Governor Paterson today accepted the resignation of MTA Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Elliot G. Sander. Mr. Sander offered his resignation to the Governor earlier this year in anticipation of yesterday's passage of legislation that joins the Chairman and CEO positions at the MTA. Mr. Sander's resignation is effective May 22, 2009, ending a tenure that began January 1, 2007.

It's no surprise that Sander would be sacrificed, as rumors had been circulating for months that Governor Paterson was looking for a change. Regardless of Sander's achievements during his two-year tenure, WNYC is reporting that Paterson earlier today announced the need for a "leadership shake-up" due to the public's lack of confidence in the agency.

Despite the feckless performance of Paterson and his Albany cohorts during the doomsday debacle, and the short-sighted deal that resulted, we assume the governor managed to keep a straight face.

Follow the jump for the rest of the MTA release.

MTA Executive Director and CEO Elliot G. Sander said: "It has been a great honor to lead the 70,000 hard-working men and women who run the world's greatest public transportation system. I am tremendously proud of our accomplishments making the MTA a leaner, more efficient and effective organization. Each of the MTA's agencies is performing at peak levels, the relationship with our employees is dramatically improved and we communicate more frequently with our customers. The integration of the MTA's three bus companies, the merging of back office functions across 7 agencies and the introduction of line general managers on the subway system will save the MTA millions and improve the agency's performance. New innovations like rider report cards, text message alerts and Select Bus Service have improved the customer experience. There is more work to be done, but I leave confident knowing the MTA is headed in the right direction. I am grateful to Governor Paterson and Governor Spitzer for this wonderful opportunity. I wish Governor Paterson the best of luck in choosing a successor who will build on the progress the MTA has made over the past two and a half years." 

Photo: Brad Aaron

While making the seemingly obvious argument that maintaining a healthy transit system is vital to the region's economy, the piece (behind the Crain's pay wall) lays blame on the Pataki administration -- during which Shaw previously served as MTA CEO -- for having "loaded up the MTA with debt that’s now coming home to roost."

[Sander] has become a target for those who believe the MTA is bloated and wasteful. In truth, Mr. Sander has wisely streamlined operations and cut costs in his two years in the post. He hasn’t solved all of the MTA’s problems. Who could in such a short time? And he hasn’t been the most effective politician in selling what he has done. But is that really a fault? Shouldn’t the job go to a seasoned transportation professional rather than a politician?

We asked MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan about cost-cutting measures initiated under Sander. The list is pretty extensive. Donovan points to the following efficiencies imposed "even as demand is at levels not seen since the early 1950s": elimination of 410 administrative positions; establishment of Regional Bus Operations, merging three companies into one; creation of a Business Service Center to "consolidate duplicative back office functions"; assignment of managers to oversee individual subway lines; formation of a blue-ribbon panel to "encourage competition and increase bidding on capital construction projects"; and increases in advertising revenue "from $38 million in 1997 to $125 million in 2008."

In addition, says Donovan:

Budget increases in recent years have come from uncontrollable factors like increases in debt service, which cost the MTA $793 million in 2002 and is projected to rise to $2.3 billion by 2012. But we are successfully trimming the expenses that we have control over. From 2004 to 2007, the MTA reduced its controllable costs by five percent. Building on that reduction, Lee Sander called on the MTA and its agencies to cut our budgets by six percent over four years. As the economic picture has darkened, he accelerated that six percent cut so that it is now required to take place over three years instead of four. All told, these cuts will result in a cumulative 11 percent budget cut.

Crain's editors also called on local business leaders -- Republicans in particular -- as well as the Real Estate Board of New York, to get behind the "fair and equitable" Ravitch plan to bolster MTA finances.

Do the likes of, say, Carl Kruger, care about Sander's streamlining efforts as long as they can continue to cast the MTA as the villain of the funding debacle?

Chuck, what about keeping transit affordable?

Now it's up to the Senate to get this provision into the stimulus bill. Bus and subway riders all over the country need Chuck Schumer and rookie Kirsten Gillibrand to earn their keep on this one. New York's Senate delegation has to come out strong for transit operations if American cities are going to stave off a wave of fare hikes and service cuts.

And wouldn't it be nice to see MTA chief Lee Sander ride the train down to Washington and make the case for transit operations? This seems like a golden opportunity for the MTA CEO to campaign on behalf of straphangers and save the fare.

Meanwhile, as Sarah mentioned last night, the focus in the House now shifts to Jerrold Nadler's proposal to add $3 billion for transit capital investments. The people to call today are Nancy Pelosi (202-225-0100) and Appropriations Chair David Obey (202-225-3365). The Speaker, especially, should be trying as hard as she can to make more room for transit investment if she wants to do right by her San Francisco district.

Elliot "Lee" Sander

"The budget presented today fulfills the MTA’s responsibility to put forward a balanced budget for the coming year,” said Elliot G. Sander, MTA Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer. "While we attempted to identify the least harmful cuts possible, they will be painful and no one at the MTA is eager to implement them. Even in a period of austerity, continued investment in the MTA’s critical operating and capital needs must be a top priority for elected officials in Albany, New York City and Washington. That is why Governor Paterson appointed the Ravitch Commission, and we will work hard to ensure that its recommendations are implemented to restore financial stability to the MTA. It powers our economy and we cannot allow the system to move backward at this critical moment."

"The proposed budget presents the MTA Board with extremely tough choices that we must grapple with over the next month," said Chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger. "We have an obligation to pass a balanced budget, but we all hope that service cuts and extreme fare increases can be avoided. We will be closely watching the Ravitch Commission and will support its efforts in any way we can, both on the operating budget and also on the critical capital program, which cannot be forgotten."

Before any gap-closing measures are implemented or prior-year carryover is included, the MTA’s budget deficits are projected to reach $1.441 billion in 2009, $2.394 billion in 2010, $2.647 billion in 2011, and $2.972 billion in 2012.

