Kids Pay for MTA Shortfall, in More Ways Than One

I can't read about the MTA budget crisis (no more free students passes, service cuts, etc.) without feeling violently ill, but Daily News writer Michael Daly managed to say what I would have liked to say without turning blue or shouting obscenities.

Daly points out how Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon Silver has screwed over school kids and other transit riders by letting congestion pricing die last year.

Welcome to Shelly World, where school kids pay full fare on the subway, but motorists pay nothing to cross bridges and even park for free if they want to shop in his 'hood....The income from placing tolls on the East River crossings would have covered much if not all of the MTA's $383 million budget shortfall. Just the three untolled bridges serving Silver's Lower Manhattan district would have generated more than enough to keep school kids riding the subway for free as they have since 1948.

Subway fares aren't the only toll on kids. The New York City Health Department has just published an air quality study that shows how traffic congestion is poisoning the air. Area of the city that have higher levels of traffic have "higher levels of particulates (27 percent greater), elemental carbon (45 percent greater), and nitrogen dioxide (37 percent greater) than those in areas with less traffic." [Streetsblog]

Eliminating the free fares for students (particularly when coupled with the service cutbacks) could even make the air quality problem worse: anything that makes public transit more expensive and less safe and convenient is likely to encourage more driving.

Comments

[Carmen]

If they are truly going to get rid of the free student Metrocards, then I think we should all be prepared for the very real possibility of thousands of kids no longer attending school. Had this happened when I was in High School, my mom would not have been able to afford to send me to school. Shame on the MTA!

[Bob Marvin]

I think (or, at least, hope) that this is just a ploy to get the City to kick in money for students' Metrocards. When you think about it, it doesn't make much sense for the transit system to foot the bill for transporting kids to school. Of course I DON'T think that students, or families, of public school kids should be made to bear this expense--it should be part of the school budget.

[Pete]

Bob is right on the money. The NYC Dept of Ed is required by law to provide transportation for students to their schools. The student passes are provided to fulfill that mandate. Originally the city and state paid the MTA most of the money. Somewhere along the way they decided the MTA could just pay for it. It was never supposed to be something the MTA paid for. It's doubtful the passes will be pulled because then the city is going to have to transport the students anyway.

I can't believe I am defending the MTA. And yes, the fact students and parents have to be put through this political fight is stomach wrenching.

[brn442]

Yes - congestion pricing was defeated by indecisive, spineless fools in Albany - but at the time rightfully so.

It's always easy for a Hipster in W/Burg or someone writing on a PLG blog, both of whom have access to a short subway ride to the city, to support Bloomberg's flawed plan but for those living in the likes of Canarsie, Flatlands, Marine Park may beg to differ.

And as Bob rightfully said, the MTA shouldn't be subsidizing transportation for school kids, that's up to the city and state. Credit to the MTA for calling the politicians' bluff.

[carrie]

Of New Yorkers who travel to the Central Business District every day for work, only 4.6% drive cars there. And of those 4.6%, 80% live near mass transit comparable in time to driving.* So we're talking about a very small percentage who would have had a harder time to getting to work. But the price they would have paid -- $8 -- is a bargain considering that the rest of us, who don't pollute the air when we go to work, have to pay $4.50 regardless.

[* Transportation Alternatives, "Forgotten Majority" report]

[brn442]

For the record - I don't own a car. Carrie - Your stats are flawed as I'm sure it includes Manhattanites.

I'm not against congestion pricing per se but the Mayor's plan was flawed.

It placed an unfair burden on the outer boros with no guarantee that the revenue would be spent on improving mass transit for Brooklynites.

[Pete]

I support congestion pricing but I have a difficult time trusting Mayor Bloomberg. Most of his plans are for his own glorification and the details are usually not well thought out. He's more in love with the idea of certain things than the actual realities...

[carrie]

BRN442: Perhaps you're thinking of the plan to toll the bridges. That wasn't Bloomberg's plan. Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan charged $8 for driving through Manhattan's Central Business District during the workweek hours. I can't see how that places a burden on the outer boroughs. People in Manhattan would have had to pay for driving into the CBD as well.

