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.

Christ Matthews on Italian-New Yorkers

I mostly try to keep federal politics off this page, and Rudy Giuliani, while I don't like him, is running for federal office. This post is no different, except for the context. Chris Matthews, the Democratic-leaning, right-wing host of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, apparently loves Rudy, and doesn't seem to have a lot of affection for Hillary. Matthews claims to be independent, and to be equally hard on both candidates. Media Matters for America, a Democratic-supporting think tank tested that.

Amongst the quotes on MM's page, Matthews says:

"The Italian-Americans [references a Giuliani profile in Newsweek] are the people that rub the graffiti off the walls when somebody puts it on the wall. They're the ones that won't move out of the neighborhood when it changes. They're the ones that really do fight for the city. They try to keep it straight and narrow. They are straight-and-narrow people. It seems to me it's a plus."

It's little tiny, almost coded bits of bigotry like this that really bother me. First of all, it seems by saying "[t]hey're the ones that won't move out when [a neighborhood] changes," Matthews is saying Italians stick around when neighborhoods turn browner.

There are scant examples of Irish and German neighborhoods left in NYC, but there are still a lot of Italians. Part of the reason for this might be that Italians don't fit into mainstream American society as well because they're slightly less lily-white and a bit more Catholic than even the Irish. There's nothing wrong with that, and indeed, New Yorkers probably realize that better than anyone, which is why Italians stick around here more than other, older ethnic groups. Further, the Italians haven't been in the U.S. as long as other groups, and were only accepted as "mainstream" much later than the Irish,* English, Dutch, and Germans.

But it doesn't really matter what the reason is. Matthews' comment is idiotic. Plenty of people fight for the city, including Italians, blacks, whites, Latin Americans, Asians, and many other representatives of the hundreds of countries, cultures, and languages found here. That so many peoples are around is what makes New York special and unique.

* Don't forget, there was a time when the Irish were looked down upon as scum by society at large, and signs were posted saying "INNA," meaning Irish need not apply. The Irish became rather successful and accepted by the 20C, arguably culminating in the election of John F. Kennedy. There was Irish mob activity in New York as late as the 1970s.

Reform from Bruno?

From the Albany Times Union ("Bruno cuts ties to firm"):

Almost exactly a year after revealing the FBI was looking into some of his "outside business interests," Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno severed one of those relationships this week.

Bruno also recommended a serious debate about lawmakers' becoming full-time employees of the state.

I'm speechless.

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?

Sunday funday at the NY Times: this time, an op-ed about parking spaces and why they should be eliminated

From "The High Price of Parking" by Alex Garvin and Nick Peterson:

AFTER years of traffic jams and air pollution, New Yorkers are finally starting to rethink the role of cars in our city. Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s PlaNYC initiative has suggested programs like congestion pricing, new bike lanes and expanded mass transit. But city policy has not yet addressed a confusing tangle of off-street parking rules that still quietly encourage automobile use. These requirements not only add to congestion and pollution, they also make life in the city more expensive for every New Yorker.

In most of New York City, a developer who puts up a new building is required to provide a minimum number of parking spaces. These requirements were first put in place in 1950, when the prevailing wisdom was that the automobile would be the transportation mode of the future.

Planners and civic leaders believed that New York had to make itself car-friendly if the city was to grow and prosper. So it responded by requiring developers to build off-street parking for their tenants. These new rules, which varied according to the uses and location of the buildings, seemed like sound planning at the time: force the parking onto private property and solve the public’s problem.

Read more.

MTA: no more free rides!

From NY1 ("Mayor Not Happy That MTA Offers Free Ride To Board Members"):

The MTA board members who voted this week to raise fares are eligible for free rides when they need them – a perk that's not sitting well with Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Under the agreement, members can ride subways, buses, MetroNorth and Long Island Rail Road trains for free and drive on MTA bridges and tunnels without paying the tolls.

The mayor says no one should be exempt from paying their fair share.

It's really time for a full-on, third party audit of all the MTA's activities. Before fares get increased again, all waste should be eliminated and the entire organization streamlined.

An age-old, yet illegal, solution to the rat problem

"To Dismay of Inspectors, Prowling Cats Keep Rodents on the Run at City Delis" in The New York Times today.