Further details are to be worked out "in the coming months," but the plan calls for a 23 percent increase in toll and fare revenue, with regular alternate-year increases to begin in 2011.

Also on the table:

• Paratransit fares will increase to twice the regular base fare, "as allowable by law and consistent with other bus agencies"
• Express bus fares will increase from $5 to $7.50
• Long Island Bus fares will increase by 20 percent "over and above the general proposed fare increase in the absence of additional support from Nassau County"

At the same time, the MTA has proposed the following cuts in NYC Transit service.

• Route modifications – shorten G, operate N via Manhattan Bridge late nights, eliminate W and extend Q to Astoria, operate M to Broad rush hours, eliminate Z, add J local service.
• Increased headways and loading guidelines during non-rush hours – headways increase from 8 to 10 minutes on ADEFGJMNQR on Saturdays and the ADEFGNQR on Sundays; headways increase from 20 to 30 minutes from 2 a.m. to 5 a.m.
• Reduced station booth and station customer assistant staffing; elimination of enhanced station area track cleaning program.

• Reduce or eliminate low ridership services, especially during weekends or late night, and services that largely duplicate subway service. (Specifics have appeared in the News and Post.)

Commuter rail lines would be affected as well, with reductions in staffing, cleaning and maintenance.

Today's announcement is posted on the MTA web site, where the full budget is "soon" to appear. A final decision on the proposed budget will be made on December 17, after the much-anticipated Ravitch Commission report, and the state executive budget, are released.

City Room has more from this morning's MTA board meeting.

File photo: Brad Aaron

Watch as "gotcha" guy John Deutzman catches Sander getting a shoe shine (a shoe shine!) at Grand Central after being driven to work in an MTA Police cruiser, then grills the head of the most complex transit system in the United States on how often he rides the train.

Granted, since he is the head of the most complex transit system in the United States, Sander should probably not be caught off guard so easily. Maybe a response explaining the depth of the problem and what it will take to fix it, beyond fare hikes, would be in order -- a politically palatable version of: "Look. I don't think New Yorkers care about my shoe shine. You can be angry with me if you want. I know that fare hikes are tough to swallow. But if you want to be outraged, be angry that the Big Three are in the Senate today lobbying for a $25 billion bailout while the MTA and transit systems across the state and the US are going broke. Be angry that Albany killed congestion pricing. That the city and state stopped paying their fair share to the MTA...," etc.

Still, is this the best the media can do? If so, why not follow Richard Brodsky to work? Or Joan Millman? Or Deborah Glick? Corner one of those guys sitting in traffic and ask them what they plan to do for the transit-riding public now that the service cuts and fare hikes Sander warned of are all but imminent.

Since the craven pols and media clowns are intent on distraction and directing public anger away from where it belongs, maybe MTA improvements in transparency, accounting and messaging are the only means to take these issues away.

Coverage of this transit crisis brought to you by Toyota.

Congressman Anthony Weiner and John Liu, chair of the City Council Transportation Committee, competed this weekend for best populist sound bite. Said Liu: "East River bridge tolls get bandied about every time there is a fiscal crisis. The mayor tried to impose them during the dire fiscal straits in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and even then it went over like a lead balloon. This time it will sink equally fast -- to the bottom of the East River."

And here is Weiner's entry: "Tolls on the East River bridges are just congestion pricing by another name. It is a regressive tax on the middle class. It's a way to increase the traffic burden, and frankly it's simply unfair to residents outside of Manhattan."

Naturally, the pandering pols didn't have to go looking for microphones, as reporters also fanned out across the city for quotes from beseiged drivers and doomsaying business owners, who obliged by "blasting" those who would "drop the hammer on everyone" by "slapping" on the "wallet-busting" tolls.

As for funding alternatives, coverage included Liu's reference to an unspecified "broad-based revenue source." And Weiner? As usual, the congressman was all talk, no stick.

Image: WCBS-TV

Janette Sadik-Khan, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Lee Sander. Photo: Paul White.

The Build for America campaign officially launched yesterday afternoon at Grand Central Terminal, one of six events held in cities across the nation. DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan -- joined by MTA chief Lee Sander, U.S. reps Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, and a bevy of advocates -- advanced the case for committing ambitious levels of federal support to modernizing the nation's transportation system.

"America's transportation system is facing a perfect storm of huge costs, declining infrastructure, dwindling resources and dependence on foreign oil," said Sadik-Khan. "And while we're struggling just to fix and maintain our roads, our global competitors are building systems that we simply don't have." The United States does not have a high-speed rail system, she added, and the nation's transit systems are struggling just to keep up with ridership demand.

Most speakers hewed to an economic argument: Federal investment in transportation infrastructure can create jobs as the nation faces the prospect of a deep recession. Investing that money wisely, they said, requires re-orienting spending priorities away from new highway construction and toward rail and transit.

Noting that federal spending on infrastructure has declined since 1980 from 3 percent of GDP to 1.8 percent, Nadler set a target allocation of $500 billion for the next multi-year transportation spending package (the previous package authorized $248 billion over six years). "If we do it right, it will help us get out of the very deep recession we're going into," he said, placing an emphasis on investment in passenger and freight rail. "If we don't do it right, it will make the recession deeper and reduce our competitiveness."

New York has a lot riding on the re-authorization. With the MTA facing a funding crisis, Sander painted a bleak picture of how the city's transit system may deteriorate without more federal support, invoking its sorry state in the 1970s and 80s.

"The resurgence of New York is very much linked to the improved performance of the MTA," he said. "We will not be able to maintain this success without a renewed commitment from our funding partners, including the federal government. You can be sure that one finding of the Ravitch Commission will be that we cannot succeed without a strong federal bill."

Surrounded by a throng of curious commuters under the clock at Grand Central Terminal last Friday, Sen. Hillary Clinton held a press conference calling for increased federal funding for mass transit, saying municipalities around the country needed a "federal partner to get us over the hump of increased demand."

