MTA Politics

We already know that Carl Kruger will take no responsibility for his own bad bailout plan. Now another Senator — Martin Malave Dilan — is pointing fingers at the MTA in a way that just doesn’t make sense.

In an open letter to MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder, Dilan sounds personally offended that Walder did not tell Dilan about the agnecy’s financial woes before word leaked to the press. Never mind the fact that Dilan is one of the Senators who passed a reduced state budget with $143 million in appropriations taken away from the MTA. Never mind that the MTA is more important to the state than Dilan. It is all about him.

The full letter is embedded below the jump. I’ll excerpt the best parts right here:

Specifically, I find it disappointing that members of your staff would notify the media, while excluding my colleagues and I in the Legislature.

To be clear, my sentiments are not rooted within the action of notifying the press, I simply believe your organization should provide the Legislature with the same consideration we have provided you. Both, prior to your arrival, with the new revenue package advanced in May, and throughout your nomination process, we have continually relied and agreed upon the importance of an open dialogue. I am disappointed that your commitment to an openness within the MTA and initiating a new era of accountability and transparency has not begun to take shape.

It is an affront to our burgeoning partnership, often discussed in previous months, to exclude us from this critical information. Additionally, it is difficult to think that our exclusion was not simply a matter of being overlooked. One can only conclude that by going to the press first, your organization was in fact using the media to once again stir the bees’ nest, rallying fears of insufficient funding and potential fare increases and service cuts.

This is, without a doubt, the most self-important letter a State Senator has ever written to another in charge of the MTA. Elizabeth Benjamin at the Daily News believes that this letter “does not bode well” for future relations between Walder and Albany. Somehow, the MTA head is responsible for one of the recipients of Gary Dellaverson’s letter leaking it to the press.

In my opinion, though, this letter just reinforces my belief that Albany doesn’t know what to do with the MTA and is intent on choking off New York City’s transportation lifeline. Dilan is a Democrat from District 17, an area in Brooklyn in which approximately 65 percent of those who commute do so via public transit. If he wants to form an adversarial relationship with the agency, let him.

In a sweeping piece on the MTA’s financial crisis, Nicole Gelinas urges the authority to target its cuts to areas represented by those who oppose the agency. She wants Transit to penalize Sheldon Silver’s inability to deliver congestion pricing by slicing up Lower Manhattan; she urges the agency to cut services to Carl Kruger’s and Pedro Espada’s transit-dependent districts. I would add Dilan to this list, and when they foolishly allow the MTA to fail, we can send them packing.

For the full text of Sen. Dilan’s letter, click through.

As Michael Bloomberg campaigned for a third term as mayor, the MTA became his public whipping boy. He wanted to offer free crosstown buses and improvements to subway service in general. His “Plan to Reform Mass Transit” dominated headlines in August and airwaves in September.

Now that Bloomberg has secured his third term, though, he is humming a slightly different tune. The Mayor says he won’t increase city contributions to the MTA and seemed to dodge questions about his mass transit plan. How utterly disappointing and yet oh-so-predictable. Michael Grynbaum of The Times has more:

On Thursday, however, in his first public appearance with Jay H. Walder, the authority’s new chairman, Mr. Bloomberg’s fiery words had been replaced by something less aggressive: a plea for patience. Asked about a much-discussed proposal to make crosstown buses available to riders at no cost — a pledge repeated in bold print on thousands of his campaign mailers and pamphlets — the mayor appeared to retreat from his plan. “We have not talked about that one yet,” he began, noting that new technology, like computerized fare cards that could speed up boarding times, “might be able to accomplish part of that.”

“I thought it was a good idea, although, the real issue there, there’s two things we’re trying to do: one is to make it easier for people to go back and forth, but two is also to stop the delays from getting on and off the buses,” the mayor said. “That’s another one of these things down the road. I think there’s a whole bunch of things that we laid out that we can explore together.”

The mayor then quickly moved on to the next question.

An aide to the mayor said later that it would be impossible for Mr. Bloomberg to announce progress on every initiative so soon after the election. “We still believe in the proposal,” the aide said. “Are we guaranteeing everything is going to happen? No, we don’t control the M.T.A.”

Indeed, Mr. Bloomberg controls only 4 of 14 votes on the authority’s board. And he said on Thursday that he did not plan to increase the city’s contribution to the authority’s operating budget.

As Grynbaum notes, the City and the MTA announce not a partnership but the opportunity to explore a potential partnership. The Mayor and Walder announced a plan to study 311 integration with the MTA. The press release hedged its bets, though, in stating that the two parties “agreed to work together to see if the 311 could be the right fit for the MTA’s customer service needs.”