As for your claim that there was "no guarantee that the revenue would be spent on improving mass transit for Brooklynites" - that's just wrong. The money raised from congestion pricing (including $500 million of federal funds that we would have received for implementing it but turned down) was targeted specifically for bus transit in NYC, which certainly would have included Brooklyn.

Lastly, the fact that the stats I cited included Manhattanites doesn't diminish the point: very, very few New Yorkers who drive into the Central Business District during the work don't have easy access to public transit.

[brn442]

Carrie, common sense would tell you that the Mayor's scheme would've placed an unfair burden on drivers that live outside of Manhattan. Virtually all Manhattanites live relatively close to mass transit so it wouldn't have been much of a sacrifice - for them to give up driving "in".

I initially supported the Mayor's plan and I was outraged when Mr. Silver et al in Albany killed the plan and the Federal money that came with it.

But the more I thought about it, the more I saw that there was NO GUARANTEE that money would've been spent to vastly improve transit in the outer boros beyond the residual.

It wouldn't have surprised me if the funds were more likely to be used to finish the 2nd ave line or to plug the MTA's perpetual "deficits/budget shortfalls."
Just look at what Albany did with the stimulus.

[Pete]

I think Carrie has the big win here on knowledge of this plan. But as much as Brn442 treads heavily, she has a point. I don't know if she is right about what they did or did not promise, but she is certainly right that as soon as they got their hands on the money it's pretty unlikely they'd do what they said. How could they? The city is broke.

[carrie]

The $500 million in federal funds was only offered on the condition that it would go to bus transit. It could not have been spent on the 2nd Avenue line (or ANY subway line). It would, however, have freed up parts of the MTA budget so that more money could have been available for the subway. And it could have even helped avert the recent fare hike.

So I'm not sure what to say at this point. One can't really argue against conspiracy theories.

[Pete]

I don't think this has anything to do with conspiracy theories. For example, not one thing the administration has promised about Atlantic Yards has come true. Did Bloomberg (et al.) lie? Yeah, pretty much they did. The Empire State Development Corporation agreed to build AY with Bruce Ratner before finding a determination of blight. Did they intend to find blight so they could make the deal? Yes. Is that a conspiracy theory? I don't know. Does stuff like that happen? Yeah. In, fact the AY opponents are giddy with glee right now because the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court stopped Columbia University from using eminent domain and very specifically stated:

"The process employed by ESDC predetermined the unconstitutional outcome."

In other words, they are pretty much accusing the ESDC of a conspiracy to allow Columbia University to use eminent domain to expand. Actually, it's not an even an accusation. That's their ruling.

From the Times: "The majority opinion was scathing in its appraisal of how the “scheme was hatched,” using terms like “sophistry” and “idiocy” in describing how the state went about declaring the neighborhood blighted, the main prerequisite for eminent domain.

I don't think the congestion plan is corrupt (in fact I think it is mostly with good intentions) but there are definitely political realities particularly with the current administration.

[brn442]

For the record Pete I am a he. Thanks for your points.
Carrie, Yes I understand your point on the specific purpose of the money for Bus transit – fair enough - How can you guarantee Brooklyn (and the other outer boros) would get their fair share? With a Manhattan-centric emperor, [sic] Mayor about to serve another (undeserved) 4 years, no thanks. The difference is: you trust the man, I don't.

Congestion pricing if done “fairly” and planned properly can be a good thing. In this case, it was all about the man’s ego – a trophy he can hold up to his European Mayor buddies.

As Pete rightfully says; this is not about conspiracy theories, it's about the man's record - he has proven he could care less about issues specific to the outer boros. Supporting the MTA selling the Atlantic/West Side rail yards to private developers for less than half their market value. Allowing genius consultants to change the school bus routes in the dead of winter. The A/C train signal fire a couple years back - a potentially major disaster for Brooklyn mass transit - the man didn't even bother to comment/show up. I could go on and on. Maybe he doesn't mean it but his hubris says differently.