On August 1, Clinton introduced the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act to the Senate; it has already passed the House of Representatives. The bill would provide $1.7 billion, including $237 million for New York, to help public transit systems keep fares down and prevent service cuts in the face of rising fuel costs and soaring ridership (download the bill).

"Across America places that thought there would never be much demand for public transit are now finding that there is," said Sen. Clinton. "We can't keep burdening public transit systems without giving them the money they need to run." Noting that "we are living off the investments of a prior time," Clinton added that "it is unacceptable that [mass transit] commuters would be burdened with further fare hikes and service cuts.... Commuters should not be penalized. They're part of the solution."

Asked how the city could increase the capacity of its overburdened mass transit system, NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said "buses can be a major component," and spoke of "re-engineering the city's 6,000 miles of streets...to better accommodate buses."

MTA chief Elliot Sander, whose agency is struggling with debt and has already said another round of fare increases is on the horizon, emphasized the need for federal support. "If we don't have a planning process in this country," he said, "we will fall further and further behind."

You can see Sen. Clinton's Sept. 9 testimony on the mass transit legislation before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs here.

Photo: Sarah Goodyear

DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and MTA CEO Lee Sander are scheduled to officially roll out 34th Street Select Bus Service at a 1 p.m. press conference today. The new Manhattan route will be the city's second foray into bus rapid transit, following a successful debut on Fordham Road in the Bronx.

The 34th Street route stretches from 1st to 11th Avenues, and its lanes will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. -- unlike those on the Bx12 SBS line, which are only enforced during morning and evening rush. The lanes are in effect as of today.

Sources tell Streetsblog that the city is bypassing Albany by installing stationary automated traffic cameras to keep taxis out of the lanes, but DOT would not confirm ahead of the presser. The media release says that the red SBS lanes are "the first step in a series of improvements planned to improve bus speeds and reliability" along the corridor.

In April, Sadik-Khan announced that 34th Street would eventually be home to the city's first "Transitway" -- a bus/ped/bike plaza closed to cars between 5th and 6th Avenues, with private vehicle lanes on either side of that block converted to one way streets, channeling traffic away from the Central Business District. The SBS configuration to be unveiled today marks Phase 1 of the project as outlined in this DOT slideshow.

Today's press conference is set for the north side of 34th between 5th and Madison.

Image: NYC DOT 

Earlier this week Governor David Paterson announced appointees to the Ravitch Commission. The 13-member body, headed by former MTA Chair Richard Ravitch, is charged with researching and recommending revenue streams for the MTA in the wake of congestion pricing's initial defeat at the hands of Assembly Democrats.

At least four commission members can probably -- and in some cases, definitely -- be counted as supporters of some form of road pricing: current MTA chief Elliot Sander; NYC Office of Management and Budget Director Mark Page; transportation consultant and former MTA Capital Construction President Mysore L. Nagaraja; and Peter Goldmark, former executive director of the Port Authority and currently with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Since Paterson, who made the commission appointments himself, backed congestion pricing, and since Ravitch has reportedly described pricing as "on his agenda," it's not much of a stretch to assume that the rest of the commission should at least be open to the concept. The question is, with the original proposal's executioners still in office -- and with commission recommendations set to come in December, after the fall elections -- will it matter?

Photo: Michael Nagle/New York Observer

That was quick. Less than a week after its deal with Tishman Speyer came screeching to an unexpected halt, the MTA has lined up another developer for the Hudson Yards on Manhattan's far West Side. The deal with Related Companies and Goldman Sachs, slated for authorization by the MTA board on Thursday, will put $1 billion in the agency's coffers. Now, where to get the other $16.5 billion needed for the next capital plan?

The MTA's full statement comes after the jump.

MTA REACHES AGREEMENT WITH RELATED COMPANIES/GOLDMAN SACHS TO DEVELOP RAIL YARDS

Mixed-Use Development Features Significant Affordable Housing, Retains High Line;
$1 Billion for MTA Capital Plan

Governor David A. Paterson, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, and Metropolitan Transportation Authority Executive Director and CEO Elliot G. Sander and Chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger today announced the conditional selection of Related Companies/Goldman Sachs to develop the air space over the two development sites that compose the MTA’s John D. Caemmerer Rail Yard – the Western Rail Yard (WRY) and the Eastern Rail Yard (ERY). A special meeting of the MTA Board has been called for this Thursday to seek authorization for the deal.
 
The Related/Goldman Sachs plan will dramatically transform the Western Rail Yards into New York’s next great neighborhood.  This dynamic mixed-use neighborhood, designed as an extension of the City’s fabric and public realm, will be a blend of architectural styles characteristic of New York’s skyline, with streets lined with shops, restaurants, galleries, and arts and culture. The community will feature world-leading sustainability and extensive affordable housing, centered around an expansive public space destined to be one of New York’s premiere gathering places.
 
Governor Paterson said: “The decision by a joint venture of Related Companies and Goldman Sachs to invest in the redevelopment of the Hudson Yards demonstrates a renewed commitment to the future of the City and region. This agreement highlights the resilience of public-private partnerships in the face of the national economic downturn that we are experiencing. An alliance between Related Companies - one of the country’s premier real estate firms - and Goldman Sachs - a global financial leader - will lay the foundation for a reimagined Far West Side that will expand the Midtown business corridor and further strengthen the City and State economies.”    
 