“We pledged to build a stronger relationship between the City and the MTA, so we can build the modern and efficient mass transit system New York City deserves,” Bloomberg said. “Today, we take the first step by agreeing to work toward utilizing the power of 311 to make life a little easier for the 8.5 million people who take mass transit every day in the city. If we can have one number to call to receive subway and bus information, report problems or get directions, it would bring the same great service that New Yorkers have gotten from City government since 2003 to the MTA.”

Agreeing to explore whether or not two sides can work together is a far cry from delivering actual results. As Bloomberg heads into a third term with a whole slew of campaign promises in hand, he should deliver. He owes it to us, and he owes it to the MTA.

Despite a late surge in support for Bill Thompson, brought about by previously undecided voters nearly all picking the Democrat, Mayor Michael Bloomberg will, for better or worse, be New York’s mayor for another four years. A centerpiece to his reelection campaign was a not-so-ambitious plan for a better New York City transit system.

I never believed the plan to be all that original, and I’ve already explored Bloomberg’s less-than-impressive transit record. With four more years on tap, though, Bloomberg can now go about delivering on his promises.

Of course, there’s one little problem: Bloomberg’s plan won’t come cheap. At a time when the city has no money and after eight years of Bloomberg’s cutting city contributions to the MTA, Mayor Mike will have to figure out a way to pay for his transit reform plan. Yesterday morning, Larry Penner of The Queens Courier wrote at length on this very issue. He explores which projects are worth funding and which aren’t. It’s a rather wordy take on Bloomberg, but the overall point is a good one. Someone will have to figure out a way to pay for these upgrades.

Some of the upgrades can be covered in non-MTA monies. The Department of Transportation can reassign roads and convert the necessary space into dedicated bus lanes. DOT can fund the signal upgrades and the construction of physical barriers to separate lanes. The MTA will have to supply the physical equipment and man power to run more buses, but that’s cheap compared to, say, the Second Ave. Subway.

But other plans require a commitment from the MTA. Increased ParaTransit service, for example, would represent a huge cost to the cash-strapped agency. F express service, a potential reality in 2014, would require more rolling stock and more train drivers and conductors.

Other options simply require more money. The Mayor wants the MTA to “fix stations more efficiently and cost effectively to ensure existing stations are in a state of good repair.” The agency plans to do exactly that with its new component replacement plan. However, for these repairs and renovations to go forward at a quick pace, the agency simply needs more money. It needs more investment in construction designed to maintain its current infrastructure.

That is where Bloomberg steps in. He should decide to up the city’s contributions to the MTA. That, however, would require a city nearly in the red to find more money. The mayor isn’t really in a position to raise taxes, and New Yorkers may revolt is taxes go up so soon during a third term.

The answer, as it often does, comes back to bridge tolls or congestion pricing. Bloomberg could try again to lead a charge for user fees for these bridges. It seems likely that we will have bridge tolls within a few years anyway, and his lasting legacy could be one of sound transit investment. It might be a dream, but after running a campaign based in part around reform at the MTA, the least Bloomberg could is deliver.

Yesterday, I examined Bloomberg’s transportation record in the run-up to next week’s mayoral race. Today, let’s explore what Bill Thompson is proposing for he alleges to be a sensible transit strategy for New York City.

For much of the election cycle, current Comptroller Bill Thompson has been mostly silent on the issue of public transportation in New York City. While he has taken a seemingly pro-car stand against bike lanes (October, September), his statements about transit have been seemingly muted.

Muted, that is, until this week. On Tuesday, Thompson attempted to engage in a war of words over transit with Mayor Bloomberg. Per Celeste Katz, Thompson faulted Bloomberg for the MTA’s problems:

Thompson says Bloomberg’s “top-down decision-making approach has led to two fare hikes in 15 months, service cuts, and crumbling subway stations. As fares have gone up, the Mayor and his MTA appointees have been largely silent.”

Thompson said he’d “appoint MTA Board members who are transit activists and more representatives of the riding public—unlike the Bloomberg Administration’s loyalists who have no special knowledge or even prior familiarity with transit. And my appointees will be instructed that raising fares will not be the silver bullet solution to the MTA’s mismanagement and bloated budget.”

In one sense, Thompson is right. Bloomberg’s MTA Board appointees have no real transit experience and no special knowledge to bring to the table. The four votes under mayoral control include a pair of lawyers, a former OMB head and an ex-city official. True advocates for sensible transit they are not.

