Author

Benjamin Kabak

On the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, renamed

by Benjamin Kabak October 19, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 19, 2012

Flitting across the inbox this afternoon came a missive from the MTA: On Monday morning, Joe Lhota, public officials and Hugh Carey’s surviving family members will gather in Lower Manhattan for a ceremony officially renaming the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel in honor of the late governor. Instead of a useful name signifying place, the river crossing will be called the Gov. Hugh L. Carey Tunnel.

The Carey Tunnel renaming wasn’t unexpected. The dedication was approved by politicians in 2010, and at the time, I railed against the inanities of renaming tunnels and bridges. Does it make sense to spend taxpayer dollars to rename a river crossing or roadway whose name serves a purpose? Once we could take the West Side Highway to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel or else we could take the East River Drive to the Triborough Bridge. Now, we can ride the Joe DiMaggio Highway to the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel or ride the FDR Drive to the RFK or Ed Koch Bridges. Does anyone really know where we’re going any longer?

October 19, 2012 42 comments

Taxis

The life and death of hybrid taxis

by Benjamin Kabak October 18, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 18, 2012

Fuel efficiency was not a criteria for the Taxi of Tomorrow. (Photo via the Taxi and Limousine Commission)

A long time ago, way back in early 2004, during the spring semester of my junior year of college, I took a class on the politics and economics of the automobile industry. In a way, I credit that class with launching my interest in public transportation as we focused extensively on the many drawbacks of an auto-centric and auto-dependent society. For my final paper, I proposed converting New York City’s taxi fleet to an all-hybrid one.

For much of the latter part of the 2000s, it seemed as though the city had embraced this idea. The Taxi & Limousine Commission had allowed hybrids to be included on the list of eligible taxi cars, and as gas prices have risen, taxi drivers have embraced the high-MPG vehicles. Not as roomy as the old Crown Victorias, these cars are nonetheless far more fuel-efficient, and drivers can take home more money at the end of the day.

Of course, the best laid plans often go astray. After a mid-decade push by the City Council to require hybrid cars, the taxi lobby sued, and on what I thought were shaky grounds, a court determined that only the federal government could impose fuel economy standards. Although the city could regulate its own taxis, the ruling stood, and hybrids become a choice rather than a requirement.

Now, that era, however, is over. When the ugly, boxy and large NV200 becomes the city’s one and only Taxi of Tomorrow, the hybrids will be phased out, replaced instead with a vehicle that gets only around 25 miles to the gallon. The look may be uniform, but the daily costs for drivers and the impact on the city’s environment will be significantly more. How did we go wrong?

In my view, this angle of the story hasn’t been covered enough. A push away from hybrids should garner more attention and outrage, but until earlier this week, the press had largely been silent. Dana Rubinstein, Capital New York’s tireless transportation writer, penned an extensively look at the death of the hybrid taxi. Her piece is well worth the full read, but I’ll excerpt:

Not only has the city’s powerful taxi lobby defeated the mayor’s hybrid-cab plan in federal court, but the city is now taking steps that will actually reduce the number of hybrids on city streets. “We were really hoping New York could be a leader,” said Johanna Dyer, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s kind of a shame that it seems like we’re falling back a little bit.”

…The idea [for the Taxi of Tomorrow] was this. The city would leverage its market power by offering one manufacturer an exclusive decade-long deal, estimated at $1 billion, to manufacture one tailor-made vehicle for New York. The vehicle would be designed to handle the wear and tear of the city’s pothole-ridden streets and offer both drivers and passengers a more comfortable ride than current cab models do.

The city whittled down the competition to three entries before settling on Nissan’s NV-200. “Fuel efficiency was not used as a specific criterion for evaluation,” noted the mayor’s press release announcing Nissan the winner. (This was the city’s effort to make clear it wasn’t violating federal law, as interpreted by the courts.)…

Green-taxi advocates, noting that a hybrid fleet would have been more fuel efficient than one made up of Taxis of Tomorrow, say that there were steps the city could have taken to incentivize hybrid ownership that would not have violated the law. Roderick Hills, an N.Y.U. Law School professor, thinks the city’s loss in federal court on emissions standards “left the City cowed by the idea of promoting hybrids in their contract with Nissan—much too much so, in my view.”

