Reform of New York City’s Public Transportation is Critical
By Jannat Javed, Boris Avrumov, Batsheva Ettinger and Josiah James
Some 5.7 million people rely on New York City’s subway and bus systems on a typical weekday. For the nation’s largest city to continue growth in the 21st century, it will need to rethink and upgrade a transportation network that dates back to the 19th century. Compared to the transit systems in cities throughout Europe and Asia, New York’s subway system is lagging behind. New York can make improvements by following the lead of successful and efficient transportation systems of other cities around the world.[1]Concerning specific short comings in New York City’s subway system, congestion and the city’s growing population, are just a few of the many problems arising. Service can be poor, and that deters people from using mass transit. With its ancient infrastructure, New York’s primitive, dilapidated system is inefficient, slowing technological advancement, and causing for decreased ridership and debt.
Solutions
Change can be as basic as using trains that carry more passengers. Trains equipped with accordion-style passageways between cars instead of doors can open up more space for passengers. This style of subway car has been introduced in many places, specifically in London and Toronto, and has helped reducing crowding. These trains, known as “open gangway trains,” can allow passengers to walk from car to car easily to find a less crowded spot. According to Alex Davies in a Wired article, “They expand the system’s capacity without the labor and expense of expanding the system itself.”[2] If riders can be better distributed, there will be an overall decrease in the pushing required to squeeze into crowded cars. This can then reduce the delays associated with the train doors being forced open while passengers force their way onto crowded cars.
Another area that can be improved is the MetroCard system, a more than 20-year-old method of paying for subway and bus fares. Many acknowledge that although it is an effective system, it is not a very efficient one, nor one that is up-to-date with the times. In 2006, the MTA looked into a new technology that would improve the MetroCard system.[3] The system involves a “smart card” with a magnetic strip that is scanned as passengers enter the subway station so that they would not have to fumble with a disposable MetroCard at the turnstiles. With these cards, the system of paying for fares can become more technologically advanced as rides can be purchased online instead of at the subway stations. This can help the MTA save money on the machines and on guards involved when passengers pay cash; transit agencies can use this money for other important subway and bus reforms such as infrastructure and extended lines.
One plan that has been discussed that may be implemented by 2020 is known as a “New Fare Payment System.”[4] This more convenient payment system encompasses the idea of the “smart card” discussed in 2006. It allows bus and train subway riders to tap their mobile devices, smartphones, bank cards, or these smart cards – instead of swiping a MetroCard. Since the “tap” is more reliable than the “swipe,” the change would reduce congestion at the turnstiles. It would also mean producing fewer cards that all connect to accounts. There are benefits of such a system: reduced congestion due to a more efficient system and environmental improvements as the cards stop being produced. It can also lead to less frustration with slow-servicing turnstiles and long ticket lines and it can prevent people from evading the fare. Many cities around the world have implemented similar systems, such as London, where the public transportation uses Oyster Cards, and Chicago’s system, which has Ventra cards.
Another need that calls out for attention is to extend subway lines to areas that aren’t served now, especially to provide better transportation to the airports, an important economic engine for the city, particularly for blue-collar jobs. The city should focus its limited funds on this. For example, the commute to La Guardia Airport is an indirect and tedious one.[5] Unlike Kennedy Airport, this airport currently has no subway line that runs to it, and so it can only be accessed by car or bus. According to the Daily News, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a proposal to extend subway lines to La Guardia in 2015. In the proposal, he discussed building a 1 & ½ mile AirTran that would run on the No. 7 line and connect to the Long Island Rail Road. The Global Gateway Alliance reportedly said this new line could be a massive relief for millions of passengers a year.
Problems
Some key reasons the MTA is failing include lack of efficient, transparent political oversight, unsustainable cross-subsidization between federal, state, and city taxes, inadequate market competition, and persistent debt. All these factors combined are reducing the effectiveness and sustainability of the MTA. In economics we see that a purely competitive market drives innovation, advancements in technology, and lower pricing based on population demand. These various benefits are lacking in the current status quo – the MTA just raises the fare — and are instead replaced with dated technology, lack of innovation, inflated costs, and higher debt costs. This deficiency in the MTA is due to its monopoly of the market.
The MTA sits in a cozy, lethargic position of mismanagement and misallocation. When a company has a monopoly of its market, and the very regulatory agencies in charge of it are afraid to regulate because they fear retaliation, in this case by unions or the politicians, a limbo exists.
