Category: MTA Politics

It’s been a while since the MTA had any permanent leadership. Joe Lhota, the current mayoral candidate, vacated his position on the final day of 2012, and since then, leadership duties have been split between an interim board chair who doens’t want the job on a full-time basis and the current president of New York City Transit. With Sandy repair dollars flowing in, a union contract negotiation that’s stalled and a looming five-year capital plan that will soon require attention, now isn’t the time to let the MTA become an afterthought.

That, though, is what Gov. Andrew Cuomo is seemingly doing. Tasked with finding a replacement to head up the MTA, Cuomo has made no overtures to the usual suspects, and now, outside observers are starting to take note. In today’s Observer, the paper’s editorial board calls upon Cuomo to do something about it already. With no search committee in place, it seems as though Cuomo, the paper says, “has shown little interest in finding a new chair for the MTA in a timely manner.” The governor’s office says otherwise, but actions speak louder than words. Right now, there are no actions.

The Observer makes a compelling case for movement on the MTA:

Mr. Cuomo has had his hands full since Superstorm Sandy, but the leadership of the MTA is no small matter. The agency will soon begin to spend nearly $5 billion in federal recovery dollars in Sandy’s aftermath, so priorities—and oversight—must be established. The MTA’s largest union, Local 100 of the Transit Workers Union, has been working without a contract for more than a year, and there have been no talks in four months.

Mr. Cuomo has been down this road before. He allowed vacancies on the board of the Long Island Power Authority to pile up—there were six slots awaiting his action when Sandy hit in late October. The agency’s acting CEO was filling in until Mr. Cuomo appointed a new, permanent chief. LIPA’s scandalously slow response to Sandy’s aftermath was the result of lethargic leadership and absent oversight.

Inaction can have consequences. While the MTA’s customers may not notice the agency’s leadership void at the moment, it’s just a matter of time. The MTA needs permanent leadership. Mr. Cuomo should put together a search committee consisting of all interested parties and get the process moving. This is one delay commuters shouldn’t have to endure.

The fares are going up this weekend. Complaints will rise. No one is in charge. While burning through more than a handful of various CEOs, Chairmen and Executive Directors since 2006, the MTA has been subjected to the ever-shifting whims of the men and women who have served atop the organization. It is time for Cuomo to find a successor and one who will stick with it for more than a year at a time.

Later tonight, the various mayoral candidates bumbling their ways to an election later this year will meet tonight at the CUNY Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies for a panel on transit issues. Co-hosted by the TWU, the panel lineup is actually intriguing because no one invited Joe Lhota to speak. A GOP frontrunner in the mayoral race and the one-time MTA head hadn’t heard about the panel until Tuesday night when another candidate mentioned it to him. It seems strange to leave out the former MTA Chairman and CEO from the panel.

Leaving out transit, though, is nothing new in political circles, and speaking of Lhota, his absence atop the MTA still looms large. It’s been two months since he announced his intentions to step down, and there has been absolutely no sign of action on a replacement from Albany. The MTA is operating with an interim chairman who doesn’t want the position on any sort of full-time basis and an interim executive director also tasked with overseeing New York City Transit. Meanwhile, the TWU is still operating without a contract; the next five-year capital plan will soon need a champion; the Sandy recovery effort is attempting to move forward; and the MetroCard replacement project is stuck.

So what’s Albany’s response to this? As Jim O’Grady as Transportation Nation wrote today, absolutely nothing:

Two months have passed since now-mayoral candidate Joe Lhota resigned as chairman and CEO of the NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority. So what do we know about his replacement, the man or woman who will face a raft of problems, once that person is chosen by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to lead the nation’s largest transit agencies? “Nothing, nada, zip, zero,” said Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign. “I haven’t heard.”

