Andrea Bernstein

I would hope that if 9/11 does anything, it gives us a new global literacy. We had a blind spot on September 11th through which those planes flew. The best deterrent is to have a kind...

UPDATED WITH COMPLETE REMARKS (at end of post) Waving a thick blue-and-white document, President Barack Obama formally introduced the American Jobs Act,  the much-touted jobs bill he announced last week at a joint session of Congress.

Surrounded by construction workers, teachers, small business owner, veterans, and others he said would benefit from the bill at a brief Rose Garden ceremony, the President said :

"Well, here it is, this is a bill that will put people back to work all across the country. This is the bill the congress needs to pass, no games, no politics, no delays. I’m sending it to congress today and they ought to pass it immediately."

Citing "highways that are backed up with traffic" and "airports that are clogged," the President said the bill would help construction workers all over the country.

In last week's outline of the bill, the White House said it would include $50 billion in expedited spending on roads, bridges, and other transportation, and $10 bill launch a National Infrastructure Bank to funnel private capital into U.S. transportation construction and to nationalize the decision-making process about what get's built and what doesn't.

Complete remarks follow.  We'll have full analysis later.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Please, everybody, have a seat, on this beautiful morning.  It's wonderful to see all of you here.

 

On Thursday, I told Congress that I’ll be sending them a bill called the American Jobs Act.  Well, here it is.  (Applause.)  This is a bill that will put people back to work all across the country.  This is the bill that will help our economy in a moment of national crisis.  This is a bill that is based on ideas from both Democrats and Republicans.  And this is the bill that Congress needs to pass.  No games.  No politics.  No delays. I’m sending this bill to Congress today, and they ought to pass it immediately.  (Applause.)

 

Standing with me this morning are men and women who will be helped by the American Jobs Act.  I’m standing with teachers.  All across America, teachers are being laid off in droves -- which is unfair to our kids, it undermines our future, and it is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing if we want our kids to be college-ready and then prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. We've got to get our teachers back to work.  (Applause.)  Let's pass this bill and put them in the classroom where they belong.  (Applause.)

 

I’m standing here with veterans.  We’ve got hundreds of thousands of brave, skilled Americans who fought for this country.  The last thing they should have to do is to fight for a job when they come home.  So let’s pass this bill and put the men and women who served this nation back to work.  (Applause.)

 

We're standing here with cops and firefighters whose jobs are threatened because states and communities are cutting back.  This bill will keep cops on the beat, and firefighters on call.  So let’s pass this bill so that these men and women can continue protecting our neighborhoods like they do every single day.  (Applause.)

 

I’m standing with construction workers.  We've got roads that need work all over the country.  Our highways are backed up with traffic.  Our airports are clogged.  And there are millions of unemployed construction workers who could rebuild them.  So let’s pass this bill so road crews and diggers and pavers and workers  -- they can all head back to the jobsite.  There's plenty of work to do.  This job -- this jobs bill will help them do it.  Let’s put them back to work.  Let's pass this bill rebuilding America. (Applause.)

 

And there are schools throughout the country that desperately need renovating.  (Applause.)  We cannot -- got an "Amen" over there.  (Laughter and applause.)  We can't expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart. This is America.  Every kid deserves a great school -- and we can give it to them.  Pass this bill and we put construction crews back to work across the country repairing and modernizing at least 35,000 schools.

 

I’m standing here with small business owners.  They know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, a lot of small businesses haven’t.  They're still struggling -- getting the capital they need, getting the support they need in order to grow.  So this bill cuts taxes for small businesses that hire new employees and for small businesses that raise salaries for current employees.  It cuts your payroll tax in half.  And all businesses can write off investments they make this year and next year.  (Applause.)  Instead of just talking about America’s job creators, let’s actually do something for America’s job creators. We can do that by passing this bill.  (Applause.)

 

Now, there are a lot of other ways that this jobs bill, the American Jobs Act, will help this economy.  It’s got a $4,000 tax credit for companies that hire anybody who spent more than six months looking for a job.  We’ve got to do more for folks who've been hitting the pavement every single day looking for work, but haven’t found employment yet.  That’s why we need to extend unemployment insurance and connect people to temporary work to help upgrade their skills.

 

This bill will help hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people find summer jobs next year -- jobs that will help set the direction for their entire lives.  And the American Jobs Act would prevent taxes from going up for middle-class families. If Congress does not act, just about every family in America will pay more taxes next year.  And that would be a self-inflicted wound that our economy just can’t afford right now.  So let’s pass this bill and give the typical working family a $1,500 tax cut instead.  (Applause.)

