As the MTA struggles to find billions of dollars to fund its capital plan, MTA COE and Executive Director Elliot “Lee” Sander is turning to the one place over which has control: the fare box. According to the New York Post, Sander said yesterday that the MTA would consider raising fares to fund their capital campaign if Albany doesn’t come through with more money. Just remember, folks: Sheldon Silver is the one to blame for the next fare hike. There’s no doubt about it. [New York Post]
A parking approach to MTA funding
Residential parking permits are but one way to curtail traffic and fund the MTA. (Photo courtesy of Streetsblog)
As the congestion pricing blame game swirls around New York State politics, the MTA is picking itself up, dusting itself off and starting all over again. With a while to go before 2009, the agency is looking, with the help of the state, at ways to fund its next five-year capital campaign, and I have a few not-very-groundbreaking suggestions that could bring in more money and curtail traffic in the city too.
But first, the news: Gov. David Paterson announced on Tuesday the creation of a panel to study alternate means of funding the MTA’s capital campaign. Richard Ravitch, the one-time head of the MTA who brought the agency out of the disastrous 1970s, will head the panel. The New York Times offers up a bit more information:
In a speech in Manhattan at a breakfast of the Association for a Better New York, the governor said the commission would examine ways to finance capital spending for transit that included “a broad balance of taxes for businesses and the rest of the public.”
He also said the commission would take another look at “the elements of Mayor Bloomberg’s plan that all of us like, and that perhaps we can still weave them into the process,” according to a text of the speech.
In another piece in The Times, Straphangers Campaign chief Gene Russianoff writes about alternate ways to fund the MTA. Well, gosh, that sounds familiar. I hope Mr. Ravitch invites Mr. Russianoff to his panel.
Meanwhile, I’m going to offer up my two suggestions for revenue streams, and both of them involve charging drivers. The drivers who find this site won’t like that, and they’re a feisty bunch. But in my opinion, the free parking literally has to stop.
First up are residential parking permits. Originally pushed as part of the congestion pricing package, residential parking permits are as they sound. The city marks off residential neighborhoods into zones, and the only way to park in a zone is to pony up cash and prove that you live there.
While the original plan called for a minimal outlay of $10, why not push a plan based on economics? The higher-demand zones — those closer to the Central Business Districts in each borough — and the higher-rent areas will cost more. Like tax breaks, permit fee relief is available for those who qualify, but the city should start capitalizing on its street revenue. Charge a few hundred bucks for the year and kick this money back into the MTA’s coffers. For those people who move to New York and don’t switch their registration, charge more.
A similar program has worked in DC, and the Nation’s Capital now plans to spend the permit revenue on livable-streets programs. New York could institute a similar plan throughout the five boroughs and spend the money on subways.
At the same time, the city should up the prices on the parking meters. Charging $1.50 to park for an hour is well below market rate. Garages charge up to $21 an hour depending on their location, and the city could easily charge $4 an hour or more to park at meters. This move would serve to decrease traffic while funding whatever the city wants to fund with more parking revenues.
Right now, these two moves make a lot of sense for a city leadership reeling from a congestion pricing setback. Beneficially, the city can institute these programs without approval from Albany. Of course, most politicians are unlikely to support a parking permit program that would charge all car-owning New Yorkers a fee to park, but as the city’s options were narrowed for them this week, the least desirable courses of action politically may be the way to go.
MTA employees never look this cheerful.
MTA station employees do not enjoy a very good reputation on the Internet. As Chris has documented, people tend to notice them most when they’re literally falling asleep on the job. But what if the MTA had service with a smile?
A group of young women calling themselves Boring, Inc., decided to find out recently. They’ve started a full-service group called MTA Service Specialists in an effort to promote hospitality on the subways, one of New York’s bastions of inhospitable behavior. Alex Nathanson at the Independent Media Center had more on their efforts to spruce spruce up the subways:
Four women, members of Boring Inc., have taken it upon themselves to increase customer service on New York City subways. Dressed in matching uniforms complete with heels, pill box hats, and of course, a snack cart, this past Saturday, Kae Burke, Lauren Larken, Anya Sapozhnukova, and Kristine “Kiki” traveled around New York offering help, snacks, and smiles.
“Commuters deserve helpful, courteous service with a smile while riding the erroneous MTA,” says Kae Burke, the organizer of the MTA Service Specialists project.
The performance is a response to the MTA’s fair hikes. It has been more than a month since the fair hike and the MTA has yet to improve their overall service including extended evening hours and additional train routes.
I’m not going to complain about this one. That’s for sure. If four women dressed as airline stewardesses for the subways want to pass out snacks and advice to subway riders in need, who are we to stop them? The subways could use a little more pizazz anyway.
