"Gridlock" Sam Schwartz's Congestion Pricing proposal.

THE COMMUTE: If the MTA has its way, fare and toll hikes in odd numbered years will be as certain as death and taxes. The next ones are scheduled for January 2013, with approval by the MTA Board in December after a series of citywide hearings to be held in the fall. Hearings should be for the purpose of obtaining public opinion, but in the MTA’s case, first the decision is made, then the hearings are held as a formality. Great way to improve the MTA’s credibility and image. That is why most people no longer attend these hearings, especially when they have to wait three or more hours to speak, after all the elected officials — the same elected officials guilty of cutting or not increasing MTA funding.

The MTA has already made it known that they intend to hike the basic fare to $2.50 and major bridge and tunnel tolls to $7 each way. Chairman Joseph Lhota announced that similar increases will occur again in 2015 and 2017, resulting in no service improvements, at least through 2016. What has not been announced is what the MTA intends to do about weekly and monthly unlimited ride passes. When they were raised last and the base fare remained at $2.25, the MTA tried to cap unlimited ride passes, in effect making them limited. That idea was rejected but it does not mean it is dead. Eliminating unlimited passes entirely, or restricting them to one individual so they cannot be shared among family members not traveling together, are other possibilities that could be considered.

This is why it is crucial to attend this hearing when it is held, so the MTA can hear which type of changes would impact you the most and how it will affect your usage of mass transit. While a fare hike is more or less a given, it is still important for you to be heard.

Petition

The bicycle and mass transit advocacy group, Transportation Alternatives, believes enough is enough and started a petition on Change.org.

They state:

We’ve paid enough!

Since 2007, New Yorkers have endured three transit fare hikes and the worst service cuts in a generation. We’re literally paying more for less! Now, the State Government plans to raise the cost of a MetroCard again. Yet, the State stole $260 million in transit funds, and the City hasn’t increased its funding since 1992!

We’ve paid enough. It’s time the State and City step up and invest in public transit.

There are 7.5 million daily transit riders in New York and, together, we can stop this fare hike! Tell Governor Cuomo: no more fare hikes!

Other Ways Of Funding Transit

While regular small fare hikes are better than a huge hike all at once, I don’t agree with the MTA announcing the next three fare hikes and their amounts simultaneously when no one knows what the economy will be like in the next five years. If there is an economic turnaround it is possible that fare and toll hikes will not be necessary in 2015 and 2017 or not in the amounts currently proposed. Also, I would not be surprised if, like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey [PDF], the MTA holds a single set of hearings for more than one proposed increase. Guaranteeing the MTA more than one increase now reduces the likelihood of them trying to further streamline operations and reduce inefficiencies in the future. Separate hearings need to be held for each fare and toll increase. If necessary, this should be guaranteed by law. Deciding fare and toll hikes four years before they take effect also gives the state and city less of an incentive to properly fund mass transit’s operating costs if they know the user will foot a greater share of the bill and provides no say at all for new residents.

Let’s Talk About Tolls

One reason the MTA was created was to give it power to increase the tolls collected by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority and apply most of those tolls to mass transit, since the original purpose of tolls to finance the construction of the bridges no longer applied in most cases. A better mass transit system was seen as a benefit to all, including those who drive. With only a small portion of revenue set aside to maintain the bridges and tunnels, politicians promised that giving the MTA this power will provide it with a steady revenue stream, forever ending their financial problems.

We all know that never happened. The money goes toward the MTA Capital Program, but the MTA never provided the subways with the amount of money originally envisioned, giving too great a portion to the commuter rails (if you agree that ridership levels should determine the modal split for the additional revenue). The MTA first raised tolls from 25 cents on most of its bridges and tunnels to 50 cents. Assuming the proposed increases are approved, who amongst those living at that time envisioned tolls would rise to $7 in 45 years, after having never been increased once during the previous 45 years?

Tolling The Free Bridges

The idea of tolling the free East River and Harlem River bridges has been around since the 1970s. Although some of those bridges originally had tolls to finance their construction, they were abolished in the early part of the 20th century. The rationale was that bridges were just extensions of streets and should be free. During the age of Robert Moses, bridges and tunnels were built to connect highways, or proposed highways, so there was no reason for those tolls to be free.

