Mythbusting the MTA Fare Hike

Today, the MTA will vote to raise fares again… this time to the tune of 23%. Your monthly Metrocard that cost you $81 this month will cost you $103 in June.
Yes, it’s outrageous. Yes, it’s unfair. But no, it’s not entirely the MTA’s fault. In fact, this fare hike could have been easily prevented by Albany in the past and present, but everyone finds it easy to blame the MTA for this. Stop blaming the MTA, and blame the people who deserve to be blamed.
Myth: The MTA can find the money, somewhere, to stop this hike
When people say this, I ask, how? Nobody has an answer, they just have a feeling. Well, I invite anyone who wants to make this claim to go into the MTA’s financial statements and find enough money to fill their $1.3 billion deficit. It’s not possible. They are out of money. And there’s a good explanation, which brings me to my next myth.
Myth: The MTA is in this deficit because they spend too much on big projects
First off, let’s start by explaining how the MTA actually got into this mess. One of its biggest sources of revenue is real estate transaction taxes. Look at what real estate has done in the past two years. That revenue has barely topped 50% of its projection. If the real estate market was booming, we might not be in as big a mess. Secondly, one of the MTA’s biggest expenses is paying down debt on bonds it took out during the Pataki administration, when the MTA was terribly underfunded and MTA money was diverted to road maintenance. These are two key reasons the MTA has such a huge deficit right now. Neither of those are within the control of the MTA, and especially not the MTA’s current management.
But, onto the “spending on big projects.” Yes, there are several major projects in the construction phase right now: the Second Avenue Subway, the 7 Line Extension, and the East Side Access Project. But let’s say that we stopped work on those projects right now. We would lay off thousands of construction workers, and we’d sit around with empty tunnels for another 30 years. But also, we wouldn’t have an extra dime to spend on the operation of the subway system. Why? Because the construction budget - the MTA’s Capital Budget - is different from its Operating Budget. The Capital Budget gets funding from the federal government and the like, but the Operating Budget is reliant mostly on passenger fares, tax revenue, and any state and local funding it can get its hands on.
So, yes, they’re spending a lot on big projects, but they can’t spend that money on anything else.
Myth: $103 is still a good deal for riders
Okay, in the scheme of things, compared to driving a car, $103 is a good bargain for getting around the city. But we shouldn’t have to pay that much, because nobody else does.
Does that sound whiny and self-righteous? Probably, but let me explain. The New York City subway has the highest farebox recovery ratio of any public transit system in the United States. That is, the MTA relies on our passenger fares for over 73% of its revenue for the subway. As a basis for comparison, Chicago’s CTA has a ratio of 44%, LA County’s Metro has a ratio of 30%, and the lowly Staten Island Railroad’s passenger fares account for just 15% of its revenue. Where does the rest of its revenue come from? Mostly from state subsidies. And as we’ve already addressed, Albany gutted the MTA’s funding years ago.
Now, the state is making us pay more instead of adopting a system that would find a reasonable alternate revenue stream for the MTA: East River Bridge Tolls.
Myth: Putting a $2 toll on the East River bridges would be unfair to the poor and would hinder open access to the city
This is the stance that politicians who opposed these tolls have taken, and it’s absurd. I could make plenty of arguments about drivers paying their fair share, cars contributing to pollution and congestion, and the fact that my tax dollars subsidize the maintenance of the roads that drivers use even though I don’t own a car. But let’s just cut to the chase: those who opposed adding a $2 toll to the East River bridges would rather see transit riders pay an additional 23% for their commute while car drivers get off scot-free.
Tell me, who do you think can afford to spend more money: a car owner who drives to their job in Manhattan, or someone who rides the subway every day? Nine times out of ten, it’s the former. Car owners make more money than subway riders, plain and simple.
The second part of this myth is a new point that has surfaced recently. The newest argument against East River tolls has been that it would cut off Manhattan from the rest of the city, and would keep the five boroughs from being “open and accessible.”
This is absurd for two reasons: first of all, to anyone who doesn’t own a car, New York is already not “open and accessible.” I have to pay a subway fare (coincidentally, $2) to get to any other borough. Secondly, access between boroughs is already tolled, thanks to the Henry Hudson, Triborough, Bronx-Whitestone, Throgs Neck, Verazanno Narrows, and Marine Parkway Bridges, and the Queens Midtown and Brooklyn Battery Tunnels… all of which are more expensive to cross than the proposed toll on the East River bridges.
Myth: Adding tolls to the East River bridges will impact the cost of goods in Manhattan
This is a simple mathematics equation. Let’s say you have a small box truck that’s carrying half of its payload in tomatoes (roughly two tons). That small box truck would pay a $10 toll in the current plan. Let’s assume that the entire toll will be passed on to the consumer. How much more would a pound of tomatoes cost? ONE QUARTER OF A CENT.
Of course, I forgot to mention that the tolls will likely take some cars off the road in Mahattan, making it easier for this truck to make its deliveries quickly without getting caught in traffic. So you might actually save close to $10 in labor costs for that truck driver.
Also, in March of 2008, the Port Authority raised the tolls on its Hudson River crossings by $2 for cars (more, naturally, for trucks). The inflationary change in the consumer cost of food between March and April in New York was 0.9%. This matched the national average. And by the way, a lot more of our food comes from New Jersey and west than from Long Island.
Myth: Adding tolls to the East River bridges will cause more congestion because of the addition of toll booths.
NO! NO, NO, NO, NO! I cannot believe the amount of times I’ve heard this argument, even from the most educated people. Have you ever heard of E-ZPass? Believe it or not, that technology can collect a toll at normal speeds, too. For those who do not have E-ZPass, cameras will capture their license plate numbers and they will be billed via mail. You may think that’s some pie-in-the-sky advanced technology, but it’s actually been around in North America for 12 years.
So, let me reiterate: THERE WILL BE NO TOLL BOOTHS ON THE BRIDGES.
Myth: The MTA can just fire all those employees who do absolutely nothing all day
In a perfect world, this wouldn’t be a myth. As transit riders, we all see the waste firsthand, as employees sleep on the job, stand around and do nothing, and sit in their little booths and ignore customers. Believe me, I can guarantee you that many of the MTA board members wish they could lay off 10-20% of the MTA’s workforce to turn up the revenue they need.
First of all, in a time like this, do you think it’s politically expedient to lay off thousands of people in this economy, even if they could? Probably not.
But more importantly, the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and other labor unions representing transit employees have such a stranglehold on the MTA that there’s virtually no way to end this waste unless the MTA went private. It’s a terrible situation, but being opposed to unions is so politically unpopular in this city that nobody would be willing to take that stand publicly. Do you remember the last time the MTA asked for concessions from the union? We ended up walking to work in the brutal cold for three days.
Myth: The MTA keeps “two sets of books”
On Monday, during the MTA’s finance committee meeting, MTA chairman Dale Hemmerdinger said, “we must get away from this notion that the MTA keeps two sets of books.” Why? Because it’s just not true. It was an accusation made of the MTA by Alan Hevesi six years ago - a charge that was resolved in court. And the board of the MTA should be offended by this accusation, since none of the members of the MTA’s leadership were in power back when this scandal broke in 2003. And in response to the scandal, the MTA became much more transparent, releasing all of their financial statements on their web site, and even holding webcasts about their finances.
But that’s not enough to satisfy the masses, apparently. Riders would rather get mad at the MTA for a six year-old scandal than blame Albany, who knew for a year that this crisis was coming, waited until the last minute to rush a proposal through the legislature, and then decide to do nothing and let the transit riding public suffer through massive fare hikes because educated politicians in Albany still believe that the MTA keeps two sets of books, no matter how many times they’re told otherwise.
Myth: Albany has the most corrupt, unopen, and incompetant state government in the entire country and voters need to clean house
Actually, yeah, that’s entirely true. Please, call your State Senator now and demand that the state fully fund transit.

