PERMANENT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE MTA
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2012
A meeting of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee (PCAC) to the MTA was convened at 12:00 noon on September 6, 2012, in the 5th floor Board room, at MTA Headquarters, 347 Madison Avenue, New York City. The following members were present:
Andrew Albert Christopher Greif
David Buchwald William K. Guild
Sheila Carpenter Matthew Kessler
Mark Epstein Sharon King Hoge
Randy Glucksman Steve Mayo
Mike Godino Edith Prentiss
Ira Greenberg Michael Sinansky
Toya Williford
Via Phone: James F. Blair
The following members were absent:
Gerard Bringmann Rhonda Herman
Richard Cataggio Thomas Jost
Francis T. Corcoran Trudy Mason
Owen Costello Maureen Michaels
Stuart Goldstein Bryan Peranzo
Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas Larry Rubinstein
Marisol Halpern Burton Strauss, Jr.
Neal Zuckerman
In addition, the following persons were present:
William Henderson – PCAC Executive Director
Jan Wells – PCAC Associate Director
Ellyn Shannon – PCAC Transportation Planner
Angela Bellisio – PCAC Consultant
Robert Foran – MTA
Hector Garcia – LIRR
Raymond Pagano – Concerned citizen
Barry Adler – Concerned citizen
Joseph Garber – Concerned citizen
Charles Brechner – Concerned citizen
George Haikalis – Concerned citizen
Approval of Agenda and Minutes
The agenda for the September 6, 2012 meeting was approved. The minutes of the June 7, 2012 meeting were approved.
Chairs’ Reports
The PCAC, LIRRCC, MNRCC and NYCTRC Chairs’ Reports are attached to these minutes.
PCAC
Andrew Albert said he was aghast to hear that County Executives celebrated the court decision invalidating the Payroll Mobility Tax. Ira Greenberg said that he doesn’t believe that the Court of Appeals will uphold this ruling.
Jim Blair asked stated that he asked MTA General Counsel James Henly what he thought about the ruling and how the MTA should proceed and Mr. Henly said that the MTA has skin in the game and that as a result the Audit Committee had approved spending to engage outside counsel.
Mr. Blair asked whether any of the members had information on the prospects of federal pre-tax transit benefit restoration. Mark Epstein said that Charles Schumer will introduce a bill to restore the benefit in the Senate, but that there appears to be no traction in the House for a similar bill. Mr. Greenberg commented that this provision has to be a part of a bigger bill to pass both houses of Congress
Mr. Greenberg noted that each of the Councils have received a briefing on work that staff is doing on data visualization. He said that he felt that it is a good project, including the direction that the Transit system is going. Additional information leads to more satisfied riders.
Mr. Greenberg stated that there should be a discussion about fare policy as a part of the fare increase hearings. Edith Prentiss commented that it seems like the MTA’s position is that this is just a regularly scheduled increase.
Ellyn Shannon commented that part of the idea of data visualization is to give the public information about how well the system is performing and by using that they can advocate for better service.
Ms. Prentiss said the Transit has no hesitation to cut bus routes short and questioned how the Bus Time system will deal with these changes. Mr. Albert pointed out that riders can be fooled by real time information systems, as sometimes these systems are wrong.
Mike Sinansky asked whether the subways’ “countdown clock” information signs provide only visual information. Mr. Greenberg responded that this is the case, although there are also audio announcements about arriving trains made in the stations.
Chris Greif said that the paper bus schedules are not kept up to date and noted that some areas do not yet have the Bus Time system.
David Buchwald pointed out that as a Metro North commuter he finds real time information to be of value even if there is no viable service alternative. It is valuable to be able to call ahead and inform people of your arrival time.
Sheila Carpenter wanted to know where the electronic signs that are positioned outside of subway stations are located. Bill Henderson said that he will find out the locations and get them to her.
LIRR
Mr. Epstein mentioned that the LIRRCC will be cosponsoring a BRT Symposium in Hauppauge on October 6. He noted that anyone who wants further information should see Bill Henderson or himself.
Mr. Epstein reported that a bill has passed the State Legislature allowing Suffolk County is to regulate taxis and that the Council has been asked to work with the County in setting up a Taxi and Limousine Commission.
Mr. Epstein also noted that the LIRRCC is unhappy with several aspects of the fare hearings and has communicated these objections to the MTA.