The Post had a few great quotes from those participating and those observing the young women in action. “The MTA should have some customer service,” Kae Burke, one of the service specialists, said. “People listen to humans a lot more than outdated messages, especially when we look this good.”
“With these girls, I’d be on the train all day. You’d have 1000 percent ridership,” Steven Faria, a rider, said. Maybe attractive young women are the secrets to the MTA’s woes. As they say, sex sells, and the subways sure could be a whole lot sexier.
Wrong time, right idea for G train activists
The G train activists are so sincere. They have a website and blog devoted to their cause, and they’re working really hard to push the G train connection to Atlantic Ave. The only problem is that their efforts are coming at what is probably the worst time for rider activism in the city.
Yesterday, one day after the MTA learned it wouldn’t have congestion pricing revenues for their coffers, G train activists took their case before the sympathetic City Council. Good ol’ John Liu and the transportation committee were more than willing to take the MTA to task for neglecting the only subway that connects Brooklyn to Queens without traveling into Manhattan. Raanan Geberer from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle tells us more, but it’s nothing all that new:
Brooklyn officials and activists told horror stories and demanded better service on the much-maligned “G” train, while the MTA, in effect, pleaded poverty based on today’s economic situation…
Current MTA plans for the line, which has suffered serious cutbacks since late 2001, involve what could be interpreted as “giving with one hand and taking from the other.” This would involve extending the line from the awkward Smith-9th Street southern terminal in Red Hook down to Church Avenue, adding five well-used stops.
But in return, the permanent northern terminal would become Court Square, near Long Island City. Cutbacks from a Forest Hills terminal to Court Square were what started the G protest rolling back in late 2001 – nowadays, the G only goes to Forest Hills on the weekends and late at night, and when track work ensues, it doesn’t even run then.
There’s nothing like City Council members grandstanding on an obvious issue either. “Many people call the G train the stepchild of the transit system, but I call it the abused child, the abandoned child,” Councilmember Letitia James said. “When I was a girl, when I got a `G’ on a paper, it meant “good.” But in the case of the G train, `G’ means God-awful, and it means the train is running like it’s in a ghetto.”
Said Joanne Simon, “Rider consensus is that the route serves too few stations, that the stations have suffered significant neglect, and the service is inadequate.”
Of course, none of these charges are new, but what’s the MTA to do? They have to balance the demands of the service with the volume in the Queens Boulevard tunnel, the track work on the Culver Viaduct and their currently bleak financial situation. The MTA has already withdrawn plans to add cars and more service to the G line, and they still don’t know if the Church Ave. extension will be permanent or temporary.
Meanwhile, while it’s reasonable for G train advocates to ask for better service, some of their demands — like an underground connection to Atlantic Ave. — are just flat-out absurd. An above-ground free transit would be appropriate, but sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into a 600-foot tunnel will never be the best use of MTA funds.
The G train activists have their point: The G line has become a vital subway line for communities along its path and an important connector for folks wishing to avoid the long trip from Queens to Brooklyn via Manhattan. When the money is there, G train upgrades are seemingly on the top of the MTA’s list. But right now, with congestion price hopes dashed and a nation on the brink of a recession, the G train activists are simply fighting for the right causes but at a very wrong time.
Turning to ubiquitous advertising opportunities
Will floor-to-ceiling ads dominate the subway system? (Photo by flickr user Alison B.)
As New York City’s newspapers heap the congestion pricing blame squarely on the shoulders of Sheldon Silver (NYT, Daily News), everyone agrees with one thing: The MTA is facing a fiscal emergency.
The MTA has to fund a $29 billion capital plan, and they need to come up with the money to operate the subways at their current service levels. “They now have a $17.5 billion hole in a $29.5 billion plan,” Straphangers Campaign head Gene Russianoff said. “It’s more hole than it is program.”
Somehow, some way, the MTA will need an infusion of cash, and a recent article in the Washington Post about the WMATA’s efforts at drumming up some more money may illuminate just how our MTA will go about finding funds. Down in DC, the WMATA has long resisted turning its stations over to advertisers. The Metro is part of the overall museum feel to Washington, DC, and any intrusive in-station advertising would sully the City Beautiful aspect of the Metro station vaults.
But, reports Lena H. Sun, the WMATA is now considering an all-out advertising blitz in its subway system. The article discusses how Metro is considering installing some of the motion-sensor ads that we’ve seen here in New York in Grand Central Terminal and the Union Square subway stop. In effect, installing these ads is an easy revenue stream for any subway system.
So now the MTA has to confront the advertising question. Our stations have billboards; our cars have placard ads. How much more advertising should the MTA accept? They could go the London route and cover nearly every available space in the popular stations with ads; they could expand the car-branding advertising, seen above on the Shuttle, to more popular subway cars.