Other transportation advocates say the same. At one time, those advocates would have known by now what was happening. That time was September 2011, two months after Lhota’s predecessor, Jay Walder, resigned from the NY MTA’s top spot. A search committee made up of advocates and governmental veterans was, by the end of those two months, wrapping up interviews for Walder’s replacement. The committee recommended Lhota, whom Cuomo named head of the NY MTA in October of 2011. Three months later, the state senate confirmed him in the post…

But this time around, there is little urgency in the search for his replacement. The governor has not courted fanfare in announcing the formation of a search committee, as he did before. Instead, a Cuomo official blamed distractions from Sandy and an Albany budget fight for the fact that “there will be no announcement soon” about a new transit chief. Cuomo spokesman Matt Wing would only add that, “The administration continues to actively search for a new chairman.”

It’s more of the same from Cuomo who hasn’t done anything to prioritize transit during his tenure. The MTA needs a strong leader with some permanence behind the position, and right now, facing myriad challenges, New York City’s transportation lifeline has been cast somewhat adrift. The state is failing the city right now, and it doesn’t sound as though a resolution is in sight.

It’s been exactly a month since Joe Lhota stepped down as MTA CEO and Chair to run for mayor, and we’ve heard nothing at all about a potential replacement. Last time around, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced a search committee, but this time around, as is often the case, Cuomo has seemingly forgotten that the MTA both exists and has two men sharing temporary duties as Chairman and Executive Director.

Still, that hasn’t stopped transit advocates and those invested heavily in the outcome of the proceedings — that is, contractors — from putting forward a name as a potential replacement. That name belongs to Tom Prendergast, the interim MTA Executive Director and current New York City Transit President. As Dana Rubinstein notes, some in the industry have begun to embrace Prendergast as a successor. She writes:

Denise Richardson, managing director of the General Contractors Association, told me Prendergast might make a lot of sense. “First of all, Tom is a world-renowned transportation system manager,” she said. “He was recruited out of the M.T.A. to go run the Vancouver system. He’s worked at the M.T.A. in various capacities a large chunk of his career. He was instrumental in developing the plan that was so succesfully excecuted with the storm. He knows the financial issues that the M.T.A. faces and he knows the political environment. And he knows certainly why the public loves the M.T.A., and he knows why the public doesn’t so much love the M.T.A.”

In short, he wouldn’t have much of a learning curve. That’s no small issue for an enormous and enormously complicated bureaucracy that’s seen six leaders in six years and has a capital plan up for renewal in 2015.

Nadine Lemmon, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign’s Albany legislative advocate, put it this way, in an email yesterday: “It is no surprise that his name may be floating around, given his understanding and experience with the agency. What transit advocates would like is: 1) someone willing to make a commitment to sticking around, 2) who will continue the strong inroads Joe Lhota made with the legislature and customers, 3) who can be a strong champion that can help secure the funding needed for the next capital plan.”

Lemmon’s second rationale seems of particular importance to advocates, one of whom told me (anonymously, for fear of getting ahead of Governor Andrew Cuomo), “Whoever’s chosen should be willing to stay around, not somebody who is going to leave in a year or a two.”

Industry observers were quick to question if Richardson’s ready embrace is a net positive for New Yorkers. It’s certainly a positive for the construction industry, but with costs as high as they are now, taxpayers often do not emerge ahead in those scenarios.

Still, I echo Rubinstein’s last point in the excerpt above: Prendergast has been here for nearly four years and hasn’t shown a desire to leave. He’s well-respected internally which is more than we can say for predecessor at Transit, and he knows the various realms he would oversee as MTA head. If only for the stability of the organization and the ability to move quickly on a nomination, we could do far, far worse than Prendergast.

During his State of the State address yesterday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo praised a New York State transportation initiative. “It is big, it is bold, it is beautiful,” he said. “We did it in one year, instead of talking about it for ten.” He was not, of course, talking about an effort to better prepare our subway system for the next major storm or a push to realize a badly-needed transit expansion. It was, of course, about the Tappan Zee Bridge, made all the more galling because this unnecessary $3-$4 billion won’t have dedicated transit anything.

