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.

At last month’s MTA Board meeting, Ellyn Shannon, PCAC’s Associate Director, testified to the MTA board on behalf of the New York City Transit Riders Council (NYCTRC).  Ms. Shannon proposed that in light of NYC Transit’s visionary Bus Action Plan, the MTA Board should further support the effort by voting for an Economic Impact Analysis on the cost of congestion to the MTA and its riders.  With elected officials raising concerns about the burden of congestion pricing on drivers, what about the burden of congestion on bus riders?

Unreliable bus service due to traffic congestion has only vaguely been discussed by the MTA and transit advocates, which is why we are proposing this analysis.  Clear numbers are necessary to understand the gravity of congestion’s impact on bus service.

Assessing the costs

Running a slow system costs more than running a fast system. This applies to both buses and subways. The graph below shows the percent difference in travel times between AM non peak and AM peak for weekday riders on a variety of Manhattan bus routes. As a result, here are some of the costs that are incurred.

If every weekday, the run time during the peak is 30-40% longer than the off peak due to congestion, then several negative impacts occur:

• More buses are needed for any given route
• More mechanics are needed to repair the buses
• More depot space is needed to store buses
• More bus operators are needed to drive the buses
• More fuel is needed to run the additional buses
• Revenues are lost as riders switch to for-hire-vehicles like Uber and Lyft or further add to the overcrowding on the subway.

Our proposal aims to make an important inroad in the congestion pricing discussion. By reducing congestion, more frequent service and greater reliability is possible for the same amount of spending. We call on MTA Board Members to support advancing an Economic Impact Analysis on the cost of congestion to the MTA and its riders.  This analysis must also include the cost of not having enough bus lane enforcement cameras that capture the critical problem of vehicles blocking bus lanes.

We believe the value of the MTA producing this study is critical.  They have the immediate access and best understanding of which records are most relevant to this study, enabling them to complete it and make it public as quickly as possible.  Speeding up buses sooner rather than later is an integral component to reducing travel times for our riders.

The post The Cost of Congestion for Buses 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.

New York City’s transit system is in crisis. Congestion on the City’s streets is reaching all-time highs and bus ridership is on a steady decline in Manhattan’s Central Business District (CBD). Travel speeds have slowed dramatically and more commuters are opting for For-Hire Vehicles (FHV). Charles Komanhoff, a strong advocate for congestion pricing and creator of the Balanced Transportation analyzer, attributes a 4.3% decrease in vehicle speeds in the CBD as a direct result from greater numbers of FHV trips. In the Move New York congestion pricing plan, the relationship between falling bus ridership and greater FHV trips is identified as a vicious cycle, and one which critically needs to be addressed.

The Fix NYC Panel makes nine recommendations with 3 phases to implement congestion pricing in New York City. Clearly, buses will experience substantive improvements from the plan including improved bus speeds, more frequent bus service, and will likely bring riders back to buses and away from the FHVs.

Phase I

1. Identify public transportation improvements for the outer boroughs and suburbs.
2. Improve enforcement of traffic laws within the CBD: Enforce existing laws and regulations, such as blocking intersections, parking in travel lanes, and bus lane enforcement.
3. Overhaul the NYC Placard Program: Reevaluate the distri­bution of all government issued parking plac­ards eligible for use in New York City. Currently there are approximately 160,500 in circulation.
4. Assess and address the impact of bus congestion in the CBD: Perform a com­prehensive review of conditions and regula­tions related to commuter, intercity, charter, and tour buses that have a particularly detrimental impact on congestion on the west side of Mid­town and in lower Manhattan.
5. Reform Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) regulations: Review the existing FHV class catego­ries to ensure they accurately reflect techno­logical advancements with the objective of a consistent policy framework.
6. Begin early work on zone pricing infrastructure installation.

Phase II

7. Implement a congestion surcharge on FHV and Taxi trips in the CBD.

The new service trip surcharge for taxis, black cars, deliveries, and app-based FHVs will help the MTA budget, estimating upwards of $500 million in gross revenues for transportation projects. The surcharge has great potential to decrease congestion attributed to the growing FHV usage. Taxi’s and FHV account for over half of total vehicles in the CBD between 4 and 6 p.m.  The congestion decline will increase bus speeds and encourage customers to move from private vehicles to the more efficient buses.

