Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Moynihan Station Moves Forward


Image by SOM from Friends of Moynihan Station
Skidmore Owings and Merrill's 2006 rendering of the new train hall

Religious rhetoric often seems to find its way into discussions of Moynihan Station, which makes a good deal of sense if one subscribes to the notion that, in the historical schema of civic architecture, grand cathedrals were replaced by train terminals and post offices. Moynihan Station involves both: Its most current iteration calls for the construction of a railroad station inside of the eastern half of Farley Post Office, which would then be known as Moynihan Station.

Speaking of the project that would come to bear his name, the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan intoned at a 2002 press conference: "In the old time, you arrived at Pennsylvania Station at the train platform. You went up the stairs to heaven. Make that Manhattan. And we shall have it again. Praise all."

The old time, of course, referred to the era of old Pennsylvania Station: the Beaux-Arts masterpiece designed by McKim, Meade & White in 1910, where Moynihan sold newspapers and shined shoes as a boy fresh to the city from Tulsa, Okla. It was replaced by the new Penn Station in the mid 1960s, an act that the critic Lewis Mumford then characterized as "irresponsible public vandalism," and is now seen as a catalyst for the architectural preservation movement in the U.S. The two stations are so drastically different that the Yale architecture professor Vincent Scully once compared the old to the new by saying, "One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat."

A Return to Grandeur

The original Penn Station

Moynihan's plan to restore Penn Station's greatness -- which has been stalled so long that it's hard not to see the whole thing as some sort of civic penance -- has always aimed to turn the Farley Post Office across Eighth Avenue -- a McKim, Meade, and White Beaux-Arts building designed to match its former neighbor -- into a grand railroad station befitting New York. Over the years, the proposal has called for a variety of anchor tenants, including Amtrak, New Jersey Transit and the Long Island Railroad, and a litany of additional components such as a relocated Madison Square Garden, 850,000 square feet of commercial space, 5.5 million square feet of towering office space, and much more. Despite all of the permutations, state funds, private money, a few environmental impact statements, and even an engraved marble cornerstone that has gone missing, the project never managed to get off (or into) the ground.

Earlier this month, Gov. David Paterson and Sen. Chuck Schumer started up the Moynihan chatter once again. After six months of negotiations with Amtrak, parties reached a preliminary agreement for the company to relocate its operations to the Farley Post Office, if a train station were to be built there. That move improved, but by no means guaranteed the prospects for federal stimulus funds for the construction needed to turn the post office into Moynihan Station.

The long holdup has nothing to do with a lack of support. Since Moynihan started to champion Amtrak's suggestion that the Farley Post Office serve as New York City's new train station in 1993, civic groups and elected officials have crowded on board as though the plan was Noah's ark. At times, perhaps, all this enthusiasm has caused problems. When Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver shot down one of the biggest iterations of the project, known as Plan B, in 2006, it was not because he was opposed to the development, but because he thought one of the cooks in the kitchen, the Empire State Development Corp., wasn't doing its job well.

One Step at a Time

The real trouble, though, has been getting all of the project's financial ducks in a row, a dilemma that this latest try seems eager to best with a piecemeal funding strategy. The New York Observer reported: "One official involved with the project called this approach moving beyond 'the Big Bang theory,' the method of executing everything at once, which has failed so many times before."

The current iteration of the Moynihan station project is expected to cost between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion. There is already more than $200 million in federal funding earmarked for the project and on September 15, the state applied for nearly $100 million for necessary below-ground work through a stimulus-bill backed program called Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery or TIGER, a discretionary grant directly overseen by the Obama administration.

In addition, "[State] officials are planning a second application for a to-be-determined amount of money from the $8 billion set aside in the stimulus for high-speed rail projects," the Observer reported. It cited a preliminary application that the Paterson administration put forward earlier this year seeking nearly $400 million of those high-speed rail dollars.

Of course, given the current economic situation and the money's relatively well-publicized availability, there is stiff competition between state transportation departments all around the country for both the TIGER and high-speed rail funds.

At this point, it seems like if any those dollars make it to New York, it will be on a wing and a prayer, which, given all that has been written about Moynihan Station, is perhaps fitting.

Tunnel Vision


The largest transit public works project in the country held its groundbreaking ceremony on the western shore of the Hudson River just two months ago. The Mass Transit Tunnel, the venture's third name in 15 years, is a fully-funded $8.7 billion trans-Hudson rail link connecting the west side of Manhattan to northern New Jersey.


Gotham Gazette on the Waterfront


.........................
Neglected National Parkland
Our parks columnist explores the national parkland along the New York Harbor -- an area most New Yorkers have never heard of.
.........................
A Public-slash-Private Park
The city has created a new plan for the ball fields on Randall's Island. Critics, though, are calling foul.
.........................
Communities Drowned Out
As planners and developers eye the water's edge, are grassroots and community advocates losing their say?
.........................
Waiting to Wade More people are taking to the water, but has our access really improved? Check out this and more in Gotham Gazette's series on all things waterfront.


Its many powerful proponents, including the governors of New York and New Jersey, numerous elected officials from both states, the Federal Transit Administration, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority -- all of whom have contributed funding to the project -- as well as countless advocacy groups assert that the new tunnel will speed commutes, ease congestion, create jobs and provide environmental benefits.

As is to be expected with a project of this size, the plan has its critics, too. Some of the more vocal naysayers meet on the fourth Wednesday of every month in Lower Manhattan under the moniker the Regional Rail Working Group. These dissenters don't dispute the need for a second commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson. They do, however, believe the current plan isn't worth its price tag, and they're telling everyone they can, including Obama Administration appointees.

Why Another Tunnel?

In the past 25 years, the number of people passing through the existing two-track, century-old rail tunnel connecting northern New Jersey to Penn Station has more than quadrupled, soaring from roughly 10 million in 1984 to about 44 million today. Every hour, 23 New Jersey Transit trains pass through the old tunnel during rush hour, and as any regular rider can attest, that's a recipe for delays.

While Metro-North commuters are graced with an on-time performance rate of around 97 percent, their New Jersey bound cohorts on the Northeast Corridor line have a rush hour performance of 85.09 percent, according to the Asbury Park Press.

In addition to nearly doubling capacity, the new tunnel will ease the minds of many safety-minded commuters and elected officials, pull nearly 22,000 vehicles off the road, reduce greenhouse gases emitted by 67,000 tons, and generate and sustain 6,000 jobs through the construction phase and 44,000 jobs when completed.

So What's the Problem?

George Haikalis, president of the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, a New York City-based nonprofit transportation group, and chair of the Regional Rail Working Group, wants a new tunnel. He wants better transit, cars off the roads, greenhouse gases reduced and safety concerns ameliorated. He just thinks there's a better way than the current iteration of the Mass Transit Tunnel.

Haikalis asks, "If we're going to spend nearly $10.5 billion on this project, I'd like to make it's as good as can be. Isn't that commonsense?" His significantly higher cost estimate includes the rehabilitation of the Hackensack River's Portal Draw Bridge -- an "unfunded, but absolutely necessary" $1.7 billion link to the tunnel's New Jersey entrance.

He and the working group believe that the tunnel, which as now conceived ends at 34th Street and Seventh Avenue about 180 feet below ground and connects to Penn Station by a series of escalators, should link directly with the tracks there and continue on to Grand Central Station. "It would be the mother of all train station connections," he says, adding that it would be "the obvious choice for regional rail advocates."

