the 34th St. corridor that include physically separated lanes from the Hudson River to the East River. Now calling it the 34th St. Transitway, DOT says the crosstown route will feature a “high quality right-of-way” including physically separated bus-only lanes, passenger boarding islands, a prepayment fare system, and “other bus operations improvements.” The route will be used by local and express buses and should speed up cross-island traffic by 35 percent.

As Streetsblog noted today, 34th St. was ripe for this type of ambitious planning. The route will connect with subway stops at Lexington Ave., Herald Sq. and the Penn Station stops at both 7th and 8th Aves. With the ARC Tunnel under way, even more people will be pouring into Penn Station and the surrounding streets as well.

Furthermore, as Noah Kazis noted, this is a very pedestrian-friendly plan. “Running bus service in both directions along one side of the street allows for wider sidewalks and pedestrian refuge islands, according to an analysis of different options for the corridor,” he said, referring to DOT’s Alternatives Analysis screening report. “Compatibility with loading and deliveries was also a make-or-break factor — the configuration maintains curbside access to one side of the street along the entire route.” It is, for now, unclear what type of barrier DOT would employ to ensure that cars do not stray into the bus lanes.

The Department of Transportation, which hopes to attract federal money for this project, warns that these plans are still in their infancy. The agency still has to conduct an environmental review, hear public input on the design needs for the corridor and study necessary changes for the city’s truck route network. Still, these plans deserve praise because they truly represent the bus network the city must implement to realize faster and better Select Bus Service.

After the jump, a few cross-section views of the proposed 34th St. Transitway. Read More→

Categories : Buses
Comments (14)

With so many moving vehicles around New York City, New York City Transit’s vehicles get into their fare share of accidents. Sometimes, pedestrians get clipped; sometimes, buses and other surface vehicles collide; sometimes, people who aren’t supposed to be in the subway tunnels find themselves being chased down by a train. The MTA then winds up on the defending end of numerous lawsuits and often choose to settle. Yesterday, though, the MTA rolled the dice and lost a $7.5 million judgment to victims of a 2005 bus crash.

According to a 1010 WINS report, Brenda Whaley won $7.25 million and Amanda Wade walked away with $250,000 in their case against the MTA. The Authority alleged that the two had run a red light while Whaley and Wade indicated that the bus had run the red light. While lawyers were willing to settle for $3 million, the jury saddled the MTA with a $7.5 million verdict. The authority will apply the award. Sometimes, that $4 million gamble doesn’t pay.

Despite this verdict, overall, Transit has had great success recently in fighting their personal injury claims. In 2009, those injured filed 2720 claims against Transit, and only 216 of those went to trial. The agency won 65 percent of those trials, and since 2005, the agency has a similar percentage of the 870 cases to go to trial. Overall, NYC Transit has paid out $244.8 million in injury claims over the last five years.

Meanwhile, for a different take on the MTA’s legal liability, take a read through this tale from Peter at Ink Lake. He served as the foreman on a jury tasked with determining whether the authority should be liable for injuries a mugger sustained after he ran into a tunnel to escape the police and had his foot severed by a train. There, the jury found for the MTA. Recently, a 16-year-old graffiti tagger lost his leg when a subway train hit while he was trespassing inside a tunnel. There is no word yet if he plans to file suit.

Comments (17)
  • Subway reality TV show runs off the rails · A plan to film a reality TV show based on the day-to-day lives of train conductors, the MTA’s station agents and other subway employees has been postponed due to the MTA’s budget crunch, Michael Grynbaum reported in The Times today. The series was to focus on MTA employees as they “handle track fires, angry customers and the grind of running the country’s biggest mass transit system,” but with money tight, the authority has ceased work on a 15-minute pilot. “The plan is to follow these guys wherever they go,” producer Ross Breitenbach said. “The M.T.A. has been interested in letting us tell real stories, not a sanitized commercial.”