Phase III

8. Implement zone pricing for trucks entering the CBD.

Once the infrastructure is in place, CBD zone charging pro­gram will be initiated with an assessment on trucks entering the zone during certain peak hours. A brief period of truck-only charging permits potential operational issues to be identi­fied and corrected.

9. Implement zone pricing for all vehicles entering the CBD.

Once infrastructure is oper­ating properly, zone pricing for all vehicles will be implemented. With consideration of variable and dynamic pricing options to maximize congestion reduction.

With the goal of reducing overall vehicles entering the CBD during peak hours, the cordon zone would charge personal vehicles and large trucks premiums for entering and passing through. The subsequent congestion reduction will further improve bus speeds in the city’s most congested areas, while providing a steady revenue stream to the MTA to improve maintenance and operations on the overall transit system.

Buses stand to gain a lot if congestion pricing is implemented in New York City.

Better enforcement of traffic violations, reduced congestion from both FHV and personal vehicles, and better funding will all contribute to a better environment in which buses can operate. Bus ridership, service, and speed have been on a steady decline and it is time for action to be taken in order to address these issues. With vehicle speeds poised to increase between 12% and 20% if all recommendations are adopted, Fix NYC has the ability to drastically help our failing buses, giving New Yorkers the bus service a world-class city deserves.

The post FIX NYC: Implementations that Impact CBD Bus Performance – Sam Schwartz Visits the NYCTRC appeared first on PCAC.

Well, now I know why people avoid buses in Manhattan – it was a nightmare! It took nearly an hour to get to my destination; walking would have saved me 10 minutes.

It’s not news that buses are slow and unreliable, and getting worse. Traffic congestion in New York City is increasing, and heavily felt in the CBD due to the proliferation of Uber and other e-hailing services. As a result of gridlock, average bus speeds have been steadily dropping as has ridership.

Necessary decisions and actions must be taken to improve the quality of bus service throughout the City, as it is a necessary lifeline for many. Positive action could improve commute times, improve service reliability and enable commutes that are not currently feasible on buses.

Bus ridership and speeds have been dropping since the early 2000s.

Bus ridership has been on a steady decline, dropping 16% between 2002 and 2015. This trend is mostly seen in Brooklyn and Manhattan, where an increase in e-hailing services and other vehicles has added to the congestion resulting in a serious impact on bus service and travel times. According to DOT, vehicle speeds in Manhattan south of 60^th Street fell by 12% between 2010 and 2015.

New York City Bus speeds are among the slowest in the country, averaging 7.4 MPH. In heavily congested commercial areas bus travel speeds often drop as low as 4 MPH. It is clear that there is a major issue with bus speeds throughout the city, and without a major plan to address the growing congestion, buses will soon be at a standstill during critical parts of the day.

Congestion pricing presents the best opportunity to increase Manhattan bus speeds.

A successful congestion pricing plan will decrease vehicles on Manhattan’s heavily clogged streets and substantially improve bus speeds and reliability, allowing the bus system to flourish.  It will also encourage some riders to move off of the overburdened subway system, helping it to function better while much needed repairs are made.

The success of London’s 2003 congestion pricing effort can be attributed to both the congestion pricing itself, as well as the large investment made in public transportation. With the introduction of congestion pricing, 300 buses were added to the system, establishing new efficient routes and increasing frequency on existing ones. These additional buses accounted for a 23% increase in service. As a result, a 38% increase in bus ridership was experienced during AM peak hours while the London Underground experienced a 2% decline in ridership, which is attributed to the improved bus services. Over 10 years of implementation, London’s investment in transit has led to a 23% increase in daily trips made into the city center, while reducing the number of automobiles entering by 44 %.

While subways are in dire need of upgrades and repairs, the importance of the bus system must not be forgotten. Providing efficient bus service will help relieve some pressure from congested subway lines such as the Lexington Avenue line. Additional bus lanes, improved bus stop infrastructure, and improved traffic signal timing, in conjunction with congestion pricing, can significantly enhance the quality of bus service and all mobility within the central business district, and may have wide ranging improvements on the transit system as a whole.

The post Congestion Pricing is Good for Buses! appeared first on PCAC.