Learning from the Subway Fire
Now that subway service has resumed to nearly normal -- several years ahead of schedule -- it is clear that last month’s fire in a subway signal room near the Chambers Street station created more than crowding and inconvenience for the public and higher expenses for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The fire also raised important questions. Why did the initial story need to be so heavily revised as the week wore on? Are there enduring lessons to be learned from this event?
First, why did the accounts of the cause and implications of the fire change so much from the initial news reports?
New York City Transit President Lawrence Reuter was initially reported as saying that the disabled lines would not return to service for three to five years. But two days later he revised his estimate to six to nine months. And on February 2-- about 10 days after the fire -- C train service resumed, and the A began running at almost normal frequency.
Officials initially attributed the fire to a homeless person setting fire to wood and refuse in a shopping cart 50 feet north of the Chambers Street station but now reportedly say they have found "no conclusive information to arrive at a definitive cause for this fire."
I think I can guess at the reasons behind these puzzling missteps. When Reuter predicted years of interrupted service, he was probably thinking how long it would take to rebuild completely the complex and antiquated signal room. But what most people wanted to know was when the trains would start running again. It appears that reporters took his response – about completely rebuilding the damaged equipment – to be the answer to their quite different question about the timeline for restoring service.
When officials attributed the fire to an unidentified homeless person rather than waiting for the investigation to be completed, they were probably thinking about the fire as just one more calamity beyond their control. Blaming the fire on the homeless matched their expectation that they could not have prevented it, and thus they looked no further for alternative causes.
Why did the press characterize the subway lines as “crippled or shut down” as though all the riders from the Rockaways to upper Manhattan would be left without any service? Part of the reason is that Reuter seemed to be saying just that. Another part of the reason is that reporters are not paid to plan subway re-routings. Any regular rider of the A and C lines knows that the trains are regularly switched to the F tracks in downtown Brooklyn during track work on the A and C lines in lower Manhattan – the exact tracks affected by the fire. Transit officials took advantage of this flexibility, and extended the V line from the Lower East Side into Brooklyn to serve C line stations in Brooklyn. They also added B service in Manhattan during rush hours to make up for the lack of C service.
What can be gained from this episode? No doubt, transit and fire department officials will be a little more focused on clear communications and not jumping to conclusions next time there is a fire or accident or other major disruption.
Another lesson is that the sprawling subway system can never be made completely secure. We do not know what started the fire, but no one is suggesting that terrorists are to blame. Whether it was, in fact, a homeless person, flammable material left by transit workers, or some kind of random electrical malfunction may never be known. It does seem obvious, however, that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s new ban on subway photography would not have prevented the problem.
Perhaps the most important lesson was learned by the public, or at least graphically illustrated for the public. For months, public officials, civic leaders, and transit advocates have been discussing the transit system’s capital program, which is up for refunding this year. Reporters have stepped up coverage of these issues but lacked a way to demonstrate what is at stake. The subway fire dramatized the city’s utter dependence on switches, control boxes, electrical cables and thousands of other highly technical and largely unseen equipment in the subway system. And thus, the subway fire served as an allegory for the repair and funding issues that most of the time seem only distantly related to the public’s daily experience of transit services.
The fire also helped to educate the public about how the system operates and how decisions about maintenance and upgrades can very tangibly affect the daily commute. It came to light, for example, that 158 of 200 signal relay rooms have been modernized and upgraded since 1982 with fire detectors, fire-retardant materials, and automatic fire extinguishers – just not the one north of Chambers Street.
Would more money have helped? More than any other MTA chairman appointed by Governor George Pataki, Peter Kalikow has been forthright about the need for increased funding for transit improvements. In this instance, however, Kalikow was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “If somebody gave us $50 billion tomorrow, we could not any faster upgrade these signals.” No doubt only so many subway repairs and maintenance activities can take place at any one time. But the MTA’s own budget recommendations include funding for far more projects, both repair and new construction, than anyone has found the money for. The value of those projects may be a little bit easier to explain this month than they were a month ago.
Bruce Schaller is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation, and is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
Pataki's Budget
“Pataki’s Budget Leaves Transit Projects In Doubt” read the headline in the New York Times online. (In the newspaper itself, the article, with a slightly different headline, was the lead story of the day).
