A Brief History of New York Transportation
 |
|
| Grand Central Depot, now known as Grand Central Station. |
The rulers of what was then New Amsterdam institute the first traffic regulations in America. The law bars wagons, carts and sleighs from being driven at a gallop.
1693 - First Bridge
The first bridge in the city, King's Bridge connects Manhattan and what is now the Bronx. It is demolished in 1917.
1811 - Ferry Service
The Juliana, the world's first commercially operated steam ferry, begins running between New Jersey and Vesey Street.
1811 - Street Plan
The New York State Legislature introduces the Grid Plan for New York City, dividing its streets into a rectangular pattern. The design has been the basis for transportation planning in the city ever since.
1825 - Link to the West
The Erie Canal is finished, making New York City America's premier port.
1832 - First Railroad
The first railroad system in New York, owned by the New York and Harlem Railroad company, begins operating approximately nine blocks between Union Square and 23rd Street.
1870 - Above Ground
The city's first elevated railway begins running regularly along Greenwich Street and 9th Avenue. It would be driven out of business by the subway 50 years later.
1871 - New Station
Grand Central Depot, now known as Grand Central Terminal, is constructed in 1871 to handle New York City's railroad traffic.
1874 - Link to New Jersey
Colonel Dewitt Haskins breaks ground for the first tunnel under the Hudson, designed to connect Hoboken and Lower Manhattan. It is completed almost 30 years later. Parts of it are still used in the PATH rail system.
 |
|
| Contsruction on the Brooklyn Bridge. |
On May 24, the Brooklyn Bridge over the East River opens, connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn.
1890 - Street Transit
The first cable cars appear, replacing animal-powered streetcars.
1903 - East River Crossing
The Williamsburg Bridge, the largest of the bridges across the East River, is completed.
1904 - First Subway
The first official subway system in Manhattan opens. The Interborough Rapid Transit initially covers 9.1 miles of track and 28 stations between City Hall and 145th street.
1905 - Buses Start
The first gasoline-powered buses in America begin running along Fifth Avenue.
1905 - East and West
The Manhattan Bridge is completed, connecting Canal Street in Manhattan and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn over the East River.
1907 - Bye, Bye Battery
Slow moving battery taxis are replaced with faster, gas-powered vehicles.
1913 - Creating a City System
New York City approves the expansion of subway lines owned by both the Independent Rapid Transit Company and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company. The $302 million project adds 123 miles of track to the subway system.
1916 - Help from Washington
The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 establishes a regular system of federal funding for state road projects. It is the basis for all future federal transportation laws that provide funding to states, including New York, for highway construction.
1919 - Red Light, Green Light
New York City installs its first traffic signal light at Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street.
1921 - Joint Project
New York and New Jersey form the Port of New York Authority to improve the city's mass transportation facilities.
1924 - Bronx River Parkway
The Bronx River Parkway, the city's first modern parkway, is completed.
1925 - Another Subway
Mayor John F. Hylan wins approval to create the city-owned Independent Subway System.
1927 - Under the River
The Holland Tunnel opens, becoming the city's first underwater tunnel for motor vehicles. A construction project shared by New York and New Jersey, the tunnel connects lower Manhattan at Canal Street and Jersey City.
1930 - Air Travel
Bennett Airport on Barren Island in Brooklyn is finished, accommodating the first regular plane service in the city.
 |
|
| The George Washington Bridge. |
The George Washington Bridge opens, connecting upper Manhattan and New Jersey over the Hudson River. It is the first bridge in New York to be constructed completely out of steel.
1934 - Along the River
The East River Drive, now known as the FDR Drive, is completed, running from the Battery to the Triborough Bridge along the eastern edge of Manhattan.
1934 - Order on the Buses
Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia sets out a coherent policy for surface transit, doing away with some streetcar lines and granting franchises to private bus companies.
1935 - Major Construction
Construction begins on the Major Deegan Expressway, cutting a path from the Bronx to upstate New York.
1937 - Taxi Medallions
La Guardia signs the Haas Act, establishing a system of medallions, or official licenses, for the city's taxi cabs. Medallions are limited to 13,566 and cost $10 each.
1937 - Another Link
The Lincoln Tunnel opens, connecting midtown Manhattan and New Jersey under the Hudson River.
1938 - Belt Parkway
One of the many roads masterminded by Robert Moses, this highway around Brooklyn and Queens opens.
1939 - La Guardia Airfield
La Guardia Airfield opens in Queens, handling 250 flights a day in its first year.
1940 - Subway Takeover
The city takes over the subway system as it purchases the financially ailing Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation (BMT) and the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT).
1941 - Bus Protest
After a four-week, citywide boycott led by Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., bus companies in New York agree to hire black drivers.
1948 - Cars Not People
Construction begins on the Cross-Bronx Expressway. To make way for it, 159 apartment buildings were destroyed in East Tremont and Morris Heights and 1,530 families had to move.
1948 - End of an Era
The subway fare rises to 10 cents, the first fare hike since the system began operation 44 years earlier.
 |
|
| "Fliteseer" tram in front of a pair of Alitalia DC-7s at Idlewild Airport. |
Idlewild International Airport, later renamed John F. Kennedy International Airport, opens in Queens. It goes on to become the busiest cargo airport in the world.
1950 - Bus Station
The Port Authority Bus Terminal opens to the public. It was expanded in 1963 and again in 1979.
1950 - Department of Traffic
The city creates a Department of Traffic to take over responsibility for traffic control from the police departments. It soon institutes a number of programs, including alternate side of the street parking.
1953 - Running the Subways
The New York State Legislature creates the New York City Transit Authority to manage and operate the city's subway and bus systems.
1953 - That and a Token
Subway tokens debut on July 25 as the subway fare rises from 10 to 15 cents.
1956 - New Highways
The Federal Interstate Highway Act authorizes construction of a 41,000-mile interstate highway system, with the federal government paying 90 percent of the cost. New York City would use this legislation for projects such as completion of the Cross-Bronx Expressway.
1957 - End of an Era
The last city streetcar line is eliminated.
1962 - Commuter Rail
 |
|
| PATH Train Exiting Journal Square Transportation Center. |
1964 - Staten Island
The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge opens, linking Manhattan and Staten Island. The Staten Island Expressway, connected to the bridge?s upper deck, is also finished. It required the demolition of 400 buildings and the displacement of 3,500 residents.
1967 - Yellow Cabs
The city orders all medallion cabs to be painted yellow.
1968 - State Control
The New York State Legislature creates the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which becomes New York City Transit's parent organization.
1971 - Fare Policy
The New York Taxi and Limousine Commission is created to license and regulate the city's yellow cabs.
1977 - Shifting Control
The city Department of Transportation takes over street operations, including traffic control and parking regulations.
1980 - Easier Access
The first wheelchair lifts for passengers with disabilities appear on city-owned buses.
1989 - End of Westway
After years of controversy, Greenwich Village residents, environmentalists and others finally defeat a plan to build Westway, a highway along the Hudson River in Manhattan.
1990 - Accessible City
Americans with Disabilities Act is signed into law, requiring that public transportation be accessible to people with disabilities. Activists use the legislation to make all city curbs accessible in 2002.
1993 - Candid Camera
The city launches the Red Light Program, automatically taking pictures of the license plates of vehicles that run red lights.
1994 - Swipe and Go
The MTA introduces MetroCards, installing turnstiles that accept them at the Wall Street and Whitehall Street subway stations.
1997 - The Rise of the MetroCard
All New York City buses and subway stations now accept MetroCards.
2001 - September 11
A terrorist attack destroys the World Trade Center on September 11. There is a partial collapse of the Cortlandt Street Station underneath the complex. IRT Broadway 1/9 service is shut down between Chambers Street and South Ferry. PATH lines adjacent to the site are ruined.
