Tolling the East River bridges: more MTA woes perhaps leading to a backend congestion charge?

First, to come clean: I supported the congestion charging plan. I thought it was a great alternative to the present system of inconsistent tolling of various routes into the midtown and downtown. For instance, if you come from wealthy Westchester, you can get to Midtown and Lower Manhattan without paying any tolls. If you come from poorer Staten Island (within the city!) or Rockland County, there's no way to avoid a toll. The best routes of travel from Queens often are avoided, irrationally, by motorists trying to avoid the TBTA tolls (Triborough Bridge of Queens-Midtown Tunnel) by taking a "free" bridge. I bet such motorists waste more fuel in traffic than they would have spent just taking the closest bridge—and they don't exist in a vacuum either. They're probably causing unnecessary congestion too.

While the congestion charge had popular support, at least when people understood that its revenues were going to go to improving transit, it also had some powerful enemies. The most powerful enemy it had was, arguably, the New York State Assembly, which refused to even consider the proposal and killed it after the City Council voted in support of it. So desperate were the Assembly Democrats to pander to suburbanites that they were willing to violate the city's sovereignty, and blew hundreds of millions of dollars in federal financing to get the program started.

Now, with the MTA's budget even more in the pits, a commission appointed by Governor David Paterson to recommend new financing sources for the MTA came up with a plan that will have almost the same effect: tolling the East River and Harlem River bridges ("M.T.A. Needs Champion, but Who?" by William Neuman at The New York Times, 2008-11-29).

He is due to deliver a final report to the governor by Friday that is expected to include proposals for a tax on corporate payrolls in the region, tolls on the bridges across the East and Harlem Rivers and an increase in fares on the subway, bus and commuter railroads. Those measures would provide enough money for the authority to overcome a $1.2 billion budget gap next year and allow it to finance a long-term capital program that could cost as much as $30 billion through 2014.

The response to Mr. Ravitch at the partnership underscores the difficulty of his task. Kathryn S. Wylde, the president and chief executive of the group, said “the overwhelming reception” to Mr. Ravitch’s appeal — which did not include details of the payroll tax or tolls — was “positive.” But she also said that while business leaders might be open to a new tax to support the transportation authority, they were concerned about the possibility of multiple tax increases as the state and city sought to balance their budgets as well.

I'm not sure I would consider a new tax a good idea, although additional tolls are certainly fiscally sound.

Here's what I'd like to see immediately before any new taxes are implemented in our overtaxed state: first, keep labor costs down. Don't toll the East River bridges except electronically. Next, eliminate toll booths on the MTA bridges and tunnels and replace these tolls with electronic collection. For those who don't have E-ZPass, send them a bill in the mail along with an E-ZPass (and charge them for the E-ZPass, plus labor)—that way there will be no excuse for not having a pass. Over the long term, this should cut the operating costs of the MTA bridges and tunnels drastically. Finally, permit and external, independent audit of all MTA operations to eliminate as many inefficiencies as possible, managerial and union alike.

See also:

• NY1: "Report: Commission To Recommend Tolls On East River Bridges", 2008-11-27
  

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)
  

Top legal advice?

More evidence that the MTA needs a serious independent audit from NY1 ("Report: MTA Spending Millions On Consulting Fees"):

As city commuters prepare to see their tolls and MetroCard fares increase, the MTA is reportedly paying lawyers tens of millions of dollars in consulting fees.

...

More than a quarter of [the] money has reportedly gone to a prestigious law firm that once employed Governor Eliot Spitzer. The firm charges $668 an hour.

By contrast, the agency's 32 in-house lawyers only make an average of less than $100,000 a year.

Officials tell the paper that getting top legal advice actually saves money in the long run.

Then perhaps the agency needs fewer in-house lawyers?

Subway financing woes?

While the authority will end the current year with a $500 million surplus, it forecasts red ink for the foreseeable future and needs to find money now. It’s no mystery why Mr. Spitzer, at the end of a rocky first year and facing red ink of more than $4 billion, would want to put off the day of reckoning. It is puzzling, though, that he is holding off a promise of new transit money to 2010 — when he’ll be seeking re-election.

In the meantime, he should not be rejecting offers for help. The city comptroller, Bill Thompson, produced a study two months ago that found $728 million in potential revenue, more than enough to offset the need for immediate fare increases. And in Albany, scores of lawmakers have vowed to fight for extra money for transportation in the budget due before April 1.

If the increase is approved, the fare would not rise for the 14 percent of passengers who buy single-ride tickets. But the 86 percent who enjoy discounts will pay significantly more. New York passengers already bear more of mass transit’s costs than riders in other major cities. They should be squeezed harder only after every option has been tried.

- New York Times editorial "Express Track to a Fare Increase," 2007-12-13

What I'm disappointed about is I rarely ever see The New York Times attacking corruption at the MTA.