When Robert Moses’ highway system was never completed — with the Mid-Manhattan Expressway connecting the Lincoln Tunnel to the Queens Midtown Tunnel, and a direct connection built from the free Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR in the 1970s — the distinction between what should be free and what should be tolled became muddled.

Since many motorists would go out of their way to utilize a free bridge, the idea was born to toll all the bridges entering Manhattan, to minimize congestion on the approaches to the free bridges. Bronx residents were the most vehement in their opposition because the Harlem River bridges were so short. Yet, if those remained free, Brooklyn and Queens residents claimed favoritism toward The Bronx and Westchester. The result was that nothing changed except that the disparity between free and toll crossings grew wider with each toll increase, with the numbers of drivers seeking to avoid the tolls. This also further increased traffic congestion.

Congestion Pricing

Fast-forward to a few years ago when Mayor Bloomberg proposed Congestion Pricing to provide the MTA with a steady revenue stream, which would end the need for frequent fare increases. When have we heard that before?

That plan had several advantages over tolling the free bridges. Motorists are charged a fee only when entering the congestion zone (Midtown and Downtown Manhattan) instead of the entire borough, and the charge is only from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, at least initially. This means that those who take the FDR Drive, to or from Brooklyn, to The Bronx and Westchester are not charged since they are only passing through Manhattan. Also, those travelling between The Bronx and upper Manhattan are not charged.

Anyone already paying a toll would receive a credit toward the congestion price, in effect equalizing the cost of all the river crossings. It was fairer than tolling the bridges outright, but many believed the proposed charge was too high. They believed that the charge would have increased further once approved, administration costs would be too great, and there was no guarantee that the state would not further reduce its transit funding once Congestion Pricing was approved. It was also defeated.

Gridlock Sam Plan

New York’s “Gridlock Sam,” aka Sam Schwartz, a former NYC Transportation Commissioner, and supporter of bridge tolls since the 1970s, has put forth his own plan, which he recently unveiled to the general public in The Wall Street Journal.

One of the reasons I believe that tolls over the East River bridges were never enacted is that politicians always proposed charging the going rate for the crossings. As those rates kept increasing, the likelihood that the free bridges would be tolled was reduced. As a compromise, no discount to existing tolls was ever proposed. While Gridlock Sam’s proposal does not propose to lower any of the existing tolls between Manhattan and the outer boroughs, he does propose significant decreases for MTA crossings that do not enter Manhattan as an incentive to getting his plan approved. However, there still are major problems.

First, there is no guarantee that, once approved, the MTA will not vote in several years to increase those reduced tolls back to their former rate, eventually equalizing them with the tolls for bridges and tunnels entering Manhattan’s Central Business District (CBD).

Second, unlike the mayor’s Congestion Pricing plan, Gridlock Sam’s congestion fee would be in effect all times 24 hours a day. Commuters would have to pay even at night, when there is virtually no congestion in Manhattan. There would also be no break to those who are just passing through.

Third, all monies (excluding administration costs) would go toward the MTA’s Capital Plan. The MTA could still favor the commuter rails over the subways and, more importantly, no monies would go toward the MTA’s operating costs. Presumably, some automobiles would be discouraged from entering the Manhattan CBD if the there was no free way to enter Manhattan. Those people would be diverted to the subways, which are already crowded during rush hours. The MTA would not be receiving additional operating funds to permit them to add service, which in some instances they cannot do anyway because the lines are already operating at capacity.

More crowded trains would be the result and that means more delayed trains and slower trips. Those currently using the free bridges would be hit hard, especially motorists who make multiple crossings a day. Most are already penalized by having to pay exorbitant rates to park, which, in itself, is a deterrent not to drive into Manhattan.

While parts of this plan make sense, such as reducing tolls for trips where mass transit is poor, the assumption that everyone entering Manhattan can do it quickly by subway is erroneous. Subway trips from outlying areas, such as Rockaway, can take much longer than by automobile, especially during off-hours.