2002 - MTA Splits
MTA New York City Transit is officially separated into two separate companies called MTA Subways and MTA Buses.
2003 - Death of an Icon
New York City subways and buses stop accepting tokens, as MTA New York City Transit hikes fares on its buses and subways by 33 percent from a $1.50 to $2.00. It is the largest fair increase in city history.
2003 - Transit Center
The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and other agencies begin planning a new transportation hub at the World Trace Center site.
Material researched by Martin Bricketto and Catherine Shu
Making the MTA Play Fair and Square
The ruling by a State Supreme Court judge on May 14 that the Metropolitan Transportation must roll back its first fare increase in eight years represented a surprising turn of events. State Controller Alan Hevesi, whose report charged that the MTA misrepresented its finances, called the ruling "a great victory."
The public reaction, on the other hand, was to keep the champagne corked. The Daily News quoted Jessica Alexander, getting off the F train in Queens, saying "That's nice for now, but I'm sure the fare will go back up again before we know it." Another rider quoted in the Times commented, "I don't see how they can go back on what they've already decided. That's politics."
Not only politics but also the law. The MTA immediately appealed the ruling, halting, at least for now, the fare rollback. As the public has figured out, Judge Louis B. York's ruling is highly unlikely to result in a permanent rollback to the old $1.50 base fare. Even if the MTA were forced to go back to the old fare, the agency could hold new public hearings and re-institute the $2.00 fare. The ruling itself could be overturned on appeal in the next several weeks.
So what does this ruling mean? Is there any reason for transit riders to celebrate?
ACCURATE INFORMATION
In an article for Gotham Gazette, Gene Russianoff, the senior attorney for the Straphangers Campaign, which brought the lawsuit, says he hopes the decision forces sweeping changes in the way the MTA reports its finances.
Thus, the court case is less about a rollback in the fare than making the MTA play fair and square. It is about the integrity of the public hearing process. Judge York called the $2.8 billion budget deficit figure in the MTA's notice for the public hearings on the fare increase a fictitious gap that "had a chilling effect on the public, discouraging an open and complete discussion of the proposals and foreclosing the presentation of creative alternatives." The judge concluded that the MTA's hearings were based on the false and misleading premise that the MTA was in worse financial condition than it knew itself to be."
Without accurate information, the public could not meaningfully comment on a proposed fare increase. As the judge noted(in pdf format), although the MTA has the legal authority to raise the fare as it sees fit, this power is subject to certain safeguards that include a fair and open hearing.
In sum, the court ruling affirms that accurate information plays a vital role in maintaining public confidence in public authorities. This may seem obvious to many but it was not obvious to the MTA, which argued in court that it had no obligation to share financial information with the public.
But would an honest process make any difference? Are many riders correct in assuming that the fare would go up whether or not the public had accurate information about the MTA's finances? And even if the MTA is not financially strapped in 2003, won't it need a fare increase next year?
There is much reason to be skeptical about the public hearing process for the MTA or any other agency. The most insightful and influential public comment is often made not at hearings but in news articles, editorials and op-ed pieces. Hearings can become an exercise in the mutual infliction of pain: you'll raise our fare, but you'll have to suffer through listening to me before you do.
Just as there is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol, there are good and bad public hearing processes. Designing an effective public participation process, satisfactory to all interested parties, is no easy task.
One key is accurate information, distributed early in the process. The lack of accurate financial information was obviously the focus of the suit against the MTA.
CLEAR PROPOSALS
But good information is not the only requirement. Guidebooks published by the Environmental Protection Agency, the California Public Utilities Commission and a commentaryby the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, stress the need for informal meetings conducive to open discussion as well as formal public hearings. Also important is the transparency of the process, direct involvement by key decision-makers and responses to comments. Federal agencies must respond in writing to each comment submitted during a formal rulemaking process.
The MTA's recent proposalsto publish more extensive financial information and provide more time for public comment and input from elected officials are welcome steps toward a more transparent budget process.
Interestingly, the city has much more stringent procedures than those the MTA followed for this year's fare increase. The City Charter requires that before adopting a new regulation, such as an increase in the taxi fare, the department involved must state what exactly it proposes to adopt and what the purpose of the regulation is.
This year, the MTA never put a specific proposal before the public. Instead, it published a series of options with different fare structures that would raise different amounts of revenue. These options provided a good starting place. But the MTA did not publish a final proposal and so it was never clear which fare option the public should focus on.
The public and the agency need to have good information and clear proposals or options to begin a dialogue. And both parties need to be willing to listen as well as talk.
This is where the governor becomes critical. Although the exact relationship between the MTA and Governor George Pataki is often murky, it is generally assumed that the MTA only does what the governor wants it to do, at least on major issues. How can the MTA engage in a worthwhile public hearing process if it has one ear cocked in the governor's direction?
THE PUBLIC MATTERS
Public participation is important in shaping the actions of public authorities. It can generate a wider range of options and a deeper understanding of the issues for both government officials and public participants.
Hearings can foster meaningful dialogue between government agencies and interested parties. One needs only to think about how public comments on the early designs for the World Trade Center site caused the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the Port Authority to revamp their plans. Even the MTA sharply cut back its plans for to close token booths based on public comment.
In my own experience with hearings on taxicab regulations (including the fare), public hearings acted as a vetting or testing process. The agency must have reasonable answers to the issues raised by interested parties. Did we think of everything? Is there another idea that we should consider?
Having to lay out your plans before smart people who have different interests and perspectives makes you think through an issue more carefully. This was shown in the discussions over the plans for the World Trade Center site.
More broadly, the hearing process drives home the idea to public employees that they work for the public and that the information they deal with should be part of the public debate.
So the short answer to the skeptics' questions are, yes, Virginia, this fare increase is here to stay. At most, there will be a temporary reprieve -- and don't count on even that.
Even so, Judge York's ruling is an important step toward creating meaningful public debate and dialog on the fare and other issues facing the MTA. Whether sustained or overturned on appeal, the judge's decision further bolsters the movement to hold the MTA accountable and supports those within the MTA who want to open up the authority's books and open up the process. 
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.
Hallelujah - for Now
 |
When the Straphangers Campaign joined riders, workers and elected officials to sue the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, we thought we had a good chance of winning a finding that the MTA had misled the public. But we didn't know if the court would order a rollback of the $2 fare.
But on May 14 Manhattan State Supreme Court Justice Louis York ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to roll back the fare increases on city subways and buses, the Long Island Rail Road, MetroNorth and Long Island Bus by May 28 and to hold a new round of public hearings. The judge also halted the closing of 62 subway station booths.
My reaction is simple and like that of virtually all riders: Hallelujah!
Even though the order is now on hold as the MTA appeals it, the May 14 decision is a victory for truth in government. [See related story on the MTA hearing process.]
The Straphangers Campaign, New York State Senate Minority Leader David A. Paterson and several transit riders filed the suit last month, after State Comptroller Alan Hevesi and City Comptroller William Thompson found that the MTA had misled the public about the state of the authority's finances. Transport Workers Union Local 100 President Roger Toussaint has also intervened on the side of the plaintiffs.
We argued that the authority violated the law when it voted to raise the fare on March 6 because it did not follow the required process. Under the law, public hearings must be held before the MTA can approve any fare hike. But at the hearings in February, the MTA deliberately deceived the public about the state of its finances. For example, the MTA's posters announcing the hearings all said that the authority was facing a $2.8 billion budget gap in the next two years.
