Who will pick up the tab for Mayor Bloomberg's proposed
transportation plan

Penner's Pen blog

BY LARRY PENNER

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 10:35 AM EST

"Mayor Mike's Plan For A Better New York City Transit System: is worthy of further discussion. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanting to make the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) more accountable may be contradicted by his own available resources the past eight years. Mayor Bloomberg appoints four representatives to the MTA Board. They vote on all budgets and other actions impacting residents. He also has a voting representative at the New York City Transportation Coordinating Council (NYCTCC) and New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC). These New York State sponsored planning organizations vote on the distribution of Federal aid and adoption of capital projects on the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

NYC has lobbyists in both Albany and Washington to fight for a fair share of funding. Bloomberg has powerful political allies including Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate leader Malcolm Smith along with 14 Congress members and 2 Senators. Many chair or sit on key State or Congressional committees with seniority to deliver what is needed.

Many of Bloomberg's proposed capital improvements could take years before reaching beneficial use. There are environmental reviews, planning, design, engineering, real estate acquisition, permits, procurement, construction, construction management, budgeting, identifying and securing funding to cover project costs that need to be done first. His web site offers no specific information on timetables to track projects, service improvement or funding sources. This is necessary to implement projects or ideas worthy of future adoption.

"Making Long Island Rail Road City Ticket available on weekdays so Queens commuters can get to work at half the cost" sounds great. Most trains stopping in Queens are running at capacity. There is little room to run additional trains into Penn Station during rush hour. Three of four tunnels running in bound have very tight spacing between trains. One outbound tunnel is shared by the LIRR, New Jersey Transit and Amtrak. Discount tickets will result in lost LIRR revenue which someone will have to make up. Farebox revenues only account for a portion of the cost. Who will pay for the capital costs of additional trains, crews and operational costs to provide this service?

"Reopening dormant LIRR stations in undeserved neighborhoods" sounds great. "The MTA should reopen the Glendale, Richmond Hill and Elmhurst Stations" overlooks past history. Service between Jamaica and Long Island City via Richmond Hill, Glendale and other intermediate stops ended years ago when ridership dwindled to several dozen. Other than Richmond Hill, there are no real stations. Trains just stopped to discharge or pick up a handful of riders. Most ridership actually came from Nassau or Suffolk County. When arriving at Long Island City, customers have to board either the subway or ferry to reach final destinations. To attract significant numbers of patrons, frequency of service might require 20 minute intervals during rush hour. What trains would the LIRR divert from other terminals? Would there be a shuttle service between Jamaica and Long Island City? Who will pay for capital costs of building new stations, purchasing of additional trains, crews and operational costs to provide this service? The Elmhurst station on the Port Washington branch was closed when ridership dropped to less than 200 people per day. There are operational considerations for the LIRR when making added stops in spacing trains to and from Penn Station. What about the long dormant subway style Woodhaven Station on the Atlantic Avenue Brooklyn Branch which is still intact and overlooked in the plan..

"Creating Light Rail or Street Car Services in Western Queens Neighborhoods" sounds great. Street cars or trolleys haven't been seen since the 1950's. Between narrow streets, a combination of industrial and residential communities coexisting side by side along with a growth of bicycle riders - there are potential traffic conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles and delivery trucks to consider. With the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) philosophy common in many neighborhoods - it may be difficult for the MTA to find a suitable site for construction of support facilities. This would be necessary to provide maintenance and storage of light rail or street cars. Construction of similar light rail or street car systems in other cities has cost hundreds of millions. How would these proposed new services be coordinated? Would they duplicate existing bus services? Who will cover the fare box deficit along with costs of new employees and operations?

"Expanding Ferry Network and Linking to Transit System" makes sense. Our waterways are an underutilized natural asset. Most of our existing public transportation and roadways are already operating at or above capacity. New ferry services can be implemented far more quickly than construction of new subway, commuter rail or highways. Finding funding for ferry boats, docks, parking and feeder bus service with costs from millions to tens of millions may be easier than finding the billions of dollars necessary for construction of new or extended subway, commuter rail or highways. Utilization of ferry boats can make a positive contribution to air quality. Private ferry operators have come and gone due to significant financial deficits preventing them from staying in business.

Perhaps Bloomberg's transportation advisors have forgotten about other available options at their disposal to influence both the MTA and New York City Transit. In 1953, the old NYC Board of Transportation passed control of the municipal subway system, including all its assets to the newly created New York City Transit Authority.

Buried within the 1953 master agreement between the city of New York and NYC Transit is an escape clause. NYC has the legal right at any time to take back control of its assets.

" Cost Cutting & Management Reforms" which could cut $247 million from the MTA bureaucracy is a tired old cliche discussed for decades. You can't find anywhere near that amount in non-union Senior management. Significant costs are locked in place such as salary, fringe, medical and pension costs for union employees. You could try and negotiate with unions to allow management more flexibility in work rules and assignments to support greater productivity.