From Cuomo, this lack of attention to the New York City region’s transit needs is hardly anything new. Throughout his time as governor, he’s shown nothing more than a tepid embrace of rail-related projects and transit needs. The current silence from Albany on the vacancy atop the MTA and the lack of urgency behind finding a replacement for Joe Lhota speaks volumes.

This year, though, Cuomo had an opening and an opportunity to take a problem by the reins. The transit network is vulnerable, and a panel Cuomo assembled had, just days before his speech, issued a report calling for a bus network, system hardening and increased investment in transit. Instead, his 300-page pamphlet on the state mentions the MTA just once:

The following measures should be taken to make our transportation systems stronger in the face of future storms. With federal assistance, these measures can and will be taken by the MTA and other State agencies and authorities to harden our transportation systems against future threats:

• Flood-proof subways and bus depots with vertical roll-down doors, vent closures, inflatable bladders, and upsized fixed pumps (with back-up power sources);
• Mitigate scour on road and rail bridges with strategically placed riprap and other steps;
• Replace metal culverts with concrete on roads in flood-prone areas;
• Providing elevated or submersible pump control panels, pump feeders, and tide gates to address flooding at vulnerable airports;
• Install reverse flow tide gates to prevent flooding of docks, berths, terminal facilities, and connecting road and rail freight systems, and harden or elevate communication and electrical power infrastructure that services port facilities; and
• Upgrade aged locks and movable dams to allow for reliable management of water levels and maintain embankments to protect surrounding communities from flooding.

He did not mention financing issues, fare hikes or the debt bomb. He did not mention congestion control, environmental concerns or rail or bus expansion. He also didn’t even discuss a way to pay for any of the few upgrades he has proposed. Instead, he promised to avoid any tax increases and will instead go, hat in hand, to the federal government for a hand-out while building up the upstate road network.

For as much as Cuomo wants to push upstate development, the truth remains that New York State’s economy is powered by New York City, and New York City’s economy, as we have seen in the Sandy aftermath and as we knew beforehand, is powered by a robust transit network and infrastructure investments. Yes, it’s going to cost money to protect and maintain our subway system as new 21st Century challenges emerge, but if Cuomo wants to convince us of his grand progressive vision for New York State, then he has to be willing to tackle those challenges head on.

Just because transit was absent from the State of the State doesn’t mean nothing will happen. Cuomo still has the opportunity to appoint a strong and forceful transit advocate to head the MTA, and he has the power to push through financing measures. We can’t afford inaction, and we can’t afford to ignore the problems and recommendations. Waiting until next year, next time, will be too late, and the state executive has to lead.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned the launch party for the Riders Alliance without providing too many more details about the organization. Pete Donohue profiled their efforts, but as a board member of the organization, I can speak more to their goals. It is a new transit advocacy group that should fill in the gaps left by the others in the field.

Essentially, the Riders Alliance is an organization with an aim of organizing transit riders into political blocks. As many people from one neighborhood want similar transit improvements, the Riders Alliance is focused on garnering grassroots support by organizing riders to pressure elected officials on funding and the MTA on service patterns. Eventually, if the organization can build enough popular support, its endgoal involves long-term solutions to New York City’s transit problems.

One of the Riders Alliance’s early efforts involves the G train. I think the G train gets a bad rap amongst its riders, but it certainly has its problems. Generally, the G train arrives on time and serves as a vital link between neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens, but it doesn’t run particularly frequently. The short cars lead to crowded rush hour conditions, and its riders all want more service and better connections to other routes. In a sense, then, it’s ripe for a grassroots organizing effort, and that’s just what the Riders Alliance is doing.