To make the situation worst, the MTA is struggling because of bureaucratic confusion over who is directly responsible for it. The MTA presently is jointly controlled by both New York State, New York City and suburban counties. MTA’s board consists of a chairman and 16 other voting members, two non-voting members and four alternate non-voting members, all of whom are appointed by the governor – some on the recommendation of city and county officials — with the advice and consent of the State Senate. Four voting members are required to be residents of the counties of Dutchess, Orange, Putnam and Rockland, respectively, and cast only one collective vote. The other voting members, including the chairman, cast one vote each (except that in the event of a tie vote, the chairman casts one additional vote).[6] As well as this, each member of the board has the ability to enlist members within subcommittees that control various portions of the MTA system. There are currently 11 subcommittees, with 6-12 members within each. Though having multiple governing bodies and committees involved would seem to add to the public oversight, often times the clarity of who is responsible for certain outputs remains unclear. If the MTA has a good year and something beneficial occurs, or a major calamity is stopped, both city and state officials will argue that it was due to their oversight. However, if something unfortunate occurs, neither party wants to take the blame. As a result of this, the governing oversight of this system falls into limbo. Neither takes responsibility, a very important reason for why the MTA has been plagued for years with financial debt and deficit. The MTA currently doesn’t seem to face ramifications for incredulous spending, nor answer to anyone specifically when concerning a mishandling of its money.
The strength of the MTA employees’ union has left the organization a slave to individual worker pleas rather than the utilitarian good. During the early history of the subway, work was harsh. Over time, subway workers won attractive packages and benefits like subsidized health care, substantial pensions, and dental care. Along with this, unions were formed and seemed to gain influence in the efforts to maintain humane hours of employment and conditions of workers and their contracts.
However, now we see times changing, but the perks and attractive packages not changing with the times. The unions have grown stronger, have held dominance over legislative movements against cutting payroll or pensions through lobbying, and have riled up workers with the necessities to have various loopholes that allow for inefficient work. Currently, the payroll, healthcare, and pension systems of the MTA make up more than $7.5 billion of the annual budget. Within this, around $669 million goes to overtime pay, and more than $2 billion alone goes towards pension.[7]. The MTA at its current level of economic depletion cannot handle such a burdensome load of spending.
An Earth Institute team conducted a comparative analysis of various other international train systems with the MTA. Through this comparison they were able to find some very important models that could indeed be used in New York. Some of these models included giving the mayor direct control of the transit system. Such a power transfer would enable the kind of direct oversight, managerial control, and political transparency needed for the current system.
The Port Authority is also an important agency that was created to be conducted as an independent and transparent bi-state agency, but corruption to levels seen in the “Bridgegate” scandal show just the tip of the iceberg of how badly these agencies need restructuring, financial transparency, and responsible oversight.
Another proposal to create better management was to possibly privatize the current city- and state-chartered subsidy system. However, according to author Clifton Hood’s historical account, when the system was held privately back in the 1900s under the Inter-borough Rapid Transit, Brooklyn Manhattan Rapid Transit, and the Independent Subway System, they were seen to be “controversial, politically charged, and notoriously known for their poor service and financial inconsistencies.”[8] A single system was created under city control, but the problems of mismanagement and misallocation of resources, corruption, and political sway seem to plague it. With this in mind, a completely private system might give too much power to a small handful in the current political climate, but a publicly owned transit system lacks the initiatives, incentives, and oversight to work effectively. As a result of this, our team seemed to be at a conundrum concerning what exactly we can do to help increase efficiency in a publicly subsidized monopoly that has control over the central nervous system of New York City.
In attempt to tackle this paradigm, we are proposing the possibility of keeping the current system, but enacting greater economic regulation and oversight through an external source to allow for proper allocation, use of resources, and efficient economic productivity as a company and not just a subsidized industry. This could be done by greater federal oversight over the powers of benefit corporations, accompanied by improved funding.
With an appropriate level of activism that makes transit funding a priority for New Yorkers and their lawmakers, the federal government could be swayed to support such a policy in the name of the national good under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1970. Various other transit systems worldwide, including the London tube, are publicly owned, yet they tower over the mass transit systems of the United States. For a nation with an $18.037 trillion net worth[9], the inability to run an efficient public mass transit system evidently shows there is something wrong with the current system that we aren’t paying attention to.
All in all, there is much to be gained for the city’s future if the MTA can be reformed – but much to lose if it is not. With these possible solutions in mind, we as a team hope above all else to help generate a conversation and create a more reformed, efficient system that can better serve our community. The New York City subway system is one of the engineering treasures of the Western Hemisphere. It was essential for the city’s growth in the past and will be so in the future.
MTA bus lines complement the subway system, extending access and linking the many sections of the city that lack subway service. Much of our report had dealt with the train systems, but it should not be forgotten that the bus system also has a significant effect on transportation since its riders, in foregoing cars, are reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Many other transit systems have done more to correlate their surface transport with subways.
