Fare Hikes

Two weeks after the MTA announced a 2008 fare hike, the New York City Comptroller has issued a report concluding that the MTA could avoid a fare hike if the City and State were a little bit more willing to subsidize mass transit.

The comptroller’s report is condemnation of the ways in which the State of New York has inappropriately re-appropriated money earmarked for downstate mass transit. They’ve hijacked supposedly dedicated streams of funding and are using them to fund upstate transportation networks used by a relatively miniscule amount of the state population. At the same time, the City of New York isn’t doing enough to meet its financial obligations to the MTA.

According to Comptroller William C. Thomspon’s report, the City and State should enact six sensible measures that would right these economic wrongs. These measures would guarantee the MTA enough money to avoid fare hikes for now and enough financial solvency going forward to minimize the impact of a potential future hike. Let’s take a look at his proposals:

As the MTA tries to figure out whether or not there are better ways to raise revenue than implementing a fare hike, some of the details of the fare hike have been seemingly ignored. What, for instance, are we subway riders going to get for our increased fare?

Well, the MTA has released preliminary details of the specific service improvements, and the returns are, in my opinion, quite lacking. Here’s what the MTA is promising us for all of our fare hike problems:

• Additional rush hour, weekday off-peak and weekend service on the L Line.
• Additional evening service on the Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6, and additional weekend service on the No. 7.
• Increased Staten Island express bus service on weekends, weekdays, middays and nights, in addition to the new S89 service to Bayonne kicking off this fall.
• Bus Rapid Transit initiative scheduled to begin with implementation along two routes.
• Next year, a total of five subway station rehabilitations are scheduled to be completed, all made newly ADA accessible.

Wow. Not much, eh? The L service is a step in the right direction. For months and months, we’ve heard about how the MTA had not anticipated the population explosion in Williamsburg and points east. Finally, they’re addressing problems of overcrowding and unreliable service along a vital artery line into Brooklyn.

The increased evening and weekend service along the IRT lines sounds nice. But I don’t know too many people complaining that the 4, 5 and 6 suffer from lack of off-peak service. The 7 train service will benefit John Rocker’s friends.

The other benefits are niche improvements. I wrote recently about the Bus Rapid Transit lanes. As I said two weeks ago, those will work only if the MTA and NYPD figure out a way to keep cars out of the designated bus lanes. I like the idea as a pilot program; I’m less than thrilled that this is one of the top five pressing needs for New York City Transit. Ideally, if this pilot is a success, the city could add more BRT lines with the arrival of the congestion fee.

The five subway stations scheduled for rehabilitation intrigue me. I get a lot of search hits as people look for information about the plan to connect the Uptown IRT platform at Bleecker St. with the rest of the Broadway-Lafayette stop. When I wrote about it in May, it was hard to tell if the MTA would follow through with this now or in the indeterminate future. There’s still no indication of this plan’s fate.

In addition to those changes listed on the MTA’s site, amNY’s Tracker Blog highlights a few more additions for us. These changes included longer weekday operating hours for the B and W as well as that long-promised G train extension to Church Ave. in Brooklyn.

For fans of the MTA’s rolling stock, the Authority will add new R160 cars along the J, Z, L, M, N and Q Lines. That’s great for the L, N and Q, but by adding new cars to the J, Z and M lines, the MTA is targeting barely-used train lines. Those cars are the oldest, but they are also the least frequented of any subway line in the city.

Overall, then, we’re getting a mixed bag of service upgrades. We’re not seeing a commitment to the Broadway-Lafayette plan or the plans to paint many of the subway stations. I like new subway cars as much as the next guy, and I like increased off-hours service. But why is the MTA targeting lines that aren’t underserved? And where’s our F/V express service? Not yet here, it seems.

Update: As expected, the MTA’s announcement jibes with the details we already knew. Of note is that the MTA is committed to provide more service to complement these fare hikes. The public will be much more accepting of this hike if more servide becomes a reality. More later.

=====

As the Day of the Fare Hike progress, details are emerging about the direction in which the MTA will head today. While not great for commuters, it sounds like this won’t be the most drastic fare hike in recent times.