But on the other hand, Thompson misses the point. Bloomberg’s supposed “top-down decision-making approach” hasn’t led to the fare hikes. Rather, his withdrawal of city subsidies for the MTA has led to some major budgetary constraints at the transit agency. The city once contributed up to 10 percent of the MTA’s capital budget; now, the Big Apple sends just $60 million — or one percent of the MTA’s capital budget — to the agency. If Thompson were serious about supporting transit and if he wanted to attack Bloomberg, that would be his talking point.

So what then has Thompson been saying? He has a page on his campaign website dedicated to transit, but unlike Bloomberg, he has no long-term mobility plan. Rather, Thompson advocates for nothing too radical. He will:

• Appoint transit activists who represent riders to the MTA Board.
• Support tighter control and more oversight of public authorities.
• Fight for more city-based MTA funding.
• “Review MTA capital projects to make sure projects like the 7-line extension continue to make economic and transportation sense. If they don’t, look at other options like light rail or BRT that could do the job less expensively.”
• Expand the Bus Rapid Transit system.
• Maintain the station agent program.
• “Object when the MTA tries to cut service, as it recently did on 38 bus lines with little public input and little justification.”
• “Involve the public from the beginning in making decisions about transportation, so that residents are not blind-sided about decisions that affect their commutes or businesses.”

The bullets in quotes are his words; the rest are paraphrased. My favorite is the one about objecting to MTA service cuts. He won’t promise to fund the MTA, but he will object! That’s standing up for New Yorkers.

Thompson’s transit policies show no coherence and no plan. He wants to “involve the public” even though the public has already been involved. He wants to review MTA capital projects even though he has no authority to do so, and he doesn’t seem to understand that the 7 line extension is a city-funded project that won’t be stopped right now.

I don’t believe a Thompson mayoralty would bring much innovation to transit. If he is elected, though, his impact on the MTA will be minimal. The same holds true for Bloomberg. Unless these two candidates are willing to fork over the big bucks, their transit campaigns are mostly just talking points and populist appeals with little force behind the words.

Unintentionally, it’s turned into Mayor Bloomberg Day here on SAS. This morning, I examined Bloomberg’s claims about the 7 line extension and questioned whether or not this project represents a needed expansion and a good use of dollars. This afternoon, let’s look at this overall transit record.

Yesterday, Graham Beck of the Gotham Gazette offered up his take on Bloomberg’s transportation record. Generally, says Beck, Bloomberg has a strong transportation record for pedestrians and bicyclists. His Department of Transportation under Janette Sadik-Kahn has reclaimed public spaces and streets for pedestrians, and he has put a strong emphasis on making New York City more bike-friendly. Although congestion pricing failed, non-auto modes account for all of the transportation growth in the city, and New York, a walker’s heaven, is far more friendly to pedestrians than it has been since the advent of the automobile.

Yet, Bloomberg’s record on the MTA is far from stellar. In fact, as Beck says, the MTA’s financial straits have come about “at least in part because of funding choices made by the mayor.” The most visible public transportation moment of Bloomberg’s first eight years came in 2005 when the city faced a transit workers strike. As Beck reports, “Fifty-one percent [of city residents] said his handling of the situation was not so good or poor, while 45 percent said it was great or good.”

Although Bloomberg controls just four of the 17 seats on the MTA Board and four of its 13 votes, his record on public transit is decided mixed. Beck’s overall analysis of Bloomberg’s direct contributions to the MTA bears repeating:

During [the] long-gone good years, Bloomberg cut the city’s contribution to the MTA. It is now about $60 million a year, or just 1 percent of the authority’s capital budget. Previously, the city’s contribution equaled about 10 percent of the MTA’s capital budget. The cut has inspired some advocates, like John Petro of the Drum Major Institute, to claim that Bloomberg is “shortchanging mass transit” and others like Veronica Vanterpool of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign to call for the city to increase its aid to the MTA.

Certainly, Bloomberg has campaigned as though the decrease hadn’t happened. In August he released Moving NYC, a populist, voter-friendly, MTA-dependant transit platform that suggests a slew of new proposals, like free cross-town buses, that are either inspired ideas or empty promises.

If the voters re-elect Bloomberg in November, we’ll have four more years to find out if he is really the MetroCard Mayor or merely another politician in a big black SUV.

