When news broke early Monday evening that Albany’s MTA bailout would fall $200 million short of expectations, officials at the MTA began to scramble. At the time, agency representatives could not comment on the scope of the measures the MTA would have to take to close a potential budget gap. But in five days, MTA CFO Gary Dellaverson will have to present a balanced budget to the Board’s finance committee. As of now, those at the authority do not know what form the impending service cuts will take.
And service cuts they will be for the MTA has sworn not to raise fares. We could debate the merits of that decision for a while, and once the MTA’s budget adjustments become clear, we will. This morning, though, let’s look back to the MTA’s Doomsday service cuts proposal from last December. Facing a massive budget gap far greater than the one currently looming, the authority proposed a massive package of service cuts and fare hikes. Much of the service cuts were behind the scenes; the authority had proposed nearly $100 million in personnel reductions at levels from upper management to station cleaners.
Yet, the most costly public cuts were those to train and bus service. The service cuts were extensive and inconvenient. To make matters worse, they barely represented much of a cost savings. The plan below was on the table last year. Keep in mind that the dollar figures are a year stale.
- Terminate the G at Court Square
Net Annual Savings: $1.9 million - Operate the N via the Manhattan Bridge Late Nights
Net Annual Savings: $390,000 - Eliminate the W; extend the Q to Astoria Weekdays; operate the N local in Manhattan
Net Annual Savings: $3 million - Eliminate M between Broad Street and Bay Parkway; eliminate Z and J/Z skip-stop service; and operate J local between Jamaica Center and Myrtle Avenue
Net Annual Savings: $2.4 million - Operate 10-Minute headway on B division Weekends
Net Annual Savings: $5 million - 125 percent of seated-load weekday middays and evenings
Net Annual Savings: $8.4 million - 30-Minute Headways 2 a.m.-5 a.m.
Net Annual Savings: $4.1 million - Total Net Annual Savings: $25.19 million
When the MTA proposes service cuts such as these, their aims are political as much as they are practical. These cuts would have impacted an estimated one million passengers a day but represented just a fraction of the $1.2 billion the agency had to find last year. This year, the same slate of cuts would, if we assume a budget gap of $200 million, cover a little over 10 percent of the needed cost savings. It’s a plan with a rather disproportionate impact considering its price tag.
But should we expect anything less? Already, Albany is warning the MTA not to expect another bailout even though these gap, termed “shocking” by Dellaverson, came about due to a state — and not an MTA — accounting error. The MTA has little choice but to cut.
And so we wait until Monday morning when the budgetary axe comes down. I’d prefer to see a fare hike and not service cuts because once the MTA starts cutting service, the agency rarely restores what is lost. Once the W and Z trains are axed, once midday headways increase, once the Lower Manhattan local stations on the BMT Broadway line are shuttered overnight, that’s it. New York won’t see those service return until the city and state drastically rethink their approaches to financing mass transit, and that would be a shame for subway-dependent New Yorkers of all stripes.
26 comments
Too many people don’t understand what’s happening here. I think it’s time for the MTA to go on the offensive: start hanging signs in the trains “When you dodge a $2.25 fare, we charge you a fines. But when Albany stiffs the MTA $220 million, everybody loses.”
Then, submit a budget that includes tolled bridges and congestion pricing. And enact it. If Albany balks, throw it back in their court and tell them that they left the region with no other choice.
Paterson gives Jay Walder this high-profile job, then renegs on his commitment to provide a certain amount of funding. If this pattern continues, the position of MTA-chief will continue to be a revolving door.
A “revolving door” with a big golden parachute!!!!
What’s your point?
We actually don’t want MTA heads leaving every year. This severance deal should inspire the idiots in Albany not to fire him because he can cash in that Golden Parachute only if he’s fired. Ideally, the Golden Parachute makes Albany more responsive to his needs because he is basically entrenched in that role until his severance pay is reduced, over time, to a politically acceptable level.
It’s really quite smart.
Should the MTA cut certain services…is there a way they would guarantee their restoration once the state finances are better? Or is that just wishful thinking?
Since it appears likely that the MTA can’t possibly balance their new budget, I feel that we should take a look at the guy calling the shots in the State Senate.
When I started to research the players in this accounting debacle, I was surprised to see that one of NYC’s own was literally at the top of the list. Carl Kruger, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, represents the 27th district in Brooklyn. Why on earth is he trying to hamstring the MTA? I think he’s trying to stay in power by not allowing East River bridge toll collection. Since he clearly has an interest in the matter, he should recuse himself (obviously a politician would never do this) or be removed from his position as Finance Chairman. As the Observer points out, he puts the onus on the MTA for the Senate’s accounting mistake – http://www.observer.com/2009/p.....-mta-again
This is the same guy who proposed to ban people from listening to iPods while crossing the street – http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00947.html
What kind of leaders are we electing?