There’s a lot more to Rubinstein’s story so do click through. She talks about how Nissan could potentially deliver an electric vehicle for the city and how nearly 50 of the fleet today consists of hybrid vehicles. She focuses on San Francisco’s more successful push to make all taxis hybrid cars and the reticence the city has felt in the face of the federal court ruling.

All in all, I find it disappointing. The Taxi of Tomorrow doesn’t have much tomorrow-ness about it. It’s ugly; it’s big; it’s not fuel efficient. It is almost the taxi of yesterday when lower gas prices led to the proliferation of SUVs. It’s going to take six years for the Nissan vehicle to become the only one on the road. I’ll mourn this missed opportunity in the meantime.

October 18, 2012 48 comments

TWU

Newsday: Everyone must share the fiscal pain

by Benjamin Kabak October 18, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 18, 2012

The transit discussion in New York this week have largely focused on fare hikes. Yet again, riders are being asked to pony up more for the same subway service so that the MTA can cover its outstanding obligations — including pension and benefits for retirees and debt assumed for capital projects. The riders aren’t alone though; over the past few years, the MTA has frozen salaries for non-union employees, cut its workforce and engaged in some serious internal cost-cutting.

There is more to be done though. The TWU, the MTA’s largest union, is currently without a contract, and Joe Lhota is toeing a hard line on wage increases. After salary bumps in the previous two contracts that far outpaced inflation and wage increases in the private sector over the past seven years, Lhota is vowing a net-zero increase in labor costs. In other words, if the union secures a wage increase, the MTA will once again start laying off workers. It’s all part of sharing the fiscal pain.

Today, Newsday, a paper from the bastion of ill will directed at the MTA, took the time to opine on the current fiscal happenings at the authority. It’s a balanced piece that asks the MTA to do more with internal reform. The paper writes:

If approved, the scheduled fare increase would be the MTA’s fourth in five years. The MTA’s board has little choice but to sign off on the fare hikes, already part of the budget, as a way to keep the system in good repair day after day. But riders must be given something of value in return, such as fundamental reforms to operations and labor contracts that ultimately will result in savings in the years to come…

A gigantic unknown for the MTA, its customers and its employees at the moment is the upcoming bargaining talks with the Transport Workers Union . The encouraging news is that MTA chairman Joseph Lhota knows his agency has no choice but to make its dollars go further than they’re currently going. As contract negotiations loom, Lhota has budgeted precisely $0.00 for raises that don’t entail money-saving changes in work rules — and good for him. Beyond work-rule changes, the MTA needs to streamline operations and consider selling off excess property.

The legislature enacted a partial rollback of the MTA payroll tax, but that’s as far as it should go. A legal challenge to the remaining part of the tax, which was successful in a lower court, is likely to fail on appeal, as it should. With recession-battered commuters at the breaking point, the MTA is taking a creative new approach. It’s something like this: workers, managers and riders making shared sacrifices along the way — to keep the system rolling. This week, riders learned what their part of the bill might look like. It isn’t pretty. Lhota must squeeze excess from management, and the unions need to step up. It’s hard to imagine anything else working.

From Long Island, we have a newspaper noting that the payroll tax needs to stand for economic reasons and will stand for legal reasons. But we also have a voice in the wilderness calling for real labor reform. Work rules aren’t sexy and don’t draw headlines, but they, as much as anything else, are responsible for the MTA’s fiscal ship leaning askew. Lhota’s ability to exact concessions from the union will determine the MTA’s future just as much as the looming fare hike will.

October 18, 2012 7 comments

MTA Politics

From Long Island, fare hike hypocrisy

by Benjamin Kabak October 17, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 17, 2012

The illustrious State Senator Lee Zeldin seemingly enjoys himself a tea party in the traditional sense of the phrase. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Nowhere is that more obvious than in his dealings with the MTA. After spending two years trying to take $1.5 billion away from the transit agency, Zeldin had the audacity to rail, loudly and broadly, against the current fare hike proposal.