With this in mind, maybe reforming our bus system before the subway lines can help make way for a more feasible subway reformation plan, while also creating change that the public can feel immediately.
An example of this is seen in China’s Transit Explore Bus. The bus is physically different from the conventional motor vehicle used for bus transport. It does not simply drive on the street as a large rectangular vehicle. Instead, it is planned in this case to be a raised vehicle with a hollow pathway underneath that allows cars to travel beneath it. The bus will be driven forward with efficient renewable hybrid motor power. It will be utilizing solar energy, and static energy produced through braking that can help charge the batteries/electronic ports in the bus. The wheels will be aligned on the sides of the “upside down U” shaped vehicle, on rails easily installed into the sidewalks. The buses can travel up to 60 kilometers per hour, or 37 mph, and drive over parked or mobile street traffic. The buses would also be able to move up to 1,400 passengers at one time. It could run above roads such as the Belt Parkway, solving one of New York’s biggest transportation problems: that mass transit was not included in the planning for much of the city’s highway, bridge and tunnel system.
The engineer, Song Youzhou, estimates the cost would be only 20% of implementing a new underground line and would be installed much faster due to the simple mechanics and foreseeable difficulties (if any). Such a system is truly revolutionary. The new planned transportation system was shown off at China’s annual Technology-Expo, and was given clearance by the Chinese government to run tests in a city 500 miles east of Beijing. If such a revolutionary system could be implemented in New York City, we would be able to see much faster, efficient, greener, and less traffic-congestive transportation that our city desperately needs. This investment could truly be the start to the complete transportation transformation we want to see take a hold of New York City.[10]
Funding
As a way to potentially fund the changes that need to occur in the MTA, we should look into putting money gathered from the gas tax into improvements for the system. It is true that in New York, when you break down how much a consumer pays per gallon, we have one of the highest gas taxes already. But where the revenue collected from the tax is used also needs to be considered. Ideally, all of it would go toward funding the MTA, but unfortunately that is not the case. In reality, the money collected from the tax is distributed to many different places. The MTA does receive a portion of the gas tax.[11]
We need to increase our gas tax, with the extra revenue that it brings in to go directly toward improving the transit system. The question is whether the public would support it. A study conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute showed that Americans would be willing to pay more in gas taxes if the revenue would be used towards improvements and advancements in transportation. In fact, more support for the higher tax was expressed when people were informed that funds would be used for transportation maintenance, safety improvements, and reduction of air pollution.[12]
Not only will the gas tax provide the funds for MTA projects, but it will also be beneficial to society at large by discouraging people from driving, reducing traffic congestion and the air pollution that comes with it.[13] The gas tax would bring to light the social and environmental costs of driving. And we are fortunate enough to live in a place where we have a well-developed transit system that we can utilize instead of driving.
The sales tax can also be expanded. New York City should propose an increase in its sales tax, and the money collected from it should be used to fund improvements for the MTA’s New York City Transit. This is something that other places have done or are beginning to enact. Of the country’s 35 largest transit systems, 15 receive money from sales taxes.[14]
A major reason we believe that this will work here is because of the support it has garnered in Los Angeles. Last year Los Angeles proposed the implementation of a sales tax to fund its transit system. It is looking to double the size of its mass transit system and improve highways. The $120 billion plan was introduced to take effect over a 40-year period, generating about $3.4 billion a year. It will increase the sales tax rate by a half-cent, which will be increased to a full cent over 20 years, raising the sales tax to 9.5%. [15] In November of 2016 the tax increase was passed by the Los Angeles County voters.[16] Prior to it being passed, residents of Los Angeles, in public meetings hosted by the city, expressed that they would be willing to pay more a better transportation system. This was brought to fruition when 70% of the voters approved it.
Given the popularity of this measure in Los Angeles, we can hope to expect a very similar response here. While LA is looking to build up its transit system, we in New York are looking to strengthen our already developed one.
As for what would be taxed, we recommend that the majority of the goods that are heavily taxed be ones that won’t hurt the low-income population. It is safe to fear that such a tax would hurt the poor and widen the equity gap. But if we place the tax on luxury goods, not necessities, then we can get around this. In this case, we wouldn’t be burdening people with having to pay a higher price for goods and services that they need to get by in their everyday lives.
