The hearing focused on the MTA’s dire financial situation and the need for sustainable and recurring funding sources to support the operating and capital budgets. More than a dozen Senate members grilled MTA President Patrick Foye, Managing Director Veronique Hakim, Chief Financial Officer Robert Foran, and Chief Development Officer Janno Lieber for over five hours on the Governor’s Executive Budget proposals, with a focus on Congestion Pricing and how it would be implemented.

During their lengthy testimony, it became increasingly clear that while Congestion Pricing is critical to funding the improvements spelled out in Fast Forward, there is no plan yet, just a concept. It’s a concept that we strongly support, but agree with the elected officials – and riders – who want to know how it’s going to work: Will it mirror the FixNYC Report? Will there in fact be “…variable and dynamic pricing options…” as the panel suggests? How much will it cost to enter the Congestion Zone? How much money will it yield, and how will that money be spent? Will it go into a lockbox for transit use only? Will there be a flat fee for trucks and delivery services that enter and leave the zone several times a day? How will trucks be charged? Where will the toll gantries be placed, what kind of construction will be needed – and how will that be coordinated with New York City?

Support for Congestion Pricing has never been stronger, but time is running out for its inclusion in the 2019-2020 Adopted Budget. Missing the deadline could mean missing key milestones for critical subway and bus improvements – and that could mean more time for riders stuck going nowhere fast.

We urge the MTA and the Governor’s office to develop and release a real plan that New Yorkers can understand: Riders want to know what Congestion Pricing is going to mean to their families and neighbors – and they deserve answers. Earlier this week, we participated in a press conference with TransitCenter, elected officials and other advocacy organizations that highlighted TransitCenter’s analysis of how much time New Yorkers could save if Fast Forward is funded. The answer: tens of thousands of hours a year – hours that could be better spent doing just about anything else.

Don’t Forget LIRR and Metro-North!

In addition to the Fast Forward plan, LIRR Forward and Metro-North Way Ahead set the stage for capital improvements across the region. While Congestion Pricing has been tied directly to Fast Forward, significant investment is needed to meet the needs of all of the agencies. Two other key aspects of the Governor’s proposed budget got less attention but are equally important since funding for the capital plan has been linked to their enactment:  expansion of speed camera zones in New York City; and MTA restructuring.  While we support each of these, we do not agree that critical infrastructure funds should be tied so directly to passage of these requirements.

New York City Speed camera zones expansion in New York City

Speed cameras will keep children safer in school zones, help buses move faster, catch people running red lights – and add a layer of enforcement in the Congestion Pricing zone. Why wait? Start putting them up now and lift the restrictions on how many can be placed and where. Tell us how much revenue will be brought in and how it will be spent.  We support allocating revenues from the fines to transit-related purposes and street-based safety-related projects.

MTA Restructuring

Here’s a term that’s been bandied about, but without a definition of what it even means: changing board membership and voting structure? Breaking down agency boundaries? Bringing in new leadership at the top and keeping the agency heads? We agree that there is a need to continue to make process improvements and that efficiencies can be found – but the strong leadership at NYC Transit, the LIRR, and Metro-North are making a difference, which riders can see. A new and independent Chair is needed to support the agency heads in their efforts and work with them to identify savings, but structural review and revision are too important to do in haste. There should be a longer, multi-stepped approach leading to a well thought out proposal.

But Wait, We Need More…

These funding sources are a good start, but will not meet all the needs of the MTA or its riders.

Finding creative ways of raising transit funds

Consistently capturing and use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) would create tremendous opportunities for the MTA. Transit access can A portion of that value should be captured and funding set aside to finance transit infrastructure improvements when proximate projects – such as upzonings, Amazon’s H2Q in LIC, and TOD on Long Island and in the Hudson Valley – are developed. We’ve seen how successful these programs can be and mechanisms already exist for the types of agreements; they should be used consistently and constantly.

They say that desperate times call for desperate measures.