For Haikalis, Penn Station should act as a "through station" for New Jersey Transit, as it does for Amtrak, with another stop at Grand Central and then a turnaround at a rail yard somewhere north or east of the city. Then regional connectivity would be a reality -- a simple transfer, not two trains and an uptown then cross-town subway ride -- could get one from Trenton to New Haven.

And to some extent most agree that Haikalis and the Regional Rail Working Group are right. New Jersey Transit's press release for the groundbreaking ends, "The project has been designed to allow for expansion in Manhattan to the east in the future as conditions and funding permit."

Neysa Pranger of the Regional Plan Association said, "We absolutely believe the tunnel should continue to Grand Central Station, but that's a second stage. We certainly don't think the current environmental impact statement should be ripped up."

And that's the real sticking point. The Regional Rail Working Group's vision centers on a tunnel that comes into Penn Station at a shallower depth than the current version in order to physically connect the new tracks with already existing ones, which would facilitate through-travel, smoother transfers and shorten the time it takes commuters to reach the surface, which Haikalis estimates to be an additional four or five minutes. It also requires interoperability between Metro-North trains and tracks and New Jersey Transit trains and tracks at Grand Central Station. Although much of this would not require a return to the drawing board -- this alternative was put forth in a 2003 tunnel plan -- it would require a great deal of cooperation between Metro-North and New Jersey Transit, as well as a new environmental impact statement, which would negate most, or all, of the already-secured $8.7 billion for the project. In the minds of everyone but the most optimistic, then, the plan will surely proceed as is.

Mr. Haikalis Goes to Washington

"People have said about my efforts, 'The perfect is the enemy of the good,'" Haikalis said to me in a recent phone conversation. "Well, I think that's a stupid way to discuss something, and we're not talking about perfect. We're talking about what's better. Much better," and with that in mind, he and the Regional Rail Working Group are continuing on their quest.

"We had back-to-back meetings with President [George] Bush's Railroad and Transit people about this, we've already met with Obama's Deputy Secretary for Transit Policy, and we have a pending appointment with the Federal Railroad Administrator next month. Whether the new administration will be willing to challenge states, and demand the most for their money, we'll see," he said, sounding quite confident.

Peter Rogoff, President Obama's Federal Transit Administrator attended the Mass Transit Tunnel's groundbreaking, where he said, "The Obama administration is thrilled to partner with New Jersey to build this truly transformational investment. It will improve the lives of thousands by shortening their commute. And best of all, it will create jobs now. The Obama administration is committed to seeing this project through to its completion."

And although that makes it sound like plans for the Mass Transit Tunnel won't be changed any time soon, Haikalis and his colleagues are convinced that history will judge them favorably, and if things aren't changed, commuters of the future will have another reason to shake their fists.

A Rough Ride Awaits New MTA Chief


Left photo (cc) Kurt Raschke, Right photo (cc) Ti.mo

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority needs to find at least $15 billion to fund its next capital plan, debt service on previously issued bonds continues to climb exponentially, and pension costs are skyrocketing. More than 8 million people depend on MTA services each day, and state legislators seem to prefer charging the authority with mismanagement and malfeasance to really grappling with its serious fiscal problems. It couldn’t have said all of that in the job posting that Jay Walder recently answered, but a man of his experience no doubt knew what he was getting into.

Walder, Gov. David Paterson's pick for MTA chairman, has a resume tailor-made for the post. He’s a native New Yorker, hailing from the Rockaways, with childhood memories of riding the el. He studied at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, where he later taught. Through the 1980s and 1990s, he climbed his way up the ladder at the MTA, from financial analyst to chief financial officer, before heading to London’s transportation agency, where, under former MTA chairman Bob Kiley, he worked on congestion pricing, a large expansion of the bus system, the introduction of a high-tech no-swipe fare-card called the "oystercard" and the agency’s first issuance of Municipal Eurobonds.

Still, leading New York’s largest and most combustible authority, especially at this particular moment in the city's political and economic timelines, offers rare complications.

Following Lee and Dale

Presuming that Walder is confirmed by the state legislature, a process that some recalcitrant elected officials imply may be more like a late night G-train ride than an express trip, he’ll be filling two vacancies. That alone gives some indication of the post’s instability.

Walder’s job combines the role of chairman, previously held by Dale Hemmerdinger, with that of chief executive officer, a position formerly filled by Elliot "Lee" Sander. It was created as part of the MTA bailout legislation passed this spring, which also mandated an end to Hemmerdinger’s tenure. Although the new post comes with a six-year term intended to shield appointees from day-to-day political worries and short-term concerns, the experiences of his predecessors suggests something very different.

Sander’s resignation, which seems to have come reluctantly -- in a departing interview, he called it "my dream job" and expressed "a feeling of disappointment" -- came a day after state lawmakers approved the very publicly debated MTA bailout and just hours after the governor promised new leadership at the top of the agency. Although it’s common for governors to choose top MTA players -- both Hemmerdinger and Sander were appointed by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer -- the two resignations and their replacement came so long after Paterson became governor and so close on the heels of the funding debacle that it's hard not to read them as an indicator of the political perils faced by the authority's top officials. Walder, then, if appointed, might truly serve at the pleasure of the governor.

The problem with such an arrangement, especially at a time when gubernatorial pain is more likely than pleasure, is that it can leave the chairman facing the choice of keeping his job or making the unpopular decisions that are essential to the betterment of the authority. Many of these decisions, like instituting bridge tolls, fare hikes, new issues of bonds, new taxes or other funding mechanisms, have an impact on pocketbooks, polls and Election Day results. All the evidence -- despite public promises to the contrary -- suggests that Paterson or his successor could all but send Walder packing if the going gets tough.

The Fare Hike Four

As if that weren’t trouble enough, the MTA-funding crisis also helped empower a group of state senators dubbed by readers of the urban planning website streetsblog.org as the "Fare Hike Four" and now more widely known as the leaders of a coup that stalled the state capital for weeks this summer and solidified Albany’s role as the poster child for dysfunctional government.

These renegade senators -- Pedro Espada Jr. and Hiram Monserrate, as well as Carl Kruger and Ruben Diaz Sr. -- smelled their power in the East River bridge toll debate, tasted it in overthrowing Malcolm Smith and the Senate leadership, and by all logic, will revel in it at the next critical opportunity. That will likely come on Walder’s watch.

Despite this spring’s bailout, the authority is in rough financial shape. It is short at least $15 billion for its next capital plan, has very recently passed the hat and tapped new resources, and still is paying off the debt incurred during the massive borrowing that took place under former Gov. George Pataki. It will almost certainly need to establish new sources of financing soon.

In the minds of most experts, the biggest challenge facing the new MNTA board chairman is figuring out how to close the budget gap without reigniting a "debt bomb" like the recently exploded one lit by Pataki-era bonds. One possible solution would be for the state to issue bonds that would benefit the MTA, as opposed to the MTA issuing its own. The debt service would have less impact on state’s balance sheets than on the MTA's, but issuing such bonds requires approval by the state government.

