San Francisco smugly shows NYC what not to build

Check out Streetsblog's "San Francisco Mayor to NYC: 'Eat Your Heart Out'." I can count quite a few problems with that rendering just based on observing form vs. function:

1. It's big. It takes up five blocks. It disrupts the flow of pedestrian traffic for five blocks.
2. The park is high up and inaccessible.
3. The transit center probably doesn't need to be in downtown. Stops can be in downtown; transfers can be in downtown; the transit center is redundant.
4. If this is a terminal station, it's a real waste. There's no need to have a terminal station built in the most expensive part of the city.
   

Hispanic empowerment?

Imagine for a second that your home state Senate's major political party just shifted in last month's election. Then, a handful of gay senators announce they'll support the party that wasn't voted if they don't get handed a ton of power.

Well, cross out "gay" and replace it with "Hispanic," and that's what's happened in New York State. The "Gang of Three" holdouts in the Senate are partly motivated by empowering Hispanics. One in particular, Ruben Diaz, is also motivated by keeping gays disenfranchised, refusing to caucus with the Democrats unless he's sure gay marriage won't even be voted on.

So, Hispanic power: good! Homosexual equality: bad!

Ruben Diaz is an embarrassment to the state, just as James Dobson is an embarrassment to the country. How about worrying about real issues, like healthcare, transportation, and the budget?

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
  

Gillibrand offers ambitious agenda

Conservative Democrat Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand's agenda ("Gillibrand offers ambitious agenda," 2008-11-26, by Diane Valden at The Independent Online) is laid out.

Taxes:

The congresswoman said she plans will be a "strong voice" for investment in middle class tax cuts, noting that property taxes are too high mostly due to unfunded mandates at the federal level. She said she will promote targeted tax credits for college tuition and early childhood education.

Transport and infrastructure:

Included in the government's attention to infrastructure will be roads, bridges, sewer and water systems, high speed Internet access in rural areas and health care IT (information technology). Ms. Gillibrand said she has gotten healthcare IT money for Columbia Memorial Hospital, noting "mistakes are the biggest costs in health care."

She said she would also like to see high-speed rail or light rail in this region to build public transportation, because "seniors need it" and there is limited bus service.

Energy: wind! solar! hydro!

Wind, solar and hydropower all offer opportunities for the creation of manufacturing jobs, she said, as does the exploration of alternative building materials. She referred to a young inventor who figured out how to make insulation out of a fungus, which turned out to be more efficient than petroleum-based products.

Newsstands

forgotten NY has a great collection of pictures of newsstands, lamenting their disappearance. Quite melodramatic to use Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in reference to newsstand, but I guess it fits:

Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future?

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.