In a statement that seems to ignore how all MTA agencies will be raising tolls and fares, Zeldin focused on his Long Island constituents’ key concern: LIRR fares. Let’s look at what Zeldin had to say.

“While proposing an average increase of 8.19% to 9.31% for LIRR riders, the MTA offers zero data of total projected revenue estimated to be brought in through the drastic fare and toll hikes throughout the MTA region. It’s ironic that the press release is posted under the ‘transparency’ feature to the MTA’s website, when the MTA fails to make any mention of the projected fiscal impact of these hikes on its budget.”

Zeldin cannot be forgiven for not paying attention as MTA CEO and Chairman Joe Lhota has said over and over again that each fare hike proposal will generate approximately $277 million in annual revenue for the MTA. If I know that, our elected officials should know that as well. He continues:

“While the MTA states that ‘year over year controllable costs’ have been reduced by 0.3%, there is still much more work to be done. Some of the areas ripe for further efficiencies include further reducing overtime, decreasing the number of excessive salaries over $200,000, reforming work rules, selling additional real estate, reducing the excessive number of managers and supervisors, and so much more.”

Here, Zeldin isn’t wrong, but he’s not right either. The MTA has already drastically reduced overtime expenditures, and at some point, it’s actually more cost-efficient to pay time-and-a-half for overtime than it is to hire new employees. Some of this other critiques — particularly with regard to reforming work rules — require action from Albany, and I have yet to see Zeldin take an active role in anything resembling work rule reform. Selling real estate is a one-time fix for a systemic problem. He went on:

The days are over for $2 billion taxpayer funded bailouts with no questions asked. Meanwhile, we are also not going to play the victim against sustained threats of significant fare and toll hikes or dramatic reductions of service as the primary alternatives. The time has come for the MTA to do more to look within for cost savings and start running more like a competitive business, than a bloated government bureaucracy.”

Zing! The only thing missing here from Bash-the-MTA Bingo is a claim of two sets of books. Here, it’s entirely unclear what Zeldin is talking about. Who’s playing the victim against threats of anything? The MTA is raising fares because it has to generate a few hundred million dollars, and they’ve laid those figures out on the table. If anything, this is classic victim-blaming by a State Senator.

It’s worth remember too what Zeldin has done as a State Senator. He ran for office on a platform focusing around repealing the MTA Payroll Mobility Tax, and he succeeded in rolling back approximately $300 million of that tax — coincidentally the same amount the MTA has to raise for this fare hike. Not satisfied, he has continued to call for a further reduction in the payroll tax rate without offering any substantial changes or sources of revenue in return. For this Long Island representative, it’s all been about blame without accepting any responsibility to dictate sound transportation policy, and he’s at it again.

New York, these are your politicians.

October 17, 2012 20 comments

Asides Self Promotion

Event Tonight: Sam Schwartz my ‘Problem Solvers’ guest

by Benjamin Kabak October 17, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 17, 2012

Tonight, my popular Q-and-A series run in conjunction with the Transit Museum returns for its fall debut. I’ll be interviewing “Gridlock Sam” Schwartz, and we’ll be discussing his plan to mitigate traffic congestion in New York City while generating revenue for transit investments. We’ll talk about the ins and outs of his plans, the opposition it faces and the paths toward implementation. At some point, after all, New York City will have to address its traffic and transit issues head on.

Tonight’s event happens near, but not at, the Transit Museum. We’ll be at The Actors Fund Arts Center at 160 Schermerhorn Street in Brooklyn. Doors open at 6, and the session kicks off at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 17. To reserve your seat now, mosey on over to this link. I’ll see you there.

October 17, 2012 1 comment

View from Underground

Understanding and misunderstanding the trash can-free program

by Benjamin Kabak October 16, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 16, 2012

Signs posted in the pilot stations urge riders to take their trash with them.

In late August, Transit removed trash cans from eight more stations around the city in an effort to both cut down on garbage collection costs and reduce the number of rodents underground. To many people, the MTA’s logic has been counterintuitive. How does reducing the number of trash cans cut down on garbage? Yet with collection limited to the fixed tracks of the subway system, it’s a proposal that should actually work.