Of course, many of these projects have long been in doubt, even as more and more people become convinced of their importance. A report released recently by the Rudin Center at NYU on commuter rail and subway expansion needs (in pdf format) concluded that, “Expanded transportation capacity is of vital importance to enable future economic and employment growth in the Manhattan central business district.”
It has been clear that one of the two major issues for transportation in 2005 will be financing the operation and expansion of the transit system. (The other is doing the same for the highway system.) The question has been: Where is the money going to come from?
As summarized here two months ago, the city’s Independent Budget Office and a respected civic group, the Regional Plan Association, discussed a range of ways to raise the money.
Last month, Peter Kalikow, the chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, called on Governor George Pataki to support increased taxes and fees on businesses, gas and mortgages that would keep the transit system in good working order and also fund such expansion projects as the Second Avenue Subway and the connection between the Long Island Rail Road and Grand Central Terminal. Stepping forth in more of a public leadership role than any MTA head during Pataki’s tenure in Albany, Kalikow warned that failure to fund at least the $17 billion core program would begin the transit system’s “descent” toward deterioration and financial crisis.
When the governor released his budget on January 18th, he proposed adopting two of Kalikow’s specific recommendations: an increase in the mortgage recording tax and increased motor vehicle fees. Pataki also asked for legislation to authorize innovative financing opportunities. He cited three examples from other states. Two involve the sale or construction of toll roads (in Chicago and Virginia), and thus are financed by motorist tolls. The third involves private investment in the Las Vegas monorail.
Overall, however, the governor’s budget came up well short of the MTA’s needs. The governor proposed to cover $15 billion of the $17 billion that transit officials consider essential.
Some transit advocates were cheered that Pataki proposed new fees to pay for transit improvements, while others criticized him for inadequate funding. The budget, which is subject to revision after a public hearing, is perhaps best viewed as the opening gambit in Albany’s long budget game, plagued for years by late budgets. Anyone keeping a scorecard on the progress of budget discussions might look for the following:
- When will the governor become more specific about additional revenue sources needed to plug the gap he left, and even to increase total spending from his proposed levels?
- Do revenue sources (fees, taxes or otherwise) provide new money and a long-term solution, unlike the crushing debt burdens that financed the transportation authority’s previous capital program?
- Do revenue sources require the governor and legislative leaders to gain broad political support, as a broad-based tax would, or is there continued effort to hide the pain through fees and taxes that most people do not pay (like the mortgage recording and business taxes)?
As New York struggles with how to pay for its transportation needs, a number of other cities around the country moved forward on major transportation expansion projects. In the November elections, voters approved new taxes to pay for system expansions, meaning that new, “real” money will be available for real projects. The Center for Transportation Excellence, a non-partisan policy research center in Washington DC, reports that:
- Phoenix area voters approved a 1/2 cent sales tax extension and a $16 billion regional transportation plan that will fund 30 additional miles for the region’s light rail system and expanded and improved bus services.
- Denver voters approved a 4/10 cent sales tax increase to construct 119 miles of new light rail and commuter rail lines; 18 miles of Bus Rapid Transit service, new parking at transit stations and expanded bus services.
- San Francisco East Bay area voters approved a “parcel tax” of $2 per parcel per month to underwrite continued bus services.
- San Diego voters adopted an extension to the 1/2 cent sales tax through 2028 to raise $14 billion for transportation improvements.
Each of these metro areas suffers from high levels of traffic congestion and are turning to transit expansions to help alleviate gridlock on their highways. Perhaps New York, blessed with the most extensive transit system in the country, can take inspiration from voter approval of higher taxes in other regions. New York can not only maintain the existing system but also fund forward-looking system expansions.
Bruce Schaller is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation, and is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
Should Public Funds Keep NY Waterway Alive?
Public funding for transportation goes back further than the eye can see, from building the Erie Canal to construction of the New York City subway and Interstate highways. In each case, the decision to expend public monies was based on pressing public needs for expansion of canal, transit and highway systems and the belief that public investment would pay dividends in economic growth.
New York and New Jersey officials are now faced with deciding whether privately operated ferries should be next in line for public funding. New York Waterway, which currently carries 32,000 passengers a day, primarily from New Jersey to Manhattan, is experiencing acute financial difficulties. The company’s president, Arthur Imperatore, announced this month at a City Council hearing that, “New York Waterway is dying.” The company has closed some routes and is planning to shut down additional routes later this month.
As with the region’s bus, subway, rail and highway systems, proponents of public subsidies argue that ferries provide a vital transportation service and spur economic development, in this case, along the New Jersey waterfront. Without the ferries, as many as 5,000 cars now parked near the New Jersey shore might travel into Manhattan each day, further burdening already congested tunnels and bridges into Manhattan. And ferries provide important redundancy in the transportation system, a fact graphically highlighted on September 11, 2001.
Ironically, NY Waterway, established in 1986, has long been hailed as a model of private entrepreneurship. Imperatore’s father set up the company to provide easy access to Manhattan for his New Jersey residential developments. The company offered not only ferry service but also bus service in Midtown to access West Side ferry terminals.
At first glance, ferry service might seem to be an ideal candidate for private operation. Ferries serve a niche market of customers who lack ready access to New Jersey’s bus and rail networks or who prefer the ambiance of waterborne transportation to the crush of PATH trains. Ferry riders are generally well-paid professionals. And by increasing access to Manhattan jobs, the ferries make private residential developments on the Jersey side of the Hudson River more attractive and valuable.
NY Waterway’s current troubles were spawned by decisions intended to build on its own success. Ferry ridership doubled after the 9/11 attacks, which closed the PATH system’s World Trade Center station. Both the company and public agencies leapt at opportunities to increase ferry services by adding routes and revamping ferry terminals. But after NY Waterway took on $33 million in debt to buy new boats, PATH reopened ahead of schedule, Manhattan job losses produced a drop in the number of commuters, ridership fell off after the Hudson River froze for two weeks last winter, fuel prices doubled and the company spent $4 million in legal fees over a dispute with the federal government over billing practices for post-9/11 service.
Some officials are now calling on government agencies to keep the service running. Hudson County (NJ) officials formulated a plan to buy the company and operate it in concert with Hoboken and Weehawken. But state officials last week nixed that plan.
Some Hudson County and New York City Council officials are calling on the City of New York and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to step in. New York City Councilmember David Yassky urged the city to waive docking fees that total $1.5 million a year. Council members also urged the Port Authority to authorize subsidies amounting to $16.6 million a year. Tom Fox of New York Water Taxi, a competitor to NY Waterway which is putting together a plan with three other ferry and sightseeing cruise companies to take over NY Waterway routes, said subsidies are needed to compete with the heavily subsidized PATH lines.
The City Transportation Department responded that the Council would need to offset the revenue loss if landing fees were waived. The Port Authority was noncommittal, calling for a “multiagency review of ferry service throughout the region.”
The Port Authority also pointed out that it has invested, or plans to invest, more than $100 million in ferry terminals, roadway upgrades and other infrastructure costs. Thus, the issue is not whether privately operated ferries should receive public subsidies, but what form of subsidies, and how much, and who will pay.
The most fundamental question is whether public agencies should subsidize specific ferry routes to keep them running. On the one hand, equitable treatment of commuters suggest that the public should subsidize ferry travelers. After all, the PATH system and NYC bus system only recover 41 percent of their operating expenses and even the NYC subway, which leads all transit systems in the U.S. in farebox cost recovery, only pays 67 percent of its expenses from fares, according to federal data (In PDF Format) summarized in a Brookings Institution study.
On the other hand, would political considerations overwhelm business decisions about which routes to keep, which to close and which to expand, leading to an inefficient and heavily subsidized ferry network that drains the public till?
The reticence of the Port Authority and NYC Transportation Department to agree to operating subsidies is well founded. The Port Authority has increased its funding for PATH while keeping PATH fares relatively low. Under pressure from Staten Island voters and elected officials, the Giuliani Administration abolished the Staten Island ferry fare. The average trip on the S.I. ferry costs $2.95, all of which is paid by the city, none by riders. The City Council recently adopted a bill to increase late night service and some rush hour service at an additional cost of $5 million a year.
The test for public officials is now to find a way to support continued ferry service where it provides substantial public benefits while maintaining the market-driven sensitivities to both changing demand and opportunities for service that are the hallmark of private companies. This is a difficult task, made more so in the current crisis-driven environment, as NY Waterway totters on the brink of closure.
Bruce Schaller is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation, and is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.Â
|
Tweet |
