Moynihan Station

Transit-related developments irk the Empire State Building

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 20, 2010

With Penn West, not shown, and 15 Penn Plaza, center, the Empire State Building could be getting some unwanted skyline company soon.

Earlier this spring, as part of its plan for 15 Penn Plaza, Vornado Reality revealed plans to reopen the Gimbels Passageway between 6th and 7th Avenues underneath 33rd St. Although the company’s development proposal failed a Community Board vote and is still awaiting an anchor tenant, the City Planning Commission approved the building, and as Speaker Christine Quinn is a friend to developers, a City Council vote next week is all but assured. But if a group of people banding together to protect the Empire State Building’s place amidst the New York skyline has its way, 15 Penn Plaza may not get so high off the ground.

The problem is one of height and proximity. Vornado’s new high-rise, located just two blocks west of the iconic Empire State Building, would top off at 1216 feet. The art deco building at 350 Fifth Ave. rises to just 1250 feet before the radio spire and lightning rod reach to just over 1453 feet. The new building, fear landmark preservationists, will radically alter the way the Empire State Building is perceived.

“The Empire State Building is the internationally recognized icon on the skyline of New York City,” Anthony Malkin, one of the owners of the Empire State Building, said. “We are its custodians, and must protect its place. Would a tower be allowed next to the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben’s clock tower? Just as the world will never tolerate a drilling rig next to The Statue of Liberty, why should governmental bonuses and waivers be granted to allow a structure as tall and bulky at 15 Penn Plaza to be built 900 feet away from New York City’s iconic landmark and beacon?”

The various renderings — many of which are collected at The Architect’s Newspaper Blog — range from dire to reasonable. Take a look, for example, at the view from New Jersey or the way 15 Penn Plaza looms to the west of the Empire State Building if seen from the east:

The Observer’s Eliot Brown has more on Malkin’s crusade:

He first came to be involved with 15 Penn Plaza when Vornado began shepherding the plans for the tower through the city’s seven-month-long public-approval process, which concludes with the vote by the City Council this month. The size of the tower caught him off-guard, he said. He began to round up consultants and push for changes, including at the City Planning Commission, given that such a building so close by would significantly change the skyline. “We’re not talking about preventing tall buildings in New York,” Mr. Malkin said. “The question here is this tall building here in New York, being approximately 800, 900 feet away from the Empire State Building, crowding the distinctive skyline of the city.”

He is no fan of the design—he likened it to “an undersea ICBM”—and sees a decision on the tower as a historic one, saying it is “akin to the loss of Penn Station.”

As for what’s driving Mr. Malkin, it seems to be a transparent self-interest. He views himself as a guardian of his building’s place in the skyline, and, as such, he is protective of anything that might encroach on that. If there are financial motivations-and Mr. Malkin says there are not-they are not obvious (although he has raised concerns that the new skyscraper would interfere with his building’s radio tower). The Vornado tower and the Empire State Building would compete for two different types of tenants; namely, those willing to pay high rents for modern space at the Vornado tower (banks and the like), and those who can’t. Tenants at the Empire State Building include the FDIC and nonprofits like Human Rights Watch, for instance.

Malkin isn’t alone in his fight. Peg Breen of the New York Landmarks Conservancy expressed her surprise at the size of the proposed 15 Penn Plaza as well. “It’s hard to understand how City Planning could say that 15 Penn Plaza would have no impact on the Empire State Building when they already lowered a proposed 53rd Street building for that very reason,” she said. “We would urge the Council to look at the discretionary waivers and bonuses this proposal has received.”

As this battle brews, though, and the fate of the proposed development atop the Gimbels Passageway awaits City Council action (and the inevitable lawsuits), the altered skyline could come into play at 8th Ave. as well. As Jeremy Smerd from Crain’s New York York Business reported yesterday, the city, state and Vornado are haggling over the potential sale of 1 million square feet of air rights above the Moynihan Station. With the initial contracts for Moynihan’s Phase 1 approved on Monday, the air rights are the next big issue that must be sorted out.

