As Election Day nears, New Yorkers will soon go to the polls to select the next state executive, and whether voters realize or not, they’re doing so against a backdrop of the MTA’s shaky financial picture. Yet, the candidates don’t care. Carl Paladino, the GOP candidate likely to be trounced, has no grasp of MTA policy, and Andrew Cuomo’s statements haven’t been much better. The gubernatorial debate earlier this week was a debacle, and I’ve been wondering if anyone has a plan.
While the politicians haven’t come through, today, the Drum Major Institute and Transportation Alternatives have released their version of a pro-transit platform. The report carries with a lofty name — Solving the MTA’s Budget Crisis and Reinvesting in Mass Transit: A Five-Step Platform for the Next Governor of New York State — but it is decidedly even-keeled and common-sensical.
“The governor and state legislature are directly responsible for the MTA’s finances: they decide how much revenue flows to the authority, and only they have the power to put the MTA on sound financial footing,” the introduction reads. “While MTA executives can continue to cut costs at the margins, only a concerted plan led by the next governor can redirect investment to the state’s mass transit system and avert a fiscal disaster. A true Albany reformer willing to make tough choices would move the MTA away from costly borrowing and make smart investments that will drive renewed economic growth, boost the state’s economic competitiveness, and save taxpayers money in the long-term.”
Noting that “without the New York City region’s transit system, it would be physically impossible for the region to be the home of the largest concentration of jobs in the country and the source of $1.2 trillion of economic activity,” the report proposes five items the next governor should do to help the MTA:
- Return the $160 million taken from the MTA over the last year by the state legislature and prevent state lawmakers from using dedicated transit funds for other purposes.
- End the fiscally irresponsible reliance on debt by restoring the state’s contribution to the MTA capital program to 20 percent of the program’s cost.
- Protect millions of straphangers from threats to repeal the mobility tax which, if repealed, would result in yearly MTA budget deficits of over one billion dollars.
- Create sustainable sources of transit revenue, funded by everyone who benefits from transit, including riders, drivers and businesses.
- Lead New York’s congressional delegation to secure higher levels of federal funding that would help expand public transit service access to underserved areas.
The report, available on the web and as a PDF, backs up these assertions. For instance, in discussing the payroll tax, a revenue source both gubernatorial candidates have promised to “reexamine,” DMI and Transportation Alternatives lays out why it’s both a necessary and equitable tax. MTA expenditures, they say, for Metro-North and LIRR services are “roughly proportional to the amount of mobility tax revenue” paid by the constituent counties. It might not be popular, but without that tax, the MTA would be another $1.5 billion in the red.
While the first three points are exceedingly simple for the next governor to implement, the real key to this platform is point four. DMI has beaten this drum for years, and Transportation Alternatives has a well: The next governor must be a leading on sustainability in the New York region. The City Council, years ago, requested a home rule measure for congestion pricing that didn’t pass Albany amidst turmoil in the capital. To ensure that the MTA has a source of dedicated funds that also serves to encourage transit ridership, some form of congestion pricing or tolling is a must. It would, says the report, “bring greater fairness to the city and region’s transportation networks.”
Ultimately, New York City voters should press their next governor to find a way to support the MTA. Bashing the organization may be en vogue today, but those in charge are trying to do what they can to maintain a sagging system. What happens if the MTA fails would be calamitous. “Without new sources of revenue, riders face more severe service cuts and fare hikes in the future,” the proposal says. “As a result, drivers will face increased congestion as straphangers abandon the transit system and drive instead.”
16 comments
Transit is to state politics what the Deficit is to federal politics. There is no solution because most politicians don’t understand it, and those that do cannot dare to be honest.
here is what i do not understand…democrats are the major supporter of unions…unions are the biggest headache next to albany with respect to the mta…so WHY do we keep electing democrats and rino’s to albany? we need someone who is going to take on the unions..samuelsen and his cronies should give back…not keep taking but unless and until you oust him and his union and democratic cronies…you will not see any change or help for the mta
For one thing, can you name me the electable non-Democrat, non-RINO politician, who would take the actions you are describing? Carl Paladino, the current Republican nominee for governor, does not strike me as a RINO, and he is not proposing your solution. (Of course, he is not electable either.)
Beyond that, many of the rules favoring the unions are written into law and couldn’t easily be undone, regardless of whom we elect. And even if the Republican of your dreams were elected governor, he would still have a Democratic-controlled State Assembly to deal with.
Paladino would at least suck up all the oxygen and look so ridiculous that the politicos in Albany would have to act. Look, it is going to take something bold. Picking the lesser of two evils doesnt work anymore (Cuomo). Only a crazy radical can enact change. Cuomo, Gillibrand, and Silver are more of the same.
The problem with not picking the lesser of two evils is that you just picked the GREATER of two evils. I don’t think there’s any spin that makes that a good idea. Radical can be good, as long as the guy’s not a total loon like Paladino.
Curiously absent is any mention of eliminating costly union-negotiated work rules, reducing exorbitant pensions or otherwise making MTA employees more effective at their jobs. I’m all for their proposals to provide better and more stable sources of funding for the MTA, but if that newly found money is just gobbled up by ever more generous union contracts with little material benefit to riders, then what’s the point?
Curiously absent is any clue about how cities with more rigid union rules and benefits packages get things built for an order of magnitude less money than New York.