The state legislature, including the Fare Hike Four, is responsible for the bond sales, levying taxes and just about every other likely MTA revenue stream. Espada and his colleagues have made it abundantly clear that they believe the MTA’s budget troubles have much more to do with mismanagement and allegedly dodgy books than the economic downturn. They also have made it apparent that creative revenue generators, like the congestion-pricing program that Walder used to help balance the budget in London and East River Bridge tolls, are a non-starter.

Labor Pains

The next MTA chairman will also have a new Transport Workers Union contract to negotiate in the first few months of his term. As of last year, personal service costs, including salaries, overtime, health insurance, pension contributions and fringe benefits consumed two thirds of the MTA's $10.8 billion annual operating budget, according to Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. More than $861 million went to pension contributions alone in 2008 -- a $552 million increase over 2003 levels.

One of the simplest and most effective ways to lower these numbers is through smart negotiations with the Transport Workers Union. Unfortunately, Walder may have a tough time with that too.

Soon after his appointment, the Daily News’s Pete Donahue wrote, "Bus and subway workers could be in for a bumpy ride if former London transit chief Jay Walder becomes MTA chairman, a London labor leader warned Tuesday." The story went on to paint a picture of an "evasive" character only concerned with the bottom line.

For a chairman of an organization that employs nearly 70,000 mostly unionized people, that kind of publicity could prompt the union, already one of the city's more confrontational, to adopt a hard-line approach.

The Public Interest

Of course, Walder’s greatest challenge may come from the people he has been hired to serve -- the people who will ride his subways, trains and buses. The MTA has an image that only a public relations consultant on retainer could love. Long-disproved rumors about two sets of books and rampant waste circulate widely, fueled by legislators and the press. That these are untrue has no bearing. That they're talked about is everything. If Walder wants to set the MTA straight, he'll need to figure out a way to have people associate the authority with progress, professionalism or something else positive.

Walder recognizes as much. In the news conference following his appointment, he said, "Any long-term solution to funding requires us as the MTA to show people we are using funding as efficiently and effectively as possible." That is another way of saying, we need to win, or at least not lose, the media war.

In his relatively short tenure, Sander tried. He installed managers on each line, publicly cut hundreds of administrative positions and even got in front of the cameras on occasion. Unfortunately, all of that proved insufficient when the MTA ran into fiscal chaos and fare hikes, and service cuts became the meat and potatoes of every story.

Perhaps Walder will have better luck, both financially and practically. His technical savvy won hearts and minds in London -- the "oystercard" grabbed headlines around the world -- and congestion pricing naysayers were neutralized by reams of evidence and analysis. In New York, though, particularly in these politically treacherous and tight-fisted times, the opportunity for such victories may prove elusive.

Graham T. Beck is the managing editor of Transportation Alternatives' StreetBeat and a freelance writer. He lives in Brooklyn.

Will the Bailout Plan Save the MTA?


Photo (cc) ultrahi

New York City straphangers won’t see their fares skyrocket or their service slashed next month. That much seemed certain after Gov. David Paterson Thursday signed a bill to bail out the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Just about everything else surrounding the MTA's future and the service it provides to millions of New York transit riders, however, remains up in the air.

Critics from various camps challenged almost every aspect of the bailout bill: the way it was negotiated, the fees and taxes it implements, its short and long-term efficacy, and the effect it might have on New Yorkers' travel habits. To further complicate the picture, the MTA's chief executive officer resigned the same day the bailout passed.

The future health of the MTA will depend on, among other things, the economy, the state's next round of elections and the federal government's interest in increasing aid to the authority. The bailout bill, though, will play a major role. So how will it work and what do its supporters and detractors say about it?

Bailout Basics

Through a series of taxes and fees to be applied in the 12 counties served by the MTA, the state Legislature aims to raise about $1.8 billion for the cash-strapped authority. The bulk of the money will come from a 0.34 percent payroll tax ($3.40 per $1,000) applied to all businesses including the self-employed, except for schools, which won a reimbursement clause in negotiations. This payroll tax is estimated to raise $1.53 billion. The rest of the money -- totaling a little more than $270 million -- will come from additional fees on driver's licenses and learner's permits ($2), vehicle registration ($25), yellow-cab trips ($.50) and an additional 5 percent sales tax on car rentals.

Although the bill does not establish how much MTA fares and tolls will increase -- the authority’s board makes that decision -- it has been widely reported that, in the wake of the bailout bill, the single-ride fare will increase to $2.25 from $2, the cost of a 30-day MetroCard will increase $8 from $81 to $89, and other fares, such as bridge and tunnel tolls, Access-A-Ride trips and commuter-rail tickets, will increase about 10 percent. This is appreciably less than the 20 to 30 percent increases called for in the MTA's doomsday plan.

The more modest increases will raise about $500 million per year for the authority and help stave off the service cuts proposed in the doomsday plan. Additional hikes are scheduled for 2011 and 2013.

The bailout bill also mandates a series of reforms intended to bring more accountability and transparency to the MTA. Measures aimed at curbing abuse include an annual forensic audit of the authority by the state Legislature, a clear and public policy on the granting of privileges and benefits to authority employees, such as using livery cars and authority-owned automobiles, as well as a whistle-blower provision that ensures contractors receiving MTA funds provide workers with information on how to report fraud or waste.

The bill seeks to improve transparency and accountability by calling for the regular posting and reporting of revenue and expense targets, updated financial projections and gap-closing initiatives in, as the floor memo insists, "plain English."

The bill also consolidates the positions of MTA chairperson (a job still held by H. Dale Hemmerdinger) and MTA chief executive officer (the post from which Elliot "Lee" Sander resigned), a move seen by some as a harbinger of Sander's abrupt departure.

Everyone’s a Critic

The pride expressed by the legislators who eventually passed the MTA bailout bill seems to have little foundation in fact. Even advocacy organizations that went to the mat during its passage have measured praise.

In their comments on the rescue, most credit the legislators for taking action, but express reservations. Mary Barber, managing director of Living Cities for the Environmental Defense Fund said in a representative statement, "Our political leaders deserve credit for ending this crisis for today. However, we remain concerned that the MTA capital plan is not fully funded and that the continuing downward economic spiral leaves the MTA's financial situation vulnerable. Identifying dedicated, long-term revenue sources in order to maintain the health and affordability of our transit system must remain a high priority for the governor and state legislators."

On the other hand -- and seemingly voicing the more popular point of view -- are the plan’s critics. Suburban representatives, cab-drivers’ groups and advocacy journalists imply the bailout bill violates a traditional tenant of dedicated-tax policy: that the thing being taxed ought to have an immediate and demonstrable relationship to the thing receiving the money from the tax, or at least induce beneficial behaviors related to the thing receiving revenues.

The Senate voted along party lines on the bailout, with all 32 Democratic members giving the bill their blessing. But some dissenting Assembly Democrats -- 15 voted no -- harshly criticized the plan, charging that the payroll tax places too great a burden on areas that receive few services from the MTA. Assemblymember Sandra Galef, an Ossining Democrat, told the Poughkeepsie Journal, "The further out you get from the city, the less connection there is between businesses and transit. There's no connection between transit and a hardware store in Putnam Valley." Republican Sen. Steve Saland of Poughkeepsie concurred, claiming that Dutchess County was a "revenue hostage" of the MTA.

Bhairavi Desai, the executive director of the Taxi Workers Alliance took issue with the bill's $.50 surcharge on every yellow-cab ride, telling the Daily News that it was not fair or feasible to collect. "They are not looking to do the right thing or the fair thing," she said. "They want to do the easy thing."