So far, at least, politicians and straphangers are mixed on the pilot, but it seems to me to be a case of misunderstanding the cause of the problem and the MTA’s potential solution. Take a glance through this short Daily News article on some of the pilot stations. The short of it is that Midtown riders are skeptical while Lower Manhattan stations seem much cleaner.

In one survey conducted online by City Council member Jessica Lappin, two-thirds of respondents said litter had increased at 57th St. while Pete Donohue’s own inspection of Rector St. revealed only an errant empty water bottle. The Daily News writer has more:

“As you might expect, taking away the trash cans doesn’t mean people magically stop producing garbage,” said Councilwoman Jessica Lappin (D-Manhattan), whose office conducted the survey. “The MTA should toss out this plan and put the garbage cans back.”

Despite the complaints, the MTA is not planning any immediate change in the program…The MTA said it would keep a close eye on the situation at 57th St. and at the other nine stations now in the pilot program.

At the Rector St. station on the No. 1 line — one of the can-less stations — the platforms Friday afternoon were almost completely void of trash. There was one empty water bottle on the uptown platform and one small plastic bag on the other side. “Every once in a while, there might be some trash near the benches, but nothing significant,” said Leah Bebatchenko, 25, a Manhattan graduate student.

Lappin’s comments seem particularly misguided. Of course people aren’t going to stop producing garbage, but it just isn’t that hard to take it to street level and use Department of Sanitation trash cans. If subway riders are littering on their own, that’s an indictment of their own behavior and not the MTA’s. Furthermore, trash in the cans that then sits on the platform and attracts rodents is the overall problem; litter is a social ill outside the scope of this program.

It takes a bit of creative thinking to see how eliminating trash cans cuts down on trash collection, and in a society which needs its hand held when it comes to refuse disposal, politicians are often slow to grasp the broader implications. For now, though, this pilot program should continue.

October 16, 2012 38 comments

Fare Hikes

Advocates: Political support for MTA can stave off fare hikes

by Benjamin Kabak October 15, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 15, 2012

Now that we’ve seen the fare hike proposals and know when the public hearings will take place, the looming transit rate increase seems like a fait accompli. All that’s left is for us to find out who gets to shoulder the load this time — unlimited card users or pay-per-ride users. No matter the outcome, we’ll all get to pay that new $1 new card surcharge every time we opt against refilling a scuffed and old card in our wallets.

Meanwhile, as the inevitable approaches, the region’s transit advocates have sounded off on the proposals. While the Straphangers Campaign has issued a handy chart detailing how much each proposal would cost users of particular cards, a common theme units the various statements issued by the leading players around the city. All of it involves Albany. Let’s take a look.

Straphangers Campaign:

New York City Transit already has the highest fare box operating ratio in the nation at 53%. That is the share of operating costs covered by fares. MTA Chairman Joseph Lhota said in September that “when you compare the public support given to mass transit agencies nationwide on a per customer basis, New York ranks at the very bottom.

In comparison to New York City Transit’s 53% ratio, the average for large systems nation-wide that operate both buses and subways was 38% in 2011. That’s according to the Federal Transit Administration in 2011, its most recent figures. Looking at big cities that run both subways and buses, the farebox operating ratio in Boston was 38%, Chicago 44%, Los Angeles 27%, Philadelphia 37%, and Washington, D.C. 42%.

Blocking or reducing the fare increase is possible, if we get more help from Albany. One promising plan is to generate new revenue by both raising and lowering tolls on city bridges and tunnels in line with where there is the most and least congestion. Under this plan – developed by a former New York City traffic commissioner Sam Schwartz, known as Gridlock Sam – tolls would go down on some facilities (like the Throgs Neck and Verrazano-Narrow Bridges) and be instituted on others (Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges.) The State would need to authorize some of tolls.

