Environmental Science and Technology of NYC

TVs fill our living rooms with reports warning of the “Doomsday Budget.” Newspapers fill our delis with an army of headlines crying “Shame on the MTA!” Commuters fill the streets and stations with complaints of more wait and less space. We all know it: The MTA is in trouble. Disappearing bus lines, rising fares, and daunting deficits give credence to the idea that the MTA’s finances are “a ticking time bomb.” However, perhaps a more apt metaphor for this situation is that of an earthquake, for while we all see and feel the effects, few know the precise causes and culprits. To discover what fuels this financial crisis, we must look below the surface of media and commuters’ condemning the MTA and uncover the true roots of the financial crisis that has left the MTA $31 billion in debt and commuters with a $2.75-fare in their future. Though the endless numbers of statistics and constant changes in MTA directions may seem difficult to decrypt, the story of how the agency got to this point can be summarized in one word: Unsustainability. Low funding and limited resources combined with enormous costs and great expansion are the definition of both MTA finances and unsustainablity.

We’re not asking you to point to Albany on a map. That’s simple enough. But trying finding the state government in the MTA’s budget breakdown. Now, that’s not so easy. The New York State and NYC governments have played a wonderful disappearing act in the funding of MTA operations over the last three decades. From stagnant contributions to programs of increasing cost to declining subsidies and even abrupt cuts, the state is slowly relieving itself of the burden that is the transit system. How has something so vital to the social and environmental sustainability of our city fallen to the wayside? The answer is, well, it’s always been at the wayside. From 1940 when public transportation fell under one body (then the Body of Transportation, now the New York City Transit Authority) to this very day, government funding of MTA operations has been drastically below what is necessary to maintain the system. As the chart below, calculated by the Independent Budget Office, shows, through the years, the cost of running America’s largest transit network has soared, while government funding has stagnated.

The MTA walked into budget negotiations in December 2009 facing a mounting financial crisis and fading support from the government. Not surprisingly, it emerged with a proposal that shook New York: cut student MetroCards. The current system of student fares allows eligible students three rides (with transfers) daily for commute to and from school. To eliminate the program would hit lower and working class families both economically and socially, as transportation costs would cut into already tight family budgets and children would have narrower access to an education. Fortunately, the measure was never executed. It is doubtful whether the MTA had any intention of carrying out the proposal or if it simply wished to draw attention to the lack of public funding for programs that serve the public at low or no cost.

The Student MetroCard program serves as a prime example of the MTA’s unfair burden in maintaining services that the government should buttress. Prior to 1994, the city and state governments fully funded the program. Mayor Rudolph Guiliani changed this. After playing hardball, he got the MTA to share in the maintenance of the student MetroCards. The deal struck between the city and state governments and the MTA stated that each would contribute $45 million each. Over the years, the program has become costlier. However, the city has kept its contribution stagnant. Even worse, Albany dedicated a relatively paltry $6 million to the program this year, a decrease from the inadequate $25 million contribution it made last year.

The MTA not only serves more commuters than any other transit system in the country but also employs the most workers , a grand total of 69, 114. The labor force is as costly as it is extensive. The MTA employee earns $64,000 annually (well above the average New York resident), and labor costs have risen 40% in the last five years. Workers’ benefits also sap a good share of the MTA budget, with next year’s pensions and health-care payments equaling more than 20% of what its costs to run the entire train and bus system. The expenses are set to rise. In 2009, the State Supreme Court denied an MTA motion to delay pay raises for its workers. The powerful Transit Workers Union demanded the pay increase when Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave similar raises to other city works. Over the next three years, wage and benefit costs will rise 11.5%, adding more pressure to a budget already set to implode.

In the early 1980s, New York City’s transit system was in rapid decline. Ninety-minute waits for graffiti- and crime-ridden trains that broke down every 6,200 miles, if they weren’t one of the 25% of trains already out of service, defined the daily commute for the New Yorkers brave enough to ride. Realizing the urgent need to revitalize public transportation, then-MTA chairman Richard Ravitch raised a whopping $8 billion to begin rebuilding. Since then, the MTA has made a remarkable recovery. Train and bus lines have greatly expanded, become more efficient, and are physically and environmentally cleaner than would’ve been thought possible in the 80s.

The five-year capital programs begun in 1982 have become a staple of “America’s most extensive transportation rebuilding project.” However, with the financial crisis the MTA faces today, expansion is not in the agency’s best interest. Raising fares and cutting service will only push commuters towards more convenient and less expensive means of roaming the city. The most important function of the MTA is to serve commuters so sapping time and money from the New Yorkers should be a last resort in bandaging financial wounds. But it’s not. Despite the $787 million budget shortfall the agency faces this year , it plans to spend more than $23.8 billion from 2010 to 2014 on construction and new technology. The money will most likely be borrowed and thus contribute to the MTA’s already outstanding debt of $31 billion. More than two-billion dollars will be directed toward debt payments in 2011, and the number is expected to rise.

The mortgage crisis that sparked the financial meltdown also consumed a large chunk of the MTA’s revenue. The agency relies on “mortgage recording tax” and other real-estate taxes to fund much of its projects. When the housing market was strong, so was the flow of tax dollars. However, as the housing market has declined, money from this source has plummeted. From 2007 to 2009, revenue from this source dropped 75%.

In order to turn the tide of this financial tsunami, the MTA has proposed numerous solutions that will hurt communities and sustainability. The steps the MTA has taken to save itself from total collapse will only lead the agency to temporary survival and delayed doom. Only sustainable solutions that address the root causes of the MTA’s financial struggle.

Raising fares is not sustainable because, in the agency’s four-decade history, the money earned in fares has not been sufficient to operate the nation’s most extensive transit system. Furthermore, raising fares while decreasing service will deter commuters who can afford alternative, more convenient means of transportation. Those who cannot will either suffer the increased burden of $2.50 fares or find ways to reduce their use of public transportation. Since the first round of fare hikes in 2009 raised fare revenue by $189 million, but ridership decreased and the MTA continued to sink deeper into its financial pitfall.

However, the MTA has essentially stood alone in its efforts. With shrinking support from the government, there is little access to outside streams of funding. Thus, it has turned largely to cutbacks (in service, labor, debt payments, etc.). However, such steps are not sustainable solutions. In order to get back on its feet (or wheels), the expansion should cease so that funds go to fixing these issues rather than building on top of a broken system. For example, $3 billion is now up for grabs from the federal government since New Jersey, which was designated to receive the sum, cancelled its Hudson River tunnel project. Rather than dedicating it to debt payment or another essential area, the MTA hopes to spend it on building the Second Avenue subway, a costly project that already has a $10 billion shortfall.

To put itself on the right track, the MTA must pursue solutions that will lead to economic sustainability. We propose the following:

• Halt costly expansion projects.
• Employee layoffs should focus on high-paid office officials rather than lower-wage service workers.
• Petition the city and state government for a more stable stream of tax revenue.