Interestingly, an air rights deal could lead to a quick development at 33th St. and 8th Ave. If Vornado works out a deal, Penn West, a 67-story, 693-foot-tall tower above the new depot, could begin to rise soon. It’s going to get awfully crowded along the 33rd St. corridor soon, and the iconic Empire State Building may soon have some tall transit-related company indeed.

34 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesBuses

Disabled groups threaten TLC with suit over dollar vans

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 19, 2010

As the MTA must respond to a lawsuit over the June service cuts from disabled advocacy groups, the Taxi & Limousin Commission may face a similar legal challenge soon. The TLC will soon began licensing dollar van companies to provide service along bus routes that were eliminated by the MTA. This private van service isn’t subjected to the same Americans with Disabilities Act standards as the MTA, but with the TLC’s imprimatur needed to run vans, advocacy groups may have a legal opening they’re willing to exploit. And it exploit they will.

As Crain’s New York reported yesterday, an attorney with the United Spinal Association said that his organization will sue if the TLC doesn’t require vans to be wheelchair-accessible. “If the TLC wants to go ahead with inaccessible vans, we will sue them,” Jim Weisman said. The TLC, reports Jeremy Smerd, is not going to require accessible vans, and as the Crains reporter notes, with the TWU’s application for a van route in, this lawsuit could pit disabled riders against one of its key transit allies. The dollar van program will not start until September, and at that time, these advocacy routes will weigh their legal options.

4 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesRolling Stock

Reefing program cut as R32s and R42s stick around

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 19, 2010

As first reported by Heather Haddon, the MTA will not be scrapping the R32s and R42s that currently run along the A/C and J/Z lines. To save approximately $1.6 million in 2010 and and around $2.4 million overall, Transit will retrofit these cars and keep this batch of 46-year-old rolling stock in use for a few more trips before replacing them later on in the five-year capital plan. The MTA still plans to spend $748 million in capital funds to buy 340 new B division cars before 2015.

As Haddon reports, “[These] trains have the worst record for breakdowns in the system, and are about seven times more likely to fall apart than the new cars on the letter lines, NYC Transit records show.” By keeping them in service and ending the reefing program, the authority can save money on transportation, hazardous material abatement and barging costs. I do wonder how much of those savings is offset by higher maintenance costs. Either way, the fish in the mid-Atlantic will be so disappointed, and we won’t be seeing anymore of those nifty photos of scrapped subway trains on barges.

17 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA

Disabled riders file suit to overturn service cuts

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 19, 2010

Ten days ago, WNYC’s Alisa Chang reported on the stirrings of legal action from disabled riders who believed they were unfairly impacted by the MTA’s June service cuts. As legal services groups and disabilities rights advocates worked to prepare filings, the WNYC story served to put the MTA on notice of yet another legal challenge to their service cuts plans.

Earlier this week, three disabled riders along with two non-profit organizations — Disabled In Action of Metropolitan New York and The Brooklyn Center for the Independence of the Disabled Inc. — allegedly filed suit in federal court in Brooklyn, formally lodging a complaint against the MTA’s service cuts. The filing, which I cannot find on the Federal PACER and have been unable to get from Legal Services NYC or the two other named legal groups, is said to claim that disabled riders were disparately impacted by the service cuts. The plaintiffs have sued both the MTA and New York City Transit and are requesting a permanent injunction reversing the service cuts and restoring paratransit services.

When I track down the complaint, I’ll post it here. For now, we must rely on the the organization’s press release for details:

The lawsuit challenges city-wide service cuts implemented by the MTA and NYCT beginning on June 27, 2010, cutting eighty-nine bus lines. These service cuts have forced transit passengers either to travel a greater distance to an alternate bus route or to travel by subway rather than by bus. For Plaintiffs, however, both of these options are impossible, thus imposing a greater hardship on people with disabilities than on people without disabilities. And they cannot rely on the City’s already overburdened paratransit system – Access-A-Ride – because rather than ensuring that additional resources are devoted to Access-A-Ride in anticipation of the increase in demand occasioned by the reduction in bus service, the Defendants have instituted or approved significant cuts to the system. There are approximately 138,000 individuals approved for Access-A-Ride and disabled riders made 5.8 million trips on Access-A-Ride in 2008; the June 27th transit cuts are estimated to eliminate 26,000 trips on Access-A-Ride each year…

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit asserts that the Defendants’ actions violate both the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The ADA mandates that public entities may not discriminate against people with disabilities and may not deny them the benefits of services provided to people without disabilities. And the law makes it clear that it is “discrimination” for a public entity which operates a fixed route system to fail to provide paratransit services that are “comparable to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities using such system.” This includes response time, which also must be comparable, to the extent practicable, to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities. 42 U.S.C. section 12143(a) (2). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against a protected class by any program which receives federal assistance.