Most pointedly, Aaron Naparstek, editor-in-chief of the Website Streetsblog, said, "What is most striking about this deal is the way in which it punishes New Yorkers who don't own cars. If you're someone who gets around via mass transit, taxis and rented cars, the state Legislature has just socked you with a bunch of new fees and taxes. If, however, you regularly commute over the East River bridges in a gas guzzling 2008 Cadillac like, say, state Sen. Carl Kruger, you can still do that for next to nothing. When it comes to transportation policy, it's almost as if the New York State Legislature is living in 1956 when gas was a nickel a gallon, rush hour was actually only an hour and climate change meant that you better not forget your umbrella when you left your house in the morning."

Filling the Budget Gap

There are also questions and criticisms concerning how much funding the rescue plan will actually bring in and where it will go.

William Neuman and Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times point out that the amount that will be collected through the bailout plan this year -- about $1.1 billion -- is a far cry from the $1.8 billion that state legislators keep claiming their bill will generate annually.

This is in part a result of vague language (the need for "plain English" comes to mind). In addition, while earlier versions of the legislation retroactively applied the payroll tax to wages earned since Jan. 1, the final bill applies only to wages since March 1. Thus the actual amount raised will be less than originally estimated. Neuman and Confessore also report that the taxi surcharge will not be collected until January 2010, further reducing the amount of money generated in the short-term.

However much the bill actually brings in, some experts believe it will not solve the authority's basic problems. John Petro, an urban policy analyst at the Drum Major Institute wrote that the “plan does not address the root cause of the MTA's budget troubles: an over reliance on debt to finance the transit system's maintenance, repair and expansion. Albany's plan would force the MTA to continue to borrow for these needs, increasing the already crushing debt burden. Without long-term investments in capital needs, the MTA will forever be facing budget shortfalls, deferred maintenance, crumbling stations and stalled projects." He added, "We will be back at square one soon enough. This vicious cycle needs to end."

In the view of some political insiders, the bill's shortcomings are a direct result of how it was negotiated. They fear the horse-trading over the bailout signals a new era in Albany politics, one that could be even more self-serving and craven than previous regimes. These observers attribute part of the problem to the Democrats' two-vote edge in the Senate. The Senate majority can pass a bill only if every Democrat agrees to it or if the Democrats manage to gain some defections from Republican ranks. On the bailout, for weeks the Democrats leadership proved unable to move the party in unison, lengthening the process.

In an excellent piece in the Observer, Jason Horowitz and Jimmy Vielkind quote Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign as saying, "Things have gotten unhinged. It has been really frustrating for advocates and public-policy people to think that two or three senators can hold up the whole thing."

An advocate with intimate knowledge of the process said on background, "We're not out of the woods at all. It's just not clear that this [bailout] is going to fly, and particularly that this is going to support the capital plan. All they [the state Legislature] has done is push out all of the hard choices until after their next election."

Better than Nothing?

Certainly, the MTA bailout bill isn’t the most popular piece of legislation passed this year. Even those in positions that would seemingly obligate them to support any strategy that keeps fares low and eliminates the threatened service cuts commend the rescue plan carefully.

Former MTA chief Richard Ravitch, who at the behest of Gov. Paterson laid out an alternate funding plan including East River Bridge tolls, "was disappointed that the bill only funds two years of the capital plan, but said the rescue needs to happen," according to the New York Post.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters in Atlanta, "Look, while it's not perfect and it's not everything that we would want ... something had to be done."

And, indeed, something was done. Just how effective it will be, only time will tell. What’s certain is that the next time the MTA is in a heap of budget trouble, there will be lots of people with lots of divergent views waiting in the wings and wondering whether they will be able to take center-stage, bow and loudly proclaim, "I told you so." With so many voices making such diverse claims, surely someone will have that odd honor.

Graham T. Beck is the managing editor of Transportation Alternatives' StreetBeat and a freelance writer. He lives in Brooklyn.

On the MTA, Leaders Will Take What They Can Get


Gotham Gazette image by Ya-Hsuan Huang

An aura of exasperation hung over Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver as they left a leaders meeting on Monday evening. The topic was a plan to rescue the financially strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and as they spoke to reporters it quickly became clear that their discussions had not produced an obvious way forward.

"It's not about merit, it's just about what gets us there with the votes that we need to get it passed," Smith told reporters.

His statement confirmed the fears of many transportation advocates and straphangers. The negotiations to address the MTA's finances and the impending fare hikes and service cuts no longer center on the best way to address the problem. Instead they are about how to appease fickle legislators who are taking advantage of the slim Democratic majority in the Senate.

After the leaders departed, Gov. David Paterson came out to briefly address reporters. He was dripping with frustration. "I think the issues could be resolved," said Paterson. "But the issue of voting seems to be the major issue, and I'm somewhat just offended by that at this point, because as professionals we've got to resolve this. Every day that we don't we're losing money."

Paterson arranged the leaders meeting in an attempt to devise a plan that he and both legislative leaders could agree on. Not only did Paterson's attempt at consensus fail, but it also became clear on Tuesday that Smith's effort to force a rescue plan through the Senate this week would not work. Changes made to the bill in committee probably mean the bill cannot be voted on until next week.

The bigger issue could be that a majority of senators cannot seem to reach consensus on any significant rescue plan. Meanwhile, in his desire to get something -- anything -- through the Senate, Smith seems to be trying to push measures without approval from Paterson and Silver —a move that does not sit well with the governor and his aides.

Advocates, who remain ever hopeful, have lowered their expectations as the clock ticks down to doomsday. Early on Monday the MTA had more sobering news about its finances: Its deficit will increase by $621 million even after pending service cuts and fare hikes are implemented in June. "Without assistance from Albany we are back to the only weapon in our arsenal," said an MTA spokesperson. "We are back to service cuts and fare increases."

The Rescue Plan Unravels

Experts have proposed solutions to the MTA's financial problem, but all would require politicians to make some hard decisions.

Last year Paterson announced his support for the Ravitch plan, which was designed to bolster the MTA's finances by instituting a payroll tax in the 12 counties that are served by the MTA; instituting approximately $5 tolls on the East River bridges and smaller ones on the Harlem River crossings; and moderately increasing fares. The idea was to have all interested parties pitching in to support the MTA. When it became clear that a number of politicians would not support $5 tolls , Silver offered up a compromise version of the Ravitch plan that would toll East River bridges at $2, or approximately the amount of a transit ride.

Things quickly fell apart in the Senate, though. A number of Democratic senators refused to support any plan that featured tolls on the East River bridges. Smith cobbled together another plan, which was mocked by critics as being a half measure. It did not include tolls but had a payroll tax and proposed moderate fare increases. Many questioned whether these measures would produce enough money to prevent the dreaded fare hikes and service cuts. Smith countered that the MTA's long term funding problem might not be as dire as the agency has claimed. He insisted the Senate needed more time to explore the MTA's finances and called for more auditing and further regulation of the authority.

Advocates feared that the plan would fracture the idea of shared sacrifice. And it did. As talks continued, suburban Senate Democrats said they would not vote for any plan that included a payroll tax. Then, early last week Smith introduced a new plan that featured a payroll tax, fees on driver's licenses and vehicle registrations, a tax on rental cars, the stipulation that the Senate could audit the MTA and what proved to be a very unpopular $1 per drop-off fee on taxi drivers. Many legislators said the plan was dead on arrival.