These are desperate times: delays and disrepair are causing people to flee the system, leading to declining ridership, which means less revenue, less faith in the system, and less investment.  We’ve been down this slope before and it doesn’t end well. We need to look at every possible revenue source, including incremental tax increases in the sales tax, gas tax, recording tax, Millionaire’s tax, corporate tax, and future cannabis taxes, to address the real state of emergency that we are seeing unfold. Now’s the time for the state to pony up the more than $8 billion it has committed to the MTA, and for the city to kick in its share. We shouldn’t have to wait for the MTA to accrue more debt before getting these desperately needed funds. Getting out of debt by getting into more debt doesn’t work at home, and it won’t work for the MTA.

It is clear that the MTA must do its part to regain the trust of the legislature, and the faith of the riders it serves. The New York region is built around a robust transit system. It’s critical that it remain the driver that supports our growth, vitality, and identity. Investment in the future of the transit system is investment in the region’s economic stability and ability.

The post Talking to Albany, let’s hope they are listening! appeared first on PCAC.

Assemblywoman Amy Paulin visits the Permanent Advisory Council Quarterly meeting.

For last month’s PCAC meeting, the guest speaker was Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, Chair of the New York State Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions. The Committee oversees the MTA’s Capital Program policy, planning, and budget approval. Representing areas of Westchester County, Paulin understands and values the needs of commuters, and also takes into account the challenges the MTA faces. Having only served as the Chair for three months (in the legislator for 17 years), she stated that insuring the MTA is transparent is one of her top priorities.

Like other transit advocates, Paulin called into question the prioritization of projects, specifically for the Enhanced Stations Initiative Program that are concentrated in Manhattan and did not all include ADA treatments, such as elevators and escalators. She believes prioritization of MTA projects should reflect riders’ biggest concerns and how projects are prioritized should be a very transparent process.

Even Paulin agrees the finger pointing between the city and state is frustrating, and in the end, the riders suffer.

Instead of shifting blame, Paulin believes a sustainable and steady funding source is needed to fund transit improvements. Thankfully, there is one in sight; congestion pricing, put forth to the legislature by the FixNYC panel, which should provide a protected revenue stream immune to the political tug-o-war, while relieving traffic in the central business district and increasing bus speeds.

To move it forward, Paulin is dedicated to convincing her colleagues in Albany the importance of getting behind congestion pricing. She noted that most people do not understand the plan fully nor the severity of the MTA crisis. There is currently $7.3 billion of the original $32 billion for the 2015-2019 Capital Program left unfinanced. If passed, congestion pricing could have helped fund the remaining cost. Additionally, Paulin also expressed her interest in value capture, which would be a significant boost as well, but the details have yet to be planned.

The Need for Oversight and Accountability.

As the Committee Chair, Paulin is in charge of oversight and accountability of the MTA. This includes turning around the current narrative, especially with respect to accuracy and data. When the public is given numbers for causes of delays, Paulin stated:

“We need to be able to trust them. If not, we lose confidence in those running the system.”

The absence of apology in light of the Con-Edison scandal was disappointing, and more transparency is needed to establish a sense of integrity and public trust. This starts with clear communication, openness, self-reflection as an authority, and the ability to come forth on issues right away.

An important first step is educating legislators, lawmakers, political decision makers, and the public about the current issues the MTA faces. Teaching transit literacy would contextualize transportation issues for riders and state politicians who are not as close to the conversations.

The post Contextualizing the MTA with Transparency appeared first on PCAC.