However, if a completely new market were to be created, it would offer a new source of revenue for the city and state governments to tax. A hotly debated topic is allowing the legality of recreational marijuana use. The common argument is that since we as a society have already agreed to sell alcohol and tobacco to adults who are at least 21 years old, we can do the same with cannabis. The three very clear economic benefits to this are as follows: 1) States that have already done so report a large tax revenue, as the taxes that are implemented are paid at each step of the business process. The growers need a government-issued license as well as farmland; sellers need to pay a wholesale tax for stocking this item; and buyers need to pay city and state sales taxes. On top of this, since marijuana is not a necessity, governments can get away with placing a “special tax” on just this one item, to make a little extra money from this product that used to be illegal. It operates in much the way that states like Nevada levy a gambling tax. Colorado’s special sales tax on marijuana is 10%, and Denver’s is 3.5%, according to Colorado’s Department of Revenue.[17]
This type of reform would divert the money wasted on keeping people jailed. There have been efforts by Mayor Bill de Blasio to reduce arrests for possession when he announced, with Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, that having 25 or less grams of marijuana will not lead to arrest. Instead it will be confiscated and the individual will be fined.[18] Locking up non-violent people to meet police quotas is an inefficiency that government can’t afford.
Legalizing marijuana would damage the black market for drugs, which avoids taxes. By bringing the market from an alleyway to a countertop, the city and state can pocket more money while reducing the needs for prisons.
Looking to other states once again, the annual tax revenue from marijuana sales in Washington in 2016 was $256 million, according to 502data.com. Proposition 64 (California’s legalization law) is expected to clear over a billion dollars in tax revenue.[19] New York’s population falls between the two, so a legalization effort would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. A percentage of these excise taxes can be funneled directly into improving the MTA.
Aside from these taxes, advertising revenue is often overlooked. Reinvigorating the advertising efforts will supplement the tax-based revenue increase. Almost 6 million people use MTA services on a daily basis. Recently the MTA upgraded some of the newer train cars with LCD panels that play safety messages on a loop. If every cart, station and bus was equipped with such a panel, 6 million people would instantly be accessible. A 30-second advertisement on TV ranges from $25,000 to $700,000.[20] There is a potential to raise much more money through advertising.
The MTA’s budget can also be improved by cutting costs (from luxurious employee benefits and MTA office spaces). Instead of accumulating interest, the MTA can begin pay off this debt that it has accrued over the years, all without placing added the burden on the millions of riders who use the service daily.
Conclusion
The MTA is in dire need of improvements so that it can continue to serve the large population it does. Changes are also necessary for the system to cater to New York City’s ever growing population. We are at a point in time where the transit system is plagued with overcrowding and major operation inefficiencies, and a solution to these problems is immediately required. We need to make sure train cars can hold as many people as possible, which can be a possibility with accordion style cars, allowing for people to get on and off as quickly as possible. Not only would this help move thousands of people on and off the cars quicker, but would also help with delays as subway cars can move from station to station faster. Along with improving basic inefficiencies, the MTA also needs to advance. We have one of the largest transit systems in the country, yet we are lagging behind other major systems in areas like new technologies that improve usage of the system, like adapting a smart card in lieu of the disposable MetroCard we have now.
There also major bureaucratic inefficiencies that need to be thoroughly examined and reformed. We can fund our transportation system with a gas and sales tax. Other places have used these sources of revenue to pay for their transportation system and it has been met with positive responses by the citizens of those cities. It is reasonable to expect the same response here in New York City where the MTA is so woven into the lives of millions of people. Whether it’s by changing advertising strategies, modifying existing taxes, or introducing recreational marijuana into the local economy, it seems foolish for us to not try and implement these measures that could potentially bring in large sums of money for the MTA.
All in all, there is much to be gained for the city’s future if the MTA can be reformed – but much to lose if it is not. With these possible solutions in mind, we as a team hope above all else to help generate a conversation and create a more reformed, efficient system that can better serve our community. The New York City subway system is one of the engineering treasures of the Western Hemisphere. It was essential for the city’s growth in the past and will be so in the future.
Bibliography
[1] Tara Grescoe, Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile (Toronto: HarperCollins, 2013).
[2] Alex Davies, “NYC’s Finally Trying a Subway Design That Cuts Crowding and Delays,” Wired, January 27, 2016.
[3] Dana Rubinstein, “Why is New York still stuck with the MetroCard?” Politico PRO, September 20, 2012.
[4] Rana Novini. “MTA Looks to Replace MetroCard With System Using ‘Contactless Media,’”NBC New York, April 13, 2016.
[5] Erin Durkin. “Andrew Cuomo announces $450M Plan to Build AirTrain Connecting LaGuardia Airport to the Subway,” New York Daily News, January 21, 2015.