 

And the American Jobs Act is not going to add to the debt -- it’s fully paid for.  I want to repeat that.  It is fully paid for.  (Laughter.)  It’s not going to add a dime to the deficit.  Next week, I’m laying out my plan not only to pay for this jobs bill but also to bring down the deficit further.  It’s a plan that lives by the same rules that families do:  We’ve got to cut out things that we can’t afford to do in order to afford the things that we really need.  It’s a plan that says everybody -- including the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations -- have to pay their fair share.  (Applause.)

 

The bottom line is, when it comes to strengthening the economy and balancing our books, we’ve got to decide what our priorities are.  Do we keep tax loopholes for oil companies -- or do we put teachers back to work?  Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires -- or should we invest in education and technology and infrastructure, all the things that are going to help us out-innovate and out-educate and out-build other countries in the future?

 

We know what’s right.  We know what will help businesses start right here and stay here and hire here.  We know that if we take the steps outlined in this jobs plan, that there's no reason why we can’t be selling more goods all around the world that are stamped with those three words:  “Made in America.”  That’s what we need to do to create jobs right now.  (Applause.)

 

I have to repeat something I said in my speech on Thursday. There are some in Washington who’d rather settle our differences through politics and the elections than try to resolve them now. In fact, Joe and I, as we were walking out here, we were looking at one of the Washington newspapers and it was quoting a Republican aide saying, “I don't know we’d want to cooperate with Obama right now.  It’s not good for our politics.”  That was very explicit.

 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  It was.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, that’s the attitude in this town -- "yeah, we’ve been through these things before, but I don't know why we’d be for them right now."  The fact of the matter is the next election is 14 months away.  And the American people don’t have the luxury of waiting 14 months for Congress to take action. (Applause.)  Folks are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck. They need action.  And the notion that there are folks who would say, we’re not going to try to do what’s right for the American people because we don't think it’s convenient for our politics -- we’ve been seeing that too much around here.  And that’s exactly what folks are tired of.

 

And that’s okay, when things are going well, you play politics.  It’s not okay at a time of great urgency and need all across the country.  These aren’t games we’re playing out here.  Folks are out of work.  Businesses are having trouble staying open.  You’ve got a world economy that is full of uncertainty right now -- in Europe, in the Middle East.  Some events may be beyond our control, but this is something we can control.  Whether we not -- whether or not we pass this bill, whether or not we get this done, that’s something that we can control.  That’s in our hands.

 

You hear a lot of folks talking about uncertainty in the economy.  This is a bit of uncertainty that we could avoid by going ahead and taking action to make sure that we’re helping the American people.

 

So if you agree with me, if you want Congress to take action, then I’m going to need everybody here and everybody watching -- you’ve got to make sure that your voices are heard.  Help make the case.  There's no reason not to pass this bill.  Its ideas are bipartisan.  Its ideas are common sense.  It will make a difference.  That’s not just my opinion; independent economists and validators have said this could add a significant amount to our Gross Domestic Product, and could put people back to work all across the country.  (Applause.)  So the only thing that’s stopping it is politics.  (Applause.)  And we can’t afford these same political games.  Not now.

 

So I want you to pick up the phone.  I want you to send an email.  Use one of those airplane skywriters.  (Laughter.)  Dust off the fax machine.  (Laughter.)  Or you can just, like, write a letter.  (Laughter.)  So long as you get the message to Congress: Send me the American Jobs Act so I can sign it into law.  Let’s get something done.  Let’s put this country back to work.

 

Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  (Applause.)

 

With one foot on the terra firma of national pride and another in his old familiar haunt of progressivism, President Barack Obama Thursday proposed a $10 billion infrastructure bank with $50 billion in expedited infrastructure spending to help stimulate the economy.

"Everyone here knows that we have badly decaying roads and bridges all over this country.  Our highways are clogged with traffic.  Our skies are the most congested in the world," said the President while a sour-faced Speaker John Boehner sat to his right.

"This is inexcusable.  Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower.  And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads?  At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?"

In a speech that sounded at times feisty and at times impatient, the President repeatedly urged congress to pass a bill the administration put at $450 billion, which he said would be paid for by other cuts.

