Imagine Alan Mullaly, Rick Wagoner and Bob Nardelli, CEOs of the "Big Three" automakers, cooly telling the Senate finance committee that unless congress subsidizes them, they'll be forced to raise prices by 50% on every make and model of car sold in the United States. Now imagine they're the only car makers from whom you can buy.
Congratulations - you're now one step closer to understanding the situation New Yorkers face with the MTA.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the arranged marriage of many formerly independent rail and bus lines around the New York metro area (circa 1968) holds its first hearing this evening on a proposed new "fare hike" to cover - ghasp - yawning budget shortfalls. It's an old story to New Yorkers, who turn out en masse every few years to attend the dog-and-pony shows laughably called "hearings", broach their concerns vigorously, then watch the fare hike pass anyway.
But we New York straphangers (and perhaps Chicagoans) are in the unique position to understand just why it makes us so mad. You see, service on the MTA is perched on the precipice between viable alternative to driving your car and complete joke. For the last three weeks I've been keeping a tally, and literally five out of eight rides at various times on the MTA are interrupted by some kind of service disruption. Five out of ten cause a meaningful delay (as in, enough to make you late when you would have arrived early). I won't go into great detail, but evidence of the MTA's neglect of basic tenets of good service abound - from 3-year-old trains that routinely "stall", to construction projects that drag on for months, interrupt service and achieve no meaningful improvement, to inadequate and inconsistent notification about service changes and delays. It's clear that the company suffers from top-down mismanagement, morale problems, and sheer incompetence.
And why shouldn't they? They have every incentive to be that way.
You see, the MTA is a private corporation, with a monopoly, subsidized by taxpayer monies. In English that means they're cloistered enough that we don't have any oversight or influence into the way the organization is run, yet they take our money. And we don't have any alternatives.
Either of the logical alternatives - a group of private companies competing with one-another (though I'm not sure how that would work) or a fully government-run company - would be volumes better. Government-run railroads like those in Japan and Taiwan answer to the taxpayers. If they want to raise fares, citizens can ask questions like, "what have you done to reduce your dependence on fares as a revenue stream," or "what are your plans to improve service," or even, "where will each and every cent of extra revenue go" and reasonably expect answers. If they want to get rid of the management, they can.
Private corporations in a free market, of course, have to compete for customers. That's why GM, Ford, and Chrysler can't just arbitrarily raise prices on cars. Let them try - it would be suicide. Imagine if the MTA had to compete with other organizations to run the city's subways and bus lines. Say another organization could put them out of business by cutting costs in smart ways (say, better management, smarter hires and more efficient allocation). Damn that feels good to picture. (Again, you really have to endure a 45-minute delay on the 6 train to understand.)
Of course, its next-to-impossible to imagine how to introduce competition on a closed-system. Like it or not, there is only one set of tracks. The next best thing is probably for the local government to buy a controlling interest in the MTA and force the changes it needs. But the MTA has no reason to accept such intervention as long as it can raise fares whenever it feels like it.
In short, there appears to be no easy solution for the MTA. Maybe there's a "breaking point" with the fare hikes beyond which it faces diminishing financial returns as riders find alternatives. (That's probably wishful thinking.) Maybe a cheap, compact electric "citycar" or some other such new technology would introduce sufficient competition to induce the TA to clean up its act.
For the time being, however, we're stuck enduring fare hike after fare hike, even as laughable-at-best service continues to decline. One small bit of advice: don't go to Europe or Asia and ride their subways - unless you want to be mad upon your return to New York.


Salon.com
Comments
Anyway, about the European models ... some of them aren't all they're cracked up to be. BritRail the last time I was on it was a slovenly disaster (although I admit I was comparing it to the Toronto and Vancouver systems).
And I think there's a urban economics theory (well, economics is all theory, really) that suggests to increase revenue you have to decrease fares, therefore making it more attractive to more riders and ... well, you get the point.
But you know, it all sounded eerily familiar. Hmmmm. A mass transit system called the MTA. Unfair fare increases. Shoddy service ... Whereinhell's the Kingston Trio when you need them?
So imaging my surprise to find grafitti-free, more modern air conditioned cars, that appeared to be in reasonable shape. I was in sticker shocked at the fare(35 cents was a long time ago), but fares not that much different from Boston or other NE city transit systems. I also ride Metro-North every day as well.
I think you are right for the most part there's not much different between the bureaucrats who ran the MTAin the 60s. They came up with a different logo than the old "M", so what?
I remember Robert Abrams proposal to make the Subway free, through a payroll tax in 1973. You have to shift the paradigm from considering the mass transit system to be self sustaining to a different model for raising revenue.
It's time to scrap the Public Authority model with something that makes both management and labor more accountable. I've no expertise in public administration, but breaking something really large and unmanagable into smaller parts seems like a reasonable solution.
That's pretty much how I feel about SEPTA, Philadelphia's regional transit system.
Right now, I'm just ending a 3-month hiatus from using it, due to poor health, and the lack of enough stamina to deal with the hassles. But next month, I'm planning to cobble together some combination of carpooling in the morning, and maybe taking the train home in the evening.
I am frankly surprised Bloomberg didn't take this on. He's taken everything else on. There should be solutions, but it's a big ass mess and all underground, so it will take time.
By the way, how IS the Second Ave. building going on? Is the Lex still impossibly overcrowded??? (I'm sure it is)
And don't forget, there's federal funding involved. They just need to tie this to the new administration's version of a Works Project and it'll get done!
I'm also ready to say we need some Bloombergian strong-arming. Maybe they'll be brought to their knees by the economic crisis and have to accept oversight. One can hope...
slashed the cost of travel.
Patronage increased by a stagering 22%.
I live in Tokyo right now and the trains here are amazing. We rode the subway the other day and I was just struck (again) by how clean and nice the upholstered seats were. I'm from the SF Bay Area and once upon a time BART (our sorta-kinda subway system) was clean and well-maintained. The last time I rode BART it was very degraded from what I remember when it was new.
The Japanese government owned train system was actually privatized a few years back. They seem to have managed to keep their standards up. In our neighborhood service is provided by a "private line" that has always been run by a private corporation. The service is excellent as are all of the trains/subways in Tokyo. Trains are almost never late - and by late I mean more than 1 minute off the schedule.
Tokyo is continuing to invest in new subways and train lines. The train line that goes through our neighborhood is being rerouted to connect onto the end of a new subway that is being constructed. The terminal station is being moved and about half a mile of track is being converted from above ground to subway. I've seen this done before here and based on past experience all of this work will be done with ZERO interruption or degradation of service.
There's many things I can find fault with in Japan but the train system is not one of them. The US could learn a lot from how they build/run/maintain the system here.
Contrary to what natesmither124 wrote, the MTA is NOT NOT NOT "a private corporation." It is not comparable to GM, Ford or Chrysler, either.
MTA is a public entity. Technically it is a public benefit corporation. There are no shareholders who get dividends or profits. There is no stock that trades.
In contrast, GM and Ford are private corporations with publicly traded stock and Chrysler is a private corporation owned by its investors, but that does not trade publicly.
There is no reason to regulate it as a utility, some of which (ConEd) are private corporations whose rates of return are set by a government regulatory board because it is legally a monopoly.
This is not to dispute that MTA has problems aplenty, but getting the basic facts wrong only confuses people and detracts from understanding. That the Salon.com editors made this an editor's pick makes me wonder about their competence since these errors are high school level
All the same I look forward to an enlightening column from you on the subject, which I trust will be well above high school level;)