Public Transit Policy

On Friday afternoon — long a favored time of the Bush Administration to drop bad news — came word that the federal Highway Trust Fund is going to run out of money before October. At first blush, it doesn’t seem as though this news would impact mass transportation in New York City, but, as with all things transit, the funds from one area impact the entire department. The mass transit infrastructure in New York City and throughout the nation could bear the brunt of this financial shortfall.

Times reporters David Stout and Matthew L. Wald illuminate the issue for us:

An important account in the federal Highway Trust Fund will run out of money this month, a situation that could hamper completion of road and bridge construction projects across the country, Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters said on Friday.

Because the trust fund’s highway account is draining away, the Transportation Department will have to delay payments for projects, Ms. Peters said at a news conference. Since money from Washington typically pays 80 to 90 percent of the cost of federally aided road work, states with shaky finances may have to consider curtailing projects…

Another possible solution would be to transfer money to the highway account from the account that the trust fund maintains to finance mass transit. But lawmakers from large cities that rely on trust-fund aid for their transit systems could be expected to resist such a move.

Stout and Wald’s conclusion here is actually a total understatement and misrepresentation of the facts. As The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, the Bush Administration would prefer to take money from mass transit and move it into the highway fund. But Congress rightly and soundly rejected that effort.

In the end, though, this detail doesn’t impact the bigger picture. The Department of Transportation is facing a shortage of money due to rising gas prices, more fuel efficient vehicles and fewer miles traveled. These causes of the shortfall should be applauded, but mass transit — and the nation’s transportation network on the whole — will suffer. Congress and USDOT need to figure out a forward-looking solution to this problem. No longer can we as a society afford to rely on measures that contribute to our energy and environmental crises.

On a local level, this news has direct ramifications for the MTA and, in particular, its current big-ticket items. A significant amount of the funding for Phase I of the Second Ave. Subway comes from the federal Department of Transportation, and clearly, these plans are not high up on the list of priorities coming out of a Republican-run DOT. While we may see a changing of the guard over the next few months, roads will always come first on a national level.

As the Second Ave. Subway trudges its way toward a completion, eight decades after the plans were first announced, forces are conspiring against it. But the MTA, the city and the state can’t let another obstacle interfere with this progress. The subways should be okay; the MTA should get its money; but nothing is taken for granted along the Second Ave. Subway.

Rare are the days when I, as a blogger, venture into the world of partisan politics. Those grounds are covered by people with more time for blogger than I have, and I like to keep my focus on news and views from the subway. Sure, most regular readers have probably picked up my liberal leanings, but in New York, we operate in our own political world.

So pardon my intrusion while I look across the country to Denver where, in a few days, a train man will accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for vice president. On Wednesday night, Sen. Joe Biden from the great state of Delaware will issue that evening’s speech, and while his love of and reliance on commuter trains may not make it into his introductory remarks this week, it’s sure to come up between now and Election Day.

Biden, you see, is a bona fide commuter like the rest of us — or almost like the rest of us. The Senator travels back and forth from Washington, DC to Wilmington, Delaware, every day during the Senate sessions. While some people may opt to make that round trip via a chauffeured car, Senator Biden relies on Amtrak for his round trips. His monthly ticket costs over $1000, quite a bit more than our Unlimited Ride Metrocards with or without another fare hike, but it’s still rail travel.

So then as rail fans and transportation-minded writers everywhere are excited about Biden’s potential rail advocacy, we can play the “What If?” game for New York. What if Biden, via the Obama ticket, earns his spot in the next presidential administration? What sort of transportation gains can we expect?

Well, on the surface, the gains will be tough to achieve. As with any politically-oriented goal, Congress will have to approve an effort by Vice President Biden to increase funding for, say, Amtrak or Amtrak-oriented development. But perhaps Biden would begin to push for more money for the beleaguered national rail company. Perhaps, we’ll see funds heading our way for the ever-planned Moynihan Station. Perhaps other rail-oriented efforts will earn more respect — and funds — from the federal government.

In the end, it is of course far too early to speculate on the transit advances that should come out of Washington, DC, when the next administration takes over. But any rail fan should think long and hard about supporting the Obama-Biden ticket. It is, after all, the one with the rail-friendly fellow running for Vice President.

In Saturday’s New York Times, Jeffrey Zupan of the Regional Plan Association penned an excellent op-ed column on the state of public transportation in New York City. The arguments he makes in his column are pretty much right in line with what I’m trying to do with Second Ave. Sagas.

He writes:

What do we want our public transit system to look like? We want riders to prefer it to driving, rather than viewing the system as something to be avoided at all costs or begrudgingly accepting it as a necessary evil. We want it to be reliable and safe. We want it to be fast, frequent, nearby and uncrowded. We want it to take us to our three major airports and to emerging job centers like Downtown Brooklyn and Jamaica, Queens, and to our neighbors in White Plains, Jersey City, Newark and Stamford, Conn.

The projects that can make this happen are not fanciful or futuristic. They are measures that are within our grasp. They include new ways of thinking (like ferries in places where ground routes are circuitous and time-consuming), but also common-sense ideas that have long been needed (like buses, with lower floors to make boarding faster and easier, in lanes that are separated from traffic).

There are small things that would alleviate daily frustrations, like electronic signs that would tell us, in a way we can understand, exactly when the next bus or train is arriving. But there are also big things that would expand the capacity and usefulness of our transit system….

A well-functioning transit system is vital to our economy. Everyone — not just transit riders — should help pay for it, because everyone gains from it. Fare hikes may be necessary, but so are taxes. Car drivers see less traffic. Business owners and workers receive more profits and more jobs. And everyone else breathes cleaner air.

There has never been a more important time to improve public transit. The right question is not how we can afford a better system, but what will happen if we fail to pay for one?

This is why we fight for recognition for the transit system. This is why we fight for more funding and sensible congestion measures. This is why we want the MTA to improve its public image and why we want politicians and the public to understand that, while we all want a better transit system, it’s not going to come without its costs. This is why I write this blog everyday.

Streetcars are on the prowl in U.S. cities. (Photo by flickr user trainman74)

Once upon a time, in an alternate history that the auto industry today would prefer we all forget, the American city streets were paved with gold. Maybe they weren’t paved with the gold found at Sutter’s Mill, but they were filled with the comforting rails and power lines of streetcars. Back and forth these cars would go until one day, they all just stopped running.

But, hark, what is that I hear? Is that the nostalgic clanging of a streetcar bell? Perhaps, it is. Last week, the Gray Lady herself told us that streetcars are making a comeback in cities across the nation. From Cincinnati to Seattle, from Charlotte to Salt Lake City, city planners are looking to revive the vast network of streetcars that used to transport America’s urban dwellers from one point to the next while using existing surface routes and right-of-ways.

Bob Driehaus writes:

At least 40 other cities are exploring streetcar plans to spur economic development, ease traffic congestion and draw young professionals and empty-nest baby boomers back from the suburbs, according to the Community Streetcar Coalition, which includes city officials, transit authorities and engineers who advocate streetcar construction.

More than a dozen have existing lines, including New Orleans, which is restoring a system devastated by Hurricane Katrina. And Denver, Houston, Salt Lake City and Charlotte, N.C., have introduced or are planning to introduce streetcars.

“They serve to coalesce a neighborhood,” said Jim Graebner, chairman of the American Public Transportation Association’s streetcar and vintage trolley committee. “That’s very evident in places like San Francisco, which never got rid of its streetcar system.”

It’s a veritable utopia of light rail proposals. Of course, streetcars are not without their detractors. “It looks like it’s going to take you somewhere, but it’s only designed to support downtown residents,” Randall O’Toole, an expert on (anti-)public transit policy, said. “If officials fall for the hype and don’t ask the hard questions, voters should vote them out.” But we’ll ignore him and let his Cato Institute donors speak for themselves.

O’Toole aside, it’s hard to argue against streetcars, as The Overhead Wire noted this weekend. They’re relatively cheap, environmentally friendly and encourage reducing one’s carbon expenditures. In an age in which we’re all focused on shrinking driving mileage and making cities more pedestrian-friendly, streetcars are a grand ally in that scheme.

It is also not without irony that cities are starting to reclaim their streetcar past. While Americans today either don’t know about or willfully choose to ignore it, had American cities stood up for themselves fifty or sixty years ago, streetcars would still be a vibrant part of the urban landscape. While I mentioned that one day, streetcars just disappeared, it wasn’t as simple as that. Did you really think it would be?

Starting in the 1930s and continuing on through the 1950s, when American car manufacturers starting coming into their Golden Age and owning a car became not a sign of wealth but a trademark of the middle class, these companies starting snatching up streetcar properties. Now, while some of them bought the streetcar lines to create an internal monopoly in which these public transit systems would run only, say, GM buses and cars, others ripped up the streetcars and shut them down when they weren’t quote-unquote profitable enough.