SOURCE

Barack Rock

Andrew Bird, Fiery Furnaces, others to Rock for Barack

Andrew Bird / Eugene Mirman / The Fiery Furnaces / Kumail Nanjiani / Alina Simone / Heather Lawless / Guster / Lizz Winstead / Martin Bisi / John Roberts / Adira Amram / Special Secret Musical Guests -- (Not appearing in order)
ALL PROCEEDS GO TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN!

Tue 10/7, on sale 9/27 12:00 pm, 18+
Doors 6:30 pm / Show 7:30 pm
$40 advance / $40 day of show
@ Music Hall of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, NY

CACA: First Debate Up in Air as McCain Steps Off the Trail

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JEFF ZELENY

Declaring that it was time to “set politics aside,” Senator John McCain said Wednesday that he would temporarily stop campaigning and seek to delay Friday’s debate with Senator Barack Obama to return to Washington to help forge an agreement on a proposed $700 billion bailout of financial institutions before Congress.

The Obama campaign rejected the call by Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, to delay the debate, and aides noted that Mr. McCain only made the offer after Mr. Obama reached out to his opponent asking him to issue a joint statement calling for a bipartisan resolution to the financial crisis.
The political maneuvering came as the financial bailout continued to dominate Washington, the headlines and the concerns of ordinary Americans. On Wednesday evening, both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, accepted President Bush’s invitation to meet with him on Thursday to address the crisis.
Mr. McCain’s actions not only cast doubt on whether the highly anticipated debate would come off, but also thrust an unpredictable new element into the negotiations for the bailout, with some Democrats warning that Mr. McCain’s intervention could derail progress being made on the rescue package.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama should not return to Washington and inject presidential politics into the bailout negotiations.
“We need leadership, not a photo op,” a statement issued by Mr. Reid said.
But Republicans, eager for political cover from Mr. McCain on a bailout proposal that members of both parties see as deeply unpopular in the country, embraced his return. “The threats to Americans, and their homes, savings and retirements, is not a partisan problem, and it won’t be fixed with a partisan approach,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, who called Mr. McCain’s attempt to help forge a deal an “outstanding idea.”
Explaining his decision to reject Mr. McCain’s call to postpone their debate in Oxford, Miss., Mr. Obama cited the gravity of the nation’s financial crisis.
“It is my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess,” Mr. Obama said. “It is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once.”
Mr. McCain’s decision seeking to postpone the first debate was yet another unpredictable, daring step taken by his campaign over the last month: its selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as a vice-presidential candidate shook up the race in late August, and days later the campaign stripped down the first day of the Republican National Convention because of the threat of Hurricane Gustav.

