East River Bridge Tolls
The mayor's shifting positions on East River bridge tolls illustrates the tension between the conclusions of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's analytical mind and the consequences of his political education.
Two years ago, Bloomberg's mayoral platform was sympathetic to bridge tolls. Once inaugurated as mayor, Bloomberg included East River bridge tolls in budget plans which assumed that "congestion pricing" would generate $100 million to $800 million annually.
That was the high-water mark of the mayor's support for this controversial concept. After Bloomberg closed the budget gap this spring with a heavy reliance on tax increases, his public opinion poll ratings dropped sharply. Facing growing unpopularity both citywide and particularly among Brooklyn and Queens residents who would pay the bulk of any East River bridge tolls, Bloomberg backed away from his toll plans. He dropped tolls from City Hall's budget plans and his spokesman said on July 9 that "the plan to toll the East River bridges is off the table."
The political realities and their consequences were clear. But as Bloomberg continues to think about the logic behind tolls, he does not completely shun the idea of at least someday tolling the bridges. The day after his spokesman said they were "off the table," Bloomberg clarified that "there is no current plan" to toll the bridges while also declaring that "we should consider all options down the road." In explaining his reasoning, Bloomberg focused on the practical problem that tolls could not be implemented in time to help the fiscal year 2004 or 2005 budgets.
The issue has not gone away. Two new reports on bridge tolls were released in late September and early October. The NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign and Transportation Alternatives, transportation advocacy groups, released a 58-page study (that I prepared) laying out the advantages of East River bridge tolls and issues that need further study. The Independent Budget Office released a report that assesses the potential revenues from both East River and Harlem River tolls, who would pay the tolls (mostly city residents) and the impact of possible exemptions.
Bridge toll advocates point out that "there is no such thing as a free bridge." The East River bridges cost taxpayers several hundred million dollars a year to maintain and operate, and $1.62 billion over the past 10 years to rebuild. These costs are paid by all city taxpayers whether or not they use the bridges. By contrast, motorists who use the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's tunnels and bridges to enter Manhattan pay a $3.50 toll. Likewise, subway and bus riders who use transit to cross the East River - which accounts for most of the trips crossing that body of water - pay the $2 transit fare. Only motorists on the city's four East River spans can cross for free.
Fairness would thus argue in favor of bridge users as well as others paying a toll or fare. East River tolls would raise somewhat over $500 million a year for city coffers and $100 million for the MTA, as some drivers switch to MTA crossings once the city bridges are also tolled. Harlem River tolls would generate $190 million a year in revenues. Toll revenues would cover the cost of maintaining, repairing and rebuilding the bridges, thus providing relief to the city budget. Some of the revenue could be used for other transportation improvements, including improved express bus or other transit services for Brooklyn and Queens residents who currently face lengthy transit rides into Manhattan.
Another argument for tolls involves traffic congestion. The free city-owned bridges have attracted a growing number of motorists who want to avoid paying the MTA tolls. The Brooklyn Bridge is the most affected. Traffic studies have shown that one-third of motorists entering Manhattan via the Brooklyn Bridge literally drive past the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel to avoid the tunnel toll. Overall, tolls would reduce traffic on the bridges by about 25 percent, and reduce traffic in Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City by up to 14 percent.
Opponents of bridge tolls believe that they would divide the city, be bad for business and be unfair to Queens and Brooklyn residents. Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, quoted in the Daily News, said that tolls would be a "tremendous economic burden on the businesses and residents of Brooklyn, many of whom are forced to drive because they have no other public transportation options." The head of the Brooklyn Academy of Music also opposes tolls, which she believes would discourage Manhattan residents from coming to BAM.
Councilmember John Lui, who represents Flushing, Queens and is chairman of the City Council Transportation Committee, wants to see improvements in subway and ferry services before tolls are considered. Quoted in the Queens Chronicle, Liu said, "you would be inhibiting people from Queens and Brooklyn from transportation into Manhattan, which is just not acceptable."
How the public feels about tolls depends on how they are asked. A Quinnipiac University poll in February 2003 found that 63 percent of New Yorkers thought tolls were a "bad idea." Yet asked in a July 2002 poll to choose among various ways to balance the city budget, 40 percent choose tolls over options of increasing taxes or increasing subway and bus fares.
Given the opposition, bridge tolls are unlikely to advance before the mayoral election in 2005. In the mayor's latest comment, he said, "Nothing should ever be totally taken off the table, but to do tolling on the bridges would require a lengthy environmental impact statement, it would require state legislation, it would be a long time before that could be implemented. Some of the effect of reducing traffic and that sort of thing would be ... a good idea, but I think, if you really look at it, it's not a short-term solution to our problems."
Thus, although still not entirely closing the door to tolls, Bloomberg's short-term focus on re-election means that he would rather talk about reducing taxes than talk any more about bridge tolls.
Bruce Schaller is Principal of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis to government, business and non-profit groups seeking to identify and meet customer needs in the transportation sector. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
Ranking The Subway Lines
Former Mayor Edward I. Koch was famous for asking, "How'm I doing?" He usually received an earful.
