|
|
|||||||||
Home / News / Press Releases
/ Testimony
/ Legislation
/ On the Issues
/ Newsletter
/ Resources /
|
|||||||||
|
|
Testimony Of State Senator Liz
Krueger
Before The
MTA Regarding The Proposed Fare Increase, Service Cuts,
And Token Booth Closings February 5, 2003
My name is Liz
Krueger, and I am the State Senator for the 26th District on the
East Side of Manhattan. I am testifying today to express my grave concern
over two overlapping measures the MTA has publicly proposed—a fare hike with
cuts in service, and the closure of 177 token booths. The last decade has represented a remarkable
turnaround in transportation trends, as ridership on subways and buses have
risen dramatically. The MTA focused on enhancing service reliability and
personal safety, spending public investments on new subway cars and buses,
track replacement and station renovations. New Yorkers responded by embracing
public transportation, with subway ridership increasing 34% and bus ridership
increasing 27% in the 1990s. This development has been wonderful for the
economy, environment, and quality of life for all New Yorkers. I fear that
with a fare hike and the closure of 24% of its token booths, the MTA is on
the verge of enacting two counterproductive measures that would significantly
set back public transportation. It is clear that the MTA has not been able to
accommodate the unprecedented influx of riders, as the amount of service has
not increased at the same rate as ridership. For this reason, more than ever,
New Yorkers desperately need a Second Avenue subway, an increase in the
frequency of service, and a more efficient bus system. Instead, the MTA is
presenting the riding public with a "pay more for less service and
safety" scenario that will do tremendous damage to New York City. It is understandable that residents of New York
City are resistant to a fare hike. The MTA calls on city subway and bus
riders to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of public transportation
compared to non-city riders. New York City accounts for 84% of all state
riders moved by some form of mass transit, New York City buses and subways
receive only 63% of state transit aid. The MTA must do everything possible to
provide an affordable means for workers and visitors to get around. For this
reason, New Yorkers need to understand to what degree a fare increase is
necessary to solve the MTA’s fiscal problems. Unfortunately, because of
legitimate and unanswered questions regarding the operation, management, and
accountability of MTA-NYCT, the MTA has failed to make a convincing case for
a fare hike. The inquiries into the MTA’s finances are
justified for many reasons. Until late last year, the MTA was projecting a
large surplus, and one-shot cash infusions provided by the State were
intended to ensure that growing debt would not result in a fare increase. A
report prepared by the TWU, with the use of NYCT statistics, states that
ridership has surged from 1.7 billion to 2.3 billion in the last seven years,
while the MTA’s operating costs have decreased by $43 million as of September
2002. In addition, the Independent Budget Office reported that the total
budget shortfall over the next two years is actually $951 million, rather
than the $2.8 billion announced by the MTA. Earlier this week, the MTA again
revised its projected deficit downward. Transit advocacy groups and elected officials
have called upon the MTA to shed light on its finances and share with the
public data that demonstrates the agency’s projected budget deficit. However,
as expressed by both Comptroller Thompson and the IBO, the MTA has ultimately
failed to provide adequate details and appropriate disclosure to allow for
true public debate. I have cosponsored a bill in the State Senate, introduced
by Senate Democratic Leader David Paterson, that would require better
reporting of financial data by the MTA. While we are aware of the MTA’s
explanation for their budget gap, the lack of transparency and disclosure
makes it impossible for the public to conduct an adequate evaluation of the
need for a fare hike. I am also discouraged that MTA officials
repeatedly insist that they have "limited tools" in addressing
their deficit; specifically referring to service reductions and a fare
increase. The MTA is seemingly ignoring alternative proposals such as Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT). BRT is a program proposed by TWU and bolstered by a
report prepared by Schaller Consulting, that would enhance the speed and
reliability of bus transportation while saving the MTA up to $300 million per
year. Similar systems have been successfully implemented in cities across the
world. Since the MTA’s own surveys convey that New York City’s bus service
has remained slow and crowded, I am surprised that the MTA has not taken this
cost-saving proposal more seriously. In addition, the MTA relies on outside
contractors for the ongoing rebuilding and replacement of MTA facilities and
infrastructure. It has been demonstrated that these contractors often cost
more money, take longer, and do poorer quality work than NYC Transit
employees. I hope the MTA will reconsider its contracting policies and allow
more work to be completed in-house. The MTA must closely examine alternative
proposals that would potentially benefit both riders and the TA’s fiscal
situation. Finally, I am perhaps most disturbed by the MTA’s
plan to close 177 subway token booths. According to Lawrence Reuter, the
decision is justified by the transition to the MetroCard, which has
effectively reduced reliance on token booths as the primary means of
purchasing fare instruments. The MTA fails to recognize both that New Yorkers
don’t simply want token booths in order to buy tokens, and that the men and
women who collect fares are essential to rider safety and convenience. As I
mentioned previously, increased passenger safety has been one of the primary
reasons for the recent success of the MTA in attracting more riders. The
elimination of 24% of its token booths will make unstaffed entrances far more
dangerous. Station agents assigned to booths are a lifeline for passengers in
distress. Not only are they an important deterrent to crime, but they provide
reliable emergency communication. Every year, station agents activate their
"emergency booth communication system" more than 60,000 times, obtaining
police or emergency medical technicians. In addition, a large portion of the riding public
is unable to use the High Entry/Exit Turnstiles that the MTA wants to replace
station agents with. This is a critical problem, as fare booth operators help
customers with limited mobility, vision, or other disabilities, not to
mention people with strollers and large packages. The elimination of these
token booths would represent a step backward in the long fight to make
subways more accessible to people with disabilities. Station agents also
provide us with directions, tell us how serious a delay may be, and dispense
"block tickets," which allow riders to re-enter the system if there
is a major delay or system blockage. It is evident that the MTA has not carefully
thought through their proposals. Some of the booths the MTA wishes to close
lie across busy thoroughfares, and are sometimes two or three blocks away
from the closest open booth at the same station. In addition, it is my
understanding that if token booths were eliminated, MTA is planning on
transforming token booth clerks into roaming station agents. Assigning
station agents to stations without booths puts the station agent in danger,
and is a disservice to the riding public as well. The station agents will be difficult
to locate, defenseless against a crime, and ill equipped to respond to an
emergency. In conclusion, I want to reiterate that this
proposed fare hike constitutes a regressive tax on working New Yorkers. By
avoiding the options of personal and corporate income tax increases, Governor
Pataki is shifting the burden of closing the State’s budget gap to the New
Yorkers who can least afford it—an increase in subway and bus fares is just
one appalling example. In the event of a fare increase, or in any event for
that matter, the MTA must restructure its fare packages to make fare
discounts more accessible to low-income riders. The current discounts are
fundamentally inequitable, as they are only affordable to, and primarily
purchased by, middle and upper-income riders. The MTA should explore
unlimited ride passes that could be used on nonconsecutive days, offer
bi-weekly unlimited ride passes, and other proposals that promote a more
equitable fare structure. This is a critical moment for the future of mass
transit in New York City. Through capital investments, the MTA has
effectively focused on the reliability, convenience and safety of the transit
system, achieving results and setting itself on a positive trajectory.
Service cuts, token booth closures, and a fare hike are a formula for
disaster, and the direct economic and environmental consequences are
daunting. The decisions we make now will determine if our mass transit system
continues to move forward and meet the needs of New Yorkers, or if it regresses
and again becomes perceived as a dangerous and unreliable mode of
transportation. |
|||||||