That is simply not true. According to Hevesi's affidavit in the suit, the MTA, moved resources off budget and from one year to another. That had the effect of grossly reducing the projected size of the 2002 surplus from $537.1 million to $24.6 million. Concealing this money bolstered the MTA's claim that it faced huge deficits. Without these actions, the MTA's surplus in 2003 would have been $83 million, according to Hevesi. These deceptions on the part of the MTA made a sham of the hearings.
The comptrollers also said the MTA hid its financial gyrations from the public. Astoundingly, the main argument of the lawyers for the MTA was that the MTA has no legal obligation to disclose financial information to the public.
In his ruling, Judge York roundly rejected this contention. "The right to a public hearing and to public scrutiny are based on the principle of fundamental fairness, which is required of all government agencies . . . when dealing with citizens of the state or their affairs."
In addition to the controversy over finances, serious questions have been raised about the independence and vigor of the MTA inspector general. On May 14, the authority fired two security officials saying they had falsified information. The two have charged the agency with corruption and graft.
The MTA faces its worst crisis of public confidence in its 35-year history. Whatever the fate of the $2 fare, the decision should force sweeping changes in the way the MTA reports its finances.
The very day of York's ruling, the authority announced changes that it said would better inform the public about its finances. Among the modest reforms, the MTA says it will give the public more time to comment on its proposed budgets, issue a four-year plan that it will revise three times a year, and provide more financial information on its web site. Katherine N. Lapp, the executive director, said the changes were not a response to the many recent criticisms of the MTA.
The state legislature is considering a range of reforms, including an Independent Budget Office for the MTA, a computerized registry for MTA contracts and more independence and clout for the MTA inspector general. Many of the most important changes are in a bill sponsored by Assemblymember Richard Brodsky. The legislature should act on these ideas.
Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the state legislature and the MTA need to take immediate action to restore the MTA's credibility. Pataki should appoint an independent blue ribbon panel -- known under state law as a "Moreland Act" commission -- with subpoena power to investigate the MTA's budgeting and finances, as well charges of corruption in the agency's contracting. Bloomberg should use the city's considerable resources to audit the MTA's finances and to call off his proposal to slash city payments to the MTA.
We won our lawsuit because the MTA misled the public about its finances and made a sham of public hearings. If the MTA learns from its mistakes, the actions could usher in a new era of open government at the transportation agency.
Gene Russianoff is senior attorney with NYPIRG/Straphangers Campaign.
Transportation And Lower Manhattan: Where Do We Go From Here?
|
A conceptual view of how the MTA is planning for the new Fulton Street Transit Center at the corner of Broadway to look. |
Rush hour in New York, 2015: At the World Trade Center Transportation Hub, a commuter gets off the PATH train from Jersey City and walks two blocks to his office in the 1776-foot-tall tower on Fulton Street. At the nearby Fulton Street Transit Center -- airy, brightly lit, and easy to navigate -- a downtown resident takes the #2 subway train uptown to her job in Times Square. At the same time, a family from Japan gets off their flight at John F. Kennedy Airport and boards a train that goes directly to the 9/11 memorial on the former site of the old World Trade Center. And a Wall Street executive from Greenwich arrives on time to work via the Second Avenue subway, using an easy connection at Grand Central Terminal.
Those who currently live and work in lower Manhattan could easily see this scenario as science fiction.
Today, downtown subway stations are archaic and uninviting. The streets seem to be a perpetual construction zone. Added security and barriers, such as at the New York Stock Exchange on Broad Street, create a war zone atmosphere. West Street remains a barrier to the World Financial Center and Battery Park City. Connections among subway lines are confusing or non-existent.
The tragedy in lower Manhattan highlighted the inherent weaknesses in the transportation system serving it, particularly in contrast to Midtown. With no direct commuter rail access from New Jersey, Long Island or Westchester (Midtown has direct access from all three), lower Manhattan has been at a competitive disadvantage to attract businesses for several decades.
Rebuilding lower Manhattan after September 11 has meant not only restoring the transportation that was damaged during the attacks, but improving many parts of the transportation system downtown.
In October 2002, Governor George Pataki submitted a request for funding for lower Manhattan transportation projects to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Transit Administration. Early this year, they agreed to together provide $4.55 billion. The approved projects include a transit hub at the World Trade Center site, with underground connections to a new subway complex called the Fulton Street Transit Center. Pataki’s list also includes the rebuilding of the dysfunctional South Ferry 1/9 subway station and improvements to lower Manhattan streets and public places. In addition, the governor has called for tunneling part of West Street and a further study of how best to connect lower Manhattan to the airports.
World Trade Center Transportation Hub
The World Trade Center Transportation Hub involves the construction of a temporary and then a permanent PATH station, with pedestrian connections to the E train station, the existing N/R station, and entirely reconstructed 1/9 station. An underground walkway under Dey Street will link the hub to the Fulton Transit Center, which will incorporate four subway stations and nine subway lines. It will have another walkway under West Street that connects to Battery Park City. The cost of the project is estimated at between $1.7 and $2 billion, and it will be completed in phases by early 2009.
One controversial element about the hub, which has still not been resolved, is how much retail space will be built underground in the hub’s passageways. While retail developers are anxious to build as many stores underground as possible to attract business from commuters walking through the station each day, building too many stores underground would create a mall that could sap the life from the surrounding streets. To build a vibrant neighborhood in lower Manhattan, as much retail space as possible should be built at street level.
Another issue is the possibility of including a terminal under the World Trade Center site to house tourist buses. The city and local residents say the bus terminal would keep foul-smelling buses from lining up on crowded local streets, but many family members of those lost on 9/11 are offended by the thought of buses stored where their loved ones died. While some bus parking, especially for school buses, may be necessary, it can be kept to a minimum by encouraging tourists who visit the 9/11 memorial to use ferries and subways.
Fulton Street Transit Center
|
The MTA's design concept for the John Street and Broadway entrance to the Fulton Street Transit Center. |
The Fulton Street Transit Center to the east is being planned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The station complex, which includes four stations and nine subway lines, the 2, 3, 4, 5, A, C, J, M, and Z, is a maze that challenges the savviest New Yorker. The MTA plans to open up the Lexington Avenue station entrance by razing some or possibly all of the properties on the east side of Broadway from Fulton to John Streets. The authority also plans to simplify the pathways and make it easier for people to see where to go when transferring from one line to the other. See the MTA websitefor more details. Many preservationists are very worried that historic buildings, most notably the Corbin Building on John Street, will be torn down or damaged to make way for the new station. This 1889 building, with its terra cotta façade, is one of the area’s first skyscrapers. The MTA should preserve the façade of the building and incorporate it into the design of the new station. The cost for the transit center is $750 million, and it is scheduled to be completed by 2007.
New South Ferry Subway Station
The new South Ferry subway station will overcome the many deficiencies of the existing station, such as platforms the length of just half a subway train, delays caused by slow trains forced to negotiate an almost impossibly tight curve, and a single overcrowded exit. The station, which serves as a gateway for tourists destined for Liberty and Ellis islands, is an embarrassment as it is now.
The original design for the replacement would have torn up part of Battery Park, cutting down dozens of trees on the east side of the park. After the Battery Conservancy and other groups complained, the MTA decided to rethink the design. A new plan has been devised by the MTA, and it is a big improvement. The station would now be located mostly outside and east of the park. Building it will do little damage to the park, and the new plan brings the station closer to others in lower Manhattan to make transferring easier. It will also be closer to the Staten Island ferry terminal than the first plan. The earlier design was to cost $400 million and be completed by 2007, but costs and timing of the new design are not yet available.
West Street
West Street presents a barrier for pedestrians who want to go to and from the World Financial Center and parts of Battery Park City. Prior to 9/11, two pedestrian overpasses helped walkers cross the 200-foot-plus-wide highway. The more heavily used overpass, which went directly into the Winter Garden, was destroyed and will likely be replaced.
Initially, there was much interest in burying West Street in a tunnel from the World Trade Center site all the way to the Battery, but cost estimates were so high that the New York State Department of Transportation is investigating less ambitious plans – either a short tunnel from Vesey to Liberty Streets, which the governor has recently called for, or a deck over West Street into the World Financial Center across the way. This deck or platform would bridge over the existing highway. Depressing the highway in a tunnel would almost certainly be more expensive, but it would improve access to the World Financial Center and the ferry services beyond on the Hudson River and would better protect the memorial site from the noise of traffic. Some downtown residents have opposed a tunnel, saying it isn’t necessary and will require a disruptive construction zone. The New York State Department of Transportation is currently making presentations about the tunneling and decking options, after which the public will be in a better position to judge which plan will work best. Costs have not been determined for either project.
Airport Connections
In the governor’s letter to the federal government, he indicated that local agencies would be working to provide direct access from lower Manhattan to Newark and Kennedy airports. Much of the PATH line to Newark is already in place, and the project’s viability will depend on its cost and whether it can operate without affecting existing PATH services. The Port Authority is examining this.
For Kennedy airport, the options are more varied. New subway connections with Brooklyn could bring trains into lower Manhattan from Jamaica to serve Long Island commuters and also provide for an easy transfer to the Kennedy Airport Airtrain, to open next year. But many worry that the new trains would interfere with existing subway service and do little to cut the travel time for Long Islanders going directly to lower Manhattan. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed creating a new tunnel under the East River, which would provide a one-seat ride to Kennedy Airport and could also provide a connection to the Long Island Rail Road.
The Regional Plan Association, where I am a senior fellow for transportation, strongly supports a new East River tunnel. However, the association’s plan is for the airport connection to be linked to the planned Second Avenue subway, which is designed to allow an extension into Brooklyn. Governor Pataki has asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, along with the MTA and the Port Authority, to sort through the alternatives and make a recommendation by next spring. Where the funding for any airport project will come from is not yet clear.
Second Avenue Subway
Incredibly, overlooked in all of the discussions about lower Manhattan transportation is the project that the MTA has already committed to, the Second Avenue subway. It would add two new subway services to lower Manhattan and unclog a third, the notorious Lexington Avenue express. The MTA supports placing the new subway line in lower Manhattan underneath Water Street on the east side. If this line is extended, it could connect with Brooklyn and the Long Island Rail Road as described above. (The portion of the line in Manhattan is the subject of MTA hearings scheduled for May 12 and 13.)
Fixing Downtown Streets
Lower Manhattan’s streets are barricaded for security reasons and overcrowded with pedestrians competing for limited space with many types of vehicles, all with a claim to the same space. Security needs to be provided without creating an “armed camp” atmosphere. A solution for overcrowding should allocate space according to the need to move people and goods, and recognize the important role of streets and sidewalks as part of the public realm. This can be done by creating a plan for lower Manhattan’s “public realm,” including closing some streets to traffic, and building park-like boulevards and small parks. The governor’s recent allocation of funds for streets and parks is a step in the right direction.
The transportation system must be made whole again. Otherwise, the willingness of commuters and others traveling to lower Manhattan on business or to shop, will slowly, but assuredly erode. So will the resolve of the area’s residents. People will be unwilling to stand the inconvenience and lost time, when other options, whether in Midtown, the rest of New York City and suburbs or worse, other areas outside the region, are available. To overcome this potentially mortal blow to the financial district, the transportation system must entice back those who have left, overcoming the system’s weaknesses that existed before 9-11.
Jeffrey M. Zupan is senior fellow for transportation at Regional Plan Association, the not-for-profit research, planning and advocacy organization in the tri-state region.
Bus Bunching
You are waiting for the M104 bus at Broadway and 116th Street. Minutes go by, and it does not arrive. Then, maybe 20, 30 minutes later, three M104s arrive, all in a clump.
Sound familiar? This problem, called bus bunching, has been deemed a "scourge" by the Straphangers Campaign, a transit riders advocacy group.
In 1999, M104 buses arrived bunched together 60 percent of the time, the Straphangers found. And it was not the only bus route where buses arrived all at once — or not at all.
"The Transit Authority should offer free straitjackets to anyone waiting for a crosstown bus," Lenore Skenazy once wrote in the Daily News, describing her trials with bus bunching.
So many Brooklyn commuters complained to State Senator John Sampson of Canarsie last year about the B-42 bus bunching on Rockaway Parkway, that he wrote a letter of complaint to New York City Transit Authority president Lawrence Reuter.
Reuter wrote back, saying that the B-42 line was prone to bunching because its buses are scheduled to run just three-and-a-half minutes apart, and traffic problems can easily cause one bus to catch up with the other. Reuter told Sampson that he would tell bus dispatchers to pay more attention to the B-42 to keep them running at regular intervals.
Since then, the B-42's performance has improved, said Beverly Whitmire in Simpson's office.
But bus bunching continues to plague other part of the city. There are several theories about why.
Some think that bus dispatchers are not doing their job, and ensuring adequate space between bus departures. Others say bus drivers probably gather to chat with each other and then all end the coffee klatch at the same time, causing their buses to arrive in a clump.
Gene Russianoff, the Straphanger's Campaign senior attorney, has said that New York City buses are prone to bunching because there are not enough buses on the street to begin with, and bus stops are too crowded. Like Reuter in his response to Sampson, most New York City Transit Authority officials blame traffic congestion.
The problem is so complex that math teachers around the world have posed intricate story problems that involve bus bunching to their students, and a British web site has created a simulation game that shows why so many bus lines fall into the bus bunch trap. It demonstrates that when a bus is late, it will have more people waiting for it at the next stop. This means that it will take longer than usual for everyone to board, delaying the bus even further. Meanwhile, the bus behind it will have fewer people waiting to get on, and so will easily catch up to bus number one.
During the Giuliani administration, the city hired a company to create a satellite tracking system for New York City buses to ease the bus bunching problem In September 2000, after more than two years of delays and ballooning costs, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fired the company. In test runs, Manhattan's tall buildings blocked the satellites' connection with buses.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority did not give up on the concept though, and neither did Mayor Michael Bloomberg who, during his 2001 mayoral campaign, promised to solve the bus bunching problem. His plan, makes use of Global Positioning Satellite technology to tell dispatchers how far along the route buses are at all times. This would enable dispatchers to regulate the distance between buses and help drivers respond faster to disruptions in service.
Don't get too excited about this though. Initial parts of the project are slated to be done in 2004, but the system is not scheduled to be in place until 2009.
In the meantime, people with complaints or recommendations about buses can call or write Millard Seay, senior vice president of the Department of Buses at MTA New York City Transit, 370 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; phone: (718) 243-4186; fax: (718) 243-4400.
Another person to contact is Christopher R. Lake, director, Bus Customer Relations at 25 Jamaica Avenue, Room 1, Brooklyn, NY 11207; phone: (718) 927-7499; fax: (718) 927-7498.
The Straphangers Campaign recommends sending a copy of any complaint to New York City Transit President Reuter at MTA New York City Transit, 370 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; phone: (718) 330-4321; fax: (718) 596-2146.
Frustrated commuters can also call New York City Transit's Bus Customer Relations Center at 1-888-NYCT-BUS, or, like the B-42 commuters, call or write to their local politicians.
(Do the buses bunch in your neighborhood or is there another problem with mass transit? Tell us about it by going to the Community Gazette for your area.)
-- Erica Pearson
|
Getting a Stop Sign
Eleven-year old Christopher Adam Scott rode his bicycle across the pedestrian overpass of the Clearview Expressway in Bayside. As he reached the corner of 46th Avenue and the expressway service road, a car struck him, killing him almost instantly.
Six years before, 12-year-old John Shim was riding a bicycle in the same spot. He too was struck by a car and died of his injuries nine months later.
Local residents believe a stop sign could have helped save the lives of both boys.
About 200 pedestrians are killed by cars in New York City every year. Traffic engineers suggest that stop signs can help remedy the problem by regulating the flow of traffic in a busy neighborhood. The New York City Department of Transportation says that stop signs should be used to alert drivers and pedestrians as to who has the right of way.
But stop signs cannot solve all traffic safety problems, transportation experts say. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation, which sets standards for stop signs and traffic lights, cautions, "Stop signs should never be installed as a routine, cure-all approach to curtail speeding, prevent collisions at intersections, or discourage traffic from entering a neighborhood."
And when they are misplaced, stop signs can make a situation worse. "Studies have found when stop sign are placed at intersections where they are not really needed, motorists become careless about stopping," says an information sheet issued by the Center for Transportation research and Education in Ames, Iowa.
Given all this, there is no guarantee that a request for a new stop sign will be granted. The Department of Transportation suggests that residents who believe their intersection meets the requirements write a letter to Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall at the Department of Transportation, 40 Worth Street, New York, NY 10013. The department provides an online form for this purpose.
The department refers the request to the Traffic Engineering Unit in your borough. That office makes a preliminary study of the street corner in question, including traffic and pedestrian volumes, vehicular speeds, accident history and sign spacing. Eventually the unit will conduct a field investigation to observe traffic on the street corner at various times and on different days of the week, over a period of several weeks.
The inspectors want to determine whether conditions at the intersection meet federal standards for traffic lights and signals set out in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices published by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The investigation takes about six weeks. Then, if the department approves the request, an installation will be scheduled. The sign is usually put in within three or four months.
This sounds efficient and thorough, but is it really?
Not exactly, says Roe Daraio, longtime activist and president of COMET: Communities of Maspeth and Elmhurst Together.
Daraio estimates that 95 percent of her requests for stop signs have been fulfilled. "You just have to be a little creative," she says.
Simply following transportation department's instructions is not enough.
COMET keeps a close watch on corners and records problems, listening to accident reports on a police scanner. "You should always be able to say what dates and times the accidents occur," says Daraio. "The more clearly you express (the problem) to the agency, the more likely they are to respond."
Typically, she writes to the head of the Queens Borough transportation office, Joseph Cannisi, rather than to Commissioner Weinshall, as the city guidelines suggest. Since Weinshall's office receives thousands of requests each year and forwards them to the boroughs, Daraio says, writing directly to the borough office eliminates one step.
Daraio also advises that the letter provide as many details as possible about the street corner, such as how many children live nearby or if there is a school. She strongly suggests enlisting local community organizations in the quest, because they probably have a working relationship with key officials, as COMET does with Commissioner Cannisi.
The borough transportation office works closely with the local police precinct to assess the need for the sign. To get the police on your side, Daraio advises reminding the police of the frequency of accidents on your specific corner.
Sometimes, DOT decides to install a stop sign — even if community residents would prefer another remedy such as a traffic light. That is fine with Daraio.
"I find that when drivers see yellow lights ahead of them, they floor it,' she said. "We know night drivers don't come to a full stop at a stop sign, but at least they slow down a little."
In deciding between a stop sign and a traffic light, transportation officials consider the number of vehicles that go through an intersection as well as how fast they are traveling. Visibility and the presence of other traffic lights nearby can also affect the decision.
But evidence of need does not guarantee that the city will install a sign — or a signal. The intersection in Bayside where the fatal accident occurred still has no stop sign and does not seem likely to get one. Transportation Commissioner Weinshall told the Western Queens Gazette that, while "it's very tragic what happened with this little boy... federal standards were not met" for the installation of a stop sign or a traffic signal
No one has told community residents what precise conditions the intersection fails to meet.
Since the denial of the stop sign, the city transportation department has taken several steps to try to make the intersection safer. It has, for example, installed cone shaped objects to guide oncoming traffic away from the pedestrian bridge and posted a sign on the bridge advising bikers to get off their bikes and walk across the overpass.
Community residents would prefer a stop sign. And at least some of them think they know why their request was rejected. "This is how politics works — red tape," local Democratic Party activist John Bisbano told the Western Queens Gazette. "All they know is numbers."
(Do you need a stop sign in your neighborhood? Tell us about it by going to the Community Gazette for your area.)
-- Nicole Zaray
|
Speed Bumps and Humps
For years, Moseley Avenue in the Annandale section of Staten Island was a dead-end street, probably not very attractive to speeding motorists. But last year, the street was connected to Richmond Avenue. Shortly thereafter, while most of Moseley remained two-way, one block was turned into a one-way street.
And that, residents told the Staten Island Advance, started the problem. Drivers do not see the sign alerting them of the one-way street, enter the wrong way and then speed through in an effort to get out. The issue came to a head when a driver going the wrong way on the street hit four parked cars.
To solve the problems residents want better police patrols — and speed humps, little hills in the road designed to slow traffic. The neighborhood has appealed for the humps — known in transportation circles as a traffic calming device — but a spokesperson at Community Board Three in Staten Island said the application is still pending.
According to the city Department of Transportation, speed bumps, about 12 inches wide and three to six inches high, force traffic to slow to about 15 miles per hour. Because they can damage cars and cause motorcycles and bicycles to lose control, they have been replaced on city streets by speed humps, which are as wide as the street, slightly longer than an average car and slow traffic to about 25 miles per hour.
Transportation Alternatives says that calming devices, such as humps, provide the best means of slowing traffic. Unlike traffic signals which are designed to control traffic flow, bumps and humps were developed to slow cars. And they do not need a police presence to make them work.
But traffic calming has created groups of opponents who are anything but calm about the prospect of bumps or humps being put on their streets. "In a democracy you punish the guilty," one such opponent told a reporter. "Speed bumps punish everyone."
When a city tries to install a speed hump, "you generate complaints from neighbors who want to speed," Transportation Alternative Executive Director John Kaehny says.
To try to get a speed hump installed, the transportation department advises writing to the commissioner of transportation at 40 Worth Street, New York, NY 10013. It suggests applicants provide evidence of community support, such as petitions, a resolution passed by the community board, or a letter from a local elected official.
The department says speed humps should go only on local or residential streets — and definitely not on bus routes, truck routes, snow emergency routes or other major thoroughfares.
But Kaehny says that, despite such advice on the department web site, it does not have specific guidelines for speed humps, nor are there federal guidelines that it can rely upon. Without that, he says, city officials do not have the ammunition to fight speed hump opponents and so have been reluctant to install them other than around schools.
About 95 percent of residents may support a speed hump, he says, but "the very vocal minority can carry the day when it comes to stopping things in New York City."
(Do you have problems with speeding drivers in your neighborhood? Tell us about it by going to the Community Gazette for your area.)
-- Gail Robinson
|
Fixing a Traffic Light
Ken Daniels could hear the horns and smell the carbon monoxide. After eight years of pestering, he had finally convinced the city Department of Transportation to install a traffic light near his Glendale, Queens home — but in September 1999 workers mistakenly erected the device one block from the designated spot.
A retired senior account executive with a lot of free time and no fear of confrontation, Daniels vented his outrage in community newspapers and on local TV news programs. He demonstrated that the new signal was exacerbating the six-block-long tie ups on Cypress Hills Street and making it impossible for motorists to turn off 71st Avenue, where the two roadways meet in a T.
"Cars were waiting for hours. I was so frustrated I was telling the media I could have done a better installation myself," Daniels recalled.
The commotion convinced Queens Community Board 5 District Manager Gary Giordano, whose office is two blocks away, to help Daniels contact high-ranking Department of Transportation officials. Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan and then City Councilmember Thomas Ognibene wrote letters of support.
Soon thereafter, the Queens borough commissioner of transportation at the time admitted that an error had been made, and in March 2000, the misplaced traffic signal was taken down in favor of a new one at the originally sought location.
Looking back on his fight, Daniels says, "It wasn't the easiest thing, but this shows that when you put your mind to it, even the average person can get something done. That is, with the help of local newspapers, local politicians and the local community board."
Though extreme, Daniels' case points up what is needed to wage a successful campaign for a traffic signal: patience, persistence, a worthy street corner and friends in high places.
According to the Department of Transportation web site, New Yorkers start the installation process by writing to the department's Signal Engineering Intersection Control Unit, 34-02 Queens Boulevard, Long Island City, NY 11101. (A broken traffic signal should be reported to 311.)
Engineers then study the location, considering such factors as motorist and pedestrian volume, presence of senior citizens and children, vehicular speed, accident history, visibility and signal spacing. The data is then analyzed according to federally mandated guidelines.
The study generally takes 12 weeks. If the request is granted, the traffic signal will be installed within six months of approval.
The department may decide not to install a traffic light because a cheaper method, such as a stop sign, would be just as effective. And traffic lights can create problems. A study by the Washington State Department of Transportation, for example, concluded that traffic lights tend to increase accidents where a car collides with the rear end of the vehicle in front of it.
And traffic signals alone may not solve a problem. Transportation Alternatives, a New York advocacy group, notes, "A traffic signal will do little to stop reckless red-light running without consistent police enforcement."
But speeders and reckless drivers should be aware that traffic signals and stop signs are only two of the transportation department's possible remedies. The agency also provides speed bumps, blinking lights, rumble strips, speed-limit signs and other controls. In fact, the department frequently responds to a request for a traffic signal by installing something else.
Whatever it decides to do, external factors can influence the process. A traffic light may be installed more quickly, for example, if there has been a recent fatality. And there is always politics.
Cagey veteran Lew Simon, a Democratic district leader from the Rockaways, always organizes a petition drive and sends copies of the signatures to various politicians and DOT officials along with his signal requests. He has also been known to organize rallies at the relevant crossroads after sending out press releases.
"Sometimes you have to knock down doors at City Hall," he said. "Otherwise, they won't open for you."
(Do you need a traffic light in your neighborhood or is a stop light broken? Tell us about it by going to the Community Gazette for your area.)
-- Rob MacKay
|
NYC Subway Token, 1953-2003
| -- |  |
| -- |
At the transit museum store, you can buy a set of the five "historic" New York City subway tokens, introduced in 1953, 1970, 1980, 1986 and 1995, as well as subway tokens made into key rings, lapel pins, cuff links, bracelets, and money clips. Other stores sell ashtrays, paperweights, drinking glasses, coasters, mugs, ties, t-shirts, Christmas ornaments, even dresses festooned with the image of the token. The People's Hall of Fame, which honors New Yorkers every year for contributions to the city's cultural life, presents inductees with an enormous replica of a token. There are Frisbees shaped like giant tokens. The only thing the New York City subway token will no longer be used for, as of May 4, is to get you onto the subway.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority ended all sales of the token at midnight April 12. On May 4, when the transit fare is scheduled to rise from $1.50 to $2, the 13 million tokens still circulating will no longer be "good for one fare" on the subway, leaving the Metrocard the exclusive currency of straphangers. Bus fare boxes will accept tokens (plus 50 cents) until December 31. Then, 50 years after its birth, the little brass coin will essentially end its working life - except for one small gig: For the time being, tokens will continue to be sold for $1.50 and used at the Roosevelt Island Tram, which is run by the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation, not the MTA.
The demise of the token has been expected ever since 1994 when New York became one of the last subway systems in the country to introduce fare cards. The blue and yellow MetroCards are cheaper to produce and can be programmed to offer discounts and transfers. Emptying tokens from turnstiles and delivering them to token booths is time-consuming and expensive. Phasing out the token, transit officials say, will save $6 million a year in handling costs. "In this time of dwindling resources, the shift away from tokens will allow us to be more efficient," Lawrence G. Reuter, the president of New York City Transit told The New York Times recently.
And so the clatter of metal tokens being emptied into buckets will soon join the clip-clop of horses on cobblestones, newsboys shouting "Extra" and the nasal intonations of Joan Rivers' taxi tape among New York's many bygone sounds.
|
|||
New Yorkers already seem to have accepted the demise of the token. Few people spoke out on its behalf at hearings this winter on the fare hike, and indeed, by early this year, tokens were already being used for only eight percent of all rides. (There are exceptions: One Paula Glatzer wrote to the Times "I care about the end of subway tokens. I always carry a few with me, mostly for the times my Metrocard won't swipe....Why can't we get dependable readers, like those in other cities?")
The token is sure to live on, as item of nostalgia and icon of New York -- more humble than the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty, but a potent symbol nonetheless.
"It says 'NYC' on it, so that's certainly a big part of its appeal, but it's also popular because it's a very democratic symbol," said Sarah Henry, a historian with the Museum of the City of New York, which featured the token prominently in its recent exhibition entitled "NYCentury" on the city's symbols. "Because the subway is so deeply embedded in New York's identity and so many different kinds of people use it, the token by symbolizing the subway comes to symbolize the city." In that way, at least, the token will not be replaced: "The MetroCard," she said with a touch of scorn, "doesn't have the visual presence of the token."
RELATIVE NEWCOMER
The token is so closely identified with New York that most people do not realize that the subway system carried New Yorkers for 49 years before it acquired its own currency. For 44 years it cost a five cents to ride a bus or subway and all riders needed to get on board was a nickel. When the fare rose to 10 cents in 1948, the city refit the turnstiles to accept dimes.
|
|||
But just as technology would eventually doom the token, technological limits created it. In 1953, when the fare rose to 15 cents, engineers could not figure out how to make a turnstile operate with a dime and nickel or three nickels. To solve the problem, they devised their own 15-cent currency.
Those first small tokens set the pattern that would become world-famous. On one side was the legend "Good for One Fare," on the other "New York City Transit Authority." In the center were the letters "NYC" with the "Y" cut out.
That token lasted 17 years, surviving a fare hike to 20 cents, and thousands probably remain squirreled away as keepsakes. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers who reached manhood in the 1950s and 1960s can still recall receiving one of those little tokens in the envelope with their draft notices to make it easy for them to report to the induction center.
In 1970, a larger token, also with a "Y" cutout, debuted along with the 30-cent fare. A decade later, when the fare reached 60 cents, a solid token with a stamped "Y" replaced it. When the cost of a ride rose to $1 in 1986, the "bull's eye" token, which featured a round center plug made from gray metal, was introduced. The last version of the token, with a cut-out pentagon, appeared with the $1.50 fare in 1995.
THEFT AND SPECULATION
|
|||
As the tokens gained in value, petty criminals devised ingenious if revolting ways to get them. Crooks jammed the coin slot to keep the tokens from falling down. As the commuter walked off indignantly -- out a token but unable to get through the gate -- the perpetrator would swoop in and suck the token out of the turnstile. The epidemic led to widespread disgust among even hardened New Yorkers, and to ingenuity among subway workers who fought back with mace, chili powder and even super-strength glue.
Fare increases also gave rise to a unique form of arbitrage. When a hike was announced, people would begin hoarding extra tokens, hoping that transit officials would continue to use the old ones, instead of going to the trouble of minting a new coin. Sometimes the subway riders were right and made a nice little profit.
This year, collectors and nostalgic New Yorkers began stocking up as soon as the token's demise was confirmed. Anticipating a run on the coins, New York City Transit limited sales to two per customer on March 30.
But, so far a massive investment in subway tokens seems unlikely to reap big payoffs. A couple of days after official sales ended, the last version of the token was selling on eBay www.ebay.com for between $1.99 and $14.50. Even the original token, the dime-sized 1953 version with the Y cutout, was drawing bids of no more than about $25.
SIXTY MILLION CUFFLINKS?
|
|||
What about all those tokens? Will they join keys for defunct locks, cigarette lighters and old scouting medals in the backs of thousands of dressers drawer across the city? Or will the financially ailing transit authority find some way to make gold from brass?
Transit officials are not sure. Of the 60 million tokens minted for the Transportation Authority in 1991, 41 million are in a vault somewhere in Queens. Transit officials will not say where, for security reasons.
If the past is any guide, most will end up in a furnace. "If they follow previous iterations of the token, they will be sold as scrap," said Charles Seaton, a spokesman for New York City Transit. He said the scrap dealers could sell some of the tokens to jewelers and souvenir makers, but New York City Transit will not get into the business of making cufflinks. About six million of the current tokens are already believed to be in the hands of collectors or are lost. The Roosevelt Island Tram bought 7,000.
Kilmartin Industries, the Attleboro, Mass, mint that sold the 1991 batch of tokens to the system for $7.6 million, doesn't have much interest in them. "It doesn't stir any emotions with me at all to be honest with you," Tom Vermillion, a sales manager at Kilmartin, told Newsday recently.
METROCARD HUT?
Now that the token is gone, straphangers face a new problem: What should they call the 700-plus structures formerly known as token booths?
|
|||
Officially, New York City Transit has rechristened them "station service booths," but that seems unlikely to catch on. Our recent brief but fruitful survey of subway riders yielded a variety of suggestions, among them: MetroCard sales booth, fare sales booth, good-for-nothing booth, little house of cards, metro mansion, MetroPod, ticket hut, kiosk, information booth, token booth ("because the person inside is usually the 'token' human around"), MetroCard Hut (or McHut, for short), no-use booth, card shack, hold-up target, "customer service center -- ha!," bullet-proof transportation hospitality center and "affordable housing."
Of course, people still "dial" push-button phones, so maybe New Yorkers, notorious creatures of habit, won't change at all. They will simply buy their MetroCards at a token booth.
The Fare Hike Mess
During his 1921 reelection campaign, Mayor John F. Hylan declared the five-cent subway fare to be "the cornerstone of the edifice which we call New York City." He won in a landslide and later affirmed, "My policy has been the preservation of democracy and the retention of the nickel fare." Indeed, Hylan attacked the "manipulation" and "chicanery" of the two private companies that then operated the subways, which Hylan charged sought to double-cross the
public in their attempts to raise the fare.
The nickel fare is long gone, but some things never change.
Last week, reports from State Comptroller Alan Hevesi and City Comptroller William Thompson charged the Metropolitan Transportation Authority with hiding half a billion dollars to create the appearance of a deficit so it could raise subway and bus fares. Hevesi said that in effect the MTA kept two separate financial records -- one public and one secret. In a separate audit, Thompson said the New York City Transit Authority "misled the public" by overstating its expenses by $850 million in 2001. Both officials called on the MTA to rethink the subway and bus fare increase. (Read “The MTA’s Numbers Don’t Add Up”by City Comptroller Thompson and “The MTA’s On The Wrong Track” by Councilmember John Liu, chair of the transportation committee).
|
THE NEW FARE
Beginning May 4, 2003 the new $2 fare will be deducted from your MetroCard at subway turnstiles and on buses. You will not need to buy a new card. • A new $10 MetroCard entitles you to six rides. • The cost of a one-day unlimited pass, rises to $7. You can use your old one-day pass until May 5. • A seven-day pass will cost $21. You may use passes purchased before the increase until May 13. • The 30-day card will cost $70. Passes purchased before the increase may be used until June 12. • Beginning May 4, tokens will no longer be accepted on subways. • Tokens will continue to be accepted on buses until December 31, but after May 4, you must pay 50 cents in addition to the token. • Refunds for unused tokens must be made in person at NYC Transit, 370 Jay Street, Brooklyn. Call 718-243-3917 for an appointment. • The fare for Access-A-Ride paratransit fare also increases to $2. Access-A-Ride will continue to accept tokens, with an additional 50 cents, through December 31. • Starting May 4, reduced-fare customers will have $1 deducted from their card for each transit trip. • Students with valid student MetroCards continue to ride for free. Those with the half-fare MetroCards for buses only will pay $1 per ride. For further information, go to the MTA |
MTA chief Peter Kalikow has denied doing anything wrong, called Hevesi's audit in particular "a cynical, political document aimed solely at undermining the MTA's credibility…" and said the MTA would go ahead with the fare increase on May 4. The governor backed him up.
Transit fare increases have never been popular. So sacred was the nickel fare that it held firm for 44 years after the opening of the first subway in 1904 -- with some grave consequences for the transit system. And ever since the nickel-barrier broke in 1948, each hike has been greeted with protests, accusations, and a debate over whether the hike would strengthen or weaken the subways.
But in some important respects, the current fare hike is unique. For one, it spells the death of the subway token after 50 years. (See “NYC Subway Token, 1953-2003” by Michael Markowitz ) The hike from $1.50 to $2 is also the largest absolute increase ever for a single fare, as well as the largest percentage increase since the last major fiscal crisis in 1975 (which helped set off a steep decline in ridership and service). But it is also the first hike since the introduction of the MetroCard and its discount incentives. How riders take advantage of those incentives will help decide what this fare hike will mean to the city.
THE NICKLE FARE FOREVER – AND HOW IT SHAPED THE CITY
When the first subway line opened in 1904 the fare was set at five cents, then the standard for streetcars and elevated trains in New York City and across the country. Subway service was so badly needed in the densely packed districts of lower Manhattan that trains and stations rapidly became severely overcrowded. The new subway, operated by the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT), was immediately popular and profitable.
In 1913, two companies, the IRT and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company (which later became the BMT) received contracts to more than double the size of the transit system. The new lines were planned, financed and built to enable the companies to turn a profit with the nickel fare. Each company got a share of the lucrative Manhattan routes and, in return, had to build and operate new lines in the so-called subway suburbs of upper Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens.
City officials set a uniform fare of five cents regardless of the length of the trip. The effects of this flat nickel fare on the city were profound.
The uniform fare encouraged, and the new subways enabled, many New Yorkers to leave overcrowded Manhattan neighborhoods for decent housing in other boroughs, as subway historian Peter Derrick has observed. The new subways also helped make midtown Manhattan one of the world's largest employment centers.
But the nickel fare had its drawbacks as well. Unprecedented inflation during and after the First World War combined with higher salaries for transit workers and competition from the publicly run IND subway created huge financial problems for the private subway companies. They were eventually forced to defer the purchase of new subway cars, reduce the frequency of service and cut back on the cleaning of stations, restrooms and cars. The subway became dirty, ill-maintained, a nasty experience.
Eventually, the finances of the two companies deteriorated so badly that they went into receivership. The city bought out both systems in 1940. Merging them into a single system did not make the subway’s financial problems go away. Rather than raise the fare in order to improve service, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia tried to make a virtue of the unpleasant trips. "They talk about the rush hour and the crash and noise," LaGuardia exclaimed in 1943. "Don't you see that's the proof of our life and vitality?"
This insistence on a five-cent fare resulted in the neglect of other fundamental transit needs as well. One casualty was system expansion. Vast areas of Queens and Brooklyn filled with new housing developments, but few of them received new subway service. After World War II, subway ridership began to drop, partly because of increased automobile usage, which further reduced subway revenues.