Fascinating article. This is one of those cases where you can see how overzealous regulation of small business is never quite a good idea.

Mandatory sentences

In an editorial today, The New York Times goes after mandatory sentences demanded by the Rockefeller Drug Laws again ("An Idea Whose Time Should Be Past"):

Nowhere is repeal of mandatory-sentencing policies more urgently needed than in New York, which sparked an unfortunate national trend when it passed its draconian Rockefeller drug laws in the 1970s. Local prosecutors tend to love this law because it allows them to bypass judges and decide unilaterally who goes to jail and for how long.

But the general public is increasingly skeptical of a system that railroads young, first-time offenders straight to prison with no hope of treatment or reprieve. In an often-cited 2002 poll by The New York Times, for example, 79 percent of respondents favored changing the law to give judges control over sentencing. And 83 percent said that judges should be allowed to send low-level drug offenders to treatment instead of prison.

The State Legislature has tinkered at the margins of these horrific laws, but stopped short of restoring judicial discretions. The time is clearly right for that crucial next step. The Legislature needs to gear up for the change, and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who has thus far tiptoed around the subject, needs to set the stage when he delivers his State of the State message early next month.

Spitzer gets one right: higher education

A few articles about the future of SUNY and CUNY. The New York Sun is the most critical article, I think. I was surprised Upstate papers didn't provide more coverage.

From The New York Sun ("Spitzer May Hire 2,500 More Professors"):*

Governor Spitzer's Commission on Higher Education is poised to recommend to the governor on Monday that the State and City Universities of New York hire between 2,000 and 2,500 additional full-time faculty by 2013.

As the state faces a $4.3 billion budget gap, the commission, appointed by Mr. Spitzer in May, is also expected to recommend spending billions of dollars to fix crumbling infrastructure at state schools and creating an "innovation fund" to subsidize scientific research it says would boost economic development and New York's status as a research capital.

...

During an economic downturn, New York is one of the only states in the country seeking to expand its public university system, education experts said.

...

"These blithe demands for ever more government funds and tuition hikes must be challenged in light of the prediction that student enrollment in the near future will decrease, faculty members are now getting paid more to teach fewer hours, and there are currently twice as many campus administrators as there were in the 1970s," a former SUNY trustee, Candace de Russy, said in an e-mail. Online education could also undercut the demands for new full-time faculty members, Ms. de Russy said.

The state currently contributes about $1.2 billion to CUNY's budget, and $3.36 billion to SUNY. The commission is slated to release its final recommendations in June, but university officials are putting more stock in the preliminary report, which can affect the state budget.

"So How Do We Get to Berkeley? Spend Big on SUNY, Panel Says" (The New York Times, 2007-12-16):

“For this area to be viable,” he said in an interview in his art-filled office, “the best thing they can do, the only thing they can do, is develop great research universities.”

As the largest and most comprehensive university of the State University of New York’s 64 campuses, Buffalo is a good yardstick for measuring just how far New York has traveled — yet how short it has fallen from Nelson A. Rockefeller’s vision of creating a premier public university system.

With specialties in biomedical sciences and earthquake engineering, it is one of only two SUNY campuses, along with Stony Brook, that belong to the Association of American Universities, an elite group of 62 research universities. But even its national reputation, buzz and research dollars put it nowhere near the ranks of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

...

“We certainly don’t have a Berkeley,” said Lloyd Constantine, Mr. Spitzer’s senior adviser, who worked with the commission and visited all the SUNY campuses. “California has more than one. In a state like ours, we could certainly have a couple. Their importance is that they are great schools, and they also lift the entire system.”

California and some other states have invested heavily in public research universities for decades and are not stopping for New York to catch up. Still other states, like Georgia and Arizona, have been pouring money into their public systems to try to rise in the rankings.

...

SUNY has grown substantially since the system was cobbled together from teachers’ colleges, agricultural schools, and swamps and farmland. Today it has more than 400,000 students at its research campuses, comprehensive colleges and community colleges.

Still, only 55 percent of college students in New York are in public institutions, compared with 79 percent nationally. Higher education draws less than 7 percent of the state budget in New York, compared with a national average of 11 percent.

...

