The Democrats have released a breakdown of the proposed transportation stimulus bill, and transit advocates are not happy. The bill would send $30 billion to road expansion and maintenance problems while just $10 billion would be earmarked for public transit and rail plans. Streetsblog has a breakdown of the bill and round-up of the reaction. Historically, transit investment has been on the smaller end of an 80-20 split. While 75-25 is a step in the right direction, this is no victory for transit agencies or public transportation advocates.
Back in Sept. 2007, MTA CEO and Executive Director Elliot Sander unveiled plans for a Blue Ribbon commission on the MTA’s sustainability. Yesterday, the panel unveiled its first set of recommendations and a 148-page draft of its final report due in February. Combining national recommendations with state-based efforts and internal improvements the MTA could make in its green efforts, the document is a powerful, ambitious and, at times, over-reaching proposal for one potential future of the area’s transit network.
The report is, frankly, too large and too all-encompassing to digest in one sitting, and like Ben Fried at Streetsblog, I’m still attempting to sift my way through it. In terms of first impressions, however, it’s mostly what you would expect. On a local level, it urges the state to approve the Ravitch Commission recommendations and calls for adequate enforcement of bus-only and BRT lanes. It urges better transit-oriented development and higher on-street parking rates. On a national level, it urges the government to pass a $1 trillion green stimulus bill devoted to “21st century transit and renewable energy.” Nothing is too big or too small for this commission, and in a perfect world, nearly all of its recommendations would be followed.
As I make my way through the report, I can offer you the MTA’s organizational take on it via the agency’s press release. The report was unveiled in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday by Sander and Jonathan F.P. Rose, chairman of the Sustainability Commission. A whole slew of leading transit advocates and experts as well as New York politicos were on hand. Here’s the press release’s summary of the report:
Among its many transformational recommendations, the report calls for the MTA to draw 80 percent of its operating energy from clean, renewable energy sources by 2050, and suggests ways this should be done. At the same time, it urges a significant expansion of transit access in order for the MTA transit system to reach and absorb two thirds of the New York metropolitan area’s projected growth of 4 million people between now and 2030. By ensuring that an increased share of this growth develops as transit-oriented clusters rather than sprawl, the MTA’s expansion will have a significant impact not only on regional productivity, but on our national energy and climate-stabilization goals. The report points to strategies that will reduce regional CO2emissions while expanding the mobility needed to remain competitive in a global financial, educational, and cultural marketplace.
Initial assessment of the report’s recommendations indicates a possible yield of 105,500 net new jobs per year, employment income of $5.1 billion a year, and regional economic output of fully $17 billion per year for the period from 2010 to 2019. This urgent stimulus priority at the federal level intersects with the equally urgent international commitment to contain global warming, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote renewable energy.
By removing some 3 million drivers from the roads each day, the MTA already avoids more carbon emissions than 648,000 acres of forest absorb. This “carbon avoidance” benefit is increasingly viewed as a measurable commodity with societal benefits and a market value. In effect, the MTA provides unreimbursed carbon reduction services for which many industries now claim financial and funding credits.
The draft of the report and an executive summary of sorts are available here on the MTA’s website.
I think the MTA deserves to be commended for this document. At the same time, we should also recognize that the MTA, by virtue of its mission, is already a green organization. For every bus, subway and commuter train packed at rush hour, thousands of cars are off the roads. As the state legislature nears that March 25 deadline for action on the Ravitch recommendations, that august body should keep in mind the environmental impact of inaction as well as the economic effect a weaker MTA would have on the New York City Metropolitan Area.
Meanwhile, I’ll keep pouring over the environmental report. Already, I can see a flaw: While the commission encourages better MetroCard recycling efforts, the first draft contains nary a mention of the more environmentally friendly SmartCard options that are alive and well in various other cities. That’s small beans compared to the commission’s overall message. We can act. We can save the MTA and our region’s and country’s environment. All we need is a strong leader and the political will to do so.
As President-elect Barack Obama plans to take over the reins of a country in an economic recession, he has been putting forth some transportation stimulus package plans. Unfortunately, transit advocates are finding much to bemoan in Obama’s road-centric plans. Yesterday’s Times joined the fray with an editorial calling for transit investment. Hopefully, Obama will heed the call, and if he does, I have to believe that New York stands to benefit.
Now that President-elect Barack Obama has guaranteed $20 billion for national rail projects, Sen. Chuck Schumer is ready to go to bat for New York and the MTA. Schumer hopes to draw in $4 billion for beleaguered transit agency. This money would probably go toward the capital budget and would fund system expansion and upgrade plans.
Mobilizing the Region takes a look at what last night’s local and national election returns mean for transit investment in the Tri-State area. With Democrats in power just about everywhere, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign sees good things ahead for transit in New York.
I first started this blog nearly two years ago when Democrats, thanks in large part to the efforts of New York’s own Chuck Schumer, won the midterm elections. At the time, it seemed as though the party would deliver an urban-oriented policy with urban investments.
Two years later, my intuitions were correct. The MTA has seen an influx of investment in capital expansion projects from both the federal government and the city. While the federal money will spur on at least the first part of the Second Ave. subway and the city will pay for the 7 line extension to the Hudson Yards, a slow economy has derailed more investment in transit. It was, in 2006, a bittersweet victory then. The promise for support was there; the economic conditions failed to materialize.
Tonight, as we all witnessed a historic investment, those of us trumpeting urban policies, those of us urging for substantial investment in public transit and national infrastructure have a reason to smile. Barack Obama, a very urban-oriented candidate, won because urban voters turned out to support him. His vice president, Joe Biden, is one of the nation’s greatest proponents of its sagging rail system. This could truly be a watershed election for supporters of public transportation and rational infrastructure investment.
Of course, it is right now too early to tell what the future will hold. Our President-elect does not have an easy road ahead of him. America is still embroiled in two overseas wars; the economy is stagnating; the environment isn’t going to fix itself. But as more and more economists have recommended over the last few days, the next president should look to begin an economic recovery program by investing in cities and by investing in infrastructure.
For New York, arguably the center of America’s economy, this means an increased attention to the state of our transit network. This means better and faster transit into and out of the central business district of Manhattan. This could mean more money for the subways, more money for our aging and inadequate river crossings, more money for the commuter rail options and airports that feed our city.
It’s been a rough few months for the MTA. The organization is teetering on the brink of financial collapse. It needs millions of even billions more than it has access to, and it’s about to ram us all with a second fare hike in two years. But tonight, there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Perhaps, just perhaps, federal investment in our infrastructure will be that bright light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
While the U.S. economy is slumping, most experts feel that more infrastructure investment could get the fiscal ball rolling again. The nation’s rail system needs work; it’s roads are in terrible shape. A New Deal-type infrastructure plan would spur on the economy while providing cities and states with some badly-needed improvement. On the surface, it sounds good to me.
Over the last few weeks, the rather amusing image, at right, from the Daily Kos has made the rounds online. While it’s mostly funny for its portrayal of Sarah Palin as a derailed Thomas The Tank Engine, the image has more than a bit of truth about it when it comes to the presidential candidates and their public transit policies.
To wit, we have a story out of the Washington Post about John McCain’s love — or lack thereof — of public transit. Earlier this week, in the midst of a funding crisis for DC’s WMATA, McCain made a point to vote against a bill that would have provided fiscal relief for the rather beleaguered system affectionately termed America’s Subway by those in the District. Michael Laris reported:
McCain was also one of two dozen senators who voted last week against a bill that included [Congressman Tom] Davis’s proposal to authorize $1.5 billion in dedicated funding to Metro over 10 years. The provision was part of broader rail safety and Amtrak funding legislation.
Davis said that he was disappointed with McCain’s vote but that he thinks McCain’s opposition was directed more at Amtrak.
A statement from the McCain campaign, however, targeted the Metro funding as well as Amtrak. “Senator McCain strongly objects to earmarks in the bill such as a $1.5 billion earmark for the Washington . . . Metro system and questions if this money is warranted above the needs that may exist among other mass transit systems in our country,” the statement says. “With the serious financial situation facing our nation, this [multibillion-dollar] commitment of taxpayers’ dollars can [be] dedicated to addressing far more important national priorities.”
From the campaign’s statement alone, it’s clear that John McCain simply doesn’t understand the role transit plays in our national economy. It’s not a stretch to say that New York City and Washington, DC, are such vital, important cities because of their transit networks. If bankers in New York had to drive into the Big Apple everyday and couldn’t enjoy Metro-North, the Long Island Rail Road or New York City Transit, New York just wouldn’t be a financial hub. The same holds for DC.
While the economy is hurting for various other reasons right now, avoiding investment in transit won’t help those “far more important national priorities.” In fact, as I noted yesterday, transit should be one of those important national priorities.
A few weeks ago, City Hall, a monthly focused on New York politics, called for a national transit bailout. John McCain would rather bailout everything else other than transit, and as we know, without investment in infrastructure, the rest of the economy will suffer.
I hate to bring partisan politics into this blog too often. By it’s very nature, it’s a partisan site in favor of pro-transit investment that should pressure drivers to avoid unnecessary car rides. But right now, it’s safe to say that if transit is a key issue for any voter in this campaign — and considering the state of the MTA, New Yorkers should focus on this — John McCain is not the right candidate for the job.
We need proactive solutions to our transit funding problems. The WMATA and the MTA play too vital a role in our country and are in too deep a hole to get out on their own.
The Tappan Zee Bridge’s days are numbered, and a transit-laden span will soon replace it. (Photo by flickr user vb.rm)
After years of talks and study, state officials on Friday unveiled their $16-billion plan to build a new span crossing the Hudson River to replace the aging Tappan Zee Bridge. This new river crossing will high-speed, dedicated bus lanes and Metro-North tracks as well, ushering in a new age of transit along the area’s river crossings.
William Neuman had had more about the ambitious plan:
Officials did not say how they would pay for the project; they said they would work with a financial adviser to come up with financing options. The state transportation commissioner, Astrid C. Glynn, said that the state would seek federal financing for part of the project and that a partnership involving some form of private financing would also be considered…
Officials said the bridge itself would cost $6.4 billion. A high-speed bus corridor running from Suffern to Port Chester would cost $2.9 billion. And it would cost an additional $6.7 billion to build a new rail line that would go from the Metro-North station in Suffern and across the bridge, connecting with Metro-North’s Hudson Line south of Tarrytown.
As the 53-year-old bridge has long been the victim of overuse, this is good news in general for the region. That the planners have opted to include transit options from the start speaks volumes of the progress road planners have made over the last few decades. When the original span was constructed in 1955, none of the area’s numerous bridges or tunnels had space for transit, and in fact, Robert Moses used his power within New York City to ensure that key arteries — such as the BQE — intentionally neglected mass transportation options.
The Tri-State Transportation Campaign addressed the transit aspect of the new bridge:
The full corridor BRT/Rockland-NYC commuter rail combination is projected to attract more new and total transit riders than any other combination the team considered: 79,900 average weekday riders, with 31,200 of those being new riders not diverted from other transit systems..
The BRT service would begin operation on “day one” of the bridge’s opening, according to NYSDOT Commissioner Astrid Glynn, but the commuter rail line might not, depending on the construction schedule and whether sufficient funding was available. Glynn said that project design could begin in 2010 with construction starting in 2012, if the team stuck to an “aggressive schedule.” Needless to say, the study team does not have a good track record when it comes to timeliness.
In the end, this plan still has a long way to go before it becomes a reality. There will be multiple hearings and a search for the money. Then, we’ll have construction along with skyrocketing construction costs and a requisite multi-year delay. But no matter the final completion date or price tag, the study team should be praised for their attention to the times. A rail line from Grand Central up the Tappan Zee corridor will be a boon for the entire region. While it’s coming decades too late, transit is finally getting the respect it deserves in an automobile-centric world. I yearn for the day when all of our river crossings have dedicated bus lanes and rail lines running over them.
For some reason, New York City transit advocates are fighting, mildly, a battle over modes of transportation in the city that shouldn’t be fought. At a time when we should be teaming up to advocate for an expansion of all modes of car-independent transit in New York City, divisive ideas still permeate the field.
Most Wednesday, Jim Dwyer penned a column for The Times questioning the need for more subway lines in Manhattan. With the economy in trouble and boom times for New York City behind us, he wonders if the Second Ave. Subway is really the best use of funds right now. He wrote:
Right now, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is digging a subway tunnel down a short piece of Second Avenue. The current estimate is that the construction will cost about $3,000 every minute of every day next year. Then the real money begins.
Which raises the question: Is it really such a great idea to be digging subway tunnels in Manhattan?
His argument here relies on the spurious idea that the original subway planners were digging through nothing. In fact, those workers had to negotiate utilities lines and aqueducts just as today’s workers along Second Ave. have to.
But the interesting part, as Streetsblog noted yesterday, comes later on in the column:
Only now are city and authority officials beginning serious exploration of using the surface of the city, rather than its underside, for mass transit.
One idea is to dedicate portions of big streets and avenues to protected bus lanes, physically separated from other traffic. Riders would pay their fares before they boarded. An experiment to do that in the Bronx has made a big cut in travel time, said Joan Byron, director of the Sustainability and Environmental Justice Initiative at the Pratt Center for Community Development.
Such systems are called bus rapid transit, and the cost to build them is $1 million to $2 million per mile, Ms. Byron says, compared with $1 billion per mile for the Second Avenue subway.
Now, on the surface, it’s easy to see why Dwyer would pursue this line of thinking. Bus Rapid Transit lines would be far cheaper than a new subway line, and implementing them would involve many fewer disruptions to the local businesses along Second Ave. But this is a false dichotomy. Why should we have one without the other?
As I noted yesterday on Streetsblog, if we were to cut a subway expansion project, the Second Ave. Subway — soon to be one of the city’s most useful lines — would not be the one to go. Rather, the city and the MTA should axe the multi-billion-dollar, one-stop extension on the 7 line. There’s a real need, in terms of ridership, for the Second Ave. Subway; the 7 line extension goes to a property that won’t be developed for at least another decade.
Meanwhile, there are obvious issues of scalability here. An eight- or ten-car subway running under Second Ave. can ferry hundreds of people every few minutes quickly down the avenue to other parts of the city. A bus can ferry tens of people and isn’t nearly as efficient as the subway. With the cost differences, you truly get what you pay for, and until New York City can enforce bus rapid transit lanes either through the use of cameras or physically divided lanes, BRT in the City will suffer from the whims of the congestion it is designed to combat. It is unlikely that BRT will ever be able to supplant the efficiency and capacity of a subway line.
Finally, in reality, this is an exercise in wasted words. Why do we have to chose a subway line over bus rapid transit? Shouldn’t the two be allowed to co-exist on the streets of New York? The city and MTA should develop a way to enjoy the benefits of bus rapid transit lines and lanes and a new subway as well. Sure, beggars can’t be choosers, but until the city is willing to think outside the box a bit for transit, advocates will have to make an unnecessary choice. Transit it should always be, no matter the mode.