Mayor Bloomberg said: “Today’s announcement that the MTA will award Related Companies, in partnership with Goldman Sachs, the development rights for the West Side Rail Yards is great news for the City.  Despite the setbacks of the last few weeks, we are certain that Related and Goldman will realize this tremendous opportunity to develop what is really the only large parcel of undeveloped space left in Manhattan. The attractiveness of this area for developers stems in part because the City is funding an extension of the #7 line, making this vital new mixed use community of residential, commercial and office space a truly transit oriented development.  We will continue to work with the State and MTA and with the developer to help make the Hudson Yards development a reality.”   
 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority Executive Director and CEO Elliot G. Sander said: “The revenues from this development are critical to funding the MTA’s capital needs, but we made it clear that we would not settle for anything less than a fair deal. The MTA is thrilled to be working with Related and Goldman Sachs, and we are committed to seeing a thriving new district rise on the West Side.”
 
MTA Chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger said: “This extraordinary deal indicates the strength of the New York market and the unique value of the MTA’s yards. We are extremely gratified that the intense competition for these parcels allowed us to secure a deal that provides the MTA with more than $1 billion. To put this deal back together without losing any time is astounding.”
 
Stephen M. Ross, Chairman of Related Companies and Jeff T. Blau, President of Related Companies said: “We have always believed that the West Side Yards present a unique development opportunity to shape the future of our City. Related and Goldman Sachs are proud to have been selected to create New York's next great neighborhood, The Hudson Yards. We are confident that working closely with the visionary leadership of the State and City and the MTA, using the absolute best architectural, planning, engineering and construction talent, and having the financial strength and acumen of Related and Goldman Sachs, we will achieve our shared goals.”
 
Stuart Rothenberg, Global Head of Real Estate Principal Investments at Goldman Sachs said: “We are committed to working with the MTA as well as City and State officials on this vital project and we are excited to partner with Related, a world class urban developer, on creating New York's next great neighborhood.”
 
The MTA-owned Caemmerer Yard stores Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) commuter trains in close proximity to Penn Station, allowing the LIRR to move more than 235,000 commuters through the terminal each day. The construction proposal will provide for safe, continuous and uninterrupted LIRR service.
 
In July of 2007, the MTA issued two separate Requests For Proposals for the sale of and/or long term leasing of air space and related real property interests for development at the Eastern Rail Yard (“ERY”) and Western Rail Yard (“WRY”) sections of the Long Island Rail Road’s John D. Caemmerer West Side Yard.  Two of the primary objectives of the RFPs are to maximize revenue for MTA’s capital plan and to assure safe, uninterrupted LIRR service at the WSY.  Currently the WSY is a 24/7 active storage, maintenance, and cleaning facility for LIRR.  The third goal of the RFPs is to promote excellence in architecture, urban design, and sustainability in keeping with the City’s vision for the economic development and revitalization of the Hudson Yards area.
 
In October 2007 the MTA received proposals from five qualified real estate development firms for both yards. The proposals were evaluated over several months by a Selection Committee comprising a majority of MTA members and two representatives from the Hudson Yards Development Corporation. After negotiations with several of the proposers, the Selection Committee recommended the Tishman Speyer proposal to the MTA Board in March. Less than a week after negotiations reached an impasse with Tishman, the MTA reached an agreement with Related/Goldman. The Related/Goldman proposal includes the following elements:
 
 
Eastern Rail Yard (ERY)
The 13-acre Eastern Rail Yard (ERY), between 10th and 11th Avenues from West 30th to 33rd Streets, was re-zoned in January 2005 as part of the City’s Hudson Yards re-zoning, and allows for approximately 6.27 million square feet of mixed-use development (11 FAR), including office, residential, hotel, retail, cultural and parking facilities, and requires approximately seven acres of public open space.
 
The Related/Goldman Sachs plan, organized around a grand civic plaza, will construct:
5 buildings, 6.27 million sf total
1.67 million sf residential with 612,000 sf 80/20 rental (approx. 830 units) not less than 20% permanent affordable and 1.05 million sf condominium residences (approx. 692 units)
3.57 million sf commercial office
565,000 sf retail
265,000 sf hotel
Dedicated area for 200,000 sf community/cultural
55% of site public open space
 
Western Rail Yard (WRY)
The 13-acre WRY, bordered by West 30th and 33rd Streets, between 11th and 12th Avenues, needs to now go through the City zoning/ULURP approval process. The Related/Goldman Sachs plan adheres to the design guidelines outlined in the MTA’s RFP, and the development consists of approximately 5.75 million sf, including:
 
8 buildings, 5.75 million sf total
3.63 million sf residential with 960,000 sf 80/20 rental (approx. 1,324 units) not less than 20% permanent affordable and 2.67 million sf condominium residences (approx. 1,927 units)
1.92 million sf commercial office within one building
192,000 sf of retail
120,000 sf PS/IS school
Over 55% of site public open space
 
Special Features of the Proposal:
20% of the rental housing on-site at Hudson Yards will be permanently affordable (approximately 440 units), contributing to the diversity of the project and the shared vision by Related/Goldman Sachs, the State and the City for this great New York neighborhood.
The High Line, which borders the Hudson Yards on the south and west, is retained as an integral part of the Related/Goldman Sachs proposal. The High Line will be rehabilitated and maintained as a linear open space.
The Related/Goldman Sachs plan will achieve LEED certification by the U.S. Green Building Council, representing one of the most significant commitments to green development in the United States.
 
The business and legal terms of this deal follow those previously negotiated with the Tishman Speyer organization, a 99-year ground lease, severable, with options to purchase severed fee parcels. The net present value of the proposal is $1.054 billion.  The agreement also allows the Developer to opt to delay certain rent payments where no building has begun construction for up to two years, provided that the Developer increases its rent guarantee by the full amount of the deferred rent once either construction starts or the delay period ends and the future rent is increased by the value of one half of the amount of the deferral.  The maximum exposure to this provision (in the event that no building has commenced and the delay period is the full two years) would make the net present value to the MTA $1.011B.
 