FARE HIKES FOREVER
Finally in 1948, the city could no longer postpone the inevitable and the fare rose to 10 cents. Only five short years later, the fare went up again, to 15 cents. There, the fare stayed until 1966 -- but only by deferring maintenance and avoiding needed new additions.
In the wake of the city's fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s, the fare became markedly higher -- even taking inflation into account (see chart) – but this did not reverse the subway system’s deterioration. Ridership dropped 27 percent between 1965 and 1982. Graffiti, track fires and frequent train breakdowns became hallmarks of a once-great transit system. In the early 1980s, though, the system began to turn around.
Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) -- which was created by the State of New York in 1968 to run the subways as well as the commuter rail system -- argued it faced the stark choice between a fare hike and deep service cuts. It avoided service cuts altogether, and, responding to public pressure, even decided to close
fewer booths than it had originally planned. In this sense, the MTA firmly departed from the mid-century practice of protecting the fare but sacrificing service and system maintenance. If the frequency and quality of subway service is not likely to decline as it has in previous generations, there is reason to fear that the fare may spiral upward in coming years.
INSIDE THE TWO DOLLAR FARE
The latest controversy over the MTA’s finances will have both long-term and short-term consequences. One set of issues focuses on the credibility of the MTA’s financial reporting.
In 2001, the MTA reported a $78 million cash surplus. Less than two years later, the MTA said it faced a $952 million deficit and would be forced to raise fares.
Some elected officials and subway advocates questioned whether the MTA had presented an accurate picture of its finances and wondered how the agency could go from a surplus to such a deep deficit so quickly. The comptrollers’ reports last week greatly heightened the general suspicion.
"Our findings question the MTA board's decision to saddle New Yorkers with the largest fare increase in the history of the city," said Comptroller Thompson.
Given the comptrollers’ allegations that the MTA hid money so it could justify a fare hike, the authority may have a harder time convincing riders it is really needed next time.
"The MTA's facing the worst crisis it's had in terms of public confidence in its 35-year history,'' said Gene Russianoff, a lawyer for the riders' watchdog group, the Straphangers Campaign.
The charges of financial mismanagement have also fueled tensions with transit workers. The Transport Workers Union, which renegotiated their contract late last year, said it now wants to revisit the issue of pensions, which was a point of contention during the recent negotiations.
"The bottom line is that the MTA wanted a fare increase and needed to justify it,” said Roger Toussaint, president of the TWU. "So they held our contract hostage in order to accomplish this goal."
The MTA will also be subject to closer scrutiny. Comptroller Hevesi pledged to put forth regulations that will compel the MTA to submit its budget and financial plan “in a manner that is transparent, timely and reasonable,” modeled on financial reporting required of the City of New York. Hevesi says he will also propose state legislation to give the Comptroller authority to formally review the MTA’s budget before future fare and toll increases are adopted. “These proposed reforms will ensure that the true financial status of the MTA will be readily available to the public,” Hevesi declared.
The controversy over the MTA’s financial reporting has somewhat obscured the basic issue of whether the fare hike was necessary. Hevesi himself said that “it may have made sense to raise fares in 2003 to smooth out the budget gaps” and avoid a much larger fare increase in 2004. Other financial analysts made the same point.
What is in little dispute is that the MTA is more and more relying on the revenue from the fare to underwrite its operations. Hevesi’s report documents that the MTA’s current program for purchasing subway cars and buses, renovating stations and other capital costs is becoming increasingly reliant on borrowing. Debt service costs will nearly triple between 2003 and the end of the decade. Ballooning debt payments will put additional pressure on the fare.
In addition, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed cutting $100 million in direct city subsides to the MTA. This could also increase the likelihood of further fare hikes. Already, the authority has warned against assuming that the new $2 fare will last past the end of 2004. Some transit advocates predict that the cuts in city funding could lead to a fare hike in 2005.
CHOICES FOR RIDERS
In the days of the token, transit officials could more accurately predict riders' response to fare increases. As with any product or service, increasing the cost produces a drop in patronage.
But this year's fare increase creates many other options for riders and encourages customers to “buy up” - to switch from the base fare to unlimited-ride passes. "Buying up" reduces the number of sales transactions, thus saving the MTA money on token clerk salaries and costs related to maintaining MetroCard vending machines.
People who now pay their fares one ride at a time will be socked with a 33 percent fare increase ($1.50 to $2 base fare). This will particularly affect the occasional riders, elderly, and lower-income New Yorkers, who cannot afford to pay out larger sums of money at one time.
On the other hand, the riders who currently use tokens or buy one trip at a time could be induced to “buy up” to the bonus MetroCard, especially since the threshold for getting the bonus is dropping from ten trips to five trips and the size of the bonus is doubling. Those who switch from the base fare to bonus MetroCards will benefit considerably. The fare they will pay for a single trip will rise from $1.50 to $1.67 (six trips for a $10 MetroCard), an increase of only 11 percent.
Subway riders who depend on $4 one-day unlimited ride passes will see the greatest increase. The cost of the single day pass, which some officials thought was previously underpriced will jump to $7 -- an increase of 75 percent.
| Size of fare increase for riders continuing with the same fare payment | |||
| Old | New | Increase | |
| Base Fare | $1.50 | $2.00 | 33% |
| Bonus MetroCard (price per trip) | $1.36 | $1.67 | 22% |
| 7-day pass | $17.00 | $21.00 | 24% |
| 30-day pass | $63.00 | $70.00 | 11% |
| 1-day pass | $4.00 | $7.00 | 75% |
Riders who buy seven-day passes also face a choice with wide-ranging implications. The seven-day pass is by far the most popular of the passes and rivals the regular MetroCard in overall popularity. Anyone who buys a seven-day pass every week could completely wipe out the fare increase by switching to the 30-day pass, because the new price for the 30-day pass ($70) is actually a little less than the old price of the equivalent number of seven-day passes. (To put this as an equation: 4 1/2 x 17 > 1 x 70.)
The choice that these riders make will help determine whether ridership dives or only dips after the fare increase. Riders who “buy up” to 30-day passes are likely to use the pass for additional trips they would not otherwise have made. For this group, the fare increase could have the surprising effect of increasing transit ridership rather than decreasing ridership.
The decisions riders make about which cards to purchase will also affect how much money the fare hike will produce for the MTA, and how soon the MTA will need another increase in fares.
As in the past, this fare hike will have far-reaching effects on revenues for the transit system, ridership and service, whether for good or ill. How the city and its residents react will make the difference.
RELATED ARTICLES:
The MTA’s Numbers Don’t Add Up by New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr.
The MTA’s On The Wrong Track by Councilmember John Liu, chair of the transportation committee.
LINKS:
NYC fare change information from the MTA
Bridge toll and commuter rail fare change information from the MTA
New York's Subway Suckers' Pass into History Along with the Token (Raleigh
News, NC)
NYC Subway Token Gone Forever (BBC News)
The Two Dollar Fare (Gotham Gazette, 3/2003))
Options For The Fare Increase (Gotham Gazette, 2/2003)
New Fare Discounts for Transit Riders in New York City (Schaller Consulting
2002 report on fare issues)
History of the Subway Token (New York City Subway Resources site)
N.Y. Fares Raised in Crisis (The Third Rail, July-Sept 1975)
Books:
Tunneling to the Future: The Story of the Great Subway Expansion That Saved New York
by Peter Derrick (New York University Press, 2002. 442 pp.)
722 Miles: The Building of the Subways and How They Transformed New York
by Clifton Hood (The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1993. 335 pp.)
See a complete book list on the Transporation Topic page. Suggest a Transportation book.
|
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
|