As The Brooklyn Paper noted, the Riders Alliance is calling for better G train service. The group is working with residents to call for more frequent service and out-of-system transfers between the J/M/Z at Hewes St. The MTA isn’t so keen to give on these issues. Here’s the essential debate:

Members of the Riders Alliance claim the MTA is shooting itself in the foot by refusing to run G trains more reliably, allow free above-ground transfers to nearby lines, or add more rolling stock to the diminutive four-car line. “If they make the changes, the increased ridership will bring in the money that will justify the changes,” said Dustin Joyce, who claims the transit authority’s lack of interest in the line is hindering the growth of G-dependent neighborhoods including Greenpoint, Fort Greene, and Bedford-Stuyvesant, among others. “They could attract a lot more development in those neighborhoods if they had reliable transit.”

Infrastructure and transportation experts including New York University adjunct professor Sarah Kaufman say the MTA must do everything it can to lure more riders rather than let lousy service ride. “In other cities, transit companies are almost begging people to take transit instead of driving,” said Kaufman. “In New York City, trains are at capacity during rush hour, but that’s not true in the outer boroughs. There is room to attract more people into public transit in the outer boroughs and keep them out of traffic.”

But the MTA refutes the paradox and says it won’t budge until more riders flock to the much-maligned line. “We schedule service to match ridership,” said agency spokesman Charles Seaton, who added that the MTA has already made concessions G train riders when it dropped its own initiative to eliminate five beloved stops in Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, and Kensington earlier this year.

The Brooklyn Paper calls it a catch-22, and it’s one I’m inclined to believe. The G train has such a negative reputation amongst potential riders who live along the line that many will do all they can to avoid taking it. I’m no exception as a few weeks ago, I opted to take the 7 from Long Island City to Grand Central and the 4 to Brooklyn rather than take the G back to Park Slope. I didn’t want to risk a 10- or 15-minute wait late on a Friday night.

Picking up on this idea, Cap’n Transit notes that the G extension to Church Ave. has seemingly driven ridership and urges the MTA to at least give increased service a try. The only thing they have to lose is money, and they could gain it all back from increased ridership. It’s worth a try.

Ultimately, increased service — and a free transfer I barely discussed here — are simple fixes with which the MTA, if properly funded, could experiment. The MTA should be in the business of maximizing ridership but instead is in the business of maximizing economic efficiency as best it can while carrying billions in debt. A rider advocacy group with the right aim and the right focus could fix these problems, and the G train provides a perfect test run for the Riders Alliance as it launches an ambitious effort to re-imagine the city’s transit advocacy work.

A quick glance through local headlines these days may lead any long-time New Yorker to think the city has landed in an episode of “The Twilight Zone.” With a mayoral election 11 months away, the name of one Joe Lhota has garnered a lot of ink as a potential Republican candidate. What kind of world do we live in where the head of the MTA, New York City’s much hated (in the court of public opinion) transit agency, can float a balloon of running for mayor?

Even as these rumors have swirled, Lhota himself hasn’t said much of anything. He did mention to The Daily News that he’s talked about it with his wife, and he’s said he’ll make a decision on whether or not to run in the coming weeks. Beyond that, though, his silence has seemingly frustrated reporters, as New York Magazine’s Andy Martin intimated last night.

There is, of course, a reason for that silence, and that reason hasn’t been a part of the early articles. Joe Lhota is essentially barred by law from talking about running for mayor. Section 3-C of the Public Officers Law — a new section added by the Public Employee Ethics Reform Act of 2007 — prohibits Lhota, as the head of a state agency, from running for office, and the restrictions are even broader. Take a look at the plain text:

No commissioner, executive director or other head of any state agency…shall seek nomination or election to any compensated federal, state or local public office, or shall become a candidate for such office, unless such individual first resigns from his or her public employment, or requests and is granted by their appointing authority a leave of absence without pay. Such resignation or leave must commence before such individual engages in any campaign activities, including but not limited to, announcing a candidacy, circulating petitions, soliciting contributions, distributing literature, or taking any other action to actively promote oneself as a candidate for elective office.

The key part here is that last phrase. “Taking any other action to actively promote oneself as a candidate for elective office” is incredibly broad, and even acknowledging to the News, as Lhota did yesterday, that he’s thinking about it skirts that line. So of course, Lhota can’t comment on his thought process, especially if he’s leaning in the direction of running.