Ms. Prentiss said that she had a problem with Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) at the LIRR St. James station. The posted telephone number to call for problems with the TVMs is answered only Monday to Friday between 8:00 am and 4:00 pm. She said that she left a message on a weekend and didn’t receive a response to the message until the next Wednesday. The issues at this station are that the TVMs freeze and the limited phone hours. She said that there is also a general problem with conductors positioning the bridgeplates between train cars and the platform backwards, and as a result they do not work as designed.
Mr. Epstein asked that anyone who encounters problems on the LIRR let staff know about them immediately.
MNRCC
Mr. Buchwald noted that the MNRCC President’s Forum occurred soon after an engineer on a Metro-North train was caught reading while operating a train. It was a good opportunity to ask questions and clear the air about the incident, and Metro-North was very forthcoming in their discussion of the incident and responses to questions about it.
In response to an item about stairs at the Purdy’s station, Sharon King Hoge asked whether some thought could be given to building a ramp to directly replace the deteriorated stairs. Mr. Buchwald said that at Purdy’s it would not be possible to construct ramps at the location of the deteriorated stairs.
Ms. Prentiss said that all MTA construction spending is being watched to ensure that it conforms to requirements that minimum percentages of construction costs go toward elements that increase accessibility of the facility.
Mr. Foran noted that the MTA released an RFP for broker services that will expand the range of accessible transportation offered in the NYC Transit service area and that the MTA is serious about this program.
NYCTRC
Mr. Albert said that despite NYC Transit’s statements, he believes that seasonal bus adjustments are exercises that serve budgetary purposes. He said that in spite of ridership growth, there are still cuts.
Mike Godino wanted to know if Access-A-Ride (AAR) is considered part of Transit Riders Council area of responsibility. Ms. Prentiss responded that AAR users should have the same access to the PCAC and NYCTRC as any rider. Mr. Henderson said that the PCAC office works with AAR complaints that riders have been unable to resolve through Access-A-Ride or NYC Transit in the same way that it works with bus or subway complaints to NYC Transit.
Mike Godino stated that he would like the PCAC and Councils to deal primarily with policy concerns. Mr. Greenberg agreed with this.
Mr. Greif said that transfers from S79 Select Bus Service are valid for entry into the R train station at 86th Street. He asked why NYC Transit can’t make this feature available for subway stations that are near the route of the B44 SBS.
Introduction of Robert E. Foran, Chief Financial Officer, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, to discuss the proposed 2013 MTA Budget and 2013-2016 Financial Plan
Mr. Foran noted that in the July presentation to the Board, he projected a positive cash balance for 2012, which would be rolled forward to make the proposed 2013 budget to meet the requirement that it be self-sustaining. In the latter years of the financial plan, 2014 to 2016, deficits are forecast and would have to be addressed by the budgets developed for these years.
Mr. Foran outlined the key elements of the MTA’s financial picture. He said that the MTA has achieved $700 million in annual recurring savings and that by 2016 this would rise to $1.1billion in annual recurring savings. Additionally, the MTA is asking for a net zero wage increase in their negotiations with its represented workers. This does not mean that wages would not increase, but that any increased wages would have to be funded from work rule and other concessions that increase efficiency. He noted that non-represented workers at the MTA haven’t received a wage increase since 2009.
Mr. Foran said that the Budget and Financial Plan includes a $450 million fare and toll increase in 2013 and that there is expected to be a $500 million fare and toll increase in 2015. Each of these increases requires hearings and MTA Board approval before it can be implemented. The financial plan also assumes that the MTA will continue to receive its current collection of dedicated taxes and fees, some of which have been ruled to have been improperly enacted. If the ruling invalidating these taxes and fees is upheld, this would blow a $1.8 billion annual hole in a $13 billion budget. Mr. Foran observed that even if you eliminated all overtime, which costs $475 million annually, and fired all managers and supervisors, this would still not save $1.8 billion per year.
Mr. Foran said that if the MTA had to deal with the loss of the Payroll Mobility Tax and other taxes under challenge, it would have no choice but to cut costs, but that this option would not be good for either service or for the MTA’s customers. He said that currently, the MTA’s Budget and Financial Plan are balanced, but that the balance is fragile. The stability can only be maintained by having all of the MTA’s constituents participate in keeping the budget in balance.
Ms. Carpenter asked which workers are included in the group that hasn’t received a wage increase since 2009. Mr. Henderson responded that this group includes virtually everyone who works in the MTA Headquarters building, as well as managers and supervisors in the MTA’s operating agencies. She also asked what type of cost cutting the MTA has done. Mr. Foran responded that a major focus is trying to do and buy things more efficiently. He gave the example of putting existing health insurance coverage out to bid, which saved a substantial amount of money.