Some transit riders may balk at these suggestions. Some Arts for Transit advocates may not like turning over subway space to ads. But if the MTA needs money, more advertising sources is one easy way to go about it. The agency doesn’t need Albany’s approval for this plan, and it sure is better than yet another fare hike.
Requiem for congestion pricing
Chris over at East Village Idiot sums it up best with this Sheldon Silver graphic.
Two hours after the congestion pricing bill seemingly died in conference today without an Assembly floor vote, Assemblywoman Joan Millman from Brooklyn’s 52nd District announced her support of the Mayor’s controversial plan.
“Mr. Speaker, on the bill, I will vote yes on the Congestion Pricing Plan. I will vote yes even though I still have major concerns and questions about the plan itself. I agree too many motorists drive gas guzzling vehicles, polluting our air, causing high rates of asthma,” she said in statement. “My suggestions as well as those of my colleagues deserve a fair hearing. All of us want, need and demand a superior mass transportation system, cleaner air, and a pedestrian friendlier city.”
But it was a message issued in vain. Despite some Eleventh-Hour pleadings by high-ranking government officials, congestion pricing is officially dead. While some Queens politicians are claiming that the plan is elitist, the reality of it is that the elites killed this plan. With money going toward transit and a better environment for our city as part of the payoff, congestion pricing was and always will be a populist plan.
For transit, the Assembly’s failure even to bring the plan to a vote is a major blow to the MTA. The plan was to be a major source of revenue for the MTA’s recently unveiled 2009-2013 $29 billion capital plan. While the early release of the plan allows the MTA to search for other revenue sources well in advance of the scheduled start date, it’s doubtful that the state legislature will actually make good on the billions of dollars it just took away from the MTA.
“Congestion pricing provided a unique opportunity to reduce congestion and dedicate critical funding for the MTA’s capital needs, and we are very disappointed that the proposal has not been approved,” MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin said in a statement. “The $354 million in federal funds that have been forfeited would have allowed the MTA to provide new and improved service to under-served areas across the city. The capital program that the MTA released earlier this year relies heavily on funding from pricing to maintain and expand the transportation system that supports the region’s economy. We will continue to work with our funding partners to find the billions needed to make these vital investments.”
Meanwhile, as Streetsblog reported, Michael O’Loughlin at the Campaign for New York’s Future was less sanguine about the impact this move will have on mass transit in New York City. He said:
The Assembly still has to come up with a plan to deal with a $17 billion transit deficit in a $29 billion capital plan. As Gene Russianoff at the Straphangers Campaign said, ‘That’s more hole than plan.’
The fundamental facts remain the same. The traffic problem and air pollution problems are real. The need for better transit is real. Two-thirds of New Yorkers support congestion pricing if the funds are used for transit. The success of congestion pricing in other cities is real. The reality is that we have to come up with a plan to solve our traffic and transit crisis, if not today then tomorrow.
Now, the legislature has to confront the MTA capital plan. They have to come up with billions and billions of dollars from somewhere. It doesn’t end here. The issue is engaged and it’s not going away. But this is a bad day for 7.5 million transit riders, that’s for sure.
And that basically says it all. Somehow, some way, someone in New York State government is going to have to find a way to get the MTA billions of dollars for programs they need and construction projects they must build to keep the subway system up to the date and competitive in a global economy. This lack of funding will do far more to harm the New York City economy than any $8 congestion fee plan every would have.
Mayor Bloomberg, with nothing to lose, said it best in a statement released this evening:
“Today is a sad day for New Yorkers and a sad day for New York City. Not only won’t we see the realization of a plan that would have cut traffic, spurred our economy, reduced pollution and improved public health, we will also lose out on nearly $500 million annually for mass transit improvements and $354 million in immediate federal funds…
“If that wasn’t shameful enough, it takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience– on an issue that has been debated, and amended significantly to resolve many outstanding issues, for more than a year. Every New Yorker has a right to know if the person they send to Albany was for or against better transit and cleaner air. People know where I stood, and where members of the City Council stood. They deserved at least that from Albany.”
Congestion pricing is dead. Long live congestion pricing.
Posted by mobile phone:
Streetsblog, among others, reports that leaders in Albany are working behind the scenes to get the congestion pricing bill to the Assembly floor for a vote. The clock is ticking with midnight fast approaching, but there is hope yet for congestion pricing and public transportation in New York. Stay tuned.
The congestion pricing edition of ‘And Now It’s Dead’
Nearly one year to the day after its unveiling, Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan has died. The plan, which would have brought traffic relief and cleaner air to the city as well as more money for public transit, died when upstate politicians opted against bringing Bloomberg’s groundbreaking and controversial plan to an Assembly vote today.