Advocates Want Action

So with the MTA's finances deteriorating and with the Senate clearly at an impasse, what can we expect the legislature to do?

"It's the kind of question everyone has been trying to avoid answering," said Neysa Pranger of the Regional Plan Association, "either because we don’t like the outcome or we don’t know the answer."

As the negotiations have gone on it has become increasingly clear that Smith does not have the votes to pass a serious solution that addresses the MTA's finances in the long term or even the significantly weaker plans he has presented. Pranger fears a watered down, short-term fix may be all the Senate can muster.

"They can implement a short-term fix and that gets us back where we started," said Pranger. "The MTA's finances have gone downhill quickly." She said the agency's announcement of its deepening woes should underscore the problem.

Pranger said she thinks legislators, including Republicans, need to make hard choices now. "They might as well just do it now and make unpopular choices far enough away from the election cycle," said Pranger.

It is difficult to know, though, what that plan might be. Currently at least four Democratic senators will not support any plan that includes a payroll tax. More Democratic senators say they won't vote for a plan that contains bridge tolls. There also is growing resistance among legislators to the $1 per drop-off fee on taxi drivers. A brigade of yellow cabs from New York City circled the capitol on Tuesday to protest it. The fee is designed to provide funding to upstate roads and bridges since Republicans have said that they can support an MTA rescue plan only if it includes funding for upstate roads and bridges.

Advocates have been steadily applying pressure on legislators and raising public awareness. They have held funerals for the subway and had transit riders send their legislators mock invoices for the cost of the fare increases they may have to endure. The Facebook page 1,000,000 People Against the NYC MTA Fare Hikes was created, as its name suggests, to organize actual demonstrations that have taken place in Albany and New York City. And then there are those ubiquitous "WTF?" MTA posters.

"This campaign has been going on since November, and that is part of the reason why the pressure is still going," said Pranger, "People are saying, 'This is MTA doomsday and we don't want this.'" Groups involved in these actions go well beyond transit advocacy groups and include the Working Families Party the United Federation of Teachers.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, after being criticized by the New York Times and others for not heavily lobbying Republican legislators to support an MTA bailout, also got into the act this week. Bloomberg signed a letter with United Federation of Teachers' president Randi Weingarten and Partnership for New York City president Kathryn Wylde asking legislators to move on a bailout plan. Jimmy Vieklind reported in The Politicker that aides to Smith are currently negotiating with representatives of the mayor’s office to have Bloomberg endorse part of Smith's plan. Earlier Bloomberg had criticized the taxi fee and the viability of Smith's plan.

New Focus. No Results

With the budget out of the way, legislative leaders seemed focused on the MTA issue as they returned from Easter vacation last week. And legislators like Sen. Kevin Parker, who came out earlier in the year against any plan that contains bridge tolls and had a no-rush attitude with regard to the MTA now seem to have been motivated by their constituents' outcry.

Smith and Paterson, however, should be especially motivated to seal the deal. They both deeply need a win. Smith wants to demonstrate an ability to pass controversial legislation despite his slim majority, and Paterson needs to look like a leader to bolster his image and combat his sinking poll numbers. But their apparent desperation to look like leaders on the MTA rescue plan has caused friction between the two and perhaps even hampered the process.

On Friday Paterson strongly criticized Smith's MTA rescue bill and seemed to acknowledge it did not have enough support to pass in the Senate. A call between negotiators representing Paterson, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Smith reportedly fell apart after Smith revealed he had introduced a bill without Paterson's input. Sources in the Senate griped to reporters that Paterson was hampering the process by not lobbying senators on the issue and not coming out in full support of Smith's plan. This prompted Monday's leaders meeting where the leaders apparently failed to reach agreement.

Also on Monday, the Senate, in a vote along party lines, moved the bill out of the Transportation Committee. Republicans slammed the bill. Even Sen. Martin Dilan, the Democratic committee chair, said he thought the $1 fee on taxi drop-offs was too much.

On Tuesday the Finance Committee passed the bill. Republicans attacked it. Still, a vote seemed set this week.

However, thanks to changes made in committee, which would exempt livery and limousine drivers from the taxi fee and make an audit of the MTA mandatory rather optional, it now appears that the bill cannot legally be voted on until next week. And even then it is unclear whether the bill will have anywhere near enough support to pass. There has been talk that the bill will be amended to make it more appealing to legislators, but so far the changes that have been made in committee have not been game changers. On Tuesday a spokesperson for Paterson said that negotiations are continuing.

Is it Already Too Late?

Pranger said that legislators are playing a dangerous game by letting whatever solution they reach come down to the wire. The MTA has set June 1 as the day fare hikes and service cuts start to go into effect. "The MTA really is moving ahead and the closer we get to June 1 the harder it is to undo this," said Pranger. "I've spoken to MTA representatives about how much time they would need to reverse course, and they would need just about as much time as they did to put it into effect, so they need to know by the end of the month."

Aaron Donovan, an MTA spokesman, confirmed some of Pranger’s concerns. "Every day that we wait it becomes more difficult to undo the actions that were approved by the board," said Donovan. Commuters who buy their tickets in advance for the Metro-North and Long Island railroads will begin to see fare increases in early May, he said. NYC Transit officials say that the process of writing and implementing a fare hikes takes about six to eight weeks. Officials have been working for some time to implement the changes, which would mean fare increases of up to 30 percent, and that process would have to start all over again if the legislature comes up with a more modest fare increase. "It’s not as simple as hitting a button," said Donovan.

Making Bikes a Key Part of New York's Transportation Mix


Photo (cc) Daquella Manera
One of SmartBike DC's street cruisers.

Tens of thousand of bikes could be headed to city streets, making New York City New Amsterdam all over again. That’s the message some advocates see in "Bike-Share: Opportunities in New York City," a study released yesterday by the Department of City Planning.

The report, a 142-page tome designed “to consider bike-share program models and assess their potential for New York City” reads like a step-by-step guide to implementing a bike-share program that would function as a legitimate part of the public transportation network. The report’s authors examine existing bicycle conditions in the city, estimate the number of New Yorkers who might use a bike-share system, discuss various funding models and strategies for execution, offer cost and revenue estimates, and compare and contrast all of this data with information collected by other cities that have launched bike-share programs.

It’s an impressively comprehensive report that suggests the Department of City Planning and the Bloomberg administration are seriously considering bike-share. So, how would it work? What would it look like? And can bikes really become a part of New York City’s public transit network?

Bike-Share Basics

Large, modern bike-share networks, like those that operate in Paris and Barcelona, consist of automated, self-service kiosks where users can pick up and return bicycles. In the most successful systems, the kiosks are distributed at a density of approximately 28 per square mile in and around city centers, often stationed near transit hubs, busy commercial areas and popular destinations.

Using a credit card or through a pre-established account, users can unlock a bike from the kiosk, ride it for however long they wish and then return it to another kiosk, at which point they will be charged for the amount of time they have had the bike. Most systems have an upfront fee (a little more than $1 for a day, less than $100 for a year) and are free for the first 30 minutes to encourage short, transit-replacing trips. After that, the bike-share programs charge around $1.50 for the first additional half-hour and a bit more (between $2 and $5) for subsequent hours. A staff of mechanics keeps the bikes and kiosks clean and in working order.