Transportation Alternatives:

The 7.5 million New Yorkers who use the bus and subway every day need Governor Cuomo to stop this fare hike. While New Yorkers have suffered fare hike after fare hike, our State government raided hundreds of millions of dollars in transit funds. Governor Cuomo can put a stop to this by increasing the State’s investment in public transit. Treating our MetroCards like a credit card is no way for the State to run a railroad.

Tri-State Transportation Campaign:

Transportation funding is a political problem. City and state legislators make the funding decisions that impact our daily commutes, quality of life, and the region’s economic growth. Yet, stagnant funding contributions, sweeps of dedicated transit funds for non-transit use, and threats to dedicated transit taxes, such as the payroll mobility tax, perpetually undermine the financial outlook of the agency. And, very few legislators are standing up for the transit rider.

Our legislators have to find a solution, not contribute to the problem. The pockets of transit riders are not default piggybanks when city and state elected officials fail to adequately support transit. These increases significantly impact low-income transit users; 1/4 of New York City Transit riders making $25,000 or less rely on a 7% bonus on pay-per-ride MetroCards of more than $10 to stretch their travel budget.

With upcoming state elections and fare increase hearings in November, transit riders should call on their elected officials to find a solution. We don’t need more legislative voices denouncing the fare increases. We need more voices working towards a viable, long-term funding solution. It is time for our legislature to revisit new funding ideas, such as variable pricing and more balanced tolling for the five boroughs.

From the advocates, at least, laying the blame on the feet of politicians is a common theme, and as I said on Twitter on Monday, “If you’re angry over the MTA’s fare hike, vote for politicians that aren’t horrible at their jobs.” But what can we do now?

Even if Albany were to allocate more money for the MTA, it’s not guaranteed to get there. Earlier this year, Andrew Cuomo and his allies in Albany once again stripped the lockbox bill of its teeth, and yet again, transit dollars are vulnerable to state poaching. That is, of course, why the MTA is in this mess in the first place. The state won’t promise to leave dedicated dollars in dedicated accounts and has often re-appropriated MTA dollars to cover other budget deficits. The MTA then is left only with fare hikes as ways to generate revenue.

These statements right now are a true sign of a focus on the cause of the problem, but they cannot stop today. The MTA is set to raise fares again 24 months after the 2013 fare hike goes into effect, and these rider advocates have to spend the next two years hammering home this point. Whether it be congestion pricing, East River bridge tolls or other direct subsidies, the state and city must do more for its millions of transit riders. When will the voters wake up to this reality?

October 15, 2012 57 comments

Fare Hikes

MTA unveils fare hike hearing schedule

by Benjamin Kabak October 15, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 15, 2012

As you, my faithful readers, continue to debate the least worse fare hike option, the MTA has announced the looming schedule of fare hike hearings. At this sessions, New Yorkers engage in ~~a reasonable dialogue on transit funding mechanisms~~ the time-honored tradition to spewing invective at MTA Board Members while politicians go unchallenged on their lack of transit support. The hearings resemble circus sideshows, but this year, the outcome could determine if pay-per-ride users shoulder the fare burden or if unlimited card users again get the shaft.

The hearings all begin at 5 p.m. at their various locations, and there will be overlap. Thus, MTA Board Members won’t hear all testimony. Registration opens at 4 p.m. and closes at 8 p.m. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. Comments can also be submitted online and via video at a few so-called satellite locations. After your jump, the fare hike hearing schedule.

October 15, 2012 3 comments

Asides Self Promotion Service Advisories

Reminder: FASTRACK this week, ‘Problem Solvers’ Wednesday

by Benjamin Kabak October 15, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 15, 2012

A few mid-day reminders for you: First up is some FASTRACK news. This week marks the final shutdown on the West Side IRT for 2012. Beginning at 10 p.m. and running through 5 a.m. each night this week, there will be no 1, 2 or 3 train service between 34th Street-Penn Station and South Ferry or Atlantic Ave./Barclays Center, as the case may be. The 5 will make local stops to Flatbush Ave. in Brooklyn, and the 4 will do the same to New Lots Avenue. The Shuttle will operate through the night. Check out the map here, and plan accordingly.

