The Commute: Reinventing The MTA – Part 1 Of 3

THE COMMUTE: The MTA didn’t receive the nickname “More Trouble Ahead” in the 1970s for no reason. Deadlines are routinely missed and capital projects are over budget. The MTA is like a lumbering elephant slowly moving forward. That is except for during times of crisis, when the MTA becomes a model of efficiency, such as after Superstorm Sandy and 9/11.

Last May, Governor Cuomo asked the MTA to form a commission of experts from around the world to “reinvent transportation” so that the MTA can better meet the challenges of the next century and have a preliminary report ready by last September. The co-chairmen responded in their letter to the governor that it is the MTA that needs reinventing, not the transportation.

The final report is entitled MTA Transportation Reinvention Commission Report (November 2014). Yet, it talks little about reinvention. The report makes a few good recommendations, but mainly it provides justification for many of the MTA’s past and current projects as well as detailing transportation projects around the world. There is little if any criticism of the MTA, suggesting only room for some improvement.

Nowhere does it ask serious questions like did taxpayers get their money’s worth for the $1.4 billion Fulton Transit Center or address whether or not the MTA could have made better use of the land by