Most cities contract out their programs to street furniture companies, who run newsstands public toilets and the like. They recoup their expenses through a combination of user fess and advertising. In some cities, like Montreal, which will open its program this spring, user fees, sponsorship and government support fund bike-share programs. Because of existing street-furniture contracts and regulatory hurdles, if New York City were to implement a bike-share network, the report suggests it should start as a city-built program in areas where density and demand are highest (Manhattan south of 60th Street) and then expand to other areas (first Manhattan south of 81st Street and parts of downtown Brooklyn, then northern Manhattan, western Queens, The Bronx and central Brooklyn) using a franchise model.

Would People Really Use It?

Of course, not all New Yorkers fancy themselves cyclists and not everyone can bike, but most cities that have installed large-scale, modern bike-share programs have seen a huge surge in the number of people willing to ride, in part because bike-share negates a few of the main concerns of would-be cyclists.

The cost of becoming a bike-share member is negligible compared to the upfront expense of purchasing a bicycle. There are no maintenance expenses, no storage concerns, and the fear of theft, which according to a 1999 Department of City Planning study is the number one obstacle to would-be cyclists, is all but neutralized.

According to the report, “despite seasonal temperature changes, bike-share programs seem to be used throughout the year” and “are used by a wide variety of people of all ages. Commuters, recreational-errand riders and tourists are the three main groups. Most reports [from other cities] emphasize that most bike-share users are not competitive or recreational cyclists.”

What this last statement suggests is that the 21,000 daily commuter bicyclists estimated in 2006 and the 131,000 daily cyclists estimated in 2007 would not give up their bikes to use bike-share. Instead, they would be joined by thousands of new cyclists taking advantage of the inexpensive, flexible transportation option offered by a modern bike-share program.

The Nitty-Gritty for New York City

The Department of City Planning’s report states, “Small pilot programs do not work. Successful bike-share programs that produce real and demonstrable transportation, economic and health benefits depend on a high density of kiosks and widespread program coverage. Often, financial viability increases with larger programs.”

With this in mind, the study suggests that New York start a bike-share program with anywhere from 6,500 to 10,000 bicycles stationed throughout the central business district and parts of downtown Brooklyn. A rollout of that size calls for between $26 million and $40 million in capital costs. Membership and use fees would cover the $15 million to $22 million in estimated annual operating costs.

From there, ensuing phases, paid for through franchise contracts, would expand the program to between 49,000 and 60,000 bicycles, covering significant parts of four boroughs and serving two thirds of the city’s population, about 5.2 million people. Cost estimates for a program of this size, the largest in the world, are roughly $200 million in capital and $100 million in annual operating expenses, offset entirely through ad revenues and membership and use fees.

Although these costs estimates are nothing to sneeze at, they are, considering the numbers being bandied about in the MTA bailout debate, a drop in the bucket. With a mere $26 million to $40 million in initial capitol investment, the city could establish a self-sufficient bike-share system able to service tens of thousands of people each day.

That said, comparing a bike-share system to a regional transit authority is like comparing a creek to an ocean: Sure they’re both filled with water, but after that the analogy falls apart. A bike-share system, even one the size of what the Department of City Planning has suggested, is not a comprehensive public transportation system. It is, however, a very sensible part of a much larger network.

Bike-share is cost-efficient, self-sustaining, environmentally sound, healthy and has proved itself successful in cities all over the world. London -- the city most often seen as similar to, and in competition with, New York -- will launch a 6,000-bicycle program in 2010.

Although when dollars are tight and times are tough, many critics see little sense in spending money on something as out-of-the-box as bike-share, there is a strong argument that difficult moments require creative steps. Perhaps this logic, and the City Planning Department’s thorough report, will help push New York City toward bike-share.

Graham T. Beck is the managing editor of Transportation Alternatives' StreetBeat and a freelance writer. He lives in Brooklyn.

Making Bikes a Key Part of New York's Transportation Mix


Photo (cc) Daquella Manera
One of SmartBike DC's street cruisers.

Tens of thousand of bikes could be headed to city streets, making New York City New Amsterdam all over again. That’s the message some advocates see in "Bike-Share: Opportunities in New York City," a study released yesterday by the Department of City Planning.

The report, a 142-page tome designed “to consider bike-share program models and assess their potential for New York City” reads like a step-by-step guide to implementing a bike-share program that would function as a legitimate part of the public transportation network. The report’s authors examine existing bicycle conditions in the city, estimate the number of New Yorkers who might use a bike-share system, discuss various funding models and strategies for execution, offer cost and revenue estimates, and compare and contrast all of this data with information collected by other cities that have launched bike-share programs.

It’s an impressively comprehensive report that suggests the Department of City Planning and the Bloomberg administration are seriously considering bike-share. So, how would it work? What would it look like? And can bikes really become a part of New York City’s public transit network?

Bike-Share Basics

Large, modern bike-share networks, like those that operate in Paris and Barcelona, consist of automated, self-service kiosks where users can pick up and return bicycles. In the most successful systems, the kiosks are distributed at a density of approximately 28 per square mile in and around city centers, often stationed near transit hubs, busy commercial areas and popular destinations.

Using a credit card or through a pre-established account, users can unlock a bike from the kiosk, ride it for however long they wish and then return it to another kiosk, at which point they will be charged for the amount of time they have had the bike. Most systems have an upfront fee (a little more than $1 for a day, less than $100 for a year) and are free for the first 30 minutes to encourage short, transit-replacing trips. After that, the bike-share programs charge around $1.50 for the first additional half-hour and a bit more (between $2 and $5) for subsequent hours. A staff of mechanics keeps the bikes and kiosks clean and in working order.

Most cities contract out their programs to street furniture companies, who run newsstands public toilets and the like. They recoup their expenses through a combination of user fess and advertising. In some cities, like Montreal, which will open its program this spring, user fees, sponsorship and government support fund bike-share programs. Because of existing street-furniture contracts and regulatory hurdles, if New York City were to implement a bike-share network, the report suggests it should start as a city-built program in areas where density and demand are highest (Manhattan south of 60th Street) and then expand to other areas (first Manhattan south of 81st Street and parts of downtown Brooklyn, then northern Manhattan, western Queens, The Bronx and central Brooklyn) using a franchise model.

Would People Really Use It?

Of course, not all New Yorkers fancy themselves cyclists and not everyone can bike, but most cities that have installed large-scale, modern bike-share programs have seen a huge surge in the number of people willing to ride, in part because bike-share negates a few of the main concerns of would-be cyclists.

The cost of becoming a bike-share member is negligible compared to the upfront expense of purchasing a bicycle. There are no maintenance expenses, no storage concerns, and the fear of theft, which according to a 1999 Department of City Planning study is the number one obstacle to would-be cyclists, is all but neutralized.

According to the report, “despite seasonal temperature changes, bike-share programs seem to be used throughout the year” and “are used by a wide variety of people of all ages. Commuters, recreational-errand riders and tourists are the three main groups. Most reports [from other cities] emphasize that most bike-share users are not competitive or recreational cyclists.”