“Typically, the SUNY board of trustees doesn’t understand what a research university is,” said Stephen B. Sample, who was the president of Buffalo for nine years before taking the same post at the University of Southern California in 1991. “One of the challenges I had as president of Buffalo was to help the board of trustees understand how different these institutions were, that Buffalo was not just bigger, but that it was a different animal, a different kind of institution.”

...

“President Simpson has done a great deal about making his plan visible,” Mr. Niejadlik said. “Things are happening.” Dr. Simpson, recruited from the University of California Santa Cruz four years ago, has an ambitious expansion plan, with the goal of creating a world-class research center that would help rebuild the region’s economy. The plan calls for new construction, and for growing to 35,000 students by 2020.

...

His ideas have won critical backing from business. “Until very recently, if you listed the most important priorities for business, the advancement of SUNY would not have been on the list,” said Andrew J. Rudnick, president of the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, which represents 2,500 employers. Now, he said, there is a recognition that the university “can be part of an economic transformation of this region.”

(The article also expounds that the university system could be seen as a catalyst for revitalizing western New York.)

"Report to Urge Sweeping Change for SUNY System" (The New York Times, 2007-12-15):

Warning that New York has “slipped in stature” and that its once-powerful position in national research has “faded,” a commission set up by Gov. Eliot Spitzer is recommending that the state free its public colleges and universities to raise tuition without the Legislature’s approval and to charge different prices from campus to campus.

“New York State’s public higher education institutions face a chronic problem — they have too little revenue and too little investment,” said the report.

...

The 30-member commission is calling for the state to create its own low-cost student loan program, to clear up a $5 billion backlog in maintenance and construction at its public universities and to hire 2,000 new full-time professors — including 250 academic stars who could bring in research dollars and prestige.

* The Sun article also provides some other interesting stats: "The number of full-time faculty at CUNY is about 6,100, down from 11,300 in 1975, when the university had 250,784 enrolled students, as compared to 225,962 in 2006." Concerning SUNY: "SUNY currently employs 30,916 full-time professors, which account for about 48% of their faculty, and teach about 75% of credit hours, according to the university's Web site."

Where's the urban candidate?

Clyde Haberman wrote in The New York Times ("So Many Presidential Debates, So Little Concern Shown for Cities," 2007-12-14):

In mid-October, I noted that the Democrats and Republicans had held 17 or so presidential debates (the number can vary, depending on who’s counting), but that with all the gabbing they managed not to focus on America’s cities.

Well, two months have passed, and that observation is no longer valid.

The candidates have now held 25 or so debates without talking about urban issues.

Someone ought to alert the Guinness people. For sidestepping matters of direct concern to more than 30 percent of the population — people living in urban areas — this has to be some kind of record.

Read the rest here.

I have to agree—it's quite tragic that urban issues aren't trotted out in campaigns. The interests of the rural Midwest, and tiny New Hampshire, are elevated well beyond their importance. That's not to say these are bad places, but they don't reflect the needs of most of the country.

Amtrak and New York State settle; high-speed rail upgrades a possibility in Capital Corridor?

From The Albany Times-Union (by Cathy Woodruff, "Amtrak, state settle suit," 2007-12-12):

Amtrak and the state Department of Transportation have settled a three-year legal feud over a plan to speed rail service between New York City and the Capital Region by overhauling seven old Amtrak Turboliner trains.

...

The state sued Amtrak in August 2004, claiming the railroad had failed to deliver on its promise to bring high-speed rail service to New York as part of an agreement crafted with the state's Pataki Administration in the 1990s. The state sought $477.3 million from Amtrak.

From Buffalo Business First ("Amtrak deal ticket for high-speed upgrades," 2007-12-12):

About $22 million in state funds was approved in the 2006-07 fiscal year budget for the high-speed rail initiatives, designed to reduce travel times and increase safety along the tracks.

Half of that funding will be used to add a fourth track and extend platforms at the Albany-Rensselaer station, Bruno said at the time.

"This agreement puts to rest a long-standing dispute and enables the state and Amtrak to move forward cooperatively to improve passenger rail service," Gov. Eliot Spitzer said in a statement.

There were 734,187 riders on the Albany to New York City route in 2005.

