MTA Politics

As the first round of the city’s illustrious mayoral campaign hits its homestretch, we’ve heard and dismissed a lot of bad ideas concerning transit. A Republican hopeful called for monorails while the leading Democratic fundraiser drew a bunch of lines on a map and called it the Triboro RX bus route. I’ve been critical of these supposed campaign promises, and as Ted Mann explored a few weeks ago, so have a few others. Is there anything worth debating?

One idea I’ve shied away from discussing keeps coming up again and again, and it is one proposal worth mentioning. That is, of course, city control over the MTA and, to a lesser extent, city control over bridge and tunnel fares. Joe Lhota has been pressing for the latter, and a few candidates the former. These topics have their origin in city history and no easy answer.

Originally, the city did control the subways through the Board of Transportation, and it was a problematic relationship to say the least. Due to a need to appease voters, mayor after mayor refused to raise the subway fares. The precious nickel remained in place for decades, and inflation meant that the subways were generating pennies in revenue compared with their initial takes in the early 1900s. The over-simplified version of history is that through an effort to shore up the Transit Authority’s finances and push Robert Moses out of power, the state-run MTA came to be. The state assumed responsibility for funding the subways and, in return, the state controls the MTA through board appointments.

As mayoral control over the MTA has waxed and waned as a campaign issue, Dana Rubinstein a few weeks ago offered up an overview of the debate:

The chance that Albany legislators representing the city’s suburbs and, whose constituents rely on the authority’s Long Island and Metro-North railroads, would voluntarily cede control of their favorite hobbyhorse to the mayor of New York City is approximately zero. The notion that the state would transfer power to the city and continue to fund mass transit at the current rate is unlikelier still.

Nevertheless, it’s a lot easier to talk about mayoral control than to discuss finding new revenue streams for the transit agency. Which is why Quinn and her rivals have been talking about mayoral control the way they have. On Friday, at a Queens press event about a proposed three-borough select bus service route, Quinn once again said the mayor should make the majority of appointments to the M.T.A.’s board, and appoint the head of the M.T.A.’s bus and subway division, New York City Transit.

“Right now, 90 percent basically of the ridership of the M.T.A. is people using buses and subways,” she said. “There is no question that bus and subway riders in the five boroughs, the majority of them New York City residents, are the economic engine of the M.T.A. But we have the voice of a piston on the board.”

On the record, the MTA and its current leadership are not looking to see the current political structure change. In a radio appearance on the Brian Lehrer Show, MTA CEO and Chairman Tom Prendergast responded to the campaign. “The underlying premise of the creation of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority was the need, and this is some farsighted individuals back in the 60s, that realized you needed to deal with transportation on a regional basis,” he said. “If we look just at the needs of Long Island. the needs of the lower Hudson Valley that Metro-North provides services to, or New York City in terms of its bus and subway system, we will miss that regionality. So if we start to hive off sections of the MTA and manage them specifically from the needs of that constituency base, we’re gonna get hurt on a regional basis.”

It’s hard to assess claims of regionality from the MTA simply because the organization is still so siloed. Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road don’t get along and lack interoperability. The fare structure isn’t harmonized across the various agencies and promises to streamline operations have been slow to become reality. Still, the idea that the MTA benefits the entire region is still valid. Just because the vast majority of rides originate in the five boroughs doesn’t mean the only people who benefit are city residents, and the mayor appoints four board seats, second only to the Governor’s six nominees.

So what’s the right answer? Is there one? Mayoral control of the MTA brings with it mayoral responsibilities and obligations. It’s a non-starter for political reasons, and it isn’t something New York voters should rush to embrace for economic reasons as well. It will, however, never not be a campaign issue because it sounds good on the surface. Ideas that sound good on the surface though often aren’t underneath.

Once upon a time, Alan Hevesi, then the comptroller of New York State, fired a complaint at the MTA that the agency had been maintaining two sets of books. Claiming that the MTA hid $500 million in order to justify a fare hike, Hevesi leveled this charge at a time public sentiment toward the MTA was at a low, and it stuck. The MTA’s bookkeeping had been sloppy, but not illegally so. A judge eventually found no wrong-doing or evidence to back Hevesi’s claim, and the comptroller himself wound up in jail for his own fiscal improprieties.

Still, the idea that the MTA has two sets of books has been an enduring and popular myth. The public can easily latch onto it because they don’t feel the MTA is own their side, and politicians use it to curry favor with disgruntled voters. It came up in both 2009 and 2010, and now that a potential mayoral candidate is riding the coattails of his time with the MTA, in essence, it is resurfacing again this year.