What this last statement suggests is that the 21,000 daily commuter bicyclists estimated in 2006 and the 131,000 daily cyclists estimated in 2007 would not give up their bikes to use bike-share. Instead, they would be joined by thousands of new cyclists taking advantage of the inexpensive, flexible transportation option offered by a modern bike-share program.

The Nitty-Gritty for New York City

The Department of City Planning’s report states, “Small pilot programs do not work. Successful bike-share programs that produce real and demonstrable transportation, economic and health benefits depend on a high density of kiosks and widespread program coverage. Often, financial viability increases with larger programs.”

With this in mind, the study suggests that New York start a bike-share program with anywhere from 6,500 to 10,000 bicycles stationed throughout the central business district and parts of downtown Brooklyn. A rollout of that size calls for between $26 million and $40 million in capital costs. Membership and use fees would cover the $15 million to $22 million in estimated annual operating costs.

From there, ensuing phases, paid for through franchise contracts, would expand the program to between 49,000 and 60,000 bicycles, covering significant parts of four boroughs and serving two thirds of the city’s population, about 5.2 million people. Cost estimates for a program of this size, the largest in the world, are roughly $200 million in capital and $100 million in annual operating expenses, offset entirely through ad revenues and membership and use fees.

Although these costs estimates are nothing to sneeze at, they are, considering the numbers being bandied about in the MTA bailout debate, a drop in the bucket. With a mere $26 million to $40 million in initial capitol investment, the city could establish a self-sufficient bike-share system able to service tens of thousands of people each day.

That said, comparing a bike-share system to a regional transit authority is like comparing a creek to an ocean: Sure they’re both filled with water, but after that the analogy falls apart. A bike-share system, even one the size of what the Department of City Planning has suggested, is not a comprehensive public transportation system. It is, however, a very sensible part of a much larger network.

Bike-share is cost-efficient, self-sustaining, environmentally sound, healthy and has proved itself successful in cities all over the world. London -- the city most often seen as similar to, and in competition with, New York -- will launch a 6,000-bicycle program in 2010.

Although when dollars are tight and times are tough, many critics see little sense in spending money on something as out-of-the-box as bike-share, there is a strong argument that difficult moments require creative steps. Perhaps this logic, and the City Planning Department’s thorough report, will help push New York City toward bike-share.

Graham T. Beck is the managing editor of Transportation Alternatives' StreetBeat and a freelance writer. He lives in Brooklyn.

Punishing Drivers Who Kill


Photo (cc) amalthya

"If you ever need to kill someone in New York City, do it with a car," Aaron Naparstek recently advised on the urban planning news site Streetsblog.org.

Rather than offering a tip to murderers, Naperstek was making a rhetorical point. He is one of many livable streets advocates who have started to see traffic laws, and their prosecution and enforcement, as the next front in the sustainable-transportation fight -- and with good cause. Since the start of this year, a spate of high-profile pedestrian crashes has grabbed headlines, irreparably altered the lives of those close to the victims and gone all-but-unpunished.

Unsafe Streets

On Jan. 6, 9-year-old Ibrahim Ahmed was killed in a crosswalk in Ozone Park, Queens. Alexander Aponte, who hit the boy, was driving City Council candidate Mike Ricatto's campaign bus and had a suspended license. He raced to beat a red light and struck Ibrahim in broad daylight. Aponte did not face charges in the boy's death. He was arraigned for driving with a suspended license.

Two weeks later, preschoolers Diego Martinez and Haley Ng were killed on a Chinatown sidewalk while walking with chaperones and classmates. A delivery van left unattended and in reverse by its driver, Chao Fu, hopped the curb killing the two children and injuring 11 others. Chao was not charged.

Even when drivers who kill pedestrians are prosecuted, sentences are often little more than a slap on the wrist, according to many of the victim's families and safe-streets advocates. They cite the case of George Andersen, the CEO and founder of a software technology company. In January, he received a 16-day weekend jail sentence, 250 hours of community service and a $350 fine after killing Florence Cioffi with his Mercedes SUV. Anderson was driving at 60 mph through the narrow streets of downtown Manhattan when he struck Cioffi. He fled the scene. When he eventually returned, he refused a breathalyzer. Hours later, when an intoxication test was finally administered, it confirmed that Anderson had been driving drunk.

"The city doesn't take traffic enforcement seriously enough," said Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives. "The Bloomberg administration is doing a great job building bike lanes and pedestrian spaces, but without real efforts from the NYPD, the district attorneys and legal reform from Albany, changes to the built environment can only do so much to keep New York City pedestrians safe."

Weak Enforcement, Weak Prosecution

Advocates see the steps for reducing the deaths as bound in a circle: Tougher laws would allow prosecutors to do more in the courtroom, which would motivate police to investigate aggressively, which would give prosecutors more to work with, which would validate and inspire tougher laws, which would empower police, and so on. Accordingly, these advocates want to address each component of the problem in hopes of affecting the entire issue.

Steve Hindy, who became an advocate for street safety after his son was killed in a cycling crash in 2007, cites the 2008 investigation of Rasha Shamoon's death as illustrative of shortcomings in police procedures. In an open letter to Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, Hindy wrote, "When she was struck and killed by an SUV traveling northbound on Bowery, police interviewed the 21-year-old driver and his two young passengers who blamed the unconscious and dying woman. No other witnesses were interviewed, even though several people reported the crash to 911. No skid marks were measured. Remarkably, although the SUV driver had six prior motor vehicle convictions, he was allowed to leave the scene after giving a statement."

Hindy's letter goes on to ask for a more comprehensive accident-report form that would prompt officers to thoroughly investigate such incidents. He believes that if prosecutors had additional information, they could bring more appropriate charges against drivers who kill. The police department has yet to respond to his letter.

Even when there is enough evidence to charge a driver involved in a fatal crash, prosecution can be difficult, according to a 2004 interview with Maureen McCormick, who now leads the Vehicular Crimes Unit in Nassau County, but was in the Brooklyn district attorney's office at the time of the interview. According to McCormick, under current laws, "a criminal prosecution requires showing that the motorist ran the red light because of more than carelessness or inadvertence." This requires determining the driver's state of mind, and that, she said, "is a difficult thing to prove. They don't generally yell out 'I'm going through this light on purpose.'"

Peter Goldwasser, general counsel at Transportation Alternatives said that proving criminal negligence, then, often involves applying the 'rule of two' to show that a driver acted with a sufficient disregard for the safety and well-being of other road users. "An assistant district attorney believes that in order to convict a driver of criminally negligent homicide, that person must have committed at least two simultaneous and unrelated traffic violations, regardless of how dangerous one violation may be. Now, it's my opinion that this is case law based on an incorrect reading of a 50-year-old court decision, nonetheless it has guided prosecutors for some time," Goldwasser said.

Changing the Laws

In addition to protesting at the district attorney's offices and peppering district attorney candidates about these issues, the families of victims and advocates have started pressuring lawmakers in Albany to reform the legal system so that drivers who kill pedestrians can be charged more easily.

Paul Steely White, Transportation Alternatives executive director has cited Oregon's "vulnerable user law that 'requires the court to impose sentences of traffic safety course, community service, fines of up to $12,500, and suspension of driving privileges for one year," if a driver injures or kills a pedestrian or cyclist while driving carelessly.