    I’m not sure why outside production money can’t be used to cover the costs of this pilot, but I could see why the authority wouldn’t feel comfortable devoting hours to a TV show amidst a financial crisis. Still, the MTA had hoped to use this show to, in the words of Grynbaum, “showcase the human side of an often-demonized system.” Adding an element of personality to the vast anonymity of the subway system could go a long way toward making New Yorkers more sympathetic to the plights of the MTA and the cause of transit. Hopefully, when times are better, the MTA and A&E Networks can revisit this interesting project. · (2)

I don’t often delve into the arena of the federal transportation policy. Generally, the feds are happy to toss some money the MTA’s way and leave the country’s largest mass transit system to operate on its own. Most of the time, it’s a comfortable arrangement for everyone.

Yet, sometimes, the FTA rears its head and requires the MTA — and the rest of the country — to enact costly safety standards. Does the federal government foot the bill? Of course not. Are these standards generally too costly and overprotective to meet the demands of the problems they are trying to solve? Of course.

Most recently, I examined how, in the wake of recent WMATA collisions in Washington D.C., the FTA was considering implementing local transit safety oversight measures that would require a higher level of safety standards than necessary. The costs would fall on the shoulders of the local transit agencies, and the FTA would ensure adherence to the standards by threatening to take away subsidies for those authorities unwilling to comply.

Today, we hear about another unfunded federal mandate that could cost the MTA nearly $700 million out of its capital budget by 2015. The MTA says its commuter rail lines don’t need this safety system because Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road trains already come equipped with sufficient safety controls. Tom Namako of The Post has the details:

The feds want a system installed that allows a computer to reduce a train’s speed in a number of situations. The MTA trains are already equipped with a similar system, but it kicks in only when one is in danger of crashing into another…

“It’s a lot of money,” said Bill Henderson of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA. “And my belief is that the MTA’s railroads are substantially safer than many of the similar ones in the rest of the nation.”

Metro-North hasn’t seen a passenger die from a train crash in its 27-year history. The LIRR hasn’t had a fatality since the 1950s. Still, Congress mandated in October 2008 that all commuter railroads in the country install what’s known as positive train control after 25 people died in a California crash. But that California railroad — like most others in the nation — was using far less sophisticated equipment than the MTA’s, sources and documents say. Now LIRR and Metro-North — the country’s first- and second-largest systems — have until the end of 2015 to install the safety measures.

In a letter to the feds earlier this month requesting an exemption from these standards, the MTA highlighted how this system would provide only a “marginal benefit” but would bring with it “significant cost and risk to a rail system which currently has a high degree of safety. This one appears to be a typical no-brainer. If the federal government won’t pick up the price tag and if the marginal safety upgrades aren’t worth the significant costs, the MTA should not be expected to pick up the price tag.

I understand the purpose of federal safety standards. After all, someone needs to make sure that our country’s chronically underfunded rail lines are operating with acceptable safety parameters. But the FTA needs to show some flexibility, and here, that should lead to an exemption for the MTA.

Comments (10)

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?

Comments (48)

Student protests and parental complaints about the MTA’s proposed student MetroCard cuts are on the verge of taking center stage this week as the MTA Board gears up to hold hearings on its slate of service cuts. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign has a prime to the hearings, and I wanted to take a few minutes today to once again revisit the issue of free student transportation in New York City.

Since the MTA announced its plans to cut free student travel, advocacy groups and students have been up in arms. Just last week, a group of students delivered a letter to the MTA Board, a protest I said had the right message but the wrong audience. (Streetsblog too questioned that protest and the head of the Transit Riders Council urged the students to target City Hall.) Yet, before the traveling service cut circus hits a borough near you, let’s revisit a pair of arguments that continue to plague the student MetroCard debate.

1. The city and state are the ones who should be funding transit and not the MTA

Over the last few months, MTA officials have continually tried to lay blame for the student transit funding disaster on the state and with good reason. “I would love to see students have free trips to school but I believe that’s a responsibility that the city and state have to come to,” MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder said 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 to me recently as well. “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.”