In the last two decades, governmental agencies in New York have gotten an earful too. Often, this is the result of reports generated internally, but, in the case of the subways, it is helped along by report of the New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign on the State of the Subways. Straphangers' annual subway service report culls data from New York City Transit to evaluate and rank each of the subway system's lines. Scores are based on the frequency and regularity of service, rate of breakdowns, chance of getting a seat, cleanliness inside the cars and in-car announcements.
This year, the L train gained the #1 ranking, based in part on the arrival of new subway cars that reduced the frequency of breakdowns. Other high-ranked lines were the #3, D, E, #6 and #1/9. Ranked last was the #5 line, bedeviled by a high breakdown rate, irregular train arrivals and severe crowding. Other low scorers were the N, C, M and R.
The report also highlighted how service has improved in some respects and worsened in others since release of the 2000 report. (No report was done in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks.) The good news is that subway cars are breaking down far less often than they did in 2000. In the second half of 2002, subway cars traveled an average of 151,300 miles without a mechanical problem causing a delay, compared with 110,600 in the second half of 2000. This improvement largely reflects the arrival of new high-tech subway cars.
The bad news is that subway cars were less clean in 2002 than 2000. Over this time period, the proportion of subway cars with clean seats and floors declined from 85 percent to 78 percent.
One of the strengths of the Straphangers report is the detail by subway line. The line-specific data show how varied service is across the system. Take subway car breakdowns, for example. While breakdowns lessened on 10 lines, the situation worsened on five lines (1/9, 4, 7, A and N). Conversely, while cleanliness worsened on 12 lines, it improved on three lines (2, 3 and A).
Looking across subway lines, breakdowns occur twice as often on the #5, #7, A, R and V as compared with the #3, D, L and Q.
Straphangers is not the only organization to make performance indicators readily available for public viewing. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority recently began to put system-wide performance statistics on its website. Currently showing data through May 2003, the MTA data are more up-to-date compared with the Straphangers report for the latter part of 2002. But the MTA does not break out subway lines or other geographic detail.
City agencies also make performance indicators available on the Internet. The Transportation Department, however, focuses on work measures such as traffic lights installed and permits issued, rather than performance measures. One performance measure concerning Staten Island ferry on-time performance is included.
What comes of the considerable effort put forth to measure agency performance? In some cases, such as the Department of Transportation, what is actually measured is not actually service performance and thus does not fulfill the basic objectives of these efforts.
In other cases, performance is measured but little heed is paid, or action taken, based on the results.
But when agency officials and the public pay attention and take these measures seriously, real improvements felt by everyday citizens can occur. Straphangers has found that complaints and advocacy based on their past reports improved service on certain subway lines. Within government agencies, managers' feet can be held to the fire to produce better results.
More broadly, these reports have two very positive effects. First, they focus attention on the right set of issues. The old saw at the Transit Authority went that the trains would run just fine if there were no passengers. On-time performance was once measured solely by when trains arrived at the end of the line, and dispatchers have been caught faking the numbers. New indicators such as the regularity of train arrivals reflect how passengers actually experience subway service. In government, what isn't measured generally didn't happen, at least officially, so having official and systematic statistics that reflect riders' experiences is very valuable.
Second, these reports underscore that budgetary decisions and choices about priorities have real consequences. The subway car breakdown rate on the L line improved because of millions of dollars spent to purchase them. As the city undergoes one round of budget cutting after another, it's worth watching how services are affected.
Like any good thing, however, performance measurement can have unintended consequences. High-stakes testing in schools has resulted in recently publicized scandals over underreported dropout rates and serious doubt about the appropriateness of Regents exams. Let's hope that performance measures in transit and transportation get the attention they deserve, but without these types of abuses.
Bruce Schaller is Principal of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis to government, business and non-profit groups seeking to identify and meet customer needs in the transportation sector. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
New Projects, Same No Money
The city’s transportation to-do list has lengthened. One big-ticket project, new rail service for Lower Manhattan, was added to the list. Another task, shifting private bus lines that operate primarily in Queens to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, was not resolved despite a self-imposed June 30 deadline. The city (and region) thus remain mired in debates tied up by a lack of funding and unresolved disagreements over priorities.
Train to the Plane & and Long Island
In early June, rebuilding officials requested consultant proposals for a study of new rail connections to link Lower Manhattan to JFK Airport and the Jamaica, Queens station of the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR). The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will oversee the $5 million study, expected to take up to nine months. Recommendations will lead to environmental reviews of (as the request for proposals [In PDF format] puts it) a recommended alternative(s).
Officials foresee the new rail connection running between Lower Manhattan and the AirTrain, an automated, elevated line that will connect Jamaica to JFK. Officials envision either a new rail tunnel beneath the East River, or using existing A line or M line subway tunnels. The new service is intended to reduce travel time from Jamaica and JFK to Lower Manhattan, reduce the number of transfers involved in these trips and possibly increase the frequency of service.