At the behest of his constituents and in the wake of Ibrahim Ahmed's death, Assemblymember Robert Sweeney introduced legislation that would "penalizes crimes of vehicular assault and vehicular manslaughter as felonies when such crimes are committed while driving with a suspended or revoked license."

Advocates insist that these and other reforms, like more comprehensive analysis of traffic violations and legislation similar to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's proposal for installing speeding and red light enforcement cameras throughout the city, also are essential to making streets safe for pedestrians.

Still Struggling

Although efforts are underway on many fronts, that's hardly a salve for those most-affected by unsafe streets. Earlier this month, about 70 New Yorkers joined the families of Hayley Ng and Diego Martinez, the two preschoolers killed struck and killed by the van in Chinatown, to demand that the Manhattan district attorney's office convene a grand jury to fully examine what happened on the tragic morning of Jan. 22 when these two youngsters lost their lives.

It was a tear-filled gathering rife with emotional pleas. "Accidents happen, but someone still bears the burden of responsibility," Lauren Ng, Hayley's cousin, said to the morose crowd. "What kind of city is this that does not protect its most vulnerable citizens?" she asked.

Jon Adler, speaking on behalf of the victims' families, demanded that the district attorney find something, "even if it's a misdemeanor, something to charge this man for making that decision, to leave that vehicle on."

It seems that no one could understand how justice had been served.

Haley's aunt, Sui Der, told CBS News, "This will haunt us for the rest of our lives. The happiness in our family is totally gone. We were a happy family."

Speaking on the phone a few weeks after the rally, Adler said, "Unfortunately, there has been no immediate sign of progress among those who claim to be concerned. Hopefully, working with groups and those who truly are concerned, we'll be able to bring about real change."

Certainly, families and friends who have lost loved ones agree.

Graham T. Beck is the managing editor of Transportation Alternatives' StreetBeat and a freelance writer. He lives in Brooklyn.

Cutting Back -- Except for Transit


For the first time in four decades, New York faces the possibility of a wrenching long-term change in how its economy works. In the 1960s, it was the loss of manufacturing jobs and corporate headquarters that transformed Gotham. Today, of course, it’s the end of Wall Street as most of the city’s residents have always known it.

New York still has a bright future without depending on the billions of dollars annually that risk-taking investment banks have been funneling into its coffers since the early 1980s. But this future is assured only if city and state leaders understand that their job is to rethink city fiscal and investment priorities.

By doing so, they can create the foundation for a recovery and future economic growth driven by entrepreneurs, not investment bankers.

At the Whim of Wall Street

For two and half decades, New York has become dangerously dependent on a thin slice of its residents and job-creators for more and more of its taxes. Those taxpayers, in turn, were dependent on their own profits and bonuses in an industry dependent on high risk, huge amounts of cheap debt and a credulous world happy to entrust its money with whatever complicated finance products well-paid investment bankers could conjure up for their high fees.

Consider: Two years ago, Wall Street generated 12 percent of the city’s direct tax revenues and 20 percent of the state’s. And when you consider that Wall Street indirectly drove up taxes based on property values and the like, the industry’s indirect share of tax revenues was much higher.

New York’s reliance on Wall Street had only grown progressively worse in recent years. In 2006, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid nearly 48 percent of the city’s personal income taxes even after adjusting for a temporarily higher tax rate, up from 34 percent two decades ago, according to economist Michael Jacobs at the city’s Independent Budget Office.

Such growing dependence on a volatile industry was risky for the city even when Wall Street was doing well, as it increasingly did for 25 years starting in 1982 (with a couple of cyclical downturns in between). When financial-industry taxpayers have a bad year, the city’s tax revenues plummet.

But this dependence on one industry for so much of the city’s revenue and economic activity could be catastrophic today, when the city’s wealthiest taxpayers are worried that Wall Street -– and thus their own ability to generate new income and pay ever-higher taxes -– has changed forever.

Elected officials need to understand that the answer to our problems now is not to hike taxes on the wealthy and wait for Wall Street to come roaring back. Wall Street may not come roaring back, and wealthy taxpayers may feel differently about tax hikes now than they did a decade ago, when they felt more secure about their own futures.

As one measure of this possibility, just look at financial-industry pay, which neatly tracked the industry’s fortunes over the past century. As New York University Professor Thomas Philippon and University of Virginia Professor Ariell Reshef have found, financial-industry wages broke away from the rest of the economy starting in the '80s and continued their stratospheric increase relative to the rest of the economy through 2006. Toward the end of the period, financial-industry wages actually reached pre-Depression peaks relative to the rest of the economy. This jump explains New York’s huge and unprecedented increase in tax collections.

If history is any guide, though, financial-sector wages could return to a much lower “normal” level indefinitely, as they did during and after the Depression. And New York (city and state) will have to get used to sharply lower wages in its key industry, and thus sharply lower tax collections.

The Dilemmas ...

That leaves New York with two problems.

First, unprecedented tax revenues from Wall Street masked the fact that the city’s spending has grown at an unsustainable rate. While spending rose just 9 percent during Giuliani’s terms, it’s risen three times as fast under the Bloomberg administration, the highest rate since John Lindsay left office in the midst of our last structural fiscal crisis. In fact, city spending today is 22 percent higher than it was back then, when adjusted for population and inflation.

This increase is largely because pension and benefit costs for city and state workers have risen inexorably, along with spending on Medicaid and education (without commensurate results in outcomes).

Second, because of this high spending, the city has not invested in the subway and other infrastructure that it needs to compete with the rest of the country and the world in the 21st century.

… The Solutions

So New York must do two things to give itself a robust future after Wall Street.

First, the city and state must reform out-of-control labor costs that have driven the growth in their budgets. City and state officials must impress upon labor the need to increase retirement ages and to require higher worker contributions for health and pension benefits, including at authorities like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

If the city and state don’t do this, simple math shows that vital spending on things like police, sanitation and library service will be crowded out as these benefit costs continue to rise.

Consider: two years from now, New York City alone with spend $7 billion on pensions -– up from $1 billion annually in the late 1990s.

It’s only by doing this tough political work that New York will have a chance to cut local and state taxes, even by a modest amount, to attract a new generation of non-financial-industry entrepreneurs to the city. Unfortunately, the way our tax structure is set up now, only the Wall Street wealthy can afford to live and work here –- which is of no help to New York now that that industry has vaporized itself.

The second task for New York –- and one just as important -– is for the city and state to make it clear that they won’t skimp on vital investments in mass transit just because times are tough. Right now, the savviest private-sector companies around the world are making it clear that they won’t cut research and development investments to the bone just because revenues are down. Instead, they’re setting the stage to do well when the economy starts to recover.

New York must make the same pledge with its own physical assets so that it doesn’t fall further behind the rest of the world. This work, again, isn’t rocket science; it largely requires better prioritizing of existing spending. For example, with half of California's population, we spend $11 billion a year more than California spends on Medicaid -- and we don't get better results. Cut costs there, and it's easy to carve out more of an existing state tax to give permanently to the transportation authority, rather than levying a new job-killing payroll tax, as Gov. David Paterson has proposed.

New York’s future is simple: Less punitive taxes on individual job-creators, and much better transit infrastructure to entice those job creators here with better quality of life. These changes, along with the astoundingly low crime rates that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has continued to bring down, will create the public-sector foundation where an entrepreneurial private sector will grow and flourish.

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to City Journal.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years