Next Steps
A special meeting of the MTA Board has been called for this Thursday to seek required approval of the deal. If the Board authorizes the signed Conditional Designation Letter, these documents and the $11 million initial deposit would be released from escrow to the MTA. The MTA would then enter into a contract with the developer within the next few months. The proposal for the Western Rail Yard would then begin an environmental and public review, which consists of preparation of an environmental impact statement followed by the City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a six-month series of reviews by the community board, Borough President, City Council and City Planning Commission. Construction on the WRY may begin after completing this process, expected to be complete by the end of 2009. The ERY was re-zoned in January 2005 and construction could commence upon completion of the contract with the developer.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg this morning unveiled details of the city's first Bus Rapid Transit project, called "Select Bus Service," to debut on the Bx12 line, which follows 207th Street in Northern Manhattan and Fordham Road and Pelham Parkway in the Bronx.

Bloomberg and other officials also tied expansion of the program to the implementation of congestion pricing.

Connecting Inwood to Co-Op City, the Bx12 SBS corridor will allow riders to prepay the fare at vending machine stations along the line. Transit customers will get a receipt, to be displayed upon request to "enforcement personnel aboard buses," according to a media release. At first, vending stations will only accept MetroCards and cash as payment, though credit card functionality will eventually be added.

Speaking at Fordham Plaza and flanked by Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, MTA Executive Lee Sander, and electeds from the Bronx and Northern Manhattan, Bloomberg outlined key components of SBS service. In addition to prepayment of fares, the corridors will feature:

• More buses (the Bx12 line will have 10 additional buses running during peak hours, Bloomberg said)
• Additional service hours
• Boarding at front and back doors
• Fewer stops
  
• Transit Signal Priority, a system that keeps signal lights green, and quickens the cycle of changing red signals back to green, to allow buses to move through intersections more smoothly
• Terracotta colored bus lanes, with stepped up enforcement to keep cars out
• Specially designed "branded" SBS buses, and branded stations with new shelters
  

The Bx12 SBS will replace the line's current limited-stop service on June 29. Bloomberg said the development of other corridors -- including First and Second Avenues in Manhattan, Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn, and Hyland Boulevard on Staten Island -- depend on getting congestion pricing through the City Council and state Legislature. This point was echoed by Sadik-Khan, who described SBS as "almost like a surface subway system."

The "salsarengue bus"

During a brief Q&A with reporters, Sander characterized MTA service improvement delays caused by slumping real estate returns as a "blip," and encouraged a long-term view. On the same subject, Bloomberg said of yesterday's announcement: "I think what it shows is there is never enough money to do everything."

Bloomberg pledged to do "everything [he] legally can" to ensure that all pricing revenues are used for transit capital projects even after his second term ends.

Also on hand were Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión and state Assembly Members José Rivera and Adriano Espaillat, all supporters of congestion pricing. Espaillat, who represents Northern Manhattan, cited the success of Bogotá Bus Rapid Transit, and said he sees no reason it can't be replicated in New York. The "salsarengue bus," as Espaillat called the Bx12, referring to the music favored in the largely Dominican and Latino neighborhoods it serves, is the perfect place to start, he said.

The three also had strong sentiments for those who would cast congestion pricing as a "right-wing conspiracy," in the words of Carrión. Rivera said he has asked Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, an opponent of both the commuter tax and congestion pricing, what he is willing to contribute to the Bronx, which Rivera described as a border between Lower Manhattan and suburban car commuters. "I have yet to receive an answer," Rivera said.

"We're not afraid of park-and-ride," said Espaillat, whose district skirts the asthma-plagued South Bronx and includes "the poster child of buckling platforms" at Dyckman Street on the No. 1 line.

"This [congestion pricing] is not a bogey monster," Espaillat said. "This is a rational, practical solution to a very serious problem."

Photos: Brad Aaron 

The Sun reports:

The MTA's executive director, Elliot Sander, who will testify at the hearing, has said Mr. Bloomberg's plan to charge drivers $8 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street would generate $4.5 billion in revenue, which the MTA could borrow on in advance. Even with the use of congestion fee funds, the MTA budget has a $9 billion shortfall.

Mr. Silver said in a statement yesterday that he is concerned that the congestion plan would not be fully funded and that it is unclear whether the proceeds from the traffic tax would be devoted to capital projects alone or to routine maintenance and operations.

The congestion pricing plan would qualify for $354 million in federal aid if passed by Albany and the City Council by March 31. Mr. Silver has said he would not support it unless it includes rebates for low-income drivers.

According to the hearing announcement, the assembly members will "seek information on the specific details associated with the proposed projects contained in the plan as well as the funding of the plan. This hearing will also provide an opportunity for the Committees to examine the other components of the plan, such as how a congestion mitigation plan and its consequences are addressed."

The hearing will begin at 10:30 a.m. at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Meeting Hall, 42 W. 44th St. (bet. Fifth & Sixth Aves., 2nd Floor, in Manhattan.

MTA chief Elliott "Lee" Sander delivered the first-ever "State of the MTA" address this morning, using the agency's 40th anniversary to urge the enactment of the full $29.5 billion, five-year capital plan unveiled last week. Speaking before a packed house at Cooper Union's Great Hall, Sander argued that the New York metro region needs every tier in the plan to serve a growing population, keep up with global competition, and address the challenge of climate change.

Sander linked the plan to the historical trajectory begun in the early 1980s, when the MTA rolled out successive five-year capital plans, reviving a decrepit system with a $70 billion overhaul. The capital plan now on the table, he said, would "turn the page to the next chapter in New York City's transit history" and create "a world-class, seamless transportation network."

Sander also reinforced the importance of congestion pricing to the MTA's plans, and placed major capital projects within the context of the city's sustainability initiatives. "Inherent in the capital plan and in congestion pricing is the belief that sustainability is critical to the region's future," he said. "Global warming and sea level rise are challenges no enlightened society can afford to ignore."

The presentation depicted three categories of improvements: 1) short-term service enhancements that can be implemented before congestion pricing, 2) major projects in the 2008-13 capital plan, and, looking ahead as far as 2048, 3) long-term system extensions for the five boroughs and surrounding counties that the current proposal would make possible.