The latest issue comes from — you guessed it — Staten Island, and it involves Senator Andrew Lanza and Representative Nicole Malliotakis. When we last ran across these two, they had recently been railing against better bus service after bemoaning the lack of transit options for Staten Islanders. Malliotakis seemed awfully concerned with a theoretical group of senior citizen drivers who would find themselves in bus lanes and panic over receiving a ticket.

Anyway, after Joe Lhota last week in a debate called the MTA “most transparent governmental organization,” Lanza and Malliotakis responded in turn. Judy Randall from the Staten Island Advance has the story:

The two lawmakers are backing Lhota rival John Catsimatidis, who didn’t appear to take umbrage at the comment during the debate, but joined them in denouncing it in a joint statement. “When I think of the MTA, many descriptions pop into my head,” Catsimatidis said. “Transparent is not one of them.”

“Joe Lhota’s statement defending the MTA is a gross untruth,” said Lanza (R-Staten Island), adding that the agency fought to defeat legislation he authored which would have required it to undergo an independent audit. “That action alone certainly undermines Joe Lhota’s laughable claim that the MTA is the most transparent agency in the USA.”

Meanwhile, Ms. Malliotakis (R-East Shore/Brooklyn) took exception with the agency’s finances. “The MTA has a $250 million surplus from the tolls it collects from the bridge,” she said. “Under Lhota’s watch, the MTA reached a debt of $40 billion. I, for one, would like to know where that money is being spent.”

Lhota responed with a statement concerning his desire to remove the MTA bridges from state control, but put that zany idea aside for now. The real issue is one of accountability and transparency. The MTA is very transparent. It posts all of its budget materials and board materials on its website as soon as these materials are available for public consumption, and anyone with a little bit of time, energy and focus can wade through them to develop a picture of the MTA’s finances. If Malliotakis, for one, would like to know where the money is being spent, she should just look for herself.

The real issue — and it’s always an issue politicians are loath to explore — concerns not how the MTA spends money but how much they’re spending and on what. It’s great the MTA has become so transparent in light of where they used to be with budget information; it’s no so great that so much money is tied up in debt payments and pension and benefits obligations. It’s shocking that the MTA is spending nearly a $1 billion per new station for the Second Ave. Subway and is constructing the world’s most expensive transit projects the city over.

At a certain point, someone in Albany has to take some responsibility for understanding and appreciating the fiscal mess the MTA has found itself in. It’s not a mess the agency is trying to hide, and it’s one out there for everyone to see without the need to subpoena, FOIA or forensically audit the agency. It’s under our noses, but our politicians would rather take pot shots at the agency than attempt to solve the problems. That’s not government at its finest.

It took until the wee hours of the night on Thursday, but the New York State Senate, with little fanfare, finally got around to confirming Tom Prendergast as the MTA CEO and Chairman. Prendergast, the former president of New York City Transit, had been nominated to the post by Gov. Cuomo in mid-April, and after the governor failed to make a nomination for over three months after Joe Lhota left to run for mayor, the Senate dragged its heels for nearly as long. But what’s done is done, and Prendergast inherits the job, problems and all.

Following Thursday’s vote, Gov. Cuomo issued a statement praising his new MTA head, the sixth in as many years. “Tom Prendergast has a proven track record of leadership and transportation expertise, especially when it comes to the managing the vast transportation network of the MTA,” Cuomo said. “As Interim Executive Director, Tom was vital to the recovery of the MTA after Superstorm Sandy and he will continue to play a crucial role in making the MTA more modern, efficient and storm ready. I look forward to Tom’s continued success in running the nation’s largest transportation system.”

So what’s on tap for the Brewster resident who comes to New York by way of a childhood in Chicago and experience in Vancouver as well as stints at Transit and the LIRR? With mayoral candidates clamoring for city control of the MTA and more and more and more bus service, it’s easy to forget that the MTA is a state agency with long-term goals and projects well under way. With that in mind, Prendergast has to confront a series of planning obstacles up front. Let’s run ’em down.

1. Rebuilding from Sandy and reinforcing for the next storm

While Lhota received a lot of credit for the MTA’s success in restoring service after Sandy, Prendergast probably deserves even more. He headed transit during Irene and was instrumental in implementing a storm-preparedness plan. That most of the subways were up and running a week after the storm surge swept through was an impressive feat, but the hard work is yet to come.