But still the speech sounded more like old-style Obama than the man who last month, back to the wall, agreed to $2.4 trillion in spending cuts, with no tax increases.   Thursday the President once again called on the rich to pay "their fair share," an idea that the public has embraced but that Congress has rejected.

"There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work.  There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America.  A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country," the President said, pointedly picking a Texas city to highlight.  Texas is home to the Republican Presidential front-runner, Governor Rick Perry.

The President made his strongest pitch yet in favor of an infrastructure bank, a federally-backed bank that would leverage government funds to draw private capital for large projects like roads, transit, bridges, and dams.

The President said it would  issue loans "based on two criteria:  how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the economy."

"This idea came from a bill written by a Texas Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat. The idea for a big boost in construction is supported by America’s largest business organization and America’s largest labor organization.  It’s the kind of proposal that’s been supported in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike.  You should pass it right away."

In a fact sheet released by the White House, the administration said the National Infrastructure Bank would be capitalized with $10 billion "in order to leverage private and public capital and to invest in a broad range of infrastructure projects of national and regional significance, without earmarks or traditional political influence. The bank would be based on the model Senators Kerry and Hutchison have championed while building on legislation by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg and the work of long-time infrastructure bank champions like Rosa DeLauro and the input of the President’s Jobs Council."

 

 

 

We're live chatting over at our sister-site  Here.

Adding to its financial woes, the MTA learned Thursday that the smallest of the three main ratings agencies, Fitch, was downgrading its debt from a rating of A+ to a rating of A.  The action could mean that the MTA could have to pay more money to borrow for big projects like the Second Avenue subway, leaving less money for rider services.

It it weren't enough that the NY MTA faces yawning budget gaps, the loss of its CEO and looming labor negotiations, now Fitch, the smallest of the three main rating agencies, has downgraded the authority's debt, meaning MTA may have to pay more for its debt, worsening its budget woes.

Here's the Fitch press release.  We'll have more soon.

"Fitch Ratings-New York-08 September 2011: Fitch Ratings has assigned an 'A' rating to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York's (MTA) $99,560,000 transportation revenue variable rate bonds, series 2011B.

At this time, Fitch also downgrades the rating on $14.3 billion in outstanding MTA transportation revenue bonds to 'A' from 'A+'. The downgrade reflects higher than expected near-to-medium term financial pressure.

The Rating Outlook is revised to Stable. Fitch will shortly assign short and long-term credit enhanced ratings on the series 2011B bonds.

KEY RATING DRIVERS:
--Gross lien on a diverse stream of pledged revenues to meet debt service payments;
--Essentiality of the MTA's transit network to the economy of the New York region;
--Demonstrated ability of the MTA to produce solutions aimed at closing projected budget gaps;
--Need to generate sufficient cash to adequately cover operations of the system despite high debt service coverage ratios (DSCRs) as well as some future leveraging on the transportation revenue credit for capital;
--Increasing annual debt burden;
--Significant funding needs for the large $24 billion 2010-2014 Capital Program;
--Capacity to continue to leverage resources to fund expansion projects while meeting renewal and replacement needs.

WHAT MAY TRIGGER A RATING ACTION?
--Inability to achieve operating efficiencies and implement other key elements of the cost reduction initiatives and/or maintaining ongoing state of good repair elements of the capital program;
--Significant cost overruns or delays in the capital program's mega-projects that would require additional funding;
--Additional service cuts or deferral of core capital projects that result in deterioration of key transportation services of the system;
--Deterioration or limited growth in dedicated tax subsidies.

SECURITY:
The transportation revenue bonds are primarily secured by operating receipts and operating subsidies, including transit and commuter rail fares and other operating revenues, surplus toll revenues, and certain dedicated tax sources, state and local operating subsidies, and reimbursements.

CREDIT UPDATE:
The downgrade reflects higher than expected near-to-medium term financial pressure stemming from increasing operating costs (projected to moderate in growth in the outer years) and pension obligations and growing annual debt service obligations from expected near-term issuance associated with the capital program. This is exacerbated by the strong likelihood that operating subsides (dedicated tax sources) will not grow as anticipated in the near term leading to wider deficits. The Stable Outlook reflects the authority's institutional focus on monitoring developments and willingness to take corrective action albeit that the options available are fewer in the current environment.

While the MTA forecasts a sizeable surplus of $170 million in 2011 as well as a modest surplus of $4 million in 2012 growing to $125 million in 2013, underlying assumptions related to management's continued ability to implement new cost containment initiatives, growth in operating subsidies (regional dedicated taxes, mortgage taxes and the payroll mobility tax) as well as yields on toll and fare increases are of concern and must still come to fruition. Forecasted deficits of $54 million in 2014 and $178 million in 2015 may be greater than estimated if the underlying assumptions on either the expense or revenue side are not achieved in the near term.

The July financial plan forecasts labor expenses, primarily driven by significant increases in health and welfare costs as well as pension benefits, to grow to $8.3 billion in 2015 from $6.9 billion in 2010 or 3.7 % annually. Similarly, non-labor costs are expected to increase 7.3% annually to $3.7 billion in 2015 from $2.6 billion in 2010. To the extent operating efficiencies including 3 Zeros / Accelerated Zero (wage freezes) and other MTA initiatives come to fruition, growth rates will be lower. Operating subsidies are forecasted to increase to $6.2 billion in 2015 from $4.8 billion in 2010 or 5.24%. Increased fares and tolls are expected to offset some of the growth in operating expenses.

The MTA's July Financial Plan shows improvement from previous financial plans that forecasted larger deficits, and Fitch recognizes management's expense control actions and the demonstrated ability to navigate through the difficult economic environment impacting the greater New York City area and surrounding region. However, it is Fitch's opinion that the MTA will face significant challenges related to meeting the plan over the next several years as significant new debt is issued to finance the $23.8 billion 2010-2014 capital program.

Operating revenues from transit, bus, commuter rail and the bridges and tunnels year-to-date (YTD) through May are tracking close to budget, while total operating expenses are tracking slightly below budget, at around 1.2%. Receipts from dedicated operating subsidies including new state aid, state dedicated taxes and real estate related taxes have been mixed through May. New state aid comprised of the payroll mobility tax (PMT) and MTA Aid (license fee, vehicle registration fee, taxi fee and automobile rental fee) are currently tracking with budgeted estimates, while real estate taxes consisting of the regional mortgage recording tax and New York City urban taxes are tracking around 10% higher, reflecting some rebound in the real estate market. The sustainability of this turnaround is uncertain.

The MTA's 2010-2014 $23.8 billion capital program comprised approximately $18.1 billion in core projects on the existing system and $5.7 billion for expansion projects. As with prior capital programs, long-term debt is expected to finance a significant portion of the 2010-2014 capital program. To the extent that forecasted financial performance is not met, the MTA may be forced to scale back debt financing to fund a portion of the program. The political pressure to keep construction going to support jobs will be a counter-weight. Deferred maintenance or a decrease in system reliability would be potential credit concerns.

The MTA is responsible for North America's largest transit network, serving 2.6 billion riders annually. The authority's network is essential to the economic well-being of the region, handling 80% of all daily trips to Manhattan's business district."

The White House is holding the details of its infrastructure spending plan close to the vest, but as clear as anyone can make out it amounts to this:  don't spend less than we're spending now.

By all accounts, tonight President Obama will urge Congress to get $50 billion to $100 billion out the door on road and bridge construction spending as quickly as possibly, in the belief that getting money into the economy through construction jobs will help stop the economic hemorrhage.

(Note: I'll be live-chatting the speech over at our sister site, It's a Free Country, here. )

There's also widespread belief he'll push for an infrastructure bank -- a federally-backed bank that would funnel private capital to big projects like roads, bridges, and transit.

But as far as anyone can tell, much of what he'll be proposing won't be new money, it will just be a plan to front-load spending that, in a parallel universe, would have already been authorized by now.

Now, let's recap. In September, 2009, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill -- the massive, multi-year legislation that funds roads, bridges, and transit -- was set to expire.

At the time, everyone -- including Rep. John Mica (R-FL), then the ranking Republican member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (and the current chair) -- wanted the bill to double in size from $244 billion over four years to about half-a-trillion dollars over six years.

But no one knew how to pay for it.

There were ideas, to be sure.  Raise the gas tax, which hasn't gone up since 1993. Toll highways.  Charge people for the number of miles they drive.

But at that point in the Obama administration the focus was on reforming health care. Until that got done, there wasn't going to be any talk of raising taxes. The administration pushed for, and got, an 18-month extension to March, 2011.  The bill was extended again.  And now, at the end of this month, it expires again -- in an atmosphere where the GOP-controlled Congress has made clear its willingness to shut down a federal agency rather than cave on spending priorities.