Without reading the pleadings, I can’t assess the plaintiff’s chances of success, but considering the contours of the ADA and New York City Transit-specific provisions, it will be tough for them to secure a permanent injunction that reverses the entire slate of service cuts.

Still, that won’t stop the lawyers from arguing the case. Jane Greengold Stevens from the New York Legal Assistance Group claims that the MTA must beef up its Access-a-Ride options if the cuts are not restored. “If the bus lines or even some of the bus lines are not restored,” Stevens said, “then they’re going to need to not only rescind the cuts to Access-A-Ride, but also actually augment it in order to meet the need created by the elimination of the buses.”

Even the borough’s politicians — the same ones who won’t provide money for the MTA to offer what they feel are adequate services for disabled riders — are getting in on the act. Councilwoman Letitia James hosted a rally in support of the lawsuit, and Brooklyn borough president Marty Markowitz voiced his beliefs. “Some of these routes may not be the most heavily used,” he said, “but they are absolute lifelines for riders with disabilities or who are elderly. There is simply no reasonable way for people with mobility and accessibility issues who cannot take the subway—especially considering many stations are not ADA-compliant—to get around with cuts to these vital bus routes and Access-A-Ride.”

As sympathetic as I am to the plight of the city’s disabled riders, this is not a lawsuit that will be easy to win.

13 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
TWU

A TWU postcard takes aim at Walder, again

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 18, 2010

As the MTA continues to look for ways to cut costs, the Transport Workers Union Local 100 is continuing to take jabs at MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder. As The Daily News’ Helen Kennedy reports today, the union will be distributing the above postcard later this week to mock for Walder for daring to go on vacation to his house in France after eliminating a few thousand jobs.

The postcard features a message on the back: “Heard the weather’s real hot and humid back in New York and that you’re packed in like sardines on the trains and buses because of all the service cuts. I’ll be back in plenty of time to push through the fare hikes.”

Union leaders responsible for this card, including TWU President John Samuelsen who, like Walder, makes a six-figure salary, want to whip up rider anger at Walder over the cuts. “Jay Walder is completely out of touch with average, everyday working New Yorkers who don’t have country houses – or the unmitigated gall to take a three-week vacation in the south of France in the midst of drastic cuts,” he said to Kennedy. “I personally believe that transit riders are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that their mass transit has been hijacked by millionaires.” Pick your poison: hijacked by millionaires or hijacked by labor.

I understand what the TWU is hoping to do with this card. They want to somehow suggest that Walder’s salary is the root of all evil and that the house he and his family purchased with the money he made while at Transport for London and McKinsey should preclude him from running a transit system. The truth is far more uncomfortable for labor.

Right now, John Samuelsen has failed his constituents. While trying to impinge on the credibility of the MTA chiefs, he has presided over a period of nearly unprecedented job loss for TWU members. Instead of taking the political risky but necessary step of working with transit advocates or with the MTA to secure alternate means of funding for station agents and constant service levels, he has gone for the public ploy of protecting the TWU’s members, and that ploy isn’t getting anyone anywhere.

For now, this battle over nothing will continue to take up headlines and time. It will lead to animosity between parties that should be working together against a state hellbent on transit policies that don’t adhere to common sense. It is, in a word, counterproductive.

I want to support a sensible labor union. I don’t want to see jobs eliminated and the subways less secure or clean. I want to see the TWU use its might for the good of public transit in New York City. That hasn’t happened yet as the TWU leadership seeks to secure its position atop a union still reeling from the 2005 strike. No matter how this battle plays out, the riding public will continue to lose until the two sides can reach a ceasefire and fight together for the better of everyone.

68 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Economics

In the suburbs, an uphill battle to overturn the payroll tax

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 18, 2010

As the summer has dragged on, an MTA payroll tax revolt has slowly developed in the suburban counties that ring New York City. Nassau County has filed a suit to overturn the tax, and the future of the levy has become a campaign issue in some of the far-reaching areas that see only minimal MTA service. Even though Gov. David Paterson shifted the bulk of the tax burden to New York City denizens, these suburban dwellers want their transit service but not the costs associated with it.

In The Wall Street Journal today, Andrew Grossman offers up an overview of the tax revolt. He reports that Suffolk County will file a brief in support of Nassau County’s lawsuit but also stresses how the payroll tax now accounts for $1.3-$1.5 billion of the MTA’s $12 billion budget. Without it, the MTA is sunk. “It was either that or let them raise fares 35 or 40%, cut service dramatically,” Jim LaCarrubba, campaign manager to payroll tax supporter Sen. Brian Foley, said. “To just say you don’t like it and have no solution on how to fix the problems, it’s not being genuine to the public.”

Republican challengers such as Lee Zeldin highlight the flaws in the opposition’s argument. He though claims the MTA could save $1.3 billion simply by cutting administrative costs and raising fares, but a fare hike to cover such a great deficit would be in excess of 25 percent. Other State Senate hopefuls are more willing to consider East River bridge tolls, but most simply want other people to pay for their services. “Out here on the East End of Long Island people rely a lot less on” the LIRR, Zeldin said. “That’s why there’s so much resentment.” The challenges to the payroll tax, as Grossman reports, have very slim chances of legal success.

5 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA TechnologyView from Underground

A long wait with information-less info boards

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 18, 2010

Let me tell you a story about my ride home from Bowling Green on Tuesday night and the MTA’s ability to bring new technology into the fold. The story begins at around 10:30 p.m. when I alighted from the Staten Island ferry and made my way to the 4 train. I was riding a familiar route — from Bowling Green to Nevins St. on the 4 and then from Nevins to Grand Army Plaza on the 2 or 3 — that should take 15-20 minutes. Instead, it took 40.

I didn’t have to wait long at Bowling Green tonight, and after a minute, the 4 arrived. We sped through the Joralemon St. tunnel and left Borough Hall quickly. Right before pulling into Nevins St., though, the train came to a stop, and I saw the red taillights of a 3 pulling into the station on the local tracks. Barring a kind conductor, I knew we’d miss the 3, and as the 4 finally pulled into Nevins St., the 3 was pulling away.

It was 10:43, and I wasn’t happy to miss the 3. I wanted to get home, but I assumed the next local train wouldn’t be far behind. After all, trains run frequently down the 7th Avenue line. When I glanced at the countdown clocks, I knew we were in trouble because the next local train wasn’t due to arrive for 20 minutes.

So I waited, and I stewed. While I understand the culture of on-time performance that pervades the MTA is a strong one, customer service should, as I’ve written before, be a priority. Customer service means that, at 10:45 when no local will be arriving until after 11 p.m., the 3 should be wait an extra 30 seconds for a connecting express train at a popular transfer point.

As I sat for 20 minutes, I had ample opportunity to reflect on how utterly in the dark those of us waiting were. Because Nevins St. is a leak spot for cell service, I could check Twitter but saw no reports of problems along the West Side IRT routes. Instead, six 4 express trains, including the one I was on, passed us in 20 minutes. Transit opted to make none of those trains run local, and we the customers were left sitting on a platform for far longer than we should been.

While I waited, I took note of how utterly devoid of information the brand-new, $171-million Public Address/Customer Information Screens were. Instead of announcing why the trains were delayed or telling us that the first local train to arrive would in fact run express from Atlantic Ave. to Franklin St., the PA/CIS signs were generally stuck on this screen:

As the picture makes clear, nothing about the sign is helpful. On the one hand, there’s a train in the station, but the sign says the next train is two minutes away. On the other, it’s simply scrolling the same rote message about suspicious activity in the subway system that gets rammed down our ears every five minutes. In fact, this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed the PA/CIS system stuck on this message. A few weeks ago, the signs at Grand Army Plaza sufferd from the same fate; it was stuck on the police message and neglected to note that trains were entering, leaving or approaching the station.

When not stuck on the train message, the information given by the boards was simply inaccurate. Take a look at this shot I grabbed as a train pulled into the station:

Unfortunately, for those of us waiting, the 2 train was indeed 17 minutes away, but the next 4 was much closer. In fact, three 4 trains filed by during the 10 minutes seen here. The PA/CIS board last night had nary a clue, and again, this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed these problems. On July 31, the signs at Nevins St. were frozen. The top line read “1. Woodlawn 4 0 min.” while the bottom line said, “System Under Test.” Even as trains entered and left the station, the sign wouldn’t display the correct train information. Sometimes, it would flash to the correct information but would again cycle back to the frozen frame even as a 4 was note zero minutes away.

For now, Transit can and has claimed that the system is still undergoing tests. When I asked a few weeks ago during the July heat wave about countdown clocks that had been turned off, Transit officials told me that the extreme underground heat had them worried about potential damage to equipment. Shutting them down seems to be a makeshift solution at best, and that doesn’t explain away the buggy behavior.

Across the globe, transit systems as old or older than New York City’s have used countdown clocks for decades, but the MTA is still struggling to get its PA/CIS project in order. Still, the customers seem like an afterthought, and tonight, as I waited for a Brooklyn local train and then waited some more and then finally got home 45 minutes after swiping in at Bowling Green, I understood why people don’t think the MTA is truly going their way.

25 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Fulton Street

A Transit Center grows at Fulton St.

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 17, 2010

The foundation for the Fulton St. Transit Center as seen from above. (Photo: Peter Kaufman/Ink Lake)

The MTA announced today a milestone at the site of the future Fulton St. Transit Center. Both the underpinning for the Corbin Building and the foundation for the Fulton Street Transit Center are complete, and progress remains on pace for a 2014 opening of the long-awaited complex.

“We have reached a significant milestone by completing the foundation of what will become a landmark transportation facility,” Michael Horodniceanu, president of MTA Capital Construction, said. “Anyone who has had to navigate the myriad of ramps, stairs, and confusing signs at Fulton Street understands the importance of providing our customers with a more seamless experience at this major downtown hub. The Transit Center will improve travel for hundreds of thousands of daily commuters and lower Manhattan residents and visitors while providing a modern and convenient retail location.”

When completed, the $1.4 billion transit center will vastly improve the Lower Manhattan transit experience for over 300,000 daily customers. Both street access and station navigation will be vastly improved, and the upgrades include better circulation and reduced overcrowding for the A/C platform as well as a new underground concourse that will connect the R at Cortlandt St. and the 4/5 at Broadway with the PATH Hub and the World Financial Center. The completed transit center will also feature 25,000 square feet of new retail.

With the foundation complete, the MTA will now began to build up the center itself, and in a few months, the structure will begin to peak above the blue construction fence. In the press release touting this milestone, the MTA praised Skanska, the contractor, for keeping the project on time. Of course, original plans called for the then-$750 million transit center to open in late 2009. “On time,” then, is all relative.

16 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BronxService Cuts

At the Barretto Point Park pool, fewer visitors after the cuts

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 17, 2010

As one of the myriad service cuts implemented by the MTA this service, the decision to cut the Barretto Point Park Pool shuttle for a savings of just $100,000 looms large. The MTA launched this bus in 2008 and ran it for approximately 11-12 weeks every summer, shuttling pool-bound swimmers from the 6 at Hunts Point Ave. to the pool. With no shuttle, the pool attendance has plunged.

In Metro this week, Carly Baldwin explores the numbers. As of August 11, only 22,473 people had visited the pool this year, down from 29,807 last year. Considering the heat we’ve had and the relatively dry summer, a 25-percent drop in attendance is very unexpected. Those who run the pool, however, are pointing fingers at the MTA.

“It’s been almost the hottest July on record. Numbers should be up,” Adam Liebowitz from the Point Community Development Corporation said to Baldwin. “In previous summers you had to wait on line 20, 30 minutes before you could go in. But now I’ve heard the lines are gone. It’s obviously because of the lack of public transportation.”