We’re two weeks into hurricane season and the MTA is no better prepared to harden the system now than they were in late October, and Prendergast will, for better or worse, have to focus on preventative measures. With the city’s new storm maps out, most of the Lower Manhattan subway stations are well within the flood zones, and the tunnels remain very vulnerable. Furthermore, with a 14-month R train shutdown on tap for August, L train riders have been subjected to mechanical problems due to the storm, and it’s only getting worse before it gets better. Prendergast must put forward a plan that shows how we can recovery and avoid another hurricane-related subway catastrophe. (And what’s happening with the new South Ferry station anyway?)

2. Labor relations

It’s been 17 months and counting since the TWU’s contract expired, and the union’s position has gained little traction in the press. They waited out Walder, never had a chance for serious negotiations with Lhota and now have to face Prendergast across the table. The MTA’s long-term budget forecast rests on the assumption of a net-zero labor increase, and achieving that goal will either involve stagnant wages, benefits givebacks or labor roll reductions. The riding public cannot afford another massive wage increase for unionized members just as we can’t afford to have subways enter stations at 10 miles per hour. At some point, the contract has been negotiated and finalized, and now that’s on Prendergast’s plate.

3. The future capital program

A few years ago, Jay Walder explained how the next five-year capital plan, set to cover 2015-2019, would focus not on megaprojects but rather on behind-the-scenes upgrades. Modernizing the signal system and installing CBTC is still on the table, but it would be a shame to see the era of megaprojects dry up. On Prendergast’s watch, the MTA will open the Fulton St. Transit Center, the 7 line extension and Phase 1 of the Second Ave. Subway. The next five-year plan should include at least a new phase of the Second Ave. line, the controversial Penn Station Access project and something more exciting than Select Bus Service Routes. On a similar note, Prendergast should work to constrain capital costs as well. Look for developments on this plan to surface within the next eight to 12 months.

4. Please swipe again

For nearly a decade, the MTA has engaged in pilot program after pilot program as it works to replace the Metrocard. The 20-year-old swipe system will soon become cost-prohibitive to maintain, but the MTA is no closer to identifying the next-generation fare payment system now than they were in 2006 when the first touch-and-go trial started. An effort to develop a system focused around contactless credit cards faltered as banks were slow to adopt the technology, and the MTA is again engaged in an internal analysis of the best steps forward. With steady leadership atop the MTA, hopefully this key project can move forward at a more rapid clip.

5. Playing politics, nicely

It nearly goes without saying that the MTA Chair must play the Albany game properly, and that’s certainly true in Prendergast’s case. State Senators are bemoaning the existence of bus lanes and flashing blue lights while still clamoring for an end to the payroll tax and whining about Metro-North’s eventual encroachment into Penn Station. It’s hard to believe that elected officials are such barriers to progress in a city built atop its transit network, but that’s where we are in 2013. As with his predecessors, Prendergast will have to learn to navigate and exploit that system on his own as Gov. Cuomo has turned out to be a passive supporter, rather than a vocal champion, of transit in the New York City region.

It’s been nearly six months since Joe Lhota resigned as MTA Chairman and CEO, and after waiting out a slow nomination process and an even slower confirmation process, the MTA finally has a new permanent leader. This evening, the New York State Senate voted to confirm Tom Prendergast as the Chairman and Chief Executive Office of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Prendergast, the former president of New York City Transit, had been serving as the interim executive director since Lhota stepped down to run for mayor on January 1, but the Senate waited until the final day of their legislative session to confirm the nomination.

“Tom Prendergast has a proven track record of leadership and transportation expertise, especially when it comes to the managing the vast transportation network of the MTA,” Governor Cuomo said. “As Interim Executive Director, Tom was vital to the recovery of the MTA after Superstorm Sandy and he will continue to play a crucial role in making the MTA more modern, efficient and storm ready. I look forward to Tom’s continued success in running the nation’s largest transportation system.”

Cuomo’s statement nearly undersells the point. Prendergast had, by many accounts, been responsible for the MTA’s immediate response to Sandy and had helped implement storm preparedness measures that minimized damage to the MTA’s rolling stock and infrastructure in the aftermath of the Hurricane Irene. He had fallen just short of the nomination in 2011, and as a career transit official with experience at the Chicago Transit Authority, the U.S. Department of Transportation, New York City Transit, the LIRR and a short tenure as CEO of Vancouver’s TransLink, comes highly recommended for the job.

After his confirmation, Prendergast issued a statement — almost too glowing — expressing his interest in the job and his praise for Gov. Andrew Cuomo. “I am grateful that Governor Cuomo has entrusted me with the responsibility of leading the largest transportation agency in North America,” he said. “The MTA faces enormous challenges to continue improving service while cutting costs and rebuilding stronger after Superstorm Sandy. Leading the MTA through these challenges is critical to the lives of millions of New Yorkers and the future of the New York economy. Governor Cuomo has repeatedly demonstrated his strong support for the MTA, and I deeply appreciate this opportunity.”

For a few months, transit advocates have been awaiting Prendergast’s confirmation. Cuomo named Prendergast to the position in early April, but State Senators stalled. According to recente reports, the Senate Transportation Committee had failed to act over concerns surrounding the LIRR’s Penn Station future. Influential Long Island state senators were reportedly requesting assurances from Prendergast that LIRR service to Penn would not be impacted by post-East Side Access plans to bring Metro-North to Manhattan’s West Side.

With his confirmation, Prendergast becomes the next in a long line of officials to head up the MTA. Turnover has been rapid, but during his sessions with Senate committees, Prendergast vowed to stay on the job. When asked how long he planned to remain as CEO and Chair of the MTA, the candidate replied, “I’m not gonna run for Mayor of the City of New York.” This line was, of course, a clear jab at Lhota who is currently seeking the Republican spot on this November’s mayoral ballot.

After the hearings and subsequent Senate vote, Prendergast side-stepped any reports of a targeted delay in these hearings, and Long Island Senator Charles Fuschillo, chair of the Transportation Committee, denied them as well. “They wanted to make sure the candidate who is going to be in the job understands it and that I have an opportunity to hear their concerns,” Prendergast said in a brief press conference after the 9:20 p.m. vote.

For his part, Fuschillo issued perfunctory praise. “Mr. Prendergast’s extensive professional experience, both within the MTA and in other public and private sector transportation positions, will serve him well as he addresses the numerous issues and challenges facing the MTA,” he said.

Those issues and challenges include, as always, a shaky budget, an unsettled relationship with the Transport Workers Union Local 100, a new five-year capital campaign, and the ongoing efforts to rebuild and protect the system in he aftermath of last October’s hurricane. It’s a tough job, but someone has to do it. Now, the MTA has its permanent head and, hopefully, a clear direction of the path forward.

Oh wow! More buses!

The motley crew of New York politicos and business men running for the chance to serve as our next mayor gathered yesterday at a transportation forum, and boy, do they love buses. For a few hours, they opined on everything relating to the city’s transportation policies. They railed on the Taxi & Limousine Commission as being too secretive; they bemoaned bike lanes for no valid reasons whatsoever; and one — John Catsimatidis, who’s running on the platform that Gristedes is somehow an acceptable grocery store — called upon the city to build a monorail. But over and over again, buses were a major theme.

I didn’t have the opportunity to attend the forum yesterday, but I was able to follow along via Twitter updates. Both Streetsblog and Transportation Nation have write-ups that capture the essences of the various discussions, but the broad contours are out there for all to see. Somehow, someway, despite the fact that New Yorkers don’t readily embrace buses, that they’re slow with routing that can be more challenging to interpret than the Talmud, the mayoral candidates all want more and more buses.

Buses, you see, are easy. In a sense, the city has more control over its buses than anything else, and control too has been a major theme of the mayoral campaign. During the Democratic forum, everyone there called for more city control of the MTA. Without establishing how New York City would compensate for the state’s substantial funding obligations, both Anthony Weiner and John Liu called for city control of the MTA. During the Republican half of the discussion, Joe Lhota noted that such a scenario is unlikely but urged the next mayor to try to gain more control, whether through Board appointments, more subsidies or bus routing.

As the MTA controls the subways, so too does it control the buses, but NYC DOT and the MTA have worked together to develop Select Bus Service. DOT controls the allocation of space on the streets, and the mayor controls DOT. Thus, mayoral candidates know they can talk about buses and, by and large, deliver on their promises. But what are we getting in return?

So far, we’re getting promises that basically amount to a pledge to continue on our current path. The City is already expanding Select Bus Service, and while that expansion is painfully slow and drawn out and prone to rollbacks if any politicians raise a mere peep, it’s happening. Even if “better” doesn’t necessarily mean “good” or even “adquate,” we’ll have better bus service along certain high-volume corridors soon enough. The mayoral candidates never mention off-set dedicated bus lanes with signal prioritization. They don’t mention a sweeping pre-board fare payment system or a way to clear cars out of bus lanes. They’re not promising anything we wouldn’t otherwise be getting.

Meanwhile, New Yorkers aren’t exactly clamoring for more buses. Buses are ideal for short-range trips that can’t be taken by foot or via the subway. Maybe some people would benefit from, say, a Flatbush Ave. bus lane or a connection from Coney Island to JFK, but buses aren’t going to be truly transformative. Buses are buses, and the mayoral candidates are fixating far too much on them because they can’t do as much with the subways.