That still doesn’t answer the question though of whether or not he should run. I’ve come out against his candidacy, not on ideological grounds, but on transit grounds. The MTA has run through six Chairman/CEOs/Executive Directors since 2006, and a Lhota departure would just add to the instability at the top. He has a good mind for transit and can get things done. The MTA needs someone like that to lead for a few years.

Politically, he’d have to overcome being known as the head of the MTA — not quite a selling point in electoral politics — and he’d have to make a name for himself amidst a field of well-known, if not the most inspiring, Democratic candidates. That’s no small task, and it’s a challenge Lhota would have to face after leaving the MTA.

So as we sit here today on December 7, Joe Lhota isn’t running for mayor because he’s still running the MTA, and he can’t do both at once. If he steps down, we’ll know what his short-term political future will be, and the MTA will, once again, be up for grabs.

As the MTA and transit community at large begin to examine how best to move forward with protecting the system, somehow plugging the tunnels will take center stage during the debate. The MTA saw first-hand during Hurricane Sandy that a storm surge of 13 feet will swamp eight subway tunnels and two road tunnels between Manhattan and the land mass known as Long Island. Protecting that infrastructure from future flooding is of utmost importance, but even doing so raises some delicate issues.

During my Problem Solvers discussion on Wednesday night, MTA Bridges & Tunnels President James Ferrara spoke about protecting the infrastructure but as part of a larger conversation the city needs to have. During our panel discussion, Ferrara seemed a bit more skeptical than I am that another storm will arrive. He understands that it’s very costly to harden transportation infrastructure and seemed to believe that we shouldn’t do so for storms that happen once every 100 years. Of course, we’ve now had two hurricanes in two years along with a variety of other weird weather patterns, and the oceans are getting warmer.

But protecting the Montague St. Tunnel or the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel from future flooding isn’t as easy as installing a plug or dropping doors across the tunnel entrances. As Tom Abudllah, Transit’s Chief Environmental Engineer, said during my talk, the water has to go somewhere. If you seal off the tunnels, the water goes into the stations, and if you seal off the stations, well, then the water winds up all over the place at street level.

This realization played itself out in the media earlier this week when Joe Lhota started talking about shoring up the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. “I had one very prominent real estate builder who owns buildings in lower Manhattan—actually all over the city—thank me for allowing the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel to be used as a drainage ditch. I wasn’t particularly pleased with the comment,” he said to Capital New York’s Dana Rubinstein. “The fact of the matter is, if I plug it up, we plug it up, the MTA plugs it up—if God forbid this happens again, the surge is the same or even higher, the water will go elsewhere.”

In Lower Manhattan, “elsewhere” means into buildings that house multi-national corporations and into expensive housing that’s popped up downtown over the past ten years. Bill Rudin was the real estate scion who thanked Lhota, and the two engaged in a weird sort of back-and-forth over Lhota’s comments. That’s pretty much besides the point.

Ferrara spoke to this issue on Wednesday night at the Transit Museum, and he noted that we can’t just talk about protecting tunnels in a vacuum. It has to be part of a larger community discussion about protecting areas, neighborhoods, regions from the impact of flooding, storm surges and rising tides. This discussion has the potential to devolve into inaction though. Residents will come to appreciate having the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel and other infrastructure as “drains” while those in charge of the infrastructure need to find a way to protect it. Someone will have to step into moderate, and our elected officials haven’t shown much leadership on, well, anything. It’s probably naive to expect them to find the ability to solve this more complex problem.

Ultimately, we have to remember that fixing these vulnerabilities isn’t as simple as unilateral MTA action. It’s never that simple, and the water doesn’t just disappear. So sooner rather than later, we’ll see this prickly process begin. Will real estate interests dominate transit? If history is any guide, it’s going to be an uphill battle to protect those tunnels.