If the subways seem more crowded that usual lately, it’s not an illusion spurred on by sluggish trains and grumpy commuters. According to the numbers released by New York City Transit, subway ridership is on the climb yet again, and the figures could reach near-record levels by the end of 2008.

The MTA this week announced the final tally of subway and bus riders through February. The subways have seen over 256.5 million riders this year while 118.5 million have ridden the city’s buses. Last year through February, 240.2 million swiped their MetroCards through subway turnstiles while 114.9 dipped their way onto buses.

If the subways maintain this six percent growth rate throughout 2008, we could see upwards of 1.66 billion subway riders this year. This total would be a new record in the MTA era and just 300 million off the all-time peak subway ridership figures.

The make or break moment will come next month when the MTA releases the March 2008 ridership figures. Then, we’ll see what — if any — effect the most recent fare hike had on ridership figures. In March 2007, 135 million people rode the New York City subways, and I believe even more rode the trains this March despite an early March hike. But will that number increase again by another six percent?

Internally, New York City Transit and the MTA don’t anticipate a decline in ridership, and they say that an increase is overwhelmingly likely. The average fare, after all, didn’t increase too much beyond the February 2008 levels of $1.29 per subway ride per customer. No matter how you slice or dice the fare hike, it’s still significantly cheaper and way more convenient to pay $81 for a monthly Unlimited Ride MetroCard than it is to pay $45 every five days to fill up at the pump. So the numbers will go up, but the rise might not be as drastic as it was from February 2007 to February 2008.

Meanwhile, while the increased ridership figures means more bucks for the MTA’s coffers, the demands of 1.6 billion people on the system will soon become a bit overwhelming. The shortcomings of under-served lines will grow more evident; the crowds on the packed lines will grow worse. Soon, we’ll need a tit-for-tat from the MTA. More people will ride the trains, but we also need more service to meet that demand. From where will the funds for that service — a vital necessity for the economic health of New York — come?

Photo above of a crowded 7 train by flickr user scottpowerz.

In early April, as the depths of the MTA’s financial problems came into view, Gov. David Patterson asked former MTA Chair Richard Ravitch to lead a blue-ribbon panel. Ravitch’s task is to find and present the various ways through which the MTA can find the money it needs for both the $3-billion gap in its current capital plan and the $17-billion abyss in its next five-year construction program.

It is a daunting task indeed, but if anyone is up for the challenge, it is Ravitch, who helped lead the MTA out its darkest days. In 1979, Ravitch took the reins of the beleaguered transit authority. When he stepped down four years later, he had implemented the first five-year plan and had the dangerous and decrepit subways on the rebound. Twenty five years after stepping down from his MTA post, Ravitch is set to lead what Patterson, in his April 8 speech announcing the commission, called “a blue ribbon panel of business leaders, civic leaders and economists.”

“Basically, I want the commission to examine three basic issues,” he said. “One is how to balance the subsidizing of the MTA Capital Plan, through the subscription of those who use the services and a broad balance of taxes for businesses and the rest of the public. Secondly, what we want to look at are the elements of Mayor Bloomberg’s plan that all of us like, and that perhaps we can still weave them into the process. And finally, we have to get the MTA out of its habit, which is 25 years old, of refinancing and basically covering debt with excessive borrowing.”

In acknowledging the weight of this task, Ravitch also noted the near-impossibility of adequately addressing this charge. “I am not sure it is anything but a Sisyphean task, but I will undertake it with energy and enthusiasm,” he said to The Sun on April 9.

An an overview piece released this week by the Gotham Gazette, Graham Beck, the managing editor of Transportation Alternative’s Streetbeat newsletter, tackles the challenges facing Ravitch and offers up the usual suspects as revenue sources:

To cover all these costs, the MTA has four potential funding sources: fares from subway, bus and commuter-rail riders; city, state and federal government contributions; an increase in existing taxes dedicated to transit, like the mortgage recording tax; and new revenue streams slated for transit, such as congestion pricing.

An increase in all four of these sources will almost certainly be needed if the MTA wishes to maintain the level of service, reliability, cleanliness and safety that 8.5 million daily riders have grown accustomed to and if the agency hopes to expand and improve the system.

Another fare hike within the next 20 months or so seems inevitable at this point. Without the congestion pricing revenues, the MTA has been pushed into a corner by the New York State legislature. But at the same time, congestion pricing may not be so dead. As Beck writes, Ravitch and his commission are sure to suggest traffic fees as a means to securing the financial future of the MTA.

Beck also speculates, as per prior Regional Plan Association studies, that the commission could turn to payroll and commuter taxes or an increase in the gas tax as well. The panel will also probably urge the state and federal governments to up their contributions to public transportation as well.

Right now, we know what the commission will produce, and it’s hard to argue with any of their outcomes. It also will be hard to imagine many — or any — of their proposals garnering much support among our elected officials. We can only hope that, when the time comes to fight for the money and the measures, those in favor of them wage a better PR campaign than the failed effort put forth by Mayor Bloomberg to back his congestion pricing scheme. The money is there; we just have to find a way to funnel it to the MTA.

Metro cars in Stockholm come wrapped in advertising. (Photo by flickr user MalteR)

As the depth of the MTA’s financial crisis has come into focus, I’ve written extensively on advertising options that aren’t being exploited underground. Each time I discuss advertising, I run across a few people passionate about their dislike of possibilities of more subway advertising.

I started this advertising exercise last July when I suggested that the MTA explore full-station branding options. We could have a Times Square station sponsored by Disney or a Yankee Stadium stop sponsored by Adidas. We’ve seen station-wide poster campaigns, but truly branding a station could result in a windfall for the MTA’s coffers.

I’ve also discussed floor-to-ceiling ads for subway cars. We’ve seen this in the 42nd Street Shuttle, and while these cars are not alway aesthetically pleasing, these types of advertising campaigns exploit available surface space. Some people find them ugly; some find the implementation to be less than ideal; but money is money.

Last week, the MTA unveiled another potential ad campaign in its infancy: Much like buses, the MTA will begin to sell advertising space on subway car exteriors. According to The Post’s Patrick Gallahue, the Shuttle will once again serve as the test for new forms of advertising. Some cars are running Continental Airlines posters to complement the internal ads, and if this campaign is successful, the MTA may look to expand this form of advertising to other train lines.

Again, I am all for this type of thinking. If the MTA can capture additional revenue this way, then so be it. If you don’t like it, thank Sheldon Silver and the State Assembly Democrats for derailing congestion pricing. Thank Mayor Bloomberg for his poor PR campaign in support of his PLANYC2030 measures.

Over the last ten years, the MTA has nearly tripled its advertising revenues from $37 million in 1997 to over $105 million in 2007. With purse strings in New York tightening, the agency needs the money anyway it can get it, and outside of a fare hike, advertising is the best route for revenue.