Next, on Wednesday evening, my popular Q-and-A series run in conjunction with the Transit Museum returns for its fall debut. I’ll be interviewing “Gridlock Sam” Schwartz, and we’ll be discussing his plan to mitigate traffic congestion in New York City while generating revenue for transit investments. We’ll talk about the ins and outs of his plans, the opposition it faces and the paths toward implementation. At some point, after all, New York City will have to address its traffic and transit issues head on.

This month’s event happens near, but not at, the Transit Museum. We’ll be at The Actors Fund Arts Center at 160 Schermerhorn Street in Brooklyn. Doors open at 6, and the session kicks off at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 17. To reserve your seat now, mosey on over to this link. I’ll see you there.

October 15, 2012 0 comment

Fare Hikes

Fare Hike ’13: Picking your poison

by Benjamin Kabak October 14, 2012

written by Benjamin Kabak on October 14, 2012

There’s a fare hike heading our way, and absent a miracle in Albany, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it. The Straphangers have rightly pleaded with Gov. Andrew Cuomo to do something, and The Times did the same in Saturday’s paper. This growing chorus of voices calling for more state support may be able to avert a steep hike in 2015, but there’s not enough time for the notoriously slow-moving state political machine to kick in gear before the MTA has to start generating more revenue.

So we, the riding public, are left with trying to make the best of a bad situation. On Monday morning, the MTA will officially unveil the various proposals all aimed at generating a few hundred million dollars a year more, and throughout November, the authority will hear public feedback. Oftentimes, those meetings devolve into a mess of public complaints against the MTA and little of substance concerning the fare hike proposals. But there’s a lot riding on this year’s hike. (Ed. Note: The four scenarios outlined below are confirmed as the ones under consideration by the MTA. Public hearings will take place during the second week in November.)

As I’ve mentioned before, how the MTA approaches this hike will tell us a lot about who’s paying more. Will the MTA once again go after unlimited ride card users or try to bump up the pay-per-ride costs? I looked at this issue last week, and it’s not an easy one. The claims that a pay-per-ride bump would negatively impact those who can least afford to pay are partially borne out by demographics numbers, but even that impact may be overstated. Still, it’s a consideration.

As we wait out the official announcement, enough leaked stories — designed to gauge rider feedback — have led us to know something about the looming fare hike. So from information gleaned from various articles, let’s look at the competing proposals:

Scenario	Base Fare	Bonus	7-Day Card	30-Day Card
1	$2.50	None	$30	$109
2	$2.25	5%	$34	$125
3	$2.25	None	$32	$119
4	$2.50	7%	$30	$112

As I’ve mentioned before, I’d prefer scenario 1, but that’s because I’m a 30-day card user who enjoys the benefits of pre-tax Metrocards each month. According to numbers provided to me by the Straphangers, such a scenario results in a $60 annual increase in transit spending for 30-day card users, a $50 bump for 7-day card users and a whopping $208 increase for pay-per-ride users. That’s a disparate impact if ever I saw one.

Scenarios 2 and 3 lead to considerably more spending by everyone. Under 2, 30-day users would be on the hook for over $200 more per year, and the break-even point would jump to 59 rides, an all-time high. With no increase in the base fare and a small decrease in bonus, pay-per-ride users would likely have to spend around $20 more per year. That’s hardly equitable either.

The new proposal — Scenario No. 4 above — comes to us from today’s Daily News. In his piece, Pete Donohue notes that MTA officials are not likely to eliminated the discount, as, per one Transit official, “the reaction [was] very cool.” With a seven percent bonus at $2.50 per swipe, the effective fare would be around $2.32, and thus, under proposal 4, the break-even point for a $112 30-day card would be 49 rides, one less than the current 50-ride mark on the $104 cards. Signs are, as Donohue notes, pointing the way toward such a scenario.

But let’s toss this one wide open. Though no one wants a fare hike, pick your poison. I’ve opened the poll below and am curious to see how SAS readers would go if given the choice. It might not be ideal, but that’s where we are today.

Which fare hike proposal would you prefer?

Total Votes: 425 Started: October 15, 2012 Back to Vote Screen

October 14, 2012 80 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts