The ruling by a State Supreme Court judge on May 14 that the Metropolitan Transportation must roll back its first fare increase in eight years represented a surprising turn of events. State Controller Alan Hevesi, whose report charged that the MTA misrepresented its finances, called the ruling "a great victory."
The public reaction, on the other hand, was to keep the champagne corked. The Daily News quoted Jessica Alexander, getting off the F train in Queens, saying "That's nice for now, but I'm sure the fare will go back up again before we know it." Another rider quoted in the Times commented, "I don't see how they can go back on what they've already decided. That's politics."
Not only politics but also the law. The MTA immediately appealed the ruling, halting, at least for now, the fare rollback. As the public has figured out, Judge Louis B. York's ruling is highly unlikely to result in a permanent rollback to the old $1.50 base fare. Even if the MTA were forced to go back to the old fare, the agency could hold new public hearings and re-institute the $2.00 fare. The ruling itself could be overturned on appeal in the next several weeks.
So what does this ruling mean? Is there any reason for transit riders to celebrate?
ACCURATE INFORMATION
In an article for Gotham Gazette, Gene Russianoff, the senior attorney for the Straphangers Campaign, which brought the lawsuit, says he hopes the decision forces sweeping changes in the way the MTA reports its finances.
Thus, the court case is less about a rollback in the fare than making the MTA play fair and square. It is about the integrity of the public hearing process. Judge York called the $2.8 billion budget deficit figure in the MTA's notice for the public hearings on the fare increase a fictitious gap that "had a chilling effect on the public, discouraging an open and complete discussion of the proposals and foreclosing the presentation of creative alternatives." The judge concluded that the MTA's hearings were based on the false and misleading premise that the MTA was in worse financial condition than it knew itself to be."
Without accurate information, the public could not meaningfully comment on a proposed fare increase. As the judge noted(in pdf format), although the MTA has the legal authority to raise the fare as it sees fit, this power is subject to certain safeguards that include a fair and open hearing.
In sum, the court ruling affirms that accurate information plays a vital role in maintaining public confidence in public authorities. This may seem obvious to many but it was not obvious to the MTA, which argued in court that it had no obligation to share financial information with the public.
But would an honest process make any difference? Are many riders correct in assuming that the fare would go up whether or not the public had accurate information about the MTA's finances? And even if the MTA is not financially strapped in 2003, won't it need a fare increase next year?
There is much reason to be skeptical about the public hearing process for the MTA or any other agency. The most insightful and influential public comment is often made not at hearings but in news articles, editorials and op-ed pieces. Hearings can become an exercise in the mutual infliction of pain: you'll raise our fare, but you'll have to suffer through listening to me before you do.
Just as there is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol, there are good and bad public hearing processes. Designing an effective public participation process, satisfactory to all interested parties, is no easy task.
One key is accurate information, distributed early in the process. The lack of accurate financial information was obviously the focus of the suit against the MTA.
CLEAR PROPOSALS
But good information is not the only requirement. Guidebooks published by the Environmental Protection Agency, the California Public Utilities Commission and a commentaryby the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, stress the need for informal meetings conducive to open discussion as well as formal public hearings. Also important is the transparency of the process, direct involvement by key decision-makers and responses to comments. Federal agencies must respond in writing to each comment submitted during a formal rulemaking process.
The MTA's recent proposalsto publish more extensive financial information and provide more time for public comment and input from elected officials are welcome steps toward a more transparent budget process.
Interestingly, the city has much more stringent procedures than those the MTA followed for this year's fare increase. The City Charter requires that before adopting a new regulation, such as an increase in the taxi fare, the department involved must state what exactly it proposes to adopt and what the purpose of the regulation is.
This year, the MTA never put a specific proposal before the public. Instead, it published a series of options with different fare structures that would raise different amounts of revenue. These options provided a good starting place. But the MTA did not publish a final proposal and so it was never clear which fare option the public should focus on.
The public and the agency need to have good information and clear proposals or options to begin a dialogue. And both parties need to be willing to listen as well as talk.
This is where the governor becomes critical. Although the exact relationship between the MTA and Governor George Pataki is often murky, it is generally assumed that the MTA only does what the governor wants it to do, at least on major issues. How can the MTA engage in a worthwhile public hearing process if it has one ear cocked in the governor's direction?
THE PUBLIC MATTERS
Public participation is important in shaping the actions of public authorities. It can generate a wider range of options and a deeper understanding of the issues for both government officials and public participants.
Hearings can foster meaningful dialogue between government agencies and interested parties. One needs only to think about how public comments on the early designs for the World Trade Center site caused the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the Port Authority to revamp their plans. Even the MTA sharply cut back its plans for to close token booths based on public comment.
In my own experience with hearings on taxicab regulations (including the fare), public hearings acted as a vetting or testing process. The agency must have reasonable answers to the issues raised by interested parties. Did we think of everything? Is there another idea that we should consider?
Having to lay out your plans before smart people who have different interests and perspectives makes you think through an issue more carefully. This was shown in the discussions over the plans for the World Trade Center site.
More broadly, the hearing process drives home the idea to public employees that they work for the public and that the information they deal with should be part of the public debate.
So the short answer to the skeptics' questions are, yes, Virginia, this fare increase is here to stay. At most, there will be a temporary reprieve -- and don't count on even that.
Even so, Judge York's ruling is an important step toward creating meaningful public debate and dialog on the fare and other issues facing the MTA. Whether sustained or overturned on appeal, the judge's decision further bolsters the movement to hold the MTA accountable and supports those within the MTA who want to open up the authority's books and open up the process.
Bruce Schaller is Principal of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis to government, business and non-profit groups seeking to identify and meet customer needs in the transportation sector. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.
![]() |
When the Straphangers Campaign joined riders, workers and elected officials to sue the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, we thought we had a good chance of winning a finding that the MTA had misled the public. But we didn't know if the court would order a rollback of the $2 fare.
But on May 14 Manhattan State Supreme Court Justice Louis York ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to roll back the fare increases on city subways and buses, the Long Island Rail Road, MetroNorth and Long Island Bus by May 28 and to hold a new round of public hearings. The judge also halted the closing of 62 subway station booths.
My reaction is simple and like that of virtually all riders: Hallelujah!
Even though the order is now on hold as the MTA appeals it, the May 14 decision is a victory for truth in government. [See related story on the MTA hearing process.]
The Straphangers Campaign, New York State Senate Minority Leader David A. Paterson and several transit riders filed the suit last month, after State Comptroller Alan Hevesi and City Comptroller William Thompson found that the MTA had misled the public about the state of the authority's finances. Transport Workers Union Local 100 President Roger Toussaint has also intervened on the side of the plaintiffs.
We argued that the authority violated the law when it voted to raise the fare on March 6 because it did not follow the required process. Under the law, public hearings must be held before the MTA can approve any fare hike. But at the hearings in February, the MTA deliberately deceived the public about the state of its finances. For example, the MTA's posters announcing the hearings all said that the authority was facing a $2.8 billion budget gap in the next two years.
That is simply not true. According to Hevesi's affidavit in the suit, the MTA, moved resources off budget and from one year to another. That had the effect of grossly reducing the projected size of the 2002 surplus from $537.1 million to $24.6 million. Concealing this money bolstered the MTA's claim that it faced huge deficits. Without these actions, the MTA's surplus in 2003 would have been $83 million, according to Hevesi. These deceptions on the part of the MTA made a sham of the hearings.
The comptrollers also said the MTA hid its financial gyrations from the public. Astoundingly, the main argument of the lawyers for the MTA was that the MTA has no legal obligation to disclose financial information to the public.
In his ruling, Judge York roundly rejected this contention. "The right to a public hearing and to public scrutiny are based on the principle of fundamental fairness, which is required of all government agencies . . . when dealing with citizens of the state or their affairs."
In addition to the controversy over finances, serious questions have been raised about the independence and vigor of the MTA inspector general. On May 14, the authority fired two security officials saying they had falsified information. The two have charged the agency with corruption and graft.
The MTA faces its worst crisis of public confidence in its 35-year history. Whatever the fate of the $2 fare, the decision should force sweeping changes in the way the MTA reports its finances.
The very day of York's ruling, the authority announced changes that it said would better inform the public about its finances. Among the modest reforms, the MTA says it will give the public more time to comment on its proposed budgets, issue a four-year plan that it will revise three times a year, and provide more financial information on its web site. Katherine N. Lapp, the executive director, said the changes were not a response to the many recent criticisms of the MTA.
The state legislature is considering a range of reforms, including an Independent Budget Office for the MTA, a computerized registry for MTA contracts and more independence and clout for the MTA inspector general. Many of the most important changes are in a bill sponsored by Assemblymember Richard Brodsky. The legislature should act on these ideas.
Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the state legislature and the MTA need to take immediate action to restore the MTA's credibility. Pataki should appoint an independent blue ribbon panel -- known under state law as a "Moreland Act" commission -- with subpoena power to investigate the MTA's budgeting and finances, as well charges of corruption in the agency's contracting. Bloomberg should use the city's considerable resources to audit the MTA's finances and to call off his proposal to slash city payments to the MTA.
We won our lawsuit because the MTA misled the public about its finances and made a sham of public hearings. If the MTA learns from its mistakes, the actions could usher in a new era of open government at the transportation agency.
Gene Russianoff is senior attorney with NYPIRG/Straphangers Campaign.
A conceptual view of how the MTA is planning for the new Fulton Street Transit Center at the corner of Broadway to look. |
Rush hour in New York, 2015: At the World Trade Center Transportation Hub, a commuter gets off the PATH train from Jersey City and walks two blocks to his office in the 1776-foot-tall tower on Fulton Street. At the nearby Fulton Street Transit Center -- airy, brightly lit, and easy to navigate -- a downtown resident takes the #2 subway train uptown to her job in Times Square. At the same time, a family from Japan gets off their flight at John F. Kennedy Airport and boards a train that goes directly to the 9/11 memorial on the former site of the old World Trade Center. And a Wall Street executive from Greenwich arrives on time to work via the Second Avenue subway, using an easy connection at Grand Central Terminal.
Those who currently live and work in lower Manhattan could easily see this scenario as science fiction.
Today, downtown subway stations are archaic and uninviting. The streets seem to be a perpetual construction zone. Added security and barriers, such as at the New York Stock Exchange on Broad Street, create a war zone atmosphere. West Street remains a barrier to the World Financial Center and Battery Park City. Connections among subway lines are confusing or non-existent.
The tragedy in lower Manhattan highlighted the inherent weaknesses in the transportation system serving it, particularly in contrast to Midtown. With no direct commuter rail access from New Jersey, Long Island or Westchester (Midtown has direct access from all three), lower Manhattan has been at a competitive disadvantage to attract businesses for several decades.
Rebuilding lower Manhattan after September 11 has meant not only restoring the transportation that was damaged during the attacks, but improving many parts of the transportation system downtown.
In October 2002, Governor George Pataki submitted a request for funding for lower Manhattan transportation projects to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Transit Administration. Early this year, they agreed to together provide $4.55 billion. The approved projects include a transit hub at the World Trade Center site, with underground connections to a new subway complex called the Fulton Street Transit Center. Pataki’s list also includes the rebuilding of the dysfunctional South Ferry 1/9 subway station and improvements to lower Manhattan streets and public places. In addition, the governor has called for tunneling part of West Street and a further study of how best to connect lower Manhattan to the airports.
World Trade Center Transportation Hub
The World Trade Center Transportation Hub involves the construction of a temporary and then a permanent PATH station, with pedestrian connections to the E train station, the existing N/R station, and entirely reconstructed 1/9 station. An underground walkway under Dey Street will link the hub to the Fulton Transit Center, which will incorporate four subway stations and nine subway lines. It will have another walkway under West Street that connects to Battery Park City. The cost of the project is estimated at between $1.7 and $2 billion, and it will be completed in phases by early 2009.
One controversial element about the hub, which has still not been resolved, is how much retail space will be built underground in the hub’s passageways. While retail developers are anxious to build as many stores underground as possible to attract business from commuters walking through the station each day, building too many stores underground would create a mall that could sap the life from the surrounding streets. To build a vibrant neighborhood in lower Manhattan, as much retail space as possible should be built at street level.
Another issue is the possibility of including a terminal under the World Trade Center site to house tourist buses. The city and local residents say the bus terminal would keep foul-smelling buses from lining up on crowded local streets, but many family members of those lost on 9/11 are offended by the thought of buses stored where their loved ones died. While some bus parking, especially for school buses, may be necessary, it can be kept to a minimum by encouraging tourists who visit the 9/11 memorial to use ferries and subways.
Fulton Street Transit Center
The MTA's design concept for the John Street and Broadway entrance to the Fulton Street Transit Center. |
The Fulton Street Transit Center to the east is being planned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The station complex, which includes four stations and nine subway lines, the 2, 3, 4, 5, A, C, J, M, and Z, is a maze that challenges the savviest New Yorker. The MTA plans to open up the Lexington Avenue station entrance by razing some or possibly all of the properties on the east side of Broadway from Fulton to John Streets. The authority also plans to simplify the pathways and make it easier for people to see where to go when transferring from one line to the other. See the MTA websitefor more details. Many preservationists are very worried that historic buildings, most notably the Corbin Building on John Street, will be torn down or damaged to make way for the new station. This 1889 building, with its terra cotta façade, is one of the area’s first skyscrapers. The MTA should preserve the façade of the building and incorporate it into the design of the new station. The cost for the transit center is $750 million, and it is scheduled to be completed by 2007.
New South Ferry Subway Station
The new South Ferry subway station will overcome the many deficiencies of the existing station, such as platforms the length of just half a subway train, delays caused by slow trains forced to negotiate an almost impossibly tight curve, and a single overcrowded exit. The station, which serves as a gateway for tourists destined for Liberty and Ellis islands, is an embarrassment as it is now.
The original design for the replacement would have torn up part of Battery Park, cutting down dozens of trees on the east side of the park. After the Battery Conservancy and other groups complained, the MTA decided to rethink the design. A new plan has been devised by the MTA, and it is a big improvement. The station would now be located mostly outside and east of the park. Building it will do little damage to the park, and the new plan brings the station closer to others in lower Manhattan to make transferring easier. It will also be closer to the Staten Island ferry terminal than the first plan. The earlier design was to cost $400 million and be completed by 2007, but costs and timing of the new design are not yet available.
West Street
West Street presents a barrier for pedestrians who want to go to and from the World Financial Center and parts of Battery Park City. Prior to 9/11, two pedestrian overpasses helped walkers cross the 200-foot-plus-wide highway. The more heavily used overpass, which went directly into the Winter Garden, was destroyed and will likely be replaced.
Initially, there was much interest in burying West Street in a tunnel from the World Trade Center site all the way to the Battery, but cost estimates were so high that the New York State Department of Transportation is investigating less ambitious plans – either a short tunnel from Vesey to Liberty Streets, which the governor has recently called for, or a deck over West Street into the World Financial Center across the way. This deck or platform would bridge over the existing highway. Depressing the highway in a tunnel would almost certainly be more expensive, but it would improve access to the World Financial Center and the ferry services beyond on the Hudson River and would better protect the memorial site from the noise of traffic. Some downtown residents have opposed a tunnel, saying it isn’t necessary and will require a disruptive construction zone. The New York State Department of Transportation is currently making presentations about the tunneling and decking options, after which the public will be in a better position to judge which plan will work best. Costs have not been determined for either project.
Airport Connections
In the governor’s letter to the federal government, he indicated that local agencies would be working to provide direct access from lower Manhattan to Newark and Kennedy airports. Much of the PATH line to Newark is already in place, and the project’s viability will depend on its cost and whether it can operate without affecting existing PATH services. The Port Authority is examining this.
For Kennedy airport, the options are more varied. New subway connections with Brooklyn could bring trains into lower Manhattan from Jamaica to serve Long Island commuters and also provide for an easy transfer to the Kennedy Airport Airtrain, to open next year. But many worry that the new trains would interfere with existing subway service and do little to cut the travel time for Long Islanders going directly to lower Manhattan. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed creating a new tunnel under the East River, which would provide a one-seat ride to Kennedy Airport and could also provide a connection to the Long Island Rail Road.
The Regional Plan Association, where I am a senior fellow for transportation, strongly supports a new East River tunnel. However, the association’s plan is for the airport connection to be linked to the planned Second Avenue subway, which is designed to allow an extension into Brooklyn. Governor Pataki has asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, along with the MTA and the Port Authority, to sort through the alternatives and make a recommendation by next spring. Where the funding for any airport project will come from is not yet clear.
Second Avenue Subway
Incredibly, overlooked in all of the discussions about lower Manhattan transportation is the project that the MTA has already committed to, the Second Avenue subway. It would add two new subway services to lower Manhattan and unclog a third, the notorious Lexington Avenue express. The MTA supports placing the new subway line in lower Manhattan underneath Water Street on the east side. If this line is extended, it could connect with Brooklyn and the Long Island Rail Road as described above. (The portion of the line in Manhattan is the subject of MTA hearings scheduled for May 12 and 13.)
Fixing Downtown Streets
Lower Manhattan’s streets are barricaded for security reasons and overcrowded with pedestrians competing for limited space with many types of vehicles, all with a claim to the same space. Security needs to be provided without creating an “armed camp” atmosphere. A solution for overcrowding should allocate space according to the need to move people and goods, and recognize the important role of streets and sidewalks as part of the public realm. This can be done by creating a plan for lower Manhattan’s “public realm,” including closing some streets to traffic, and building park-like boulevards and small parks. The governor’s recent allocation of funds for streets and parks is a step in the right direction.
The transportation system must be made whole again. Otherwise, the willingness of commuters and others traveling to lower Manhattan on business or to shop, will slowly, but assuredly erode. So will the resolve of the area’s residents. People will be unwilling to stand the inconvenience and lost time, when other options, whether in Midtown, the rest of New York City and suburbs or worse, other areas outside the region, are available. To overcome this potentially mortal blow to the financial district, the transportation system must entice back those who have left, overcoming the system’s weaknesses that existed before 9-11.
Jeffrey M. Zupan is senior fellow for transportation at Regional Plan Association, the not-for-profit research, planning and advocacy organization in the tri-state region.