• Users of public transportation within the MTA region are facing a crisis in reliability in the transportation services on which they depend. This is exacerbated by increasing traffic congestion in New York City’s central areas, especially its impacts on bus service. Public transportation is in need of additional revenues to maintain and improve the assets of the MTA system.
• Congestion pricing is a feasible means of addressing both traffic congestion and the need for funding to maintain and improve transit infrastructure serving MTA riders. Several proposals have been advanced that outline a system of congestion pricing that would beneficially influence driver behavior, generate revenues to benefit public transportation, and make allowances in charges for tolls paid by drivers to enter the congestion charge zone.
• The PCAC most recently expressed support for congestion pricing in March 2015, in response to the proposal put forth by Move NY.
• We support establishing a system that would equitably raise revenue to benefit public transportation used by MTA riders. “Lockbox” provisions will be needed to ensure that revenues raised benefit public transportation with no diversion of revenues to other purposes. In addition, this system would benefit bus performance in the City’s central areas by reducing traffic congestion.
• We support an equitable system, that takes into account the total tolls and charges paid by drivers. The revenues raised should be dedicated to public transportation and protected from diversion to other uses.

The PCAC looks forward to the completion of a detailed plan and its prompt consideration by appropriate legislative bodies.

The post PCAC’s Position on Congestion Pricing appeared first on PCAC.

Many think of the MTA as being a bloated agency, bursting at the gills with unnecessary employees and government largesse. Since the mid-2000s, the agency has been working to eliminate such fat, through a series of initiatives called Programs to Eliminate the Gap (PEGs) and Budget Reduction Programs (BRPs). Each year, the MTA’s operating agencies — Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North Railroad, MTA Headquarters, NYC Transit, and MTA Bus — are given quotas of these cuts that they must make to “right size” their operating budgets. Cumulatively, over one billion dollars in spending has been eliminated in this way, a testament to the agency’s unrelenting drive towards monetary efficiency.

However, in pursuit of financial rationality, the MTA has lost sight of the harm that incessant cuts can have on its ability to execute its mission. While excess is present in every organization, the agency’s efforts at rationalizing have gone too far.

Cuts in workforce paired with strong ridership growth threaten the wellbeing of the system

Consider the case of the New York City Transit Authority. By far the largest of the MTA’s operating agencies, it provides the lion share of reductions. These cuts, combined with attrition, have caused the agency’s workforce to decline by over five hundred positions since 2001. While such change sounds like a rationalization gone right, what these reductions have caused is a serious staffing decline during a period of strong ridership growth.

Since 2001, annual subway ridership grew by over three hundred fifty million trips, an increase that even without staffing reductions would stress any system. Simply put, since 2001 the subways added more riders than the entire population of the United States. With these cuts, however, what would be a manageable situation becomes one that threatens the very operation of the network. With both assets and employees spread thin, the system is unable to handle the traffic resulting in what seems to be an unending series of service delays.

Between 2008 and 2009 the maintenance department was cut by close to ten percent

To make matters worse, many of these excisions have been in NYC Transit’s maintenance departments, the very people we task with identifying system weaknesses and correcting them. During the early and mid-2000s, the agency was increasing its workforce in that sector, cognizant of the increasing challenges that come with the maintenance of a 100 year old subway. However, during the financial crisis in 2008-09, these critical forces suffered, losing close to ten percent in two years.

*Source: 2005-2017 MTA Financial Plans

Lhota must reinstate the staffing level needed to healthfully sustain our transit network.  

To his credit, recently appointed MTA Chairman Joe Lhota recognizes the devastation of those staffing cuts and in his Subway Action Plan has directed the MTA to add back many of those jobs, but given increasing ridership and system age, their return to previous peak levels may not be adequate for the task at hand.

Going forward it is critical to have a greater understanding of where reductions are undertaken. While the lack of adequate funding for the capital program garners much attention in the press, it is also imperative that the MTA’s operating budget is right-sized for its task. We cannot ignore the lack of funding for the actual operation of our unique, hundred plus year old, trillion dollar asset that carries eight million of us every day and makes up the foundation of our metropolitan economy. For if we do, the system, understaffed and overstressed, will slouch further towards bedlam, dragging the city with it.

The post Right Sizing the MTA: Cuts too far and the MTA’s Budget Efficiencies appeared first on PCAC.