Read through Streetblog’s coverage of Kruger too. It makes you want to punch the guy in the face.
Yes, yes it does. He’s virtually anti-transit. I suppose a lot of his constituents drive to the city? I take the Q train to enjoy Brighton Beach in the summer occasionally, though, and it seems like a fine way to get into the city. It was certainly being used a lot, too.
Nope. I ride the B or Q every day, and the train’s packed with Kruger constituents. He’s just ignorant.
Indeed, that’s what I expected. For what it’s worth I e-mailed him asking him about some of his logic. I’ll be sure to campaign against him in 2014…
Question: Why hasn’t anyone approached the Port Authority about covering this shortfall? Even if it’s assumed they don’t have the cash on hand they could float the bonds to cover it. It would be less expensive than getting Albany to fund it.
Separate agencies with different constituents and revenue sources. As much as it makes sense on a macro level, I don’t think New Jersey would be too keen on supporting the MTA, and the PA has its own economic worries these days.
Hey–thanks for the response. Point taken though the PA pretty clearly has an interest/obligation to keep transit in NYC moving. (After all, the PA built the Airtrain.) As for financing, that’s why I thought it made more sense to seek funding via bonding from the PA since it can probably get a better rate than Albany, so it would ultimately be cheaper for the MTA.
My other point was just observing that it seems unfortunate that no one is even floating any alternative strategies. Heck, how about calling the shortfall a shovel-ready infrastructure improvement for federal dollars?
The Long Island Rail Road has some M-3 cars with a plaque on the outside that says “This railcar is owned by the Port Authority of NY & NJ and leased to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority”; or something to that effect. Someone explained to me that the MTA was broke and needed new trains, and the PA had money. So politicians mandated that the equipment be purchased by the PA and leased to LIRR. It’s not quite what’s described above, but it is similar. LIRR can pay rent over time (out of an operational budget) without the large initial capital outlay — or the huge-rate loan that goes with it.
The PA is the buyers agent for the MTA, NJ Transit as well as Westchester Bee-Line. So all bus & rail car purchases are funded through them.
[…] time to trim the tree and trim budgets. A look back at last year’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority budget proposal that may help decision-makers deal with this year’s shortfall. [2nd Ave. […]
What was the deficit last year?
Well, you exposed the black hole in your post five days ago: Unlimited Metrocards. Your table showed that 7-Day users pay $1.34 per ride, 14-Day users $1.32 per ride, and 30-Day users just $1.23 per ride. With an effective normal fare per ride of $1.96, these are just too low: the prices of unlimiteds should go up so that their users pay somewhere in the region of $1.75-$1.80 per ride — i.e. making a saving, but not ripping off the general public. The other thing to consider is charging more in the am peak.
The difference between a 30-day unlimited Metrocard & a pay per ride card over 30 days breaks down as follows
Unlimited Metrocard $89.
PPR Metrocard$2.25 each X 46-rides = $103.50.
Wich is what the doomsday price was going to be.
A difference of $14.50 or about a 15% saveings over indivigial rides. If you remove the insentive to buying fares in large amounts you create more problems then you solve. Most transit transit systems give as much as a 50% saveings if you buy a monthly pass instead of single ride fares. The LIRR & MNR do that, yet it semes the rest of the MTA network is trying to do the complete oppeset. Raise the single ride instead to a point where the unlimited ride card is so atractive that most riders will purchase them even if they ride less then the required amount of times to break even over single ride purchases.
You’re forgetting the 15% bonus on pay per rides.
$3 per ride peak, $2 per ride off-peak, get rid of unlimited passes, keep up with inflation and I be the MTA never has to ask Albany for money again.
That, and lay off redundant conductors, going to OPTO on both the subway and commuter rail, and streamline management, rather than creating new managerial positions.
You keep saying this as though Transit can do by fiat. They can’t. Good luck getting the TWU with the new confrontational/direct action leaders to agree to any OPTO at all.
They can’t do it by fiat, but they can try to argue it, or implement it on more trial lines. Instead, they’re resigned to the multi-conductor system. It wasn’t the union that torpedoed ATO on the 42nd Street Shuttle.
And if they can’t, it’s nothing that liquidating the system and selling it to Japanese railroads line by line won’t fix.
In exchange for eschewing ATO on the 42nd St. Shuttle, the Union was supposed to make concessions on pensions and health care. Guess what didn’t happen?
Hey, if the MTA keeps getting stiffed in union negotiations, it should get new negotiators, who can make sure the union holds its end of the deal.
[…] gap until Monday, the Daily News is reporting that the Doomsday cuts are back on the table. As I speculated on Wesdnesday, the MTA will be proposing the same sweeping service reductions the agency nearly implemented […]