The reality is that the state and city have failed in their responsibility to fund transit. When the Student MetroCard program started, it was, as Metro reminded us today and I wrote in December, set to cost $135 million, and the city, state and MTA were to carry equal funding burdens of $45 million. That was in 1995, and since then, the city has never increased its contributions while the state’s have declined to $6 million. The MTA is left covering the costs, and as the below graph shows, those costs have soared.

The MTA knows it can recoup nearly $214 million in revenue by the 2011-2012 school year by charging students, and unless the city and state want to pay for student transit — a burden the state and localities carry elsewhere through New York — the MTA just should not be expected to pay.

2. A family will have to pay $687 per school year per student for transit

Some transit advocates have alleged that full-fare student transit will cost a family $1068 per student per year, but that number is simply wrong. That is the cost of 12 30-day unlimited ride MetroCards — or one year’s worth of travel. The only problem with that assumption is that students aren’t in school 12 months a year. In New York, students have 180 school days over nine months.

As I explored in depth in December, paying only for two rides per student per day for school days only would cost a family $687.90 per student. Paying for unlimited rides throughout the school year would cost just over $800 per student. For many families, these costs are a significant burden, but the true cost of transit to and from school is 64 percent lower than what may would have you believe. It’s irresponsible math to allege otherwise.

Some parents may claim that the Student MetroCard program allows their student to travel elsewhere after school. As long as that third trip is to an activity, then students are permitted to do so with their cards. Otherwise, the MTA is simply subsidizing free transit that isn’t related to school at all. The agency shouldn’t be expected to do that.

In the end, many New Yorkers, such as Michael Gould-Wartofsky who wrote a Huffington Post column on the topic, will try to blame the MTA. This is indicative of the MTA’s fat-cat culture, they’ll say, and it shows a callous disregard for students and families — especially lower class students and families — in New York City. It’s nothing of the sort. It is but another example of the why politicians scapegoat the MTA, and it’s one that should not be tolerated.

“Nowhere else in the United States is the public transportation system responsible for the costs of transporting students to school,” MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said. “In other municipalities throughout the country the local government will provide that transportation free of charge, and in most cases, provide a fleet of yellow buses.”

Categories : MetroCard, Service Cuts
Comments (21)

Throughout this week, MTA Board members and division heads will sit through a series of public hearings on the Authority’s latest proposed service cuts. Generally, a vocal minority of bus riders, paratransit users and student groups will browbeat the board members over cuts that will decimate bus riders, pare down Access-a-Ride and eliminate free student travel on New York City Transit’s buses and subways. Most people will heap tons of blame upon the shoulders of MTA Board members who have few avenues other than service cuts and fare hikes, and some of the city’s elected representatives — those same representatives who won’t fund the MTA — will dare to speak out against the authority.

In a certain sense, these public hearings are a legally mandated charade. No matter how many people step up to the microphone to yell at the MTA Board and to urge the authority to save Student MetroCards — a program for which the MTA shouldn’t be carrying the bulk of the funding burden anyway — the MTA Board probably won’t listen. Maybe a few bus routes will get spared; maybe some of the cuts will be shuffled; but in the end, the Authority has to solve a $751 million budget deficit without raising the fares. That the Authority scheduled two hearings per night for four days this week tells me all I need to know about how the Board plans to respond.

None of this, however, is really the fault of the MTA Board members. It is the fault of New York’s elected representatives who continue to absolve themselves of any responsibility to a public transit that moves over seven million New Yorkers a day. It is the fault of residents and voters who are unwilling to educate themselves on public transit issues and listen to politicians who, through the MTA, isolate themselves for making proper and tough decisions on public transit. And it may even be the fault of those who formed the MTA in the first place and tried to isolate it from the political process.

Over this past weekend, I spent much of it working on a big paper I have to write for law school. The paper is going to focus on some theories of local government law and the way MTA funding highlights the tensions between urban and suburban transit interests. The first section of the paper explores the events that led up to the creation of the MTA, and it is a tale that has its origins in the founding of the subway. Without going too much in depth, the New York City Transit Authority was established in the mid-1950s after the subways had become so highly politicized that no one wanted to take responsibility for ensuring adequate funding levels through fare revenue.