Which brings us to our present circumstance.  Congress wants to drastically reduce the size of the transportation bill from current levels, to $230 billion over six years.  The Democratic Senate wants $109 billion over two years, essentially matching the current level of spending.

And the president wants spending to happen as quickly as possible.

But no one in Washington is suggesting a level of spending that, just two Septembers ago, had bi-partisan support.

On Thursday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a "clean extension" of the transportation bill, setting the stage for further discussions.

But what it amounts to is this:  in September 2011, the President's rare address to a joint session of Congress will be used, in part, to argue that to stimulate the economy, it shouldn't heave its budget axe.

Instead, it should do about half as much as it might have done anyway, two Septembers ago.

 

The hike in tolls and fares on Hudson River crossings was the result of a delicate tango between the tax-averse governors of New York and New Jersey and the cash-strapped Port Authority, which passed the increase on Friday.

After all the sturm and drang, it took only seven seconds.

The Port Authority chairman, David Samson, called for a vote.  "I would like to move these items forward for approval," he intoned. " May I have a second?  All in favor?  So moved. "

And with that, all nine authority board members present voted "aye." PATH train fares and bridge and tunnel tolls were hiked, effectively almost immediately.

Tolls for EZ pass users will go up to $9.50 during peak hours, from $8, eventually rising to $13.  PATH fares will go up a quarter a year, to $2.75.   For the Hudson River crossings, there will be a $2 cash surcharge.

And so , on an August Friday, it was done.

On the one hand, this was a case study in how to rush something through, with as little input as possible:  Announce something on a Friday afternoon in August, hold an accelerated schedule of hearings (to which your board members don't show up, anyway), then vote, lickety-split, while families are loading up their minivans with ice-coolers, fishing rods, and making sure the phone chargers aren't forgotten.

Come September, when the hikes go into effect, no one will even notice.

On the other hand, it's a case study in how to get two tax-averse governors to raise revenue to pay for big infrastructure projects, just after one of them has killed the biggest transit project in the nation because he didn't want NJ taxpayers on the hook for cost overruns.

And a way to get that Governor, Chris Christie,  to state the same pro-infrastructure arguments that were used to try, unsuccessfully,  to turn him around on the ARC tunnel.

Let's recap.

The plan was announced, without notice, late in the afternoon two Fridays ago.   Friday afternoon is typically when you announce news you want buried.

The Governors issue a carefully-worded, unusual joint statement not opposing the hikes.

"The Port Authority has informed us of its proposal to dramatically increase tolls on its tunnels and bridges and fares on the PATH. While we understand the Port Authority leadership's concerns about a potential downgrade to its bond rating if toll increases are not instituted, our primary concern with this proposal is its impact on our respective states' residents and commercial users of the crossings."

Now, it's important to understand that the Governors of New York and New Jersey control the port authority board.  Ultimately commissioners do what governors say.   To be sure, there's a bit more of a tango here than with the MTA, for example, because the New York Governor does have say over the MTA budget.  Through tolls, fees, and real estate revenue, the Port Authority raises all its own money.   Still, the Port Authority doesn't exactly act independently, like a teenager at college.

The week after the toll proposal was announced Governor Christie railed against the Port Authority leadership for mismanagement.  Governor Cuomo called the toll proposal "a non-starter."  But still, neither ruled out hikes altogether.

As late as the Thursday before the vote, Christie was calling for Port Authority reform, railing about a NY Comptroller's report this week that showed the port authority paying out big bucks in overtime.

But then, at 6:30 pm, the letter crossed reporters' email transoms.  Tolls would be going up.  Not to the frighteningly high rate of $15 for some users, but they'd rise, starting with a $1.50 rise almost immediately.

"While we did not want to see any toll increase, given the crisis facing the Port Authority and its finances and the potential safety and economic risks to commuters and businesses, an increase cannot be avoided," the Governors wrote in their letter.

The two Governors said not raising tolls and fares would "jeopardize 167,000 jobs and $9.7 billion in wages" -- the same argument given by the Port Authority's board before its vote Friday.

"It is the impact of these factors: a slowed economy, the commitment to rebuild the World Trade Center site and other infrastructure investments and our responsibility to provide security for our travelers, our customers and our commuters," Chairman Sampson said before the vote.

He added: "Port Authority projects drive jobs and economic growth and that a failure to invest in infrastructure today will only cost us more in the long term."

Which is exactly the same argument Governor Christie's critics made before he pulled the plug on the ARC tunnel.