Mr. Greenberg commented that he always wondered about the painting schedules for elevated structures over which trains run. While extending painting schedules saves on short term costs, there may be a longer term cost for increased deterioration, and he questioned which approach would be more efficient.
Mr. Greenberg also asked about the impact of the LIBOR rate fixing scandal on the MTA. Mr. Foran said that the MTA’s exposure to LIBOR is of two types, in variable rate debt based on LIBOR and in interest rate swaps where the yield of the underlying security in the transaction is based on LIBOR. For the swap transactions, if LIBOR is artificially held low, the MTA loses, and if it is artificially held high, the MTA benefits. Mr. Foran said that the MTA is in contact with the New York State Attorney General and that the MTA will aggressively pursue any money owed to it as a result of manipulations of LIBOR.
Mr. Sinansky stated that he understands that MTA is refunding some bonds and asked if this is true, how much is being refunded. Mr. Foran replied that $6 billion will be refunded by the end of the year. These bonds bear an average coupon interest rate of 5 to 6 percent, and the MTA has been able to refund them at lower interest rates and demonstrate present value savings, required by state guidelines. Mr. Sinansky also asked about the court decision on the Payroll Mobility Tax and its impacts on the credit markets. Mr. Foran said that Moody’s Investors Services has put the MTA on credit watch, but there has been no reaction from Standard and Poors. He said that in general the market hasn’t taken this decision as a great threat to the MTA’s creditworthiness.
Ellyn Shannon asked whether there are timelines on when an adverse decision in the Payroll Mobility Tax case and the loss of $1.8 billion in revenue would affect the MTA. Mr. Foran stated if there were a final adverse decision and if the revenues were not replaced, management would have to promptly put a plan into place to reduce costs to meet new revenue levels.
Jim Blair asked Mr. Foran if he could comment on the status of the MTA’s application for Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) and whether he has given any thought to the relative size of contributions to MTA revenues from riders and the larger public. Mr. Foran said the average transit fare is $1.46 and that on a constant value dollar basis the MTA has not raised fares for many years. As for the RRIF loan, he said that the MTA expects a decision from the federal government late this year. Approval of the RRIF application is not reflected in financial plan, but if the MTA received this financing it would increase the funds available for capital expenditures. He noted that in 2009, an agreement was reached that State would give MTA funding from new sources and there would be a 7.5 percent increase in fares and tolls in 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015.
Ms. Prentiss said that the cost of Access-A-Ride is a major expense for the MTA, now around $500 million per year, and the MTA wants to move to cars and taxis for those able to use them, but Access-A-Ride limits riders’ use of car service.
Discussion of Fare Proposals and Hearings
Mr. Greenberg said that we should send a copy of the letter that the PCAC sent to Chairman Lhota about the schedule for the fare hearings to each of the Board members. He said that spreading hearings over the course of a month would be useful and that he and Mr. Albert are working on getting a better schedule for the next round of hearings. It is doubtful that the schedule for this year’s hearings can be changed. Mr. Blair supported Mr. Greenberg’s position on the hearings, but noted that a record of meeting is promptly made available quickly to each MTA Board member. He noted, however, that not holding two hearings on the same evening is not a preferable way to proceed.
Mr. Epstein said that creative measures to reduce needed fare increases must be explored. He noted that during the Barclays Golf Tournament the LIRR had conducted an experiment on electronic ticketing, and this technology can reduce costs. The experiment was very successful, and the LIRR and MNR will be working together to explore this technology. Ms. Carpenter observed that four passengers were forced to remove bicycles that they were using to commute from a train during this tournament and said that we should look into this.
Mr. Greenberg suggested that further development of the PCAC position be done by email. He said that there is no consensus for supporting the MTA’s fare proposals.
Discussion of Reduced Fare Eligibility
Ms. Carpenter said that many of the criteria used by other systems to determine reduced fare eligibility seem to revolve about the ability to drive.
Mr. Greenberg said that he would prefer to have a small group come up with a proposal and not have a debate over the proper language now.
Ms. Prentiss observed that at one time a rider could not work full time and still be eligible for reduced fare on the basis of a disability. This has changed, but it has long been the case that those over 65 are eligible for reduced fares and that income is not a consideration in this decision.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
William Henderson
Executive Director