While, as the Wikipedia entry for the Great American streetcar scandal notes, a whole bunch of other factors contributed to the demise of streetcars, the demise of American cities in the 1960s and 1970s was a direct result of the fall and decline of streetcars. Today, America is more urban than ever before, and city officials across the nation are finally realizing the benefits of streetcars. Better late than never again.

As you while away a lazy Sunday afternoon in August, allow me to guide your attention to a few rail policy links bound to infuriate even the most placid of rail advocates. Both of these articles use incredibly misleading arguments and rely on false logic to paint rail options and their advocates in negative lights.

We start with The Overhead Wire’s critique of an anti-rail piece in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. As always, rail opponents are still trumping the power of some Holy Grail electric automobile that’s just around the corner and will save the environment as we know it. Why should we invest in rail options if cars can save us all? As you could guess, The Overhead Wire eviscerates the Texas piece.

If that doesn’t quite boil your blood enough, mosey on over to the Hawaii Reporter and get a load of this gem. The headline: A Vote Against Rail is a Vote for Freedom and Prosperity. The pullquote: “Today’s average car is far more energy efficient than the average rail line.” Need I say more?

These arguments speak volumes about the state of the rail debate in our country, and while New Yorkers, by and large, understand and appreciate our region’s need for viable public transit, many Americans do not. Streetcars may be making a return in theory, but those transit advocates are facing an uphill battle. As funding public transit on a national level gets pigeonholed into the Red/Blue debate that so dominates politics today, everyone suffers in the end.

In a secluded and idyllic corner of Brooklyn, where South American taco vendors mingle with Fairway-bound foodies, a giant blue box recently opened its doors, and with it came an interesting experiment in public transit.

Just over three weeks ago, the highly-anticipated New York City Ikea opened its doors on the waters of the New York Harbor in Red Hook, New York. Red Hook has escaped the gentrification that has run rampant over the rest of the western sections of Brooklyn largely because the nearest subway stop is a mile away and the buses are never too reliable. But with the Ikea came more public transit options to the area.

As part of their efforts to attract customers while encouraging New Yorkers to avoid driving, Ikea is running free shuttles to various transit-accessible parts of Brooklyn and Water Taxi ferries to and from Lower Manhattan. Well, as New Yorkers — Ikea-bound and otherwise — are rather resourceful people, residents of Brooklyn have taken a liking to the free transit options. Jeff Wilkins of The Daily News explains:

Countless commuters are taking advantage of Ikea’s free bus and ferry – without ever setting foot inside the giant Swedish furniture store that opened last month in the waterfront neighborhood. The posh, coach-style shuttle buses, equipped with footrests, reading lights and music, are quickly becoming popular with travelers tired of shelling out $2 for overcrowded – and, by comparison, uncomfortable – city buses …

The free bus service transports passengers from Red Hook to stops on Court St. and to subway stations at Fourth Ave. and Smith and Ninth Sts. every 15 minutes during store hours.

Thrifty bus riders aren’t the only ones taking advantage of Ikea’s services. City residents are also saving $6 each way and taking the store’s free water taxi to and from Wall Street. “It’s such a nice ride, I’d almost be happy to pay for it,” said Steve Riley, 40, who lives in Park Slope, takes the Ikea bus and then transfers to the Ikea water taxi for his job in SoHo.

Wilkins writes that only eight of the 19 riders on the first shuttle of the day last week were bound for the Swedish furniture store. Two of those folks were employees.

So what does this mean for public transit in New York? Well, at a time when the MTA is increasingly coming under attack from politicians and the public, this news does nothing to bolster the MTA’s case. But is it a call for privatization? Some time this week or next, I’ll have a long post about the future of the MTA, but I’m not sure privatization is ever the way to go. It didn’t work in London; it hasn’t really worked anywhere mainly because public transit doesn’t really turn a profit. The aims of private companies and the goals of public transportation systems are rarely in line with each other.

Rather, the MTA could take a lesson from the comfort and ease of the Ikea Shuttle. Riders want to like their public transit options. They want to be ferried or bused in relative comfort with enough space to sit. They want a reliable and steady schedule, and from the sound of it, they’re willing to pay for that privilege. Perhaps the MTA could use the lessons of the Ikea Shuttle to improve bus service; perhaps the Ikea Shuttle will remain unique among the city’s transit options. Either way, it’s certainly an interesting case study in unintended consequences.

Photo above of the Ikea Shuttle by flickr user the real janelle.