[6] MTA Board Structure and Fiscal Policy. July 15, 2010. accessed May 2, 2017, from http://web.mta.info/mta/compliance/pdf/Description%20and%20Board%20Structure.pdf
[7] Otis, G. A. (2015, April 29). “MTA Is Losing Money and Headed to Financial Ruin,” April 29, 2015, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-losing-money-headed-financial-ruin-article-1.2202720
[8] Clifton Hood, 722 Miles: The Building of the Subways and How They Transformed New York (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 50-55.
[9] “United States” | Data. World Bank Group, May 14, 2015, http://data.worldbank.org/country/united-states
[10] Tom Phillips, “China Unveils ‘straddling Bus’ Design to Beat Traffic Jams,” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, May 26, 2016
[11]Mary Kay Linge, “New York Has Highest Gas Tax in Us,” New York Post, March 18, 2012.
[12] Lisa Rainwater, “Filling the Gap with A New Gas Tax,” Move NY, May 8, 2015.
[13] Carol Kellerman, “Funding the MTA Capital Plan: Avoiding a False Choice,” Huffington Post, July 31, 2015.
[14] “Why and How to Fund Public Transportation,” uspirgefund.org, March 2009
[15] “L.A. Needs A Great Public Transit System. Is a Permanent Sales Tax the Best Way to Do it?” Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2016.
[16] Steven Hymon, “LA Says “Yes” to Tax Increase for Transportation,” SPCR, November 9, 2016; Alex Davies, “NYC’s Finally Trying a Subway Design That Cuts Crowding and Delays,” Wired.com, January 27, 2016; Dana Rubinstein, “Why Is New York Still Stuck with the MetroCard?” Politico.com, September 20, 2012; Rana Novini, “MTA Looks to Replace MetroCard With System Using ‘Contactless Media,’” NBC New York, April 13, 2016.
[17] Brandon Rittiman, “Where does all that Colorado pot tax go?” KUSA, August 17, 2016. http://www.9news.com/news/where-does-all-that-colorado-pot-tax-go/298554132.
[18] Joseph Goldstein, “Marijuana May Mean Ticket, Not Arrest, in New York City,” New York Times, November 9, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/nyregion/in-shift-police-dept-to-stop-low-level-marijuana-arrests-officials-say.html.
[19] Aaron Smith, “Legalized marijuana votes: Tax jackpot or pipe dream?” CNNMoney, November 8, 2016, http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/07/news/economy/california-marijuana-tax/.
[20] “Introduction to Subway Ridership.” Mta.info | Facts and Figures, http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/.
Bibliography
Davies, Alex. “NYC’s Finally Trying a Subway Design That Cuts Crowding and Delays.” (Wired), January 27, 2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/01/nycs-finally-trying-a-subway-design-that-cuts-crowding-and-delays/
Durkin, Erin. “HIGH HOPES Andy seeks train to LaGuardia.” Daily News (New York), January 21, 2015. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cuomo-announces-plan-building-airtrain-laguardia-airport-article-1.2085807
Fitzsimmons, Emma G. “What’s Next for the New York Subway? Toronto Already Knows,” New York Times,August 23, 2016, A18. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/nyregion/new-york-subway-cars-toronto.html?_r=0
Goldstein, Joseph. “Marijuana May Mean Ticket, Not Arrest, in New York City.” New York Times. November 9, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/nyregion/in-shift-police-dept-to-stop-low-level-marijuana-arrests-officials-say.html
Grescoe, Taras. Straphanger: Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.
Kellerman, Carol. “Funding the MTA Capital Plan: Avoiding a False Choice,” Huffington Post, July 31, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-kellermann/funding-the-mta-capital-p_b_7903900.html
Linge, Mary Kay. “New York Has Highest Gas Tax in Us,” New York Post, March 18, 2012. http://nypost.com/2012/03/18/new-york-has-highest-gas-tax-in-us/
Novini, Rana. “MTA Looks to Replace MetroCard With System Using ‘Contactless Media’. NBC New York. April 13, 2016. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-MTA-to-Replace-MetroCard-New-Contactless-Media-Fare-System–375504081.html
Rainwater, Lisa. “Filling the Gap with A New Gas Tax,” Move NY, May 8, 2015. https://movenewyork.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/filling-the-gap-with-a-new-gas-tax/
Rubinstein, Dana. “Why is New York still stuck with the MetroCard?” Politico PRO, September 20, 2012. http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2012/09/why-is-new-york-still-stuck-with-the-metrocard-000000
Smith, Aaron. “Legalized Marijuana Votes: Tax Jackpot or Pipe Dream?” CNNMoney. November 8, 2016. http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/07/news/economy/california-marijuana-tax/