But this time around, it was different.  Unlike the ARC tunnel, the Port's big projects, like rebuilding the World Trade Center, are not so easily stopped.  And with federal funding for infrastructure drying up, it may be that the governors have decided, of all the unpalatable options for paying for infrastructure, this one was the least bad.

 

 

Nearly a third of all car-less Americans live in the New York metro area, according to a Brookings Institution study released this week.  And most of them are also low-income.

Houston Texas, is poised to become the second large city in America to turn off its red light cameras this summer, following Los Angeles.  The cities came to their decisions differently, but the outcome, if a study underway by the Texas Transportation Institute is any guide, will likely be the same:  there will be more people running red lights than did before there were any cameras in the first place.

Troy Walden, an associate research scientist at TTI, said a study of one typical town, which he wouldn't name because the study hasn't been released, showed that weekly red light violations decreased from 2,445 to 1,738 when red light cameras were installed.  But after they were removed, violations rose to 4,755.

"Once the red light cameras were inactive, we saw an increase of violations about twice as many as what you had seen" before the cameras were in place, Walden said in an interview with Transportation Nation.  Walden said he believed similar results would be seen in other cities that removed the cameras.

As of this summer, that list will include two of the largest cities in America, Houston and Los Angeles.

On a gut level,  it's  easy to hate red-light cameras at first blush -- the idea you can be caught, and fined by an electronic eye feels particularly odious.   In Los Angeles, the robotic transaction  would result in a ticket in your mailbox of  almost $500, and because of a vagary in California Law, it turned out the cameras were a money-losing proposition for the city.

In Houston, the situation is more complex -- the Mayor, Annise Parker, supports the cameras, but following a referendum to remove them and a complex legal dispute with the private contractor running the cameras, she said this week the cameras would go dark.

(Listen to the Marketplace version of this story here.)

"I’m very clear the cameras are going to go off," Parker said in a press conference this week. "I’m also very clear I believe in red light cameras. I think the vote was a mistake."

Safety studies show the cameras save lives -- more than 150 in a 5-year period in the fourteen biggest cities in the country,  according to Anne Fleming, a spokesperson for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.   A TTI study earlier this summer found the most dangerous crashes declined by 32 percent.    Those crashes are the so-called "T-bone" crashes, which cause more injury and death than rear-end crashes, which may tick up after red light cameras are installed.

Fleming says she doesn't think Los Angeles and Houston are at the crest of a wave: " The opponents of red light cameras are extremely vocal.  They have decided that the people getting the tickets are the victims, not the people who are killed in red light running crashes."

She says some 540 localities still use the cameras.

 

The cost of riding the PATH train from NJ to NY goes up a quarter a year, to $2.75 (Photo: Andrea Bernstein)

The board of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey this morning approved toll and fare hikes that will make it more costly to use its Hudson River crossings, which include bridges, tunnels and trains.

Commissioners unanimously approved the increases during a vote Friday morning at the Port Authority's headquarters in Manhattan.  Three board members were not present for the vote.

It will now cost drivers $1.50 more to enter New York from New Jersey beginning next month. It will increase 75 cents every year after that.

The $1.75 PATH train fare will increase 25 cents a year for four years.

The vote became a fait accompli yesterday evening when the Governors of New York and New Jersey, who control the Port Authority board, said they would "would not oppose" the hikes.    For a copy of their letter, click here.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said in a joint letter they will "not oppose" a revised toll proposal that hikes rates for most users by $1.50 a ride beginning this fall — and 75 cents a year every year after that, according to a letter released late Thursday.

The full Port Authority Board is expected to vote to approve the proposal Friday.

EZ pass user will pay $9.50 during peak hours and $7.50 during off-peak.

Drivers paying cash will, according to the letter, "have the same increase but will be subject to an additional $2 penalty (rounded up to the nearest whole dollar)."

That makes the top rate for motorists paying cash beginning in September $12 — not $15 as initially proposed. The Port Authority said in its initial proposal that it expected EZ pass use to increase 10 percent with the toll hikes.

The governors said the Port Authority's capital plan depends on the hike, and that 167,000 jobs and $9.7 billion in wages are at stake. The increases would be coupled with $5 billion in savings "that can be immediately achieved within the capital plan," according to the letter.

The Port Authority approved toll and fare hikes that will make it more costly to use its Hudson River crossings, which include bridges, tunnels and trains.

A pair of reports issued this week shows an increasingly grim picture for American mobility: some 700,000 Americans live without cars and without access to transit, even as more than two thirds of U.S. transit agencies have cut service in the past year.

"Seven hundred thousand households is larger than the population of Columbus, Ohio or San Antonio, Texas,” said Adie Tomer, author of the Brookings Institution study: Transit Access and Zero-Vehicle Households. “These people are terribly constrained in earning a living, getting to the store, or taking their kids to daycare. If this many people were facing a public health scare, this country would be in crisis mode.  We need to approach this problem with similar urgency.”

But Tomer's plea comes as the federal government is looking at reducing transportation spending, and as states and cities, faced with budget problems of their own, are slashing contributions to public transit systems.

A quarter of large transit systems have already reduced the geographic reach of their services, and half have cut peak-service, meaning long, often frustrating waits for commuters.  And the American Public Transportation Association Survey found a third of all transit systems say they face even more shortfalls in the near future.

Cutbacks in service are particularly troublesome for APTA: the organization's research suggests that slashed routes, limited service, or long waits can drive riders from transit altogether. By contrast, APTA says riders are more likely to pay the increased fares and stick with transit, though unhappily so.

But as Brookings reported, most -- sixty percent -- of so-called "zero-vehicle" households are low-income, meaning that cuts in transit or fare raises hit poor people the hardest. Another quarter are middle income.

Atlanta (whose residents also face one of the steepest transit fare hikes in the nation) have the highest number of no car/no transit households in the country, followed by Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and St. Louis.

The New York/NJ/PA region houses nearly a third of all households without cars, but its transit system is facing serious strains.  Last year, New York eliminated two subway routes and slashed dozens of bus lines; the cost of a monthly metro card also crossed into the three-figures.  The MTA says more fare hikes are coming in January 2013 and it recently announced a $9 billion shortfall in its capital budget.

In an environment with a severe distaste for new taxes, the MTA says it will fill most of that gap through borrowing.

 

 

 

 

The fight over the controversial Prospect Park West bike lane came to an end when a judge dismissed claims that the city failed to go through proper channels when it installed the two-way protected path.

Brooklyn's Prospect Park West bike lane (photo by Kate Hinds)

Justice Bert Bunyan of Brooklyn has dismissed a lawsuit against a Brooklyn bike lane that has become a flash point in Mayor Michael Bloomberg's efforts to re-organize street space to promote biking, walking and more sustainable modes of transportation. (Full ruling here.)

This is the first time a court has ruled on whether the city has legal authority to install bike lanes at a rapid clip.

The suit, which had prominent backers include former city transportation commissioner Iris Weinshall, and her husband, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, who live along Prospect Park West, alleged the city manipulated data and hadn't properly consulted the community in building the lane.

The lawsuit, filed at the end of March after a particularly brutal and unhappy winter for New Yorkers -- including piles of snow, endless blizzards, and seemingly interminable transit delays -- seemed to crystallize emotions of some New Yorkers, that bike lanes were being imposed on communities.

Though bike lanes, including the Prospect Park West one, were built at the behest of the local community board, the rap on them -- , feeds into a vulnerability of the Mayor's -- that he does things by fiat.

His seemingly-unrelated and ultimately disastrous appointment of former Schools Chancellor Cathie Black in the fall poured gasoline on that perception, as did his initial dismissiveness about the impact of the blizzard of 2010, when he recommended stranded  New Yorkers go see a Broadway show while they were waiting for their roads to be plowed.

All of this created a political atmosphere where going after Mayor Bloomberg on bike lanes seemed an easy target.   When the lawsuit was filed, it was noticed.

But the snows of winter eventually did melt, and the bike lane has proven popular in the community, with polls showing around two thirds of Brooklynites wanting to keep it, or keep it with modifications.

In an emailed statement, the city transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said she considered the matter settled.

"This decision results in a hands-down victory for communities across the city. The plaintiffs have been dead wrong in their unsupported claims about the bike path and DOT’s practices,” said DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan in a statement emailed by the city.

But at the end of the day, the judge did not rule on the merits of the bike lane.  Plaintiffs didn't get to make the argument that the lane had adverse affects.  Instead, lawyers for the plaintiffs found themselves arguing mostly on a technical point --whether the bike lane was a "trial." The point was crucial, because plaintiffs would have to have filed their lawsuit much earlier if the bike was intended to be permanent.

At the end of the day, and the judge ruled resoundingly the project wasn't experimental. (Plaintiffs had gone so far as to make the abbreviation EBL -- "experimental bike lane" -- in legal filings.)  The opponents “presented no evidence that D.O.T. viewed the bikeway as a pilot or temporary project," the Judge said in his ruling.   That meant they'd missed their deadline.

The judge did say the city had failed to properly answer a freedom of information request filed by the lawsuit's opponents; it ordered the city to do so.   He did not rule on whether the city manipulated data, because the complaint was dismissed on timeliness issues.

The attorney for the plaintiffs, Jim Walden said in a statement, "Although we respectfully disagree with the Court's determination on the statute of limitations, we will need time to review his comprehensive analysis before deciding on our options."

 

 

 

 

The U.S. Rail System, 1918 (Photo: Railway Maps of the World)

To the list of things not to like about Penn Station -- the ceilings are too low, there’s no natural light, the food is unmemorable, add this:  You can’t find a display map of Amtrak train routes.

From Penn Station, you can take the train from Penn Station to Montreal, or Miami, or Montana, but if you stand under the departure board, author Mark Ovenden says, “you can’t see a map for love nor money.”

Ovenden, wrote the book, Railway Maps of the World.  (See a slideshow of samples here). We’ve come down here to New York’s Penn station to evaluate the maps, because it’s a confluence of railway systems -- Amtrak, New Jersey Transit, and the MTA subway and Long Island Railroad. But we get stuck at the Amtrak, because we can’t find a map.

“In Europe,” Ovenden says, “in a lot of the big old stations, there were these great big tiled maps made from ceramic or painted on the wall. There’s one at Bordeaux for example, a massive map of the whole of the south of France.”

But in Penn station we find advertisements where we think a train map should be. For food, drink, even train travel. An Amtrak spokesman concedes there’s no wall map, but says you can find the information in other ways. Ovenden says that’s missing the point -- and an opportunity. A map, he says, is an advertisement for travel. It pries open your mind.

“These wonderful display maps, really give you the sense of getting on board, the joy of the journey and the experience of traveling by train.”

At the Amtrak information desk, the agents hand do hand out booklets, with a map you can fold out. The map looks nice, a network of red lines stretching over a green background. It shows mountains, waterways, and cities. But then Ovenden lays the current map next to a train map from a hundred years ago.

I do a double-take. The lines on the old map are so thick that they’re barely discernable, one from the other. “We had almost a railway in almost every town and hamlet in the U.S.,” Ovenden says. “The old 1918 map looks like the blood vessels and the arteries and the veins of a country. It was the lifeblood of this country and when you look at it now, it’s just a skeleton.”

Through World War II, the railways were booming in the U.S  But after the war, the country made a choice. There was a huge infusion of federal funds into the interstate highway system. Air travel took off. Passenger rail was passé.  During parts of the day, Penn Station was almost empty. (For a related guest post by Mark Ovenden, click here.)

And, then, the station was torn down, replaced by a thicket of anonymous office towers, Madison Square Garden, and this crabbed space, which is so crabbed even the idea of an Amtrak map is foreign.

There is one part of the station that’s still alive -- the public transport part. NJ Transit has a nice map -- pretty, but smallish. But the MTA just nails it, with huge subway, bus, and Long Island rail maps. Ovenden’s energy ratchets up about ten notches when he sees these maps.” That’s what you need on the wall of the station, that’s fantastic! Look at it!”

We see tourists from France, China, and parts of the United States. These maps are about more than wayfinding.   They’re entertainment. They’re art. “Maps are part of the journey, and we shouldn’t forget that,” Ovenden tells me, as we wrap.

Maps are a vision of who we are, who we can be, and where we can go.

 

To the list of things not to like about Penn Station — the too-low ceilings, the lack of natural light, the unmemorable food — add this: no display map of Amtrak train routes.

(robotbrainz/Flickr)

After two days of tangled commutes following a derailment, New Jersey Transit is now apologizing for not providing better information to commuters about the incident, which also caused delays for Amtrak and Long Island Rail Road riders. WNYC reporter Bob Hennelly, commuting from New Jersey, ran into NJ Transit brass at Penn Station today.

Bob writes: "It was an unusual site in Penn Station Thursday morning: a phalanx of NJ Transit's top managers lined up ready to be criticized by a ridership put through two days of delays and service disruptions after a derailment."

You can read the rest of his account of the encounter here.

More on the derailment coming soon.