MTA Fare Hike
The MTA ONCE AGAIN wants to hike our fares even as service gets worse. I can't believe how bad the F line has become. It should be the quickest way I can take to pick up my son at day care. It has so many major delays and snags that I have almost given up on it.
ONCE AGAIN, the MTA wants to raise our fares.
When I was in Los Angeles, I noticed that bus fares (I have never taken the tiny subway in LA) were about the same as they were when I left LA more than 10 years ago.
In NYC this will be, I think, the third (?) fare hike since I moved here.
Where does the money go? Does the MTA still illegally keep two sets of books, one to brag about and one to use to convince people they have to pay more, more, more?
Here is the Straphangers Campaign's statement on the proposed fare hike:
Here are some questions that New Yorkers should be asking about a possible fare hike in the months to come:
Do the financial numbers show the MTA facing a serious budget deficit in 2008 and beyond?
Here the MTA will have to make its case. This will be the agency's biggest challenge since it will be running a surplus in 2008, although it predicts large deficits in the following years. Much of the MTA's long-term deficit is caused by growing interest on the $32 billion that the MTA has been forced to borrow since 1982. These bonds made up for a lack of city and state aid badly needed to fund key repairs to the 103 year old transit system. Borrowing costs will eat up an astonishing 20% of the MTA's costs by the end of the decade. It is only fair to acknowledge that the MTA has what is called a "structural" deficit that will require new revenues in future years to address recurring deficits. But there is no question that many New Yorkers - especially the most vulnerable economically -- will be asking what they are getting for a fare increase.
Who should contribute to solving the MTA's financial woes?
The MTA now receives billions in financial support from riders through fares, motorists through tolls and gas taxes, and corporations, consumers and property owners, all through dedicated transit taxes. That makes sense. All who benefit from the biggest transit system in the U.S. should support it.
Shouldn't riders pay the whole tab?
Riders are already paying more than their fare share. In 2005, MTA told federal transit officials that the fare burden on its riders was 58% - with subways at 68% and buses at 42%. The national average for big transit systems is 40%. MTA CEO Lee Sander told a state legislative committee this January: "In 2007, MTA expects to generate $5.4 billion, or 60%, of its total $9.2 billion in operating revenues primarily from fares and tolls. This is a phenomenally high fare box return."
How do we make sure riders aren't the only ones asked to help out?
Any proposal to raise fares should only be seriously considered if and when the state legislature approves Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal and/or other transit aid to raise billions of dollars to fix transit and take pressure off the budget. As was the case in 2003, the decision on fares should not be made before the early spring - specifically no earlier than March 31st, 2008, the date the state legislature is due to decide the fate of congestion pricing.
Are there ways for the MTA to take the sting out of a possible fare increase?
As part of past fare hikes, the MTA has taken other steps to help riders, such as insuring 30-day MetroCards from loss or theft. The MTA should now consider offering such new fare discount as:
* 14 day unlimited-ride MetroCard, more affordable and with more discount than 7-day passes.
* progressive pay-per-ride bonuses keeping low dollar threshold for discounts.
* lower fares for families traveling on weekends.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
fare hike | mass transit | MTA | Straphangers Campaign
Transit problems/solutions
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 27 July 2007 - 7:59am.
First, we must understand that much of the MTA borrowing never should have happened. In theory, bonds are floated only to pay for capital imprvoements, but the MTA was allowed (by Mario Cuomo) to borrow to pay for operating costs; naturaly the "projected" revenues never quite materialized, and we will soon pay the cost.
The solution has three parts:
First, no more borrowing to pay for operating expenses -- ever.
Second, greater public funding; if the city, state and federal governments kicked in the 20% of operating costs they are currently shortchanging the MTA, that would be $1.8 billion a year, enough to pay not only for operating expenses, but also for significant capital improvements without floating new bonds.
Third, open the books. As former state Comptroller Alan Hevesi reported a few years ago, our "public" authorities are anything but public. We don't even know how many authorities exist (and Bloomberg wants to create more). Meanwhile, the MTA (after the $700 million "2 Broadway" debacle) seems to keep missing short-term bottom line projections by a couple of billion dollars every year.
Meanwhile, a fare increase isn't always a fare increase -- sometimes it's a fare decrease. I moved back to NYC in 1984, and am currently paying less to ride the subway than I paid 23 years ago. I'm probably not typical, but anyone who uses unlimited MetroCards is probably doing pretty well, especially compared with costs in Chicago, DC, and many other urban subway systems. So as much as we enjoy complaining about the lies, incompetence and corruption at the MTA (and there's plenty), some things aren't as bad as many of us think.
Unlimited Ride Metrocards benefit those with the cash
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 27 July 2007 - 5:53pm.
to buy them. They can reduce vastly the cost per ride, but you if you ain't got the dough-ray-me, you can't get a ticket to ride. That is -- some riders (those with cash) benefit much more than others.
The proposal of the MTA to lock in automatic cost-of-living adjustments brings to mind the failure and refusal of our leaders to install such adjustments in the minimum wage (which, adjusted for inflation, has declined, notwithstanding recent increases), public assistance, unemployment comp, disability, etc.
We have the specter of a stream of fare increases placing more and more of the burden of funding the operating expenses out of the fare. This is accompanied by state and city homeowner tax relief. Where is Assembly Member Brodsky who opposed "congestion pricing" because it was "regressive." Is a fare increase in which subway riders shoulder pay a higher proportion of expenses than Metro-North Commuters or drivers good policy? fair?
Even worse than where the money goes
is where the money comes from. As Thursday's NY Times explains: 58% of the MTA operating budget comes from riders -- as compared to 40% nationwide. That's because not everything changed on Day One. The state and city contributions to operating expenses continue to be vastly below average. (Of course a big cost boost is in the interest on Pataki inspired borrowing)
Where are Gov. Spitzer and Mayor Bloomberg hiding while this regressive tax oozes it's way through a board appointed by the Governor & Mayor? Where's the NYC Council Speaker? Where's Mr. Brodsky?
Even worse -- this fare increase has been visible for months. For example, it was the subject of June 1 analysis by the NYC Independent Budget Office, which -- so far as I know -- only the Straphangers' Campaign picked up on.
Gene Russanoff has made a career of dogging the MTA but we're nuts if we expect him to derail this misplanned regressive tax increase on lower income New Yorkers alone.