N.Y. Times City Room: "Paterson Criticizes M.T.A.’s Plan to Raise Fares"

It seems Governor Paterson doesn't like fare increases:

HUDSON, N.Y. — Gov. David A. Paterson sternly criticized the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s proposal to increase subway, bus and commuter rail fares and called on the authority to take a second look at its finances before it formally asks for an increase.

But here's the kicker:

However, Mr. Paterson did not say whether he would support the authority’s plea for more operating aid from the state.

Apparently he doesn't think the choo-choos, buses, etc. should be funded either.

Here's a question for Paterson: why aren't fares at least covering operating expenses, or at least the vast majority of operating expenses? According to the National Transit Database's Long Island Rail Road data (PDF), in 2006, a year of record ridership, the Long Island Rail Road only managed to cover 47% of its operating expenses with fares ($457,384,145). Meanwhile, the rail road paid out $861,314,374 in "salaries, wages, and benefits" out of its total operating budget ($975,310,538). If I understand these statistics correctly, dividing the fare revenues by the annual number of unlinked trips reveals an average fare might be around $4.60.

By comparison, New York's other major commuter rail road, Metro-North, managed to get 58% of its operating revenues paid for with fare receipts in 2006 (PDF).

Other articles are bemoaning the MTA's shortfall, such as this editorial in The Times ("Higher Fares, Worse Service, No Help," 2008-07-23):

The M.T.A. budget shortfall has ballooned from $200 million to $900 million in recent months, mainly because of the rising cost of fuel, falling tax revenues and debt servicing. The authority expects to raise some $200 million by raising fares. It has asked the state and city to contribute another $300 million to help narrow the gap.

NY1 speculates a little on the details ("MTA To Propose 2009 Fare Hike; Riders Outraged," 2008-07-22):

It's not clear yet exactly how much subway, bus, and rail fares would go up, but the MTA says it needs to increase total fare revenue by eight percent – the equivalent of about $400 million a year.

The details have not yet been worked out, but a 25-cent increase in the cash fare would be a 12.5-percent increase, in the neighborhood of the MTA's eight-percent target.

And don't help from the city, according to the NY1 article:

Both the mayor and the governor said Tuesday that the MTA should explore every other option before resulting to the hike.

"If we can cut five percent this year and two and a half percent last year, and we'll have to have further cuts, then the MTA's got to find ways to do that," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

"Not only don't we have money to contribute, we put in an enormous amount of money," continued Bloomberg. "For example, we pay debt service on a lot of the capital investments that have been made in the past in the MTA. And we provide police protection."

As for cutting bureaucratic tape, an article in The New York Daily News offers a little hope ("MTA boss says he'll appoint chief for each subway line to improve service," 2008-07-22):

Metropolitan Transportation Authority brass, confronting massive budget gaps that may lead to fare hikes, also said they anticipate savings by reorganizing and streamlining the underground bureaucracy.

NYC Transit - the MTA's bus and subway division - launched a pilot program to test the general managers' structure on the 7 and L lines in December.

"It's been very successful and we expect to expand it significantly," MTA CEO Elliot Sander said.

See also:

• MTA to Propose Another Fare and Toll Hike
  
• Rider reaction to MTA fare hike (Newsday)
  

Interesting proposal: Subway to Seacaucus

I'm really not sure what qualifications the writer of this website, Subway to Secaucus, has to comment on rail projects, but they probably are more than mine. But it does get me thinking about some things.

One thing I can't help but notice is the sheer amount of money being spent on a few rail projects, all ringing in at billions of dollars:

1. ($8B?) Billions of dollars to double the capacity of the commuter rail under the Hudson River (see Access to the Region's Core), primarily an NJ Transit project
2. ($3B-$12B?) Billions of dollars to build a grand west side rail station to replace the long-lost Pennsylvania Station out of the Farley Post Office building (see Moynihan Station), I suppose primarily funded by the State of New York
   
3. ($6B?) Billions for East Side Access, designed to connect the Long Island Rail Road to the east side of Manhattan via a new station under Grand Central Terminal (the LIRR isn't exactly compatible with Metro-North Rail Road's infrastructure, and the organizations squabble anyway)—his is also funded primarily by the State of New York
4. The Second Avenue Subway (SAS), funded by the city, state, and feds
5. The 7 Train extension, funded pretty much exclusively by the city

These projects are all more or less under way. I imagine the SAS makes a lot of sense, given the sheer volume of passengers on the Lexington Avenue lines (4/5/6 Trains). It may be unfortunate that this will only be a 2-track rather than 4-track line, but that will be a burden later. Part of the reason there might be such political will to build the SAS is that another of the projects above, East Side Access, is going to put a lot more pressure on the limited east side transportation infrastructure.

East Side Access can be explained by two factors: one is it's favorable to a powerful political demographic, and the other is that more jobs in midtown Manhattan are on the east side anyway. The way things work now is the LIRR whisks people west of where they actually work, forcing them to take an uncomfortable crosstown trip back. East Side Access should cut a significant amount of time off commuters' trips.

More to the point, our public transportation infrastructure follows commuter patterns set in the early 20th century. New York is in a sense very lucky that these patterns remain intact in 2008, but there is more to how people in the region live and work. New York may be bigger than it was in 1908, but Manhattan is smaller population-wise. Further, the once sparsely populated region is now quite densely populated. Somebody in downtown Brooklyn is less than two miles from Jersey City, but will have a hell of a time making that trip. Staten Islanders have one of the longest commutes in the country. Getting seamlessly from Queens to The Bronx? Fergetaboutit.

I think reasonable people can make a good case for the merits of each of the projects listed above, but I'm guessing in the net additional number of people who will be moved by those five projects is under a million daily—certainly that's the case if we discount the SAS and the estimated 500,000 riders that will use it daily. At the opposite extreme, we have Moynihan Station, which will move zero people and may cost the state $3B.

It would definitely be nice to see more emphasis on moving people, rather than building fancy projects. Unclogging the Lex and Queens Boulevard trunk lines might be achieved by additional feeder services into Midtown, rather than new trunk lines. This could have the effect of improving Manhattan crosstown service as well. Why Moynihan Station? A four- or six-track fare-controlled or proof-of-payment system* could load many trains for through service without being too fancy. Any commuter and intercity rail yards necessary could be on Long Island or well outside the city. Naturally some Amtrak trains will need to hang around to allow passengers to load, but that shouldn't be a show-stopper. This idea of NJT, Amtrak, and LIRR services all terminating in one place is very demanding of land.

Finally, a definite flaw in our region's transportation model is inter-agency bickering. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York is itself a rather loosely-organized umbrella organization of agencies that don't like to cooperate, perhaps owing partly to separate corporate legacies. The Long Island Rail Road was part of the Pennsylvania Railroad (and many other predecessors before that) while Metro-North is the commuter successor of the New York Central. Naturally, the PRR and NY Central were bitter rivals. On top of that, the MTA and NJ Transit work very little together, and the Port Authority isn't all that interested in funding public transportation.

* proof-of-payment systems are popular in many places because turnstiles don't need to be maintained and they're not too labor-intensive. Fare inspections are random, with fines issued to cover operating losses by cheating.