After a contentious session in which some board members urged the MTA to restore services lost to the 2010 cuts, the MTA Board voted this morning to approve a 2012 budget that contains no restoration of services but no further cuts either. Yet, with state tax revenues lower than expected, the MTA now faces a deficit of $68 million next year and will cover the gap by reducing internal expenses by $35 million and releasing $33 million from the general fund. “The reduction in projected subsidies underscores the fragility of the MTA’s current fiscal stability,” MTA Executive Director Joseph J. Lhota said. “It also indicates how important it is for the MTA to continue its recent efforts to reduce costs, even as we work to improve service.”
The budget itself, which does not call for a fare hike either, is rather perfunctory. Board officials acknowledged that the assumptions — net-zero labor increase, subsidy levels — could fall short of expectations, but the MTA will addresses those contingencies as they arise. The bigger story concerned the battle between board members who wanted the MTA to spend a few million to restore services and those who believed the agency’s economic situation too fragile to even explore the issue.
This debate over service levels is an ongoing one both at MTA Board meetings and amongst transit advocates. Should the MTA be responsible for the failings of Albany or should the authority look to offer services first and foist the issue of paying for those services onto the shoulders of our elected representatives? Considering how many in Albany get a free pass on transit issues, the latter may be an intriguing outcome. For now, though, fares and service levels in 2012 are as safe as they ever are.
14 comments
What does this mean for 2013/14/15? Every time Albany does something MTA related the impact tends to be much worse for the riding public.
Nothing yet. Part of the game here is clearly limiting how long public input and political pressure can be applied. The MTA does it for obvious reasons – they’ll ultimately be forced to eat the loss if Albany balks.
Does this mean the G’s Brooklyn terminal will continue to be Church Avenue even after the Culver Viaduct project is completed? I sure hope so! I would love to see the G’s Queens terminal be Forest Hills again too! (I know about the political reasons why it’s not, but it would be nice). Also, we definitely need another train on the 4th Avenue local in Brooklyn. I wouldn’t mind if the J could be extended (all things ideal) to Bay Parkway like the old M!
What political reasons? There is a rather clear capacity reason.
There is already a conga line leading to Forest Hills with just the M and R terminating there. There’s no space for the G there. The J extension sounds good though.
There’s no need for it – the M going to/from Bay Parkway was the least crowded line in the system, and the R wasn’t far behind. The R isn’t close to being overcrowded.
Remember, NYCT aims to schedule for loads of 145 per 60 foot car or 175 per 75 foot car. I rarely see R trains even close to that crowded. “Overcrowded” doesn’t mean “more crowded than I’m used to” or “more crowded than I like.”
The M to Bay Parkway was expensive. If enough money becomes available to restore it, that money would be better used restoring bus service.
As for Church Avenue, that extension was only made temporarily, to accommodate construction, and it is being funded from the capital budget. Once the construction is finished, the extension goes away, unless operating funds are found to continue it. (And I very much hope they are, since Church is a much better terminal.)
From what I can tell, the limited demand for service between the J/M/Z and the southern BMT services could probably be met partly by the G, especially if the MTA would deign to give the peasants a transfer from the Jamaica El to the G. Still, the hassle for some of the few people who actually depend on the M to Bay Parkway is their one-seat ride is now often a three-seat ride (e.g., M to J to R). I would guess they’re often too poor to depend on an express bus.
Unless They go to 179 Street Jamaica
That’s extra train sets needed, and the money to run them. And then you have to send the F express to 179, and that’ll upset the local station riders.
The conga line is unnecessary. The problem is there are many people on the G line that need service to areas they are close to in Queens. It’s ridiculous that people who live around Nassau Avenue have to get off at Court Square and walk a long block and then maybe even transfer another time just to get to areas in Queens that are very close. I was never in favor of extending the V out there. And something needs to be done to at least give those residents on the G some kind of service to those areas. Also, the 4th Avenue local line is ridiculous now. The M used to take off some pressure from the R. Now, it takes forever to get a train on that line. It’s insane how long you have to wait, so please don’t tell me it’s not necessary even though it’s not as packed as most other trains.
The conga line is unnecessary. The problem is there are many people on the G line that need service to areas they are close to in Queens. It’s ridiculous that people who live around Nassau Avenue have to get off at Court Square and walk a long block and then maybe even transfer another time just to get to areas in Queens that are very close. I was never in favor of extending the V out there. And something needs to be done to at least give those residents on the G some kind of service to those areas. Also, the 4th Avenue local line is ridiculous now. The M used to take off some pressure from the R. Now, it takes forever to get a train on that line. It’s insane how long you have to wait, so please don’t tell me it’s not necessary even though it’s not as packed as most other trains. The Church AVenue Extension again I know it was made temporary but it’s a much better extension for people living in the area to get to other parts in Brooklyn. Not sure if you realized but in my post I stressed that I know why the decisions were made and also emphasized that it would be more ideal.
The political reasons being that they didn’t have another sixth avenue line going out there before and when they added the V, it eliminated G service to Queens. I disagreed with that. Also, it’s not just about capacity issues. The M provided more service to the 4th Avenue line. Now, the waits are horrible. And like I mentioned, I’m well aware of the economic constraints. I know there isn’t a perfect solution. As someone who enjoys good service, it does really bother me because it makes it more difficult to travel to places that are close in a timely fashion.
[…] budget is out, and–HECK YEAH!–there won’t be any budget or service cuts next year. As Second Ave Sagas reports, the ‘TA won’t be increasing fares either. So as far as you’re concerned. […]
[…] Despite an increased deficit, there are no service cuts in 2012 budget. [2nd Ave. Sagas] […]