Bloomberg is basing much of his campaign on that Moving NYC proposal, and I’ve already questioned the originality of his place. He is basically repacking ideas that are already out there and supported by transit advocates as a campaign proposal. Many of the ideas — such as the F express plan — are already on the MTA’s “to do” list, and others require something — money — with which the mayor has been seemingly loathe to provide the MTA.

That, as Beck notes, is the rub. If Bloomberg is serious about transit, if he wants to be that MetroCard Mayor, he will find a way to deliver the bucks to the MTA. If not, then he is all talk and little action, concerned more with a 7 line extension that benefits his real estate developer plans than any true overhaul that improves transit in New York City. Only time will tell.

Tomorrow, we’ll talk a look at William Thompson, currently comptroller and Democratic mayoral hopeful, and his plan for transit. Although it is not nearly as extensive as Bloomberg’s, he too is putting transportation reform on his agenda.

Every five years since the mid-1980s, the MTA has presented a five-year capital plan to Albany for approval. Designed to keep the subways up and running while allowing for necessary improvements and expansion, these five-year plans have been vital for the renaissance of the New York City subway system. Coupled with a generally sunny economic outlook, the MTA has never had a problem securing the billions it asks for every half a decade.

Now, though, the MTA is in trouble. Already enjoying the fruits of a multi-billion dollar bailout package that covers its operations budget deficit, the MTA has a giant $10 billion hole in its $28.1 billion 2010-2014 capital plan. When the transit authority went to Albany for the bailout, the state legislatures were well aware of this capital problem, and instead of passing a package that would have funded the capital plan, they put it off for another day when the economy improved.

As the credit markets have not improved as quickly as Gov. David Paterson’s economic team had hoped they would, the governor is now warning that the MTA’s capital plan — and NYDOT’s own five-year $25.8 billion capital plan — are “unaffordable” right now. In a statement about DOT’s plan, he lobbed a grenade at both of these capital programs:

“Today the State Department of Transportation submitted their proposed 2010-2015 five year capital program as required by the MTA financing legislation I signed into law earlier this year…

Unfortunately this plan, and the plan the MTA submitted on October 1, are simply unaffordable given New York’s current fiscal condition. I will not agree to raise taxes, which would be required to fund these plans, as Congress has not renewed the federal multi-year transportation program and State revenues continue to decline.

If the Legislature does not work with me to address the budget deficit, it will become increasingly difficult to enact a necessary and affordable road and bridge plan for New York. We cannot afford a multi-year plan until the economy improves, the federal government provides adequate multi-year funding, and the Legislature joins me to seriously address the structural imbalance in the state budget. This plan must be need based; fiscally prudent without relying heavily on bonding; balance transit, rail and highway needs; and support the economic growth of New York.”

For coverage on the non-renewal of the federal transportation program, check out Transportation for America and Streetsblog Capitol Hill. We’ll focus on what Paterson said about the state’s commitment to its transportation infrastructure.

Now, Paterson’s comments are alarming for the simple reason that he is deeply unpopular and shouldn’t be afraid of a using his veto. He may face a primary challenge next year, and electorally and politically, he may be a lame duck right now. If he doesn’t feel the state can afford these programs, he can veto the eventual Senate and Assembly approval.

For their parts, Assembly members are more willing to explore funding alternatives. Although upstate Republicans were complaining about preferential treatment for the MTA at the expense of roads, downstaters recognize that both systems need to be funded and maintained. “Our infrastructure is the backbone of our economy, and we cannot allow it to be crippled,” Westchester Democrat Richard Brodsky said.

The Senate Transportation Committee too sounds as though it will pass both spending plans. “While I understand the state’s fiscal predicament, and applaud Governor Paterson’s efforts to remedy it, I cannot condone actions on his part to undermine the legislature and be both the judge and jury on an issue as important as statewide transportation,” Martin Dilan (D-Brooklyn) said. “If the Governor wanted a ‘need-based’ priority plan, he should have asked the executive agency responsible for drafting one to do so.”

I am hopeful that the MTA will not be left out in the cold, but if the state fails to guarantee its spending plan, it may be left with having to make some hard choices. The agency will either have to reduce the plan to around three years from its current five-year term or choose to cut some projects. Threatening to eliminate station renewal plans could spur political action as constituents complain to their representatives.

When push comes to shove, Paterson is probably engaged in a bit of politicking. It is, however, dangerous to play with the infrastructure upon which this city is so dependent. Playing with funding will only get him burned.

The city’s billionaire businessman mayor isn’t happy with Jay Walder’s compensation package, and Bloomberg is going to make his displeasure known by withholding his MTA votes when the transit agency’s board meets to confirm its new Chair and CEO.