The origins of this problem rest in the early 1900s when the city forced those who contracted to build and operate the subways to agree to a fare cap of sorts. Only through mutual agreement could the IRT and later the BRT raise the fare from a nickel, and even though these companies saw their profits turn to deficits, city officials and a whole slew of mayors knew that allowing a fare hike was the equivalent to political suicide. Even after Fiorello H. LaGuardia oversaw unification and improved the efficiencies of the subway system, the fares remained a nickel until 1948 when the city simply could not afford to shoulder the operating deficits.

By 1953, city leaders knew they had to remove responsibility for subway funding from the direct control of politicians and sought to establish a public authority that would, ideally, operate as efficiently as Robert Moses’ Triborough Bridge Authority. The NYCTA, though, was a conceptual disaster. It couldn’t raise revenue through means other than a fare hike, and it was, as Clifton Hood described in his book 722 Miles, largely unanswerable to the public. It become a bureaucratic scapegoat as municipal leaders failed to acknowledge the subways as a public good and, as Hood writes, failed to “overcome the deep-seated opposition to public investment in rapid transit.” Removed from the sphere of politics, no one took responsibility for the NYCTA.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because history is repeating itself. The MTA has become a far more transparent organization than ever before. It has laid its books open for all to see and has tried to reason with politicians. But a deep aversion to higher taxes and more user fees as well as the easy ability to scapegoat the MTA leads politicians to slam rather than help the authority. Sitting here today, it’s easy to see how we haven’t learned from history, and maybe the MTA — or the NYCTA — is an experiment in government that never really had a chance. It isn’t a failed one per se, but as the MTA tries to solve a massive deficit by cutting services the city needs, I have to wonder when, if ever, our politicians will wake up to reality.

Categories : MTA Politics
Comments (24)

Update (12:25 p.m. Sunday): For many people, a managerial shake-up at New York City Transit won’t mean very much. It can be seen as some backroom wheelin’ and dealin’ by the MTA. But this announcement from the MTA about some personnel moves at Transit is intriguing for what it portends.

The news is this: Steve Feil, senior vice president of the Department of Subways, is out at that position. He will be the new Vice President and Chief Maintenance Office of the Subway division, responsible for maintenance and some technical functions of the subway system and is going to help Jay Walder realize his goal of bringing more technological innovation to the city’s transit system.

“Steve is a respected transit executive who has worked in many of these areas himself and has done so from the entry level up to the highest levels of senior management,” Transit President Tom Prendergast said. “He also has a keen appreciation for the need to embrace and utilize new technology with direct experience in its implementation at some of the older, more established agencies like Amtrak and NYCT.”

He will be replaced Carmen Bianco, formerly of the MTA and Amtrak. Bianco was Assistant Vice President for System Safety at Transit from 1991 to 1995 and held similar positions at NJ Transit and Amtrak. Tom Namako of The Post reports that this will be one in “a series” of changes, and although riders won’t notice the impact, the way the subways are run on a managerial level will change.

The MTA says that the biggest change will come through a restructuring of its maintenance procedures. For the last few years, the Group & Line General Managers had been overseeing maintenance on a decentralized level, but this scheme had left the line managers bogged down in maintenance calls. The line managers will remain in place for now but will focus more on transportation and customer service.

I’ve heard rumblings for weeks that the new Transit team may be doing away with the line managers, and Feil’s departure moves that one step closer to reality. Until today, the line managers had been reporting to Feil, and with Biacno assuming control and stripping the line managers of their maintenance oversight, the storm clouds are swirling.

In the grand scheme of Transit, this isn’t that big of a deal. Riders won’t notice the difference, and it’s hard to say if the line manager program has produced a net benefit for anyone. In light of the current fiscal climate, the MTA needs to trim its management structure anyway.

On an other note, all weekend service changes have been canceled due to the snow. Enjoy a shuttle bus-free weekend wherever your travels may take you.

Page 4 of 200« First...«23456»...Last »