The first category will consist of new bus routes in every borough and more frequent subway service on 11 lines. In the second category, big-ticket projects like the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access -- linking the LIRR to Grand Central -- take center stage. The third category, which Sander called a "long-term vision and action plan for the next 25-40 years," includes ideas like using the Second Avenue Subway as a trunk line for service into Brooklyn and the Bronx, and building a "circumferential" subway line connecting Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx using existing rail rights-of-way (an idea first proposed by the Regional Plan Association). A detailed summary is available in the MTA press release, and City Room has posted a great recap.

Transportation advocates were largely positive, though not without reservation, in their assessments of the speech.

"It was a smart thing for the MTA to do," said Neysa Pranger of the RPA. "Any opportunity they can take to pitch their program is a good one. It's going to need the energy and enthusiasm of the people in that room to get the capital program through Albany."

In the MTA's long-term vision, the Second Avenue Subway (yellow) will serve as a trunk line extending to routes in upper Manhattan and other boroughs (blue).

Noah Budnick of Transportation Alternatives said Sander made a compelling argument. "They explained how much investment has already gone in, and what that has done for the system. I heard a case made for why past investments have worked, and why we need to keep investing or else the system's going to go downhill."

A cautionary note came from Joan Byron of the Pratt Center for Community Development. With commodity prices rising and the region's economy on shaky ground, she said, "it all adds weight to the argument for doing things to expand the system incrementally." The Pratt Center and its partner, COMMUTE, have been advocating for more BRT in the capital plan to make sure neighborhoods underserved by transit see a greater, more immediate benefit. "East Side Access has a lot of benefits," Byron said. "But you could value-engineer money out of that and deliver miles and miles and miles of BRT."

In a Q & A following his speech, Sander was asked if the MTA planned to implement BRT lines that cross bridges, which would directly connect the outer boroughs to Manhattan. "In the five corridors that we're doing with DOT, none of those go over bridges," he said, "but I wouldn't rule it out."

Graphics courtesy of the MTA

Brodsky's anti-pricing antics are well known to Streetsbloggers. Below is an excerpt from Farrell's February bulletin to his Northern Manhattan constituency, with emphasis added.

Read it and weep.

I would like to take a moment to explain my 'no' vote on congestion mitigation. Simply put, I saw this issue as a matter of fairness, where our community was being asked to shoulder the costs of this plan without receiving our fair share of the benefits.

While this idea of reduced traffic and a corresponding reduction in air pollution in our neighborhoods is appealing, the residents of New York City should not carry the burden for the entire metropolitan area while others use our bridges and tunnels without having to pay a fee. Unless there is some way drivers coming into Manhattan can be required to pay, these persons will continue to avoid paying their fair share, and this will do nothing to solve the pollution problems in our community which are caused by traffic on the George Washington Bridge.

However, my 'no' vote was one of only two cast by the review committee, meaning congestion mitigation passed the first hurdle without seriously addressing the concerns of our community.

From here, the City Council will take up the issue and must make a recommendation of its' own before the issue is considered by the State Assembly. Should congestion mitigation be approved by the City Council and taken up by the Assembly, the Assembly must approve congestion mitigation by March 31 in order to receive federal funding to implement this plan.

While both the Council and the Assembly are committed to meeting the deadline, should congestion mitigation be judges worthy of pursuit, it is imperative that this decision be made after consideration of all the facts. By design, this must include a long hard look at MTA's five-year plan, which was promised to the Council and the Assembly by the transit agency. However, MTA has yet to make good on their promise to release this information.

It's hard to know where to start here, but last things first: the MTA released its capital plan shortly after Farrell wrote this letter, and the overriding message, as expected, is that the MTA needs congestion pricing. But this is almost beside the point, not only because Lee Sander has been saying it for months now, but because a state legislator like Farrell, if anyone, should be well aware of the MTA's dire financial straits. Perhaps Ferrell expected the agency to say it doesn't need that $500 million a year after all.

Unlike some of his colleagues, Farrell seems willing to acknowledge that pricing will reduce traffic and air pollution. But that isn't good enough, since New Jersey drivers would receive a toll credit, thereby giving them a "free" ride. This is a classic example of the us vs. them strategy adopted by the anti-pricing crowd from day one: Even if there is less gridlock, less pollution, fewer kids hospitalized with asthma, we don't want it unless the other guy pays his "fair share."

our community was being asked to shoulder the costs of this plan without receiving our fair share of the benefits

Again with the "fair share" bit. If by "our community" Farrell is referring to Northern Manhattan, then he's at least partially right: drivers traveling below 60th Street would indeed have to pay the $8 congestion charge. But since just 3.4 percent of Farrell's constituents commute alone by car to Lower Manhattan from his transit-rich district, most of his community would indeed benefit. Greatly.

this will do nothing to solve the pollution problems in our community which are caused by traffic on the George Washington Bridge.

Not sure what Farrell means here, since the GWB has an inbound toll, and since the east and west side highways are included in the cordon area recommended by the TCMC.

Unless there is some way drivers coming into Manhattan can be required to pay...

Like an $8 charge to drive below 60th Street?

Despite Farrell's apparent willful ignorance when it comes to pricing, as of last week he had not signed on to Brodsky's $4 cab surcharge plan. Being a Manhattan legislator with his sights set on a City Council seat, it's hard to imagine he would. Yellow cabs aren't nearly as prevalent uptown, but Farrell would have a hell of a time justifying a $6.50 drop charge to the 77.9 percent of households in his district (full disclosure: mine included) that don't own a car and rely on taxis from time to time.

But now that Brodsky and his band of non-Manhattanite lawmakers have jumped the shark, what's next?

This almost daily journey of mine up to Columbia, where I've been going a lot lately to research a book, was anecdotal confirmation of what any serious study would probably show you: the city's transit system, while packed at rush hour, has considerable capacity in the off-peak hours.

While I enjoyed my ease in finding a seat, for the city and for its citizens it would be better if the subway lines were more crowded during non-rush hours. The city's transit lines are one of its more expensive and valuable pieces of infrastructure. Having more riders means that the taxpayers, who, lest we forget, ultimately own the subway, are getting more value out of this publicly owned piece of infrastructure.

There's an easy way to do this and that's to substantially lower the cost of an Unlimited Ride MetroCard so that most residents buy them. This is a far more effective way of encouraging off-peak ridership than lower-cost single fares at off-peak hours, which has also been discussed.

Economists talk about the elasticity of purchases, meaning how price sensitive a purchase is. Commuting to work is very inelastic because most people have to get to work and they will pay what they have to to get there. Sure, in the long run they may move to a different neighborhood if commuting costs are too high, but they won't change habits much on a daily basis.

Not so with more optional trips. If you are thinking of stopping for a book on the way home, or trying out a new place for lunch, or even sunbathing in a park, then an extra $2 or even $1 will be a significant deterrent. This is a very elastic commodity. If you have an Unlimited Ride MetroCard, then the cost of an additional trip, once you have committed the "sunk cost," is zero. That's a good thing for citizens' quality of life, and a good thing for the economic health of the city.

In just a few weeks, on March 2, we will all be paying more for those unlimited ride cards. A monthly pass, for example, will rise to $81, up from $76. The law of supply and demand being what it is, this means that fewer people will buy Unlimited Ride MetroCards than otherwise would have, and thus fewer people will use the subways.

This rise in price came out of the push earlier this year by MTA CEO Elliot Sander to raise base fares, and the campaign ended exactly the wrong way. Under pressure from Governor Spitzer, the MTA ended up keeping the base fare the same and raising the price of the unlimited ride cards. For some reason, this is more politically palatable.

I have an alternate policy suggestion for next year: let's drop the price of a monthly Unlimited Ride MetroCard to a breathtakingly low $30. Meanwhile, let's raise the price of an individual fare to $3. This would push most people to buy the unlimited ride cards, leaving the individual tickets for the tourists and out-of-towners, who are less price conscious and whose money we should be seeking to extract anyway.

Someone about now might be asking what all this has to do with street life. A lot, actually. As we walk around our favored part of the city, it's easy to forget that an essential part of being able to sip a coffee at a café or stroll along a shopping strip is the thundering tracks underneath the sidewalk. They enable people to live densely, without cars and their necessary parking spaces, and so create the possibility of having many people per square foot of sidewalk, which is in the final analysis the essential component of a livable street. The transit system lubricates street life.

Some transit expert could determine how lowering the cost of the unlimited pass while raising the single fare would impact MTA finances. Such a move might increase the gap between revenue and expenses, and thus increase the need for public funding. But even if that were the case, the city and state should fill any gap, and the public should demand they do so. We accept higher fares with a grudging stoicism, not fully realizing that this our transit system, publicly owned, built and now operated. (We can leave for another day the common misperception that the transit system was originally private. It wasn't. See my essay here for info on this.)

Higher tax revenues from increased business activity might even make up for any additional necessary funding of the MTA. The main point though, is that this is our transit system. We should start acting like it in our policies.

Photo: petra jane/Flickr

 
To be fair, the QCC has promoted this idea for several years, long before pricing was introduced by the Bloomberg administration. Here's the QCC in 2005:

Re-instate the Commuter tax after and dedicate this money for transportation infrastructure. If the proposal includes sharing the proceeds with our suburbs, it should pass in Albany. Let the 'burbs keep what their residents pay; New York City will do well with wealthy out-of-staters who live across the Husdon, Connecticut and elsewhere. Double the former rate -- netting $450 million to start, and reaching $1 billion soon.

But it's easy to be cynical when the QCC suggests the city, or the MTA, abandon congestion pricing to get behind the commuter tax. Setting aside the fact that it would do nothing to reduce congestion or VMT and has no environmental or public health benefit, Albany has already rejected it, and did so almost on a whim. Current state legislators Richard Brodsky, Denny Farrell, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver were among those who voted to repeal the tax in 1999.

These guys are still in charge, and no one at the capitol is talking about a commuter tax. There's no reason to believe it would be voted back in. Not even Brodsky, who has elevated anti-pricing rhetoric to an art form, is suggesting a return to the commuter tax to alleviate congestion, preferring a carbon tax and license plate rationing instead.

Besides having no basis in reality, claiming "it should pass in Albany" is a weak nail on which to hang the future of public transportation in New York City. In that light, the QCC commuter tax push should be seen for what it is: another attempt to distract from a plan that would actually reduce traffic congestion while raising critical funds for transit.

Photo, of QCC President Corey Bearak and MTA Executive Lee Sander, by Bruno DeFranceschi via Queens Civic Congress

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission is expected to sign off on a condensed version of the Bloomberg administration's original pricing proposal today, one with a northern boundary of 60th Street (rather than 86th) and no charges for trips that begin within Manhattan's Central Business District. Higher parking rates and a taxi surcharge could also be included, but other details -- such as New Jersey drivers avoiding congestion fees through toll credits -- are likely to be left unresolved.

TCMC Chairman Marc Shaw met privately yesterday with Assembly Democrats, who reportedly expressed their opinion of the plan no uncertain terms.

Here are some choice bits from today's papers.

From the Times: 

"I would say that the idea of congestion pricing and the commission's proposals got hammered, and it was in a comprehensive way," said Rory I. Lancman, a Queens assemblyman who attended the meeting. "Every aspect of the proposals were hashed out, were analyzed and were found to be wanting."

Mr. Shaw has been making the rounds in Albany as he tries to drum up support for a traffic-busting plan in advance of the commission's vote.

"Marc stood there for three hours and took his beating like a man," Mr. Lancman said.

From the Sun: 

"I do not believe it will become the law of the state," Mr. Brodsky, who represents Westchester County, said during a telephone interview yesterday. "They've taken a bad plan and made it worse."

The mayor's office declined to comment, but during his weekly radio show last week, Mr. Bloomberg said that a lower boundary "would bring in less money and would leave us with another traffic problem." 

From the Post: 

"Were we not to get congestion pricing, it would have a dramatic effect on our ability to expand and modernize our system," MTA Executive Director Elliot Sander said yesterday. 

"It makes a lot more sense to put the [border] where the business district really ends," said Councilman John Liu (D-Queens), chairman of the City Council's Transportation Committee.

The administration of the plan will be less expensive "and we won't have thousands of cameras peering at us every single place," Liu added.

The final version also will probably not include tolls on now-free East and Harlem River bridges, sources said.

"Hopefully, this will finally put to bed the wild and crazy idea of bridge tolls," Liu said.

From the News:

"I wouldn't say it's dead. I would say it has major obstacles," said Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), a congestion pricing supporter.

Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) told the Daily News Wednesday the idea still has life - in part because the MTA is counting on $500 million a year in congestion pricing funds to pay for its $25 billion-plus capital spending plan.

"They can be dealt with, is what I'm saying," Silver said. 

In an op-ed published yesterday in Metro, MTA chief Lee Sander emphasized the connection between congestion pricing and improved subway and bus service, which polls continue to suggest is the key to securing public support. Sander's piece joins reports that officials are working on plans to create a transit "lock box" for pricing revenue.

Making his case, Sander brought to the surface an idea that's been percolating among policy experts for some time: the "virtuous cycle."

[Congestion pricing] would speed trips for bus riders and make each bus less expensive to operate. Right now, when MTA buses are stuck idling in traffic, we must spend money on excess fuel and overtime for drivers. By decongesting the streets not just in Manhattan but throughout the city, as commuters from all the boroughs leave their cars at home congestion pricing would make travel times for bus riders faster. That leads to a virtuous cycle. As traffic is reduced, buses become faster. Faster buses attract more riders out of their cars, which reduces traffic further.

Transportation Alternatives director Paul Steely White introduced this concept to New Yorkers last May on the DMI Blog, noting that pricing will improve bus commutes right away:

In removing many of the cars that block buses, and by making it easier to reprogram car lanes into bus lanes (such as the new bus lanes proposed for the Queensboro and Williamsburg bridges), the bus boosting benefits of congestion pricing will be felt immediately. What's more, speedier buses, as in London [pdf], will set off a "virtuous cycle" of less driving and more bus ridership leading to decreased bus operation costs per rider and in turn encouraging more service, lower fares, more bus riders and fewer drivers getting in their way.

The paper White linked to -- Kenneth Small's "Unnoticed Lessons from London: Road Pricing and Public Transit" (download it) -- provides a rigorous academic explanation of the virtuous cycle effect. In a piece of tantalizing extrapolation, Small projects the effect of congestion pricing on bus ridership in a typical American city:

Ridership goes up 31 percent and average user cost falls more than 100 percent of the initial fare. Fares can be reduced 26 percent, despite a 21 percent increase in service whose fares cover less than average cost; these reduced fares are possible because of higher bus occupancy (due to patronage rising faster than vehicle-miles) and lower driver costs (due to faster trips). 

Photo: joeaverage/Flickr

The Daily News, which has pounded the transit agency with its "Halt the Hike" series ("Even as the MTA is poised to stick straphangers with a fat fare hike, Chief Executive Lee Sander went shopping for a new necktie yesterday"), called the fare increase "the great train robbery of 2007," and characterized Sander and new Chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger as puppets of Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Spitzer.

There was a time when MTA bosses were independent, standup people who represented the riders, even if only in losing battles with governors, Legislatures and mayors. Men like Dick Ravitch and Peter Kalikow come to mind.

At this point in their relatively young tenures, Hemmerdinger and Sander pale in comparison.

They are order takers, dictated to by Spitzer and Bloomberg, who have assumed full personal ownership of this fare hike.

New MetroCards should come bearing photographs of the governor and the mayor, like on wanted posters, including their records.

Also in the News, Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, while critical of the hikes, says transit customers have reason for hope in the promises made by Spitzer and other pols, including Assembly Member Richard Brodsky, that more state aid is forthcoming. Russianoff also thinks further hikes will be politically infeasible for the next several years.

The Tri-State Transportation Campaign, for one, believes the hike will be used against the MTA come budget time, and sees it as a broader failure of the MTA and elected officials to advance a pro-transit agenda. Calling yesterday a "Sad Day for Transit Riders," TSTC's Kate Slevin writes:

Overall, by approving the hike and the proposed fare and toll plan today, Governor Spitzer and the MTA missed out on a number of key opportunities. First, they missed an opportunity to win support from transit riders who feel the pressure of crowded trains, slow buses, and an increasingly expensive region. Second, they missed out on a chance to let vocal state legislators put their money where their mouth is and produce more state transit aid. Third, they missed an opportunity to connect the transit funding debate with the Traffic Mitigation Commission's recommendations to be released in January. Fourth, the MTA failed, as it has in the past (see MTR #s 425, 401, 237, and others), to use the toll hike as an opportunity to bring its tolling structure and facilities into the 21st century with things like variable tolling and non-stop tolls.

Finally, the MTA and Governor Spitzer failed to connect the fare and toll proposal with their own efforts to promote sustainability. The MTA established a top-notch Sustainability Commission in September to help create an agency "master plan" to reduce the agency's ecological footprint. But the agency's toll proposal punishes most transit riders more than most drivers - under the plan EZ Pass users (which account for 75% of all crossings) will pay only 3.8% more while transit fares for most riders will increase more than that. Last time we checked, promoting transit use over driving is an vital part of "sustainability."