In the midst of the confusion, officials with the Commission on Presidential Debates said that they were moving forward with the debate and that talks with the McCain campaign throughout the day had not persuaded them on Mr. McCain’s position. “We believe the public will be well served by having all of the debates go forward as scheduled,” the commission said.
The meeting with Mr. Bush on Thursday was precipitated by a call from Mr. McCain, who cast his request as a matter of urgent national priority. “Following Sept. 11, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis,” he told a small group of reporters, while reading the brief statement from a teleprompter, in a small ballroom at the Hilton New York hotel. “We must show that kind of patriotism now.”
Wednesday night, the two candidates issued the joint statement that Mr. Obama had requested, calling for bipartisan unity to solve the crisis.
“Now is a time to come together Democrats and Republicans in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people,” the statement said. “The plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail.”
Mr. McCain made his decision to try to delay the debate as he has been struggling to find his political footing on the financial crisis and a number of recent polls showed that more Americans trust Mr. Obama to handle the economy than Mr. McCain. Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, has also come under scrutiny this week because of his ties to Freddie Mac, one of the mortgage giants at the heart of the credit crisis.
Mr. Reid’s opposition to Mr. McCain’s return was described as disingenuous by Mr. McCain’s advisers, who only hours earlier had said Mr. McCain was returning to Washington in part as a response to Mr. Reid. “Senator Reid last night made clear in his view that it was up to John McCain to provide leadership on this matter,” Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain campaign adviser, told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
The debate on Friday was to focus on Mr. McCain’s perceived strength, foreign policy. Mr. McCain had not planned to devote large blocks of time to debate practice as did Mr. Obama, who was holing up with a tight circle of advisers at a hotel in Clearwater, Fla., on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday to prepare. Mr. McCain had a preparatory session on Wednesday afternoon at the Morgan Library in Manhattan, but advisers said it had been interrupted by his decision, announced immediately afterward, to suspend his campaign.
Democrats were withering in their reaction to Mr. McCain’s decision.
“Now that we are on the verge of making a deal, John McCain airdrops himself in to help us make a deal,” said Representative Barney Frank, of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. “Frankly, we are going to have to interrupt a negotiating session tomorrow between Democrats and Republicans on a bill where I think we are getting pretty close to troop down to the White House for a photo op.”
“What, does McCain think the Senate will still be working at 9 p.m. Friday?” Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania said in an interview, referring to the scheduled start time of the debate. “I think this is all political.”
Throughout the day, Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama were locked in an unusual back-and-forth about the bailout and Mr. McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign. The exchange started with a morning telephone call from Mr. Obama to Mr. McCain to ask whether Mr. McCain would issue a joint statement on the government bailout plan. But Mr. McCain was not available to take the call, and the two did not connect until six hours later, about 2:30 p.m.

At that point, they had what the McCain campaign described as a 10-minute phone call, but the substance of it remained in dispute between the two campaigns. Mr. Schmidt of the McCain campaign said Mr. McCain told Mr. Obama that he was going to suspend his campaign and return to Washington and that he had called Mr. Bush to ask that he convene a meeting on the crisis.

But Mr. Obama was left with the impression from the conversation that Mr. McCain was “mulling over” suspending the debate as an option, not a final decision.
“Apparently, this was something that, you know, he was more decisive about in his own mind,” Mr. Obama told reporters.
Mr. Obama conceded being taken by surprise by the afternoon announcement from Mr. McCain, which Obama aides said occurred about 10 minutes after the phone conversation between the two men.
Mr. Obama stopped short of suggesting that Mr. McCain was playing politics by calling for a delay in their first presidential debate, and he continued with the same low-key tone he has employed throughout the financial crisis. But Mr. Obama did say with a glint of humor that both he and Mr. McCain were capable of engaging in the debate and negotiations in Congress at the same time.
“If it turns out that we need to be in Washington, we’ve both got big planes — we’ve painted our slogans on the sides of them,” Mr. Obama said. “They can get us from Washington, D.C., to Mississippi fairly quickly.”
Two members of the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonpartisan group that has sponsored the debates since 1988, said Wednesday that they were pursuing a strategy of trying to force Mr. McCain’s hand by having the full commission release a strongly worded statement saying the debate would go forward as planned.
The commission members noted that past debates had been held during moments of crisis, like as the attack on the destroyer Cole during the 2000 debates, and said they believed both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama could follow through on their commitment to participate in Friday night’s debate while exercising their duties as senators.
“Our role is not to play referee on their involvement in or concern about the bailout talks, but to hold a debate that all sides have agreed to,” said one commission member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because members had agreed not to speak beyond the commission statement released Wednesday. “At this point, we see no reason to cancel the debate.”

nytimes.com