The plan is far from perfect. Schwartz also includes a ridiculous proposal to charge 50 cents each way for bringing a bicycle into Manhattan. Perhaps the city should also charge 25 cents to walk over the Brooklyn Bridge.

Also, any type of congestion pricing will have a minimal impact on congestion itself since no one is addressing its real causes — double parking; frequent lane closures, causing merging and bottlenecks, and not enough nighttime deliveries. Private automobiles account for a small minority of Midtown Manhattan’s street traffic. The bulk of the traffic is comprised of delivery trucks; buses; utility or government vehicles; those with special parking privileges, such as police and court officers, and taxis and limousines.

Schwartz is also not estimating the negative effect on the economy such, as less frequent trips to the theater and Manhattan restaurants if there are no cheap ways to enter Manhattan by car. Few want to return home late at night to the outskirts of the city by train and infrequent buses.

Conclusion

Solutions must be found to the MTA’s funding problems. All alternatives need to be considered. They include reinstatement of the commuter tax; an MTA surcharge on those businesses in the heart of Midtown, which benefit the most from the existing mass transit system; dissolving the MTA and returning control to the city, or assuring that the MTA operates more efficiently. Fastrack is an example of how they have been trying to do that.

The incentive for the MTA to continue to find efficiencies must not decrease by granting them multiple fare and toll increases with only a single set of hearings. The public must speak out, that continually increasing fares and tolls without the state and city paying their fare share, and without corresponding service improvements, is not a long-term solution. Signing Transportation Alternatives’ petition is one way of sending a message to the elected officials that you care and are not satisfied with business as usual.

The Commute is a weekly feature highlighting news and information about the city’s mass transit system and transportation infrastructure. It is written by Allan Rosen, a Manhattan Beach resident and former Director of MTA/NYC Transit Bus Planning (1981).

Related posts

  • Nick from S.I.

    All these ‘congestion pricing’ schemes will only have the effect of punishing middle-class motorist who have no choice but to drive into Manhattan. That’s why outer-borough voters are not fooled by all these attempts at re-packaging a bad idea.

  • Uknow

    the city is a business and the city is trying to cash in, whats wrong with that, we as the people are just customers. as cost go up so do prices, make more money!

    • fire115

      PUBLIC SERIVCE is not a business. 7.5 million swipes per day, lets say avg price per swipe, inluding the unlimited deals, is $2 per swipe. Thats $450 million in one month, 5.4 billion a year not enough to pay for everthing twice and then some.

  • RomanM

    The problem with Sam’s plan is the fact that he is basically making travel between one borough and another cost money (except between Brooklyn and Queens). If we are charging to go from borough to borough, we are essentially trying to promote independence from each other, rather than cohesiveness as one NYC.

    • Allan Rosen

      It already costs money to get from one borough to another in many instances.  He is reducing that cost where Manhattan is not involved. His assumption is that no one needs to drive to or through Manhattan because everyone has easy access to mass transit and those who do choose to drive should pay through the nose even if it at a time of day when there is no congestion.  That is the major flaw in his plan.

      • RomanM

        Actually, there are free routes between all the boroughs except staten island. Brooklyn/Manhattan bridge, queensboro bridge, willis ave bridge, etc. Though I agree about the time of day, should be free at certain hours at least.

  • http://twitter.com/nicktherat Nick the Rat

    FUCK THIS NOISE!

    • Tinman

      You’re so rational. A voice of wisdom. NOT!!!

  • winson

    to be fair, all bridges and tunnels should have tolls

    • Allan Rosen

      But they shouldn’t increase every two years or be so high.

  • Tinman

    Fare and toll increases would be justified, if service was exemplary, instead of shit!
    Seems like revenues from the public go to overpaid, underworked MTA execs who don’t even use subway and buses. And if they did, they’d have a free pass anyway.

    • Allan Rosen

      Actually the service here is much better than in many other places where you need a schedule to go anywhere. It’s just that it is not good as it should or could be and at times it can get pretty bad. But give some credit where credit is due. It’s not an easy job to keep the system up and running and things could be a hell of a lot worse like it was in the 70s and 80s. The system’s made a terrific comeback and if there was more money and less waste, it could be even better.

  • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

    How about the city or state make use of the money it gives to the MTA and take control of the power to raise fares. An acting legislature that’s held accountable by voters would mean they’d be less inclined to raise fares and would force the MTA to raise revenue by increasing ridership by improving service rather than providing awful service and making up lost revenue with higher fares. If the MTA couldn’t fall back on higher fares so easily you would not be seeing the average number of seats on buses declining, services so easily cut, and the MTA so arrogant that it wouldn’t listen to a good idea.

    Also, in Gridlock Sam’s defense this plan was leaked by a supporter and not actually proposed by him. So while everyone is talking about it, it’s by no means perfect or complete. The upside of the leak is it does allow people to find flaws and offer fixes much like beta testers. I imagine when the final proposal is made it will address most if not all these issues.

    • Allan Rosen

      What you say sounds nice but I can’t see it working. If the power to raise fares is taken away from the MTA, they would just cut more service which would lower ridership more. I don’t see how it would force them to improve service which costs money to provide.

      Regarding Gridlock Sam, I don’t see how you can say it has not been proposed by him. He has been showing it around privately for a year to decision makers and revising it. Why would a supporter leak it against his wishes unless he was told to?

      • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

         

        For more than a year, he has quietly been making the rounds to elected
        officials and other stakeholders, particularly in the outer boroughs,
        where opposition to congestion pricing has been strongest. He is still
        tweaking the plan and wasn’t ready to release it, but a supporter leaked
        it to The New York Times earlier this month, Mr. Schwartz said.

        From the first place that wrote about the plan:
        http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120321/TRANSPORTATION/120329959

        I also don’t think the MTA would win or want to wage a war of attrition with the gov’t or with its customers, their image is bad enough as is.

        • Allan Rosen

          Thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen it.

          I don’t see how he cannot call it congestion pricing. His idea to lower bus fares by $1 where there are no subways is unworkable and not practical unless we go to some type of a zone system. Otherwise I just don’t see how you could implement it. Routes travel across boroughs. Doesn’t he see that? Would the B6 charge $2.50 in some neighborhoods and $1.25 in others?

  • NI51965

    The MTA and Port Authority get more money every year with never ending toll and fare increases. And transit service never seems to improve. It all goes to a bottmless pit of corruption.

  • Karl Mack

    God, I’m SO GLAD I moved away from this GREED INFESTED city years ago to the great Pacific Northwest, no tolls no real traffic congestion. it’s a shame the people in the city can’t ever get together and as a one voice say enough … no more but as most New Yorkers are self centered will only bitch and complain but that’s as far as it gets and too bad to as one voice the city would have to listen ….. oh well.

    • http://www.nedberke.com Ned Berke

      I got your great Pacific Northwest right here, pal…

      • JR

        its okay Ned, we might have to deal with tolls and fare hikes but an Earthquake and Tsunami will take out the Pacific Northwest sooner or later 

        • Karl Mack

          Ha,ha,ha, but according to the History Channel a more likely flood from melting ice caps and global warming will turn NYC into Americas own Venice, hope you have a boat. it’s a real bummer that the MTA can’t seem to manage money, it seems it needs to get rid of a lot of the upper management and put that money into the system, like most large company’s it’s way too top heavy and constantly raising the fairs and tolls will never go away.   

    • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

      If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. Guess you couldn’t make it here.

      • Karl Mack

        I DID make it in NY that’s why I got out, just keep thinking that while you feed the toll’s ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.

  • Karl Mack

    H,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha, I DID make it there but got fed up with POS like you who are stupid to just take it unless of course you LIKE IT ….. ha,ha,ha,ha.

  • JR

    one major problem is the amount of money MTA employees are paid. the people who “clean” the subway cars get something like $13 – $18 an hour not including over time… 

  • Pingback: What Does MTA Mean? Part 1 Of 3 | Sheepshead Bay News Blog

  • Pingback: Cuomo Waives Bond Fee And More | Sheepshead Bay News Blog

  • Pingback: Sheepshead Bites » Blog Archive Mayoral Candidates Square Off On The Future Of Transportation – Part 2 Of 3 » Sheepshead Bay News Blog