Notably, as William Neumann of The Times notes, the MTA is looking to raise toll and fare revenues by 6.5 percent. The overall inclusion of tolls and fares is an important point to highlight. It’s up to the MTA to determine how they will draw in this revenue. They could opt for a large toll increase and a smaller subway and bus fare increase.

Neumann writes:

The plan..does not specify how much the base subway fare, unlimited ride MetroCards or bridge and tunnel tolls would go up, but it calls for an overall increase in fare and toll revenues of 6.5 percent…Based on annual fare and toll revenues of approximately $5 billion, a 6.5 percent fare and toll increase would generate about $325 million a year in additional income for the authority.

At a time when the MTA’s future revenues are largely relying on volatile property tax rates, the agency is also looking to implement an inflation-based measure that would feature modest fare hikes every two years. I think this is a great idea.

For decades, the New York City subways fell into disrepair because the independent companies that owned the various lines were afraid to hike the rates up from a nickel. For over forty years – from 1904 until 1948 – the fare was a nickel, and it doesn’t take an economic genius to know that a nickel in 1904 went a lot farther than a nickel in 1948. Sticking with inflation would ensure a steady stream of money from the MTA.

As the MTA board gears up to discuss these fare hike plans, they seem to be against cutting service and maintenance. Here lies one of the reasons why the public may feel up for stomaching this fare hike. People understand that the subway system can’t afford more deferred maintenance or delayed service.

And finally, with talk of the congestion fee swirling, the MTA has quickly noted that they wouldn’t see a penny of congestion fee money until 2010 at the earlies. As many have noted, the Authority cannot count on money they may or may not receive until the end of the decade as they contemplate their budgets for the next year. So here comes a fare hike.

Remember how Eliot Spitzer, during his campaign for governor, said that an MTA fare and toll hike would come about only a last resort? Well, get ready for that last resort.

News reports indicate that, when the MTA announces its proposed 2008 budget this Wednesday, fare hikes will be a part of the deal. Pete Donohue of the Daily News has more:

The MTA will put fare and toll hikes on the table next week in its preliminary 2008 budget but the agency won’t cut services next year, sources said yesterday.

The preliminary budget envisions raising hundreds of millions of dollars by charging more for buses, subways, commuter trains and Metropolitan Transportation Authority bridges and tunnels.

Sources said the plan – to be unveiled at the MTA board’s monthly meeting Wednesday – also envisions others sharing the burden of closing the gaps. It will call for administrative streamlining, better use of technology and increased revenues from state taxes.

This is of course bad news from those of us who are watching our wallets, and it does, as the News pointed out, fly in the face of Spitzer’s campaign promises. But transit advocates are at least accepting of the fare hike.

“In the face of large budget deficits, reality has to strike,” Neysa Pranger of the Straphangers Campaign told Donohue. “If that means everyone pitches in a bit more, including the riders and the state through dedicated taxes, I think that would be reasonable. But at the same time, riders can’t bear an unreasonable share, and possibly should get something in return if they are paying more.”

Gene Russianoff, also of the Straphangers Campaign, took a similar stance. “Any fare hike proposal should only be seriously considered at the same time the governor wins congestion pricing and new transit aid, which would raise billions of dollars to fix transit and take pressure off the MTA’s budget,” he said. I agree; the MTA should find a way to adequately distribute their budge deficit. It shouldn’t just be incumbent upon the riders to shoulder that burden.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that one of the ways the MTA may go about raising revenue and the fares will be through fewer discounts. Because of pay-per-ride discounts and unlimited ride passes, the average subway ride now costs around $1.30, lower than it did in 1996 before the widespread use of Metrocards. The reality is that the MTA cannot operate on such a low fare.

But if the MTA raises fares, riders are right to expect better service. The increased fares and added revenue should go toward better service – such as an F/V express option in Brooklyn – and more frequent service during off hours. On Wednesday, we’ll have a general sense of what the MTA’s revenue targets are. We won’t know about the nitty gritty of the fare hikes for a while. But be prepared for one; it seems inevitable.