Chimes in NY1 ("Settlement Revives Hopes Of High Speed Rail Upstate," 2007-12-12):

The plan has been kicked around Albany since the ‘80s but not much has been done with it because of scheduling delays and cost overruns.

The original idea was to run trains that go 200 miles an hour, which would make the trip from New York to the capital less than an hour.

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.

NY Times NY/Region Section: "Teenagers and Cars: A Deadly Mix"

[A]s adults, don’t we know enough — and do enough — to save them from themselves? Clearly not, according to national death and injury statistics that have shown virtually no improvement over the last decade. Each year, nearly 6,000 American teenagers die in car accidents involving teenage drivers, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; more than 300,000 are injured. The cost, in property damage and health care expenses, is $14 billion. The economic fallout will come as no surprise to anyone who has had to insure a male driver under 21.

- Gerri Hirshey, writing in the NY Times, December 9, 2007 (link)
Driving is one of the greatest perils of modern American society, it seems. In many suburbs, you have no choice but to drive everywhere.

People often underestimate how dangerous driving is. Streetsblog used a rather interesting way of putting it into perspective ("The ‘Burbs: Extremely Safe or Especially Dangerous?") for the N.Y. metropolitan area:

A decade ago, Northwest Environment Watch (now the Sightline Institute) published a memorable report showing that violent deaths were less common in Seattle than in the surrounding suburbs. The author of this myth-buster, Alan Durning, took the novel but logical step of combining traffic fatalities with homicides and found fewer violent deaths (per million people) in the central city. It wasn't that city drivers were saner. Rather, city dwellers spent less time driving than suburbanites, giving them fewer opportunities to kill themselves or other Seattle residents on the roads, which more than offset the city's higher homicide rate.

A similar calculation for New York City and Long Island, using 2005 data, likewise upends the conventional wisdom. Per million people, Long Island had 51 fewer homicides (16 vs. 67), but 50 more traffic fatalities (89 vs. 39), than New York City. In terms of total violent deaths, the difference between the Big Apple and Long Island - 105 deaths per million people in the City, 104 on the Island - is statistical noise.

New York City is widely believed to be the safest big city in the U.S., and Long Island is probably the safest suburb.

I'd be interested to see the numbers on how many of those fatalities and major accidents are young people in the suburbs—given the high insurance rates for young males, I'd guess a lot.

So, ironically, could it be possible that parents moving their kids to the suburbs weren't making an optimal choice concerning their safety?

The conclusion to draw from this, perhaps, is that it might not hurt to look into organizing lifestyles into a more town-like environment again, where driving could be minimized.

Links:

• Sightline Institute: "The Car and the City"
  

NY1: "Lawmakers Call For Mayor To Put More Money Into City Transit"

This is from December 3rd:

Lawmakers and advocates are pushing Mayor Michael Bloomberg to put the brakes on the MTA's proposed fare hike and pour more money into the transit system.

They say the city could keep the fares down if it contributed more to the MTA's annual budget. Critics say the city's funding only accounts for about four percent of the $5.7 billion annual budget for running subways and buses.

They want the city to give more.

"You can build a world class transit system, or you can nickel and dime it to death. You can't do both,” said TWU Local 100 President Roger Toussaint. “Mayor Bloomberg can be helpful to millions of New Yorkers who rely on mass transit and to the local economy that it powers – all he has to do is speak up.”

Not that I necessarily disagree, but isn't this the same Roger Toussaint who cost the city's economy probably around a billion dollars by frivolously (and illegally) striking in late 2005? Nickel and diming indeed! I'd be curious to know what could be done to cut the fat in the New York City Transit workforce.

Of course, there is one thing the city probably could, and maybe should, do to bring down costs over the long run: pay down some MTA debt.* Failing to pay down this debt is going to mean interest on it keeps piling up. Under Giuliani and Pataki, the MTA borrowed heavily to meet its operating costs, which is dangerous and moronic. Such a thing might circumvent future fare hikes; maybe not the next one, but perhaps one in 2030.

* I know, it's sort of like what the anti-New York New York Post wanted when it said the city should use its surplus to "DO THE RIGHT THING." However, the difference is that we actually gain more by paying down MTA debt; in the long-run, we'll be paying the state debt down anyway (we do send more to Albany than we get back, afterall).