Bloomberg’s unhappiness focuses around Walder’s Golden Parachute provisions. When Gov. David Paterson nominated Walder as head of the MTA, the Board attached a severance scheme to the deal. Walder is due to server a six-year term, but if he is kicked out — by the State Senate, by Paterson’s successor — Walder earns severance. If he doesn’t serve the full term, he earns a $350,000 severance, or the equivalent of one year’s salary. If he is booted within six months, he earns an additional $500,000, and if he is removed after six months but before a year, he earns another $400,000. This number dwindles as time and Walder’s tenure goes on.

According to reports from July, these conditions were necessary to attract Walder away from his job in London. The transit expert had a comfortable role at McKinsey, the consulting firm, and a life in London. He wouldn’t come to New York with the risk that he would be fired within a year. “If you want to bring in people of the highest caliber, you have to be willing to pay them salaries that are commiserate with what others in the industry are getting,” MTA board member Mitchell Pally said at the time.

Now, Bloomberg is upset the MTA for what he feels is an overly generous compensation package issued during a bad time for the state economy. Because Bloomberg respects Walder and feels uncomfortable making a big issue about, the four votes Bloomberg controls will abstain from voting on Walder. In the end, this is a political statement by a candidate running for office on a platform of reforming the MTA and not a mayoral judgment on Walder. The new MTA head won’t be overpaid or overcompensated, and Bloomberg the business man knows that. Welcome to campaign season.

After a two-month circus that saw a bunch of uninformed State Senators sound off on transit issues, the MTA finally has a new permanent chairman and CEO. In a 47-13 vote that saw a unified Democratic front joined by a splintered state GOP faction, the Senate voted to approve Jay Walder as the new head of the MTA.

“I am confident that Jay will shepherd the MTA into a new era – one that benefits all riders, whether in the Hudson Valley, the five boroughs or on Long Island,” Gov. David Paterson said this evening. “I applaud this confirmation and look forward to working with Jay as we strive to make the MTA more efficient, transparent and accountable.”

Of course, as we’re talking about the State Senate, Thursday evening’s vote was hardly a smooth affair, and numerous Senators showed their utter ignorance and lack of perspective in voting down Walder’s nomination. With reports from all major outlets, let’s see what everyone was saying.

Per Elizabeth Benjamin, one Binghamton-based GOP Senator voted against Walder because his area has no MTA. “As an upstater, I have roads and bridges,” Tom Libous said in an effort to explain his “no vote. “I don’t have an MTA where I live.” Libous voted as he did to “send a message” to the rest of the state government. “We have no plan for roads and bridges. We need to have a comprehensive capital plan.” That is petty state politics at its finest.

John Flanagan, another Republican from Long Island, voted no because Walder had previously MTA experience. “He’s not a newbie to the situation here,” Flanagan said. “He’s got a track record – no pun intended – having worked for this authority.” For that and for Walder’s unwillingness to take a strong stand during this confirmation sideshow, Flanagan declined to approve a qualified candidate.

Stephen Saland, a Hudson Valley Republican, also voted no for no good reason. According to The Times’ coverage of the confirmation vote, Saland neglected to lend his support to Walder because his Senate colleagues refused to host one of their confirmation hearings in his district. Somehow, Saland is upholding his public duty with this vote.

Finally, one man who voted yes — Carl Kruger — continued to sound ignorant of reality. “There is still much work to be done to repair the frayed relationship between the MTA and its frustrated and beleaguered ridership,” the Senate Finance Committee Chair said in a statement. “But Mr. Walder answered our questions, allayed our concerns and appears committed to heralding the new era of transparency and accountability at the MTA that we fought so hard to achieve during the past year.”

I again question Carl Kruger’s ability to pay attention to reality. For years, the MTA has put numerous budget documents on its website. For years, the MTA has been more forthcoming than any other public authority with its fiscal information. It hosts multiple public forums and has opened its books for all to see. This “new era” began before Elliot Sander arrived; it’s not beginning today. I wouldn’t expect Carl Kruger — a politician who feels that bus lane enforcement will lead to increased congestion — to understand that.

In the end, this tomfoolery doesn’t really lead anywhere. The Senate is mocked, and the MTA has its head. On paper, Walder is eminently qualified, but during the confirmation hearings, he ducked answering questions on a few hot-button issues. He has his work cut out for him, and as the Senate will be keeping a close eye on him, it won’t be an easy task.