I don’t want to state a full counter-platform, because the biggest efficiency gains that can be made are not readily available. A candidate who’s interested in making transit work would spend a couple hundred thousand on hiring managers and planners from cities with a reputation for efficiency and have them comb over MTA budgets. For all I know, the resulting plan would include the following items:
1. Commuter trains run through Penn Station instead of terminating there. As an immediate consequence, the Hudson and New Haven Line begin to serve Penn Station and not just Grand Central.
2. In cooperation with Amtrak, Sunnyside gets a transfer station, and the yards are developed using air rights. Suburban commuter stations get some zero-parking commercial TOD to encourage them as destinations.
3. All forms of transit other than the subway switch to POP. Buses get all-door boarding.
4. The MTA immediately asks the FRA for a waiver in order to permit off-the-shelf European and Japanese EMUs. In conjunction with parts 1 and 3, the reduced operating costs are plugged back into higher off-peak frequencies.
5. The practice of one-seat rides is replaced with systematic timed transfers on commuter rail, in particular at Jamaica and Sunnyside. On the subway, the scheduling is set to permit timed transfers between local and express trains, with trains are held to let people climb up stairs for a transfer at such stations as 53rd/7th.
6. Future fare hikes are set to increase the unlimited monthly discount, cutting the unlimited to pay-per-ride ratio over time from the current 46 to about 35.
7. All trains run OPTO, with scheduling set to increase the number of revenue hours per train operators from the current 500 to about 750.
8. Commuter trains have short turnaround times at terminals.
9. SBS is replaced with a network of bus lanes where prudent based on ridership and road congestion, coupled with citywide bus signal priority. Any program on 34th is immediately defunded in favor of more useful bus corridors.
10. The procurement law is rewritten to allow transit agencies discretion in choosing contractors, including foreign state-owned rail infrastructure companies using foreign labor, in order to increase competition.
But aren’t you talking more about a plan for the head of the MTA and not the head of the state? The head of the state should be more concerned with making sure the system is getting the political and economic support it needs. Yes, the work rules should be tightened up, but again, that’s a state-wide issue with labor.
On second thought, some of those planks are more Head of MTA-level, you’re right. But others require state legislation. On #10 the MTA’s hands are tied unless Albany acts. #2 would require state and local legislation (and would also double as housing policy), and #1 might require negotiation on the political level with New Jersey and Connecticut. #4 is strictly speaking operational, but Cuomo has the feds’ ear, so his support could be critical in getting FRA regulations changed.
Coming to think of it, another way to reduce construction costs, in addition to #10, would be to offer funding for an in-house engineering and consulting team. The analogy should be with rolling stock design, which has enabled both NYCT to get good trains for below-average costs and the commuter railroads to get trains that are reliable and not too heavy despite the FRA.
There’s a combination of good ideas and ones I don’t get at all (e.g., eliminating one-seat rides; shortening dwell times at terminals).
The development idea for Sunnyside Yards is probably the best one, as I haven’t seen that proposal before, and I cannot think of any serious obstacles to implementing it.
The one-seat ride issue is that the LIRR, and ideally two Metro-North lines, serves multiple city center destinations. Best industry practice is to offer timed cross-platform transfers at junction stations, i.e. Jamaica and Sunnyside. This is to some extent already done at Jamaica, but once East Side Access comes online, there will be a roughly even split of trains going to Penn and trains going to Grand Central. To avoid cutting frequencies to each destination, the LIRR should arrange the schedule so that an East Side Access train stops at Sunnyside at the same time as a Penn Station train, coming from the New Haven Line or perhaps a different local/express stop pattern on the LIRR. This way people could change easily, allowing both high frequencies and no transfer penalties.
FYI: The planned Sunnyside Station will be located after the LIRR tracks split off to Grand Central, so only Penn-bound trains will pass through it.
I know; this is bad planning. A better Sunnyside station would be located on the strip of track between the LIRR/NEC split and the ESA/Penn split; this would be maximally useful as a transfer station.
More speculatively, it could also offer an interchange with the subway. The F would be rerouted slightly on an above-ground alignment next to the tracks. It would make one more stop than it makes now, making it slightly less express, but would maximize railroad-to-subway connections.
Generous contracts? hmm this is true, too many projects cost wayy too much. but on the other hand the union is only giving fare wage jobs to these employees at the MTA. to have a job working there, they deserve every penny of their compensation, and this coming from somebody who doesn’t care much for the quality of work they do. still. they deserve every penny. if they get lower pay, the quality of service will be even worse.
Anyway, does anybody know how the extra 50 cent tax on all taxi rides is being sent to the MTA? I’m curious, and slightly mad about it. at the end of my day it is listed not as an MTA tax, but as a State Tax. So I’m guessing the money goes to albany first, and never goes on the more direct path. this may come to a total of around 500,000 dollars a day, is this really going to the MTA?? how much of a cut is chewed off of that money before it actually gets there?
Again, you’ve totally ignored Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins’ response to the question about the MTA. He raised the point that the real problem is the debt load that Albany’s underfunding caused and raised congestion pricing as a potential solution that would provide dedicated revenues for the MTA.
Aren’t these the very points you’ve been trying to make with this blog? Sure, he’s statistically unlikely to get elected, but he’s also the only one raising these points in the debate and thus in my mind, worthy of at least some acknowledgment. I’m sure you could get an interview with him if you wanted. I’ve known Howie personally for several years now and could help make that happen.