New York City, meanwhile, will lose out on $354 million pledged to the city from the federal government. The funds were to go toward establishing congestion pricing and funding increases in mass transit service but were predicated on a congestion pricing bill’s earning approval by midnight tonight.
Sewell Chan and Nicholas Confessore from The Times’ City Room blog have the story:
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s ambitious dream to remake New York City streets with an elaborate plan for congestion pricing died on Tuesday in a private conference room on the third floor of the State Capitol.
It was there that Democratic members of the State Assembly, who control the chamber, held one final meeting to debate the merit’s of Mr. Bloomberg’s plan, ultimately voting—in secret—against the idea. The opposition was so overwhelming, said Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, that he would not hold an open vote of the full Assembly, though many Republicans were supportive of Mr. Bloomberg.
“The congestion pricing bill did not have anywhere near a majority of the Democratic conference, and will not be on the floor of the Assembly,” Mr. Silver said following his meeting with fellow Democrats…
“The word ‘elitist’ came up a number of times,” said Assemblyman Mark S. Weprin, a Queens Democrat, who said his constituents overwhelmingly opposed the measure. “The members who oppose it did so because their constituents opposed it,” Mr. Weprin said. He estimated that opinion among Assembly Democrats ran four to one against the plan.
Of course, anyone who knew anything about the plan could tell Weprin that elitism was the cause of its Assembly defeat and not the root of the plan’s problem. The elites – those rich enough to be driving their cars into Manhattan each day – are the ones who were vehemently opposed to it, and they have the resources to fight it. The people who stood the most to benefit from congestion pricing were the everyday commuters who rely on the subways and buses to get them around town. Elitism has everything to do with the vehement Assembly opposition to congestion pricing.
Meanwhile, attention from those of us advocating for mass transit should turn toward the Assembly. By allowing this plan to die in conference, the Assembly just gave up $354 million for mass transit as well as a dedicated annual revenue source for the MTA. It is incumbent upon our elected officials to make good on their promises from the fare hike debate and deliver more state funds to the MTA. While we may be stuck with people too stubborn to give up their automobiles when they don’t need them, we shouldn’t be left with a subpar mass transit system at the same time.
As we await word of the fate of congestion pricing, I have an administrative announcement concerning Second Ave. Sagas. I’ve finally got around to setting up a mobile version of your site. For those of you reading on the go with a cell phone, Blackberry or other PDA-type device, just go to Second Ave. Sagas at secondavenuesagas.com, and you will be automatically redirected to the mobile version of the site. You can read articles and leave comments there, and now you can take those Friday weekend service advisories with you. Any problems? Contact me.
Coming soon: Subway announcements you can maybe actually hear
As the results from the Rider Report Card project trickled in, straphangers continually noted that announcements in subway cars were both useless and mostly unintelligible. On some lines — B trains, I’m lookin’ at you — the PA systems feature feedback and static; on others, the volume on the announcements is just too low to hear.
This isn’t, of course, a new problem. NYC Transit has dealt with PA problems in their subway cars from time immemorial. But now, with the line manager/subway Guinea pig program in full swing, the MTA is going to attempt to rectify this problem. Beginning sometime soon, train cars on the 7 line will be outfitted with better microphones and external speakers in an effort to test better PA systems in the subways. As with everything else falling under the line manager program’s purview, if these new systems are successful, they could spread to the rest of the subway system.
Pete Donohue, the Daily News’ transit beat writer, has more:
Hundreds of subway cars built more than 20 years ago are being outfitted with external speakers so messages can be broadcast directly to riders on station platforms.
Transit officials also are looking to replace the microphones in conductors’ cabs – possibly with the type used by token booth clerks – to improve how well riders on trains can hear the messages…
No. 7 train conductors make their own announcements, but as they lean out the window to see the closing doors and platform, they are a good 12 inches from the fixed microphones, [7 line manager Louis] Brusati said. That’s too far for their announcements to be relayed with adequate volume, he said. Transit workers recently tested two goose-neck microphones that get closer to conductors making announcements with promising results, Brusati said.
For now, this project won’t cost the MTA much. They’ll be using speakers they have in stock but will have to outfit some of the cars electrically.
More problematic, however, is a point made by a Subchatter over the weekend: “What the higher ups apparently don’t realize is that external speakers, open windows, and loud microphones don’t mix. Ask any conductor who works on the (3) line, where the R-62s have always had external speakers.”
The problem there will be feedback. The goose-neck microphones will pick up the sound from the external speakers, and no one’s ears will be happy. This is of course a minor technical problem.
The MTA really needs to address PA system problems. Outside of the new cars, it’s often very hard to hear on-board train announcements, and this move is a step in the right direction.