On the surface, the MTA’s numbers seem to warrant eliminating the shuttle bus. After all, they say, only 120 people took the route during the week and the weekend average was just 340. But over the course of the 73 days the shuttle ran last year, that added up to nearly 14,000 pool-bound travelers. Now, unless these Bronx denizens want to risk a 30-minute walk from the subway or an 11-block walk from the Bx6 through an area known for prostitution, the swimming pool if off limits. Is the $100,000 saved over the summer worth it?

17 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Politics

Assembly rep Colton denies MTA funds, then bashes it

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 17, 2010

Fourteen years ago, the 47th District in Brooklyn elected William Colton, a Democrat, to to serve as its Assembly representative. His district includes Bensonhurst, Gravesend, Bath Beach, Dyker Heights and Midwood, transit-heavy areas that depend on numerous subway lines and bus routes to connect it with the rest of New York City.

Colton’s district is a minority in New York City in that more than 50 percent of his constituents are car owners. According to stale numbers, 46.1 percent of households in District 47 do not own cars while 53.9 percent do. However, only 3.2 percent of drivers head into Manhattan’s Central Business District from Colton’s area while 31.2 percent of workers take transit to that CBD. Still, Assembly representative Colton can join the long and growing list of Albany representatives who are happy to bash the MTA with one hand while taking the agency’s money away with the other.

Colton’s comments come to us from the Brooklyn Eagle in what appears to be a press release. The Assembly rep is upset about the elimination of numerous station agents. “The MTA has been going down a dangerous path of reducing front-line personnel to a minimum,” Colton said. “Leaving booths in portions of major stations closed inconveniences people from all walks of life, including the elderly, disabled and other persons needing assistance. Closing these booths, some of which are the only booths serving a station entrance, is a disgrace.”

He continued with a typical rant about the MTA’s service becoming akin to that offered in the 1970s when track fires, massive delays and rampant problems were the norm. With new rolling stock and an investment into the physical plant of the subways, no comparison less apt. “It’s time to look at reorganizing the MTA into an agency which is focused on improving transit and increasing service, not raising fares and cutting service. If we fail to change course, we risk our subway degrading into a crime-ridden, unreliable service such as existed in the 1970s.”

The MTA is doing everything Colton accuses it of doing, but for someone who has shown no willingness to support transit, his moralizing rubs me the wrong. Colton, who claims that the MTA is “failing to meet the public need for safe and reliable public transit,” has been nothing but bad for transit. In 2008, despite the make-up of his district, he didn’t support congestion pricing and couched his opposition in populist terms. At the time, he said that the city’s “real goal of the proposal is to provide a new revenue source from the middle class and working poor.” Never mind the fact that middle and working class residents simply do not own cars or, if they do, do not drive into Manhattan’s CBD during the congestion pricing hours. Never mind the fact that these residents would stand to benefit from investments in transit.

His finest moment came when he levied this claim, using what I would call reverse logic to take apart congestion pricing:

In fact passage of this plan will almost guarantee a large fare increase because whatever monies which are given to the MTA will not be used to pay for public transit improvements but instead will be used to collateralize borrowing which will result in higher future interest payments which public transit users will need to repay with higher fares. Therefore it will not encourage people to use cars since use of mass transit will be almost as expensive. The congestion fee will impact on those with low and middle incomes and will have little impact on the wealthy who will simply use it as a business deduction.

Colton did not stop in 2008 or start bashing the MTA yesterday. Earlier this year, he called for the authority to inform community boards of changes to station staffing levels and has, as Cap’n Transit noted, called for eliminating waste and corruption. He also voted for removing $143 million in earmarked money from the MTA’s coffers late last year.

The problem with Colton’s position is the noise. The MTA should be more willing to talk about the safety impact of cutting station agents. MTA leadership has engaged in an extensive effort to cut waste at all levels. But the MTA can’t fund station agents without money, and Colton is just one of many who has worked to undercut the MTA’s funding streams. He hasn’t approved measures — such as congestion pricing — that the majority of New Yorkers support, and he voted to take away earmarked dollars. His left hand is criticizing the MTA for actions of his right, and that cannot stand.

29 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts