Streetsblog New York City

Andrew Cuomo's staff hasn't spoken to MTA executives about the authority's looming capital funding shortfall, according to MTA chair Jay Walder. Photo: Wikimedia

The MTA is still staring down a $10 billion hole in its capital plan, and the consequences of that deficit continue to roll closer. Unless money is found by the end of the year, transit expansions like the Second Avenue Subway will slow down and important maintenance will be left undone. But despite the approaching deadline, no one in Albany seems willing to step up and even begin to tackle the issue.

Governor Cuomo hasn’t shown much interest in dealing with the MTA’s capital deficit. During a legislative hearing on the transportation budget yesterday, MTA Chairman Jay Walder revealed that while he has met with the governor’s staff, “I have not had conversations as to avenues of funding for the capital program.”

Any new revenue source for the MTA would be a major political fight. If the governor’s office hasn’t even started speaking with the MTA about the issue, movement in the near future seems unlikely.

While the governor seems to be whistling past the graveyard, the State Senate continues to actively fight to take money away from transit. The $1.4 billion payroll mobility tax remains under threat, with Majority Leader Dean Skelos strenuously opposed, a number of Senate Republicans elected on anti-payroll tax platforms and the four breakaway Senate Democrats willing to axe the tax as well.

In a speech at a Crain’s Breakfast Forum two weeks ago, Skelos once again expressed his desire to eliminate the payroll tax, though he now says that the MTA should be “made whole” if that revenue is removed. That’s progress for Skelos, but it’s not enough. Whatever revenue would be used to replace $1.4 billion from the payroll tax is revenue that can’t be used to fund the capital plan. As Walder told the legislature yesterday, “I don’t foresee a plan in any time frame in which you can phase out the payroll tax.”

Read more…

Thanks to reader Geck for sending along this email from Brooklyn Assembly member Jim Brennan, who was replying to a question about the rejection of bus lane cameras in the Assembly's draft budget. The district that Brennan represents doesn't include any bus lanes, existing or proposed. That didn't stop him from offering this excuse:

There are a variety of concerns with the proposal you write about. The Legislature has tended to consider many New York City specific traffic control measures outside of the budget process. Last year, for instance, we authorized an increase in red light cameras but the matter was considered separately. Usually we focus on New York City specific measures toward the end of the session but prior to the beginning of the New York City fiscal year which begins on July 1.

One concern is that the proposal would cost the MTA $4 million for installing the cameras but all the revenue would go to the City of New York. The MTA does not benefit from the proposal. Another is that the New York City Department of Transportation is irrationally expanding the number of bus lanes in the City and creating excessive restrictions on vehicles. Motorists would be overly penalized under such circumstances from the use of these cameras.

I share you interest in the use of these devices to enable buses to move more rapidly but these concerns need to be addressed. Thanks for writing.

Yours truly,
Jim Brennan
Member of Assembly

Brennan must not be aware that New York City's 2.7 million daily bus riders currently endure the slowest average bus speeds in the nation. Nor that many routes in line for camera enforcement have been around for years. The handful of streets selected for new bus lanes were singled out for good reason. Select Bus Service on Brooklyn's B44 corridor would help tens of thousands of riders who currently have to put up with the most unreliable bus route in the city. SBS on First and Second Avenues would serve one of the densest areas of the city and improve speeds on the bus route with the highest ridership in America. It will enhance service mainly on existing bus lanes that lack adequate enforcement.

As for those concerns about cost, a bus lane enforcement program with 40 cameras is projected to provide a net revenue gain of about half a million dollars each year, according to NYCDOT. The cost of installing and operating the program would come to $2.4 million annually, with the city handling adjudication and administration.

It should be pretty obvious that these figures are trivial compared to factors that actually shape the MTA budget, like the state's theft of $118 million in dedicated transit taxes. But if the Assembly is concerned about where the revenue goes, why not amend the budget proposal, instead of completely rejecting a critical transit enhancement that stands to benefit millions?

Following up on other car-free parks news, last week Assembly Member Jim Brennan joined the chairs of Brooklyn Community Boards 7 and 14 in calling for an Environmental Impact Statement before any trial program to remove car traffic from Prospect Park. In this tipster-submitted constituent letter, Brennan rationalizes his position.

Nothing says "fact-based public process" like "community board consideration."

Thanks for your note about Prospect Park. Last week I wrote the New York City Department of Transportation asking for a public process that would include the coummunity [sic] boards adjacent to Prospect Park in any decision involving eliminating cars from the Park. The boards include Community Board Six in Park Slope, Board 8 in Prospect Heights, Board Nine in Crown Heights, Board Seven in Windsor Terrace and Board 14 in Flatbush.

I also expressed the view that an environmental impact statement might be required because of traffic congestion and pollution concerns. I believe that a decision about elminating [sic] cars from the Park should be based on an objective assessment of the facts.

In another case of 1970s-era environmental law being turned on its head, Brooklyn Community Boards 7 and 14 are demanding that the city conduct an environmental review before implementing a proposed, three month car-free trial in Prospect Park next summer. At a press event this morning attended by 19 people near the Park Circle entrance to the park, Assemblyman Jim Brennan joined CB7 chair Randy Peers and CB14 chair Alvin Berk, calling for an Environmental Impact Statement to study the matter.

A car-free park "could have a major environmental impact," said Brennan, who co-signed a letter with the CB chairs asking DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan for the EIS. Similar use of environmental regulations have postponed the development of San Francisco's bike lane network for three years.

In the midst of calling for the environmental impact study, typically a lengthy and expensive process, Peers made clear that he had already reached his own conclusion. "Closing the park to traffic is unacceptable even for a trial period," he said.

Assemblyman Jim Brennan, a Democrat from Brooklyn, has introduced a new congestion pricing bill, according to a statement released by his office. The bill contains some elements lifted from Mayor Bloomberg's original proposal, including:

• Re-instating the $4 intrazonal fee
• Exempting drivers who cross into Manhattan below 60th Street but only drive on the periphery
  

If these changes were to be applied, against the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, it would result in higher administrative costs and more surveillance cameras. Although Brennan identified himself as a pricing supporter when the idea was first floated last summer, at this point his bill seems to undermine much of the approval process to date, including the contributions of the TCMC and the City Council's vote on Monday in favor of a home rule message.

Brooklyn Assembly Member Jim Brennan (right) tells me that he sees sentiment against Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan running at about "three- or four-to-one against" among his colleagues. Brennan suspects that the plan may not even pass the Republican-controlled Senate.

While Brennan supports congestion pricing himself, he is concerned that advocates have "over-sold the benefits to transit." The $380 million per year that would be raised by congestion pricing is "a drop in the bucket compared to the enormity of the fiscal crisis" that awaits the MTA."

Other congestion pricing updates:

• Sewell Chan has a minute-by-minute account of the morning's meetings in Albany (City Room) 
• Senate Dems not on board for congestion pricing (Daily Politics) 
• Bloomberg has nothing but good things to say about the State Senate (Politicker)