When the AirTrain opens later this year, a two-seat ride from Lower Manhattan to JFK will take approximately 48 minutes, with frequency of four to eight trips per hour. Officials want to reduce the trip time and possibly eliminate the transfer between the A train and AirTrain. The consultant will study the option of designing an advanced-design rail vehicle that could operate on both the AirTrain’s automated guideway (there are no conductors or train operators on board) and traditional subway tracks. These cars could provide a premium service, akin to a good-quality commuter rail service, aimed at business travelers.
The consultant will also analyze short-term options such as enhanced subway service and ferry services. These options could presumably be implemented more quickly than a new rail line, and at much lower cost. Ironically, the ferry option could also address Lower Manhattan’s most pressing transportation need, which is better access from the northern suburbs of the city, as I have discussed in earlier columns and a recent report. The contemplated rail link to JFK and Jamaica would in fact save commuters just a few minutes as compared with current travel times.
The Lower Manhattan business community has strongly advocated direct rail service to JFK and Long Island, viewing airport access in particular as providing a competitive edge over Midtown. Governor George Pataki has picked up the cause. He promised in an April 24 speech to select and implement direct rail service to Lower Manhattan. This study is the first step in finding the best plan.
Competition for Dollars
Finding dollars for the plan will not be easy. Direct rail service to Lower Manhattan joins a long wish list of transportation mega-projects. Heading the list is connecting the LIRR to Grand Central Terminal, a project that is heading toward construction and will enhance the attractiveness of midtown office space at the expense of downtown offices.
Next on the list is the long-sought Second Avenue Subway, now undergoing environmental reviews and as yet largely unfunded. The Second Avenue Subway would relieve the severe overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue subway, in the process improving access to Lower Manhattan from Grand Central Terminal (and thus the northern suburbs) and the Upper East Side.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been relatively cool to Second Avenue plans, focusing instead on extending the 7 train to the West Side of Manhattan. The 7 train extension is a key part of plans for the city’s 2012 Olympic bid. It supposedly has separate funding sources, though there are doubters and it could end up competing with Second Avenue for scarce dollars.
Other big-ticket projects that would benefit New York City and are more-or-less advanced in consideration are a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River; a cross-harbor rail freight tunnel; and in Brooklyn, Gowanus Expressway rebuilding (or perhaps replaced by a tunnel).
The total cost of all these projects comes to $25 billion to $40 billion.
Where will all this money come from? One source that seems less and less likely is East River Bridge tolls. In his campaign, the mayor extolled the idea of charging drivers to enter the Manhattan business district. But with sinking poll ratings, the governor’s opposition, and higher taxes already pouring into city coffers, the mayor has cooled to even a limited idea such as tolling the four city-owned bridges that connect Manhattan to Brooklyn and Queens. The xity recently took toll revenue out of budget plans, and the Daily News quoted a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg as saying, "The plan to toll the East River bridges is off the table." News reports the next day quoted the mayor as holding out for tolls down the road, implying that he may revisit the issue in a second term.
Nor can New York rely on the federal government. Reauthorization of the six-year transportation funding act is underway in Washington with a main point of dispute being how much gas tax revenue transit-rich states such as New York should get versus car-faring states such as Texas. It is quite possible that New York and other northeastern states will end up with less of the pie in future years than they have lately. With billions in federal funds already allocated for Lower Manhattan rebuilding, few in Congress outside of the New York delegation have much desire to help fund more NYC projects.
Thus, not only is funding for these projects an open question, officials can not agree which projects are the most important. Several years ago, then-Senator Alfonse D’Amato, from Long Island, jumped the LIRR connection to Grand Central to the top of the list and got Congress and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to commit to the project. Nowadays, the Lower Manhattan business community understandably places top priority on projects that would help revitalize downtown. The governor and to a lesser extent the mayor have lined up in support of their needs.
The mayor looks at transportation in an economic development framework. He feels that extending the 7 train would spark development on the West Side and help bring the Olympics to New York. Transportation officials and many transit advocates identify relieving overcrowding on the Lex line as the top priority, and thus push for the Second Avenue subway.
Differing constituencies and differing objectives thus make it difficult for officials and the business community in the city, much less the state or region, to agree on priorities. The lack of consensus impedes efforts to fund any of the projects, whether with city, state or federal dollars.
Still on the List: Private Bus Lines to the MTA
Officials had hoped to reach agreement on a deal to transfer control of private bus lines to the MTA by June 30. Newsday reports that the city and MTA now hope to reach agreement by January 1, 2004. MTA officials reportedly will not make a deal if the takeover creates new costs for the MTA. Another unresolved issue is how the private bus companies’ contracts with the Transport Workers Union Local 100 will be handled in a takeover.
Eliminating the city’s subsidy is the main reason for the city to transfer the lines to the MTA. Thus, unless the MTA can run the bus lines more efficiently than the private companies -- a proposition open to question -- it is easy to see why the matter remains unresolved.
Meanwhile, the city will continue to subsidize the seven bus lines, which operate mostly in Queens and have been criticized for providing inferior service.
Bruce Schaller is Principal of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis to government, business and non-profit groups seeking to identify and meet customer needs in the transportation sector. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
New Projects, Same No Money
The city’s transportation to-do list has lengthened. One big-ticket project, new rail service for Lower Manhattan, was added to the list. Another task, shifting private bus lines that operate primarily in Queens to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, was not resolved despite a self-imposed June 30 deadline. The city (and region) thus remain mired in debates tied up by a lack of funding and unresolved disagreements over priorities.
Train to the Plane & and Long Island
In early June, rebuilding officials requested consultant proposals for a study of new rail connections to link Lower Manhattan to JFK Airport and the Jamaica, Queens station of the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR). The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will oversee the $5 million study, expected to take up to nine months. Recommendations will lead to environmental reviews of (as the request for proposals [In PDF format] puts it) a recommended alternative(s).
Officials foresee the new rail connection running between Lower Manhattan and the AirTrain, an automated, elevated line that will connect Jamaica to JFK. Officials envision either a new rail tunnel beneath the East River, or using existing A line or M line subway tunnels. The new service is intended to reduce travel time from Jamaica and JFK to Lower Manhattan, reduce the number of transfers involved in these trips and possibly increase the frequency of service.
When the AirTrain opens later this year, a two-seat ride from Lower Manhattan to JFK will take approximately 48 minutes, with frequency of four to eight trips per hour. Officials want to reduce the trip time and possibly eliminate the transfer between the A train and AirTrain. The consultant will study the option of designing an advanced-design rail vehicle that could operate on both the AirTrain’s automated guideway (there are no conductors or train operators on board) and traditional subway tracks. These cars could provide a premium service, akin to a good-quality commuter rail service, aimed at business travelers.
The consultant will also analyze short-term options such as enhanced subway service and ferry services. These options could presumably be implemented more quickly than a new rail line, and at much lower cost. Ironically, the ferry option could also address Lower Manhattan’s most pressing transportation need, which is better access from the northern suburbs of the city, as I have discussed in earlier columns and a recent report. The contemplated rail link to JFK and Jamaica would in fact save commuters just a few minutes as compared with current travel times.
The Lower Manhattan business community has strongly advocated direct rail service to JFK and Long Island, viewing airport access in particular as providing a competitive edge over Midtown. Governor George Pataki has picked up the cause. He promised in an April 24 speech to select and implement direct rail service to Lower Manhattan. This study is the first step in finding the best plan.
Competition for Dollars
Finding dollars for the plan will not be easy. Direct rail service to Lower Manhattan joins a long wish list of transportation mega-projects. Heading the list is connecting the LIRR to Grand Central Terminal, a project that is heading toward construction and will enhance the attractiveness of midtown office space at the expense of downtown offices.
Next on the list is the long-sought Second Avenue Subway, now undergoing environmental reviews and as yet largely unfunded. The Second Avenue Subway would relieve the severe overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue subway, in the process improving access to Lower Manhattan from Grand Central Terminal (and thus the northern suburbs) and the Upper East Side.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been relatively cool to Second Avenue plans, focusing instead on extending the 7 train to the West Side of Manhattan. The 7 train extension is a key part of plans for the city’s 2012 Olympic bid. It supposedly has separate funding sources, though there are doubters and it could end up competing with Second Avenue for scarce dollars.
Other big-ticket projects that would benefit New York City and are more-or-less advanced in consideration are a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River; a cross-harbor rail freight tunnel; and in Brooklyn, Gowanus Expressway rebuilding (or perhaps replaced by a tunnel).
The total cost of all these projects comes to $25 billion to $40 billion.
Where will all this money come from? One source that seems less and less likely is East River Bridge tolls. In his campaign, the mayor extolled the idea of charging drivers to enter the Manhattan business district. But with sinking poll ratings, the governor’s opposition, and higher taxes already pouring into city coffers, the mayor has cooled to even a limited idea such as tolling the four city-owned bridges that connect Manhattan to Brooklyn and Queens. The xity recently took toll revenue out of budget plans, and the Daily News quoted a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg as saying, "The plan to toll the East River bridges is off the table." News reports the next day quoted the mayor as holding out for tolls down the road, implying that he may revisit the issue in a second term.
Nor can New York rely on the federal government. Reauthorization of the six-year transportation funding act is underway in Washington with a main point of dispute being how much gas tax revenue transit-rich states such as New York should get versus car-faring states such as Texas. It is quite possible that New York and other northeastern states will end up with less of the pie in future years than they have lately. With billions in federal funds already allocated for Lower Manhattan rebuilding, few in Congress outside of the New York delegation have much desire to help fund more NYC projects.
Thus, not only is funding for these projects an open question, officials can not agree which projects are the most important. Several years ago, then-Senator Alfonse D’Amato, from Long Island, jumped the LIRR connection to Grand Central to the top of the list and got Congress and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to commit to the project. Nowadays, the Lower Manhattan business community understandably places top priority on projects that would help revitalize downtown. The governor and to a lesser extent the mayor have lined up in support of their needs.
The mayor looks at transportation in an economic development framework. He feels that extending the 7 train would spark development on the West Side and help bring the Olympics to New York. Transportation officials and many transit advocates identify relieving overcrowding on the Lex line as the top priority, and thus push for the Second Avenue subway.
Differing constituencies and differing objectives thus make it difficult for officials and the business community in the city, much less the state or region, to agree on priorities. The lack of consensus impedes efforts to fund any of the projects, whether with city, state or federal dollars.
Still on the List: Private Bus Lines to the MTA
Officials had hoped to reach agreement on a deal to transfer control of private bus lines to the MTA by June 30. Newsday reports that the city and MTA now hope to reach agreement by January 1, 2004. MTA officials reportedly will not make a deal if the takeover creates new costs for the MTA. Another unresolved issue is how the private bus companies’ contracts with the Transport Workers Union Local 100 will be handled in a takeover.
Eliminating the city’s subsidy is the main reason for the city to transfer the lines to the MTA. Thus, unless the MTA can run the bus lines more efficiently than the private companies -- a proposition open to question -- it is easy to see why the matter remains unresolved.
Meanwhile, the city will continue to subsidize the seven bus lines, which operate mostly in Queens and have been criticized for providing inferior service.
Bruce Schaller is Principal of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis to government, business and non-profit groups seeking to identify and meet customer needs in the transportation sector. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
The Tour Guides Complain
Three articles in this series:
• Testing The Tour Guides
• The Tour Guides Complain
• Test Your NYC Knowledge
It is no secret that some of New York City's tour guides may be lousy, most notoriously those who worked for New York Apple Tours , closed in 2001 for environmental and safety violations. Nor do many in the tourism industry respect the flimsy licensing exam that allowed for such guides. Indeed, more than a decade ago, the bus company Gray Line began a more rigorous test for its own guides.
But when the city recently upgraded its licensing exam , many of New York's professional tour guides seemed outraged, judging from a hearing last month at the New York City Council. Why?
Their biggest complaint is that all licensed guides, no matter how experienced, must take the new test. "In effect our licenses have been revoked without provocation, just cause, due process or misconduct," reads a petition circulated by some of the 200 members of the Guides Association of New York .
The issue is a contentious one; disagreement about whether to fight the test or not is one reason why the entire nine-member board of the guides association resigned on June 25.
Many guides seem to resent that the Department of Consumer Affairs has imposed this new requirement on them, while at the same time the department has not done anything to crack down on unlicensed guides -- even bus drivers dangerously doing double duty -- who bring in tour groups from out of town.
There are 1,300 people who hold tour guide licenses in New York City, though it is unclear how many of these work regularly. Most guides work either as "step-on" freelancers for bus groups (schools, packaged tours, etc.) visiting New York or on staff at companies like Gray Line. A smaller number specialize in walking tours.
"There are many kinds of guides; there is only one test," complained Andy Sydor, the shop steward for Gray Line's more than 100 guides. Independent guide Joseph Schiff, for example, specializes exclusively in Jewish neighborhoods; his tour participants are "not coming to see the Waldorf-Astoria." A proper test for him, he testified at the City Council hearing, would include asking how to tell the difference between a Hasid from Crown Heights and one from Williamsburg just by their clothing.
Among the other complaints and accusations:
1. Tour guides were not sufficiently consulted. "I don't understand why it was done in such a unilateral fashion," declared Councilmember Phil Reed, chair of the Consumer Affairs Committee, after listening to the testimony of one tour guide after another at last month's hearing, wondering why the city had not done more to hear from them first.
2. The test, with its mini-essays, is unfair to those guides who are not native English speakers (many of whom offer their tours in foreign languages), and none of the nine books that the consumer affairs department suggests as preparation for the test are available in languages other than English. .
3. The person who wrote the test has a conflict of interest because he competes in the marketplace and teaches a guide enhancement course for NYC & Company, the city's tourist bureau. Though it was the guides association leadership itself who suggested Justin Ferate, a well-respected guide, as the test writer, Seth Kamil, president of Big Onion Walking Tours, said this was "the equivalent of the Educational Testing Service asking Kaplan Test Prep to write the SATs."
4. The test contains too much trivia. Of sample questions, some guides have lambasted several such as this one:
The physical size of the Bronx is approximately the equivalent of what European city?
(a) Paris, France (b) Copenhagen, Denmark (c) London, England (d) Brussels, Belgium
This is a request, they say, that requires irrelevant knowledge of Europe. (The answer is Paris)
"You know what is not in the test? How do you get 8th graders interested in New York?" said Jane Marx, a tour guide in New York for 23 years, as quoted in a report about the debate on National Public Radio. "You can't test humor, warmth, kindness, presentation of information, silliness. And that is the essence of a good tour."
5. The test is too difficult. By the time of the hearing last month, only 36 percent of those who took the test had passed.
Consumer Affairs Commissioner Gretchen Dykstra has answers for most of the criticism. She says that some guides themselves have supported "periodic retesting" in order to keep standards rigorous, and that the new test holds to higher standards than previous ones, which were written by employees of the consumer affairs department rather than a professional guide: "We have finally brought some integrity and intellectual fervor" to the test, she said at the hearing. Besides, the files of the department are such that it is not clear which guides took which test, nor how comprehensive nor even accurate these tests were.
Dykstra is proud, she said, that "the new test captures the depth and breadth of New York's history and our contemporary culture," and dismissed as narrow-minded such complaints as the one from one tour guide that "ethnic foods don't apply to our job." She promised to look into offering the test in translation.
As for the test's difficulty, she noted that New York Post columnist Gersh Kuntzman -- not a licensed guide -- passed the test easily, getting more than 80 percent of 150 questions correct. Still, Dykstra has said, if the failure rate remains high, she will reconsider the grading curve. Guides can be retested for free until next March.
Dykstra said interstate commerce rules prevent the city from regulating tours that do not originate in the city -- those most likely to use bogus guides. Some licensed guides say that's bunk --after all, other cities exercise such jurisdiction. That issue will be aired at a follow-up hearing Councilmember Reed promised for the fall.
"I think this is a bigger issue than I had expected," Reed said. "There's something wrong here."
Norman Oder is a journalist and licensed NYC tour guide.
Three articles in this series:
• Testing The Tour Guides
• The Tour Guides Complain
• Test Your NYC Knowledge
Testing the Tour Guides
Three articles in this series:
• Testing The Tour Guides
• The Tour Guides Complain
• Test Your NYC Knowledge
What is the tallest building outside of Manhattan? Is the Ansonia Hotel famous for its performing seals or a rooftop farm? Which famous New Yorker invented the telephone - Alexander Graham Bell, Giuseppe Garibaldi or Antonio Meucci?
To be an official New York City tour guide you not only have to be able to answer these kinds of questions, but to expound on the topic with details, dates, and lore - and wow out-of-towners and native New Yorkers alike.
New York is one of the few cities in the United States that requires tour guides to be licensed. But when I took the tour guide licensing examination years ago, it became apparent that the source material used was out of date. Fortunately, I caught the errors in the test and was able to prove my case. My experience was far from unique.
As bad as the errors was the assumption in the test that being a tour guide was an endless litany of sound bytes. A tour guide can never be effectively replaced by an audiotape, though you would not have known this from the old test.
That is why I was happy to accept the assignment from Consumer Affairs Commissioner Gretchen Dykstra to construct a new examination for tour guides. It took me over two months of long days and nights, until my mind was swimming, and questions would come to me in dreams.
Many issues needed to be addressed in the new examination. Since there are no "official" training programs for New York City tour guides, applicants often demonstrate a wide range of backgrounds, orientations, and knowledge. To resolve this disparity, there are suggested readings from several major tour texts: Gerard Wolfe's New York: 15 Walking Tours, the classic Blue Guide New York, or Christine Metzger's New York. In addition, there are several New York City web-sites strongly recommended for study purposes.
All questions on the tour guide licensing examination are mini-commentaries, so that the tests become a learning tool. Each question includes a little "story" that will hopefully become part of a sightseeing guide's tour presentation.
Tour guides must be able to speak fluently on a range of topics from screen idols to architecture and from fine art to fine dining. A tour guide must be knowledgeable and flexible to accommodate the widely varied needs of different audiences. That's not all. As the chief representative of the client, a tour guide must direct the bus driver, interface with clients, resolve emergencies, know where buses may legally drive, coordinate admissions, make lunch recommendations, and find the elusive clean restroom - all while creating an imaginative route and providing sparkling commentary. (Not bad for a position that, in some major quarters, pays less than $13 an hour)
That is why the 150 questions on the examination cover a wide range of topics, among them:
- Legal Tour Bus routes / Legal Passenger pick-up/drop-off locations
- General New York City Knowledge
- New York City History
- New York City Neighborhoods and Landmarks
- Ethnic Studies and Immigration
- Museums, Art, and Culture / Music, Theatre, and Dance
- New York City Literature
- Religion and Religious Sites
- Architecture and New York City Planning
- Ethnic Foods
- Public Sculptures of Noted People
- Residences of Noted People and "Walks of Fame" in the City
A number of tour guides, including experienced professionals, have voiced several concerns about the test. [See The Tour Guides Complain by Norman Oder]. Commissioner Dykstra has indicated that she has already moved towards addressing these concerns. I also feel that some seem to have misunderstood the intentions of the commissioner.
The new professional licensing examination will not be an easy one for those unfamiliar with the city, but it should present few problems to the majority of experienced and dedicated tour guides. The goal of the test is to enhance the quality of tours, and thus increase the public understanding and appreciation for the glories of New York City.
I designed the following quiz especially for Gotham Gazette readers who want to challenge their own New York savvy. They are not the exact same questions as those offered in the professional licensing examination for tour guides, but they tap into the same vast treasure trove of New York City legends and lore. "I should like to live a lifetime on every street in New York," the short story writer O.Henry once said. "Each house has a drama in it."
Justin Ferate, formerly the director of tour services for Gray Line New York, has been offering tours of New York for more than 20 years.
Books and websites for tour guides
Three articles in this series:
• Testing The Tour Guides
• The Tour Guides Complain
• Test Your NYC Knowledge
Resources for Tour Guides
Texts
Blue Guide New York
General NYC guide
von Pressetin Wright; Miller and Seitz
W. W. Norto 2002.
A Possible Blue Guide Alternative: New York
General NYC guide
Christine Metzger
Konemann 2000
New York: A Guide to the Metropolis
Walking tours of New York City
Wolfe
McGraw-Hill 1994
NYC and Company Official NYC Guide
Obtainable at no cost from NYC & Company,810 Seventh Avenue
Start and Run a Profitable Tour Guiding Business
Another option is to borrow this, or a similar book, from the library.
Braidwood, Boyce & Cropp
Self-Counsel Press 2000
Websites
• NYC Department of Transportation
• NYC Metropolitan Transportation Authority
• MTA Arts for Transit
Optional list of texts:
AIA Guide to NYC
Willensky & White
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 2000
Ethnic New York
This excellent text is currently out of print, but is available in lending libraries. Copies may be purchased via amazon.com and other used book sources (Ethnic histories, neighborhoods, food, and merchandise) This book can prove to be a valuable text for tours.
Leeds
Passport 1996
Manhattan,Block by Block: A Street Atlas
Tauranac
Tauranac Maps 2000
Great for tour routing.
The Food Lover's Guide to the Real New York
The Food Lover's Guide is out of print, but is available in libraries. Copies may be purchased via amazon.com and other used book sources.) Other sources may also be used. The examination asks a few questions about descriptions of popular ethnic foods.Alperson and Clifford
Prentice Hall 1987.
Guide to Manhattan's Outdoor Sculptures
Out of print, but available via amazon.com and other used book sources.
Gayle & Cohen/ Prentice Hall
1988
The Street Book
Origin of Manhattan street names
Moscow
Fordham 1990.
Budget Cuts In Transportation
Budgets reveal priorities and politics, and never is this more true than when the budget needs to be cut. The importance of Staten Island voters to a Republican mayor was therefore evident on June 8 when Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced $90 million in budget restorations. Keeping the fourth boat on the Staten Island ferry in service during rush hour was one of nine restorations proposed by the mayor. This budget cut would have saved $2.4 million annually by reducing the ferry schedule from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes.
Other cuts proposed in the mayor's budget show how the city's current budget woes are likely to affect New Yorkers' daily lives. The budget details also show how budgets can drive transportation policy in ways both good and bad.
Winners and Losers
The mayor proposed to cut the city Department of Transportation's budget by about $50 million, or about $48 million after the ferry restoration. Under the mayor's proposals, fewer streets would be re-surfaced by city crews, saving $7.2 million. This is the biggest single cut in the transportation department budget.
Smaller cuts would eliminate East River bridge necklace lighting ($75,000 savings) and fire callbox lights maintenance ($472 million savings) and reduce bridge preventive maintenance ($1.34 million savings).
Some "cuts" are really improvements, however. A prime example is $4.9 million in maintenance and electricity savings resulting from switching traffic signals to Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). Not only do LEDs save money but they are brighter and far more visible.
Another example is an increase of $4 million in revenue from expanding the commercial parking program, which the Department of Transportation says will improve traffic flow. In the current program in Midtown Manhattan, trucks and other commercial vehicles are charged escalating parking rates to encourage short stays and thus free up parking for the next driver making a delivery.
Other items listed as budget cuts are actually ways to dip into the citizenry's pockets a bit deeper. For example, cutting subsidies to privately operated bus companies will save $8 million and result in express bus fares rising from $3 to $4, keeping in line with the fare increase by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority..
Some of the mayor's proposed cuts are simply catching up to reality. The mayor proposes to save $324,000 from the elimination of vehicle transport on the Staten Island ferry, which were in fact eliminated after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Beyond the transportation department budget, the mayor proposes to raise $65 million a year for the next three years through the sale of 900 new taxicab medallion licenses (300 a year). Whether environmental constraints will prevent the city from issuing the full 900 remains to be seen, but the first 300 is probably a safe bet. This initiative is not only good news for the budget but good news for taxi riders, who have had a notably hard time finding a cab even with the recession. This is a case of the budget driving good policy.
All of these figures pale in comparison with one of the biggest and vaguest items in the mayoral budget, $200 million in "regional transportation initiatives." About one-half this savings could come from the MTA taking over the seven city-subsidized private bus companies that serve eastern Queens and parts of the other boroughs. The city and Metropolitan Transportation Authority have discussed the MTA taking over the lines and assuming at least some portion of the financial responsibility. Officials said at a State Assembly hearing on June 4 that the framework for a deal should be completed by June 30.
Many complexities need to be resolved, including who will foot the bill for bus service, putting in doubt whether a deal will be made any time soon. If a deal is made, it might be good news for not only the cty budget but also riders on the private lines, who have had to put up with years of substandard service. It might be bad news for the MTA' current riders, however, who may have to shoulder the $100 million or more cost through future fare increases.
According to the New York Post , the mayor' budget also envisions additional cuts in the city's subsidy to the MTA, which again, could result in transit service reductions or quicken the next fare increase.
Saved by the State Budget Deal
Some other possible cuts were averted when the State Legislature and City Council approved $700 million in higher taxes. The most visible cuts in the mayor's "doomsday" budget included eliminating the elderly and disabled fare subsidy to the MTA and private bus lines, increasing the fare on private bus lines to $2, cuts in service on the private bus lines, reductions in street maintenance, cleaning and pothole repairs, cutting Staten Island ferry service from half-hour to hourly on nights and weekends, and a 50 percent cut in the city's subsidy to the MTA for van service for persons with disabilities.
Bruce Schaller is Principal of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis to government, business and non-profit groups seeking to identify and meet customer needs in the transportation sector. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
New York's Fight for Transportation Dollars in Congress
 |
|
| Federal highway funds are used to restore and repair the city's bridges - including the Manhattan Bridge, shown above. |
New York's funding is being attacked on the grounds that the state is being subsidized by the rest of the country, and should be "self-sufficient" when it comes to highway programs. A recent study (in pdf format) at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management that I co-authored shows, however, that New York receives a relatively small share of the highway pie.
Underlying the debate is the mechanism used to fund the federal highway program. Since the mid-1950s, gas taxes and certain other highway-user fees such as sales taxes on tires have been deposited in a national Highway Trust Fund and paid out in grants to the states. Originally, these taxes financed a grand national project - the Interstate Highway System. As that project came to an end, Congress added programs to support pedestrian amenities, safety, and air quality improvement, and the states began to squabble more over the distribution of funds. The fact that highway programs were supported by dedicated taxes made it easy for states to compare the amount of taxes they sent to Washington with the funding they received in return.
The states that pay more in federal gas taxes than they receive in highway funding - so-called "donor" states led by Florida, Texas, and Michigan - argue that they are shortchanged by this system and end up subsidizing other states. States such as New York, on the other hand, which are net recipients of federal highway funds, argue that the maintenance costs of their older infrastructures, and the wear and tear caused by their harsh climates, require higher levels of federal funding.
These arguments, however, obscure some of the underlying realities of the finances. Our study shows that, by a number of measures, New York receives a very low level of transportation funding:
- On a per capita basis, New York receives less federal highway funding than all but one state.
- As a percentage of the state's total highway spending, the portion covered by the federal government in New York is the smallest of any state.
- When it comes to mass transit, New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority receives 16 percent of the federal transit funding, but carries 32 percent of the nation's transit riders.
New York is seen as a net recipient of federal highway funds, despite receiving a smaller-than-average amount, because New Yorkers pay an even smaller share of federal gas taxes. The federal gas tax is the same throughout the country - 18.4 cents - but New Yorkers drive less and take transit more than the rest of the country. According to the 2000 Census, nearly one-quarter of state residents take transit to work, compared with less than five percent in the United States as a whole. As a result, New Yorkers pay far less in federal gas taxes and other highway-user taxes than other Americans - $67 versus $112 for the nation as a whole in 2001.
If the donor states have their way, the implications for New York could be serious. In the last 12 years, New York City has spent $1 billion in federal highway funds to restore and repair bridges, notably the Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queensboro bridges. Federal funds have helped pay for the city's high tech traffic management system, for safety enhancements on Queens Boulevard, and for the creation of bike lanes and greenways. Mass transit has also benefited from highway funding, as the state has transferred more than $120 million in federal highway funds each year to mass transit programs. A cut of $2 billion over six years could slow the city's bridge rehabilitation program and affect new projects such as the Second Avenue Subway.
What are the chances such a cut will pass Congress? The last time transportation funding was renewed, in 1997, the donor states were placated by a small increase in their share, and a large increase in the overall level of federal funding. New York's share shrank, but it received an absolute increase in funding, thanks to the overall increase.
This time around, the political and economic climate is different but the outcome may be similar. With the slowing economy, tax receipts into the Highway Trust Fund are falling, meaning the overall funding will shrink unless measures are taken such as increasing the gas tax - something the Bush Administration is loath to do. But Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, a lead sponsor of the proposal, has not ruled out a tax increase, and the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Don Young of Alaska, has proposed increasing the gas tax and indexing it for inflation. His bill would increase the size of the program by about 50 percent, more than enough to make up cuts to individual states.
Interestingly, when the entire federal budget is considered, most of the states that are pushing for a bigger share of the highway funds already receive more in total federal spending than they pay in taxes. Florida, for example, paid $227 million more in gas taxes than it received in federal highway spending in 2001; but when the entire budget is counted, including defense, Social Security, and other programs, the state received $5.7 billion more from Washington than it paid in taxes. Oklahoma ran a "deficit" of $74 million with the federal highway program in 2001, but had an $8 billion "surplus" with the overall budget. In contrast, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut together received $182 million more in federal highway spending than they paid in federal gas taxes, but they ran an overall deficit with Washington of $65 billion. These numbers should make legislators think twice about which states really are "self-sufficient."
Mark Seaman is project manager for the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.
Moving Around the City -- A Quiz About Transportation in New York
 |
Simply click on the circle next to the answer you think is correct, and an answer will appear in the box below. Keep trying until you get the correct answer. To learn more about the subject, click on the Gotham Gazette story after each question.
|
|
Tweet |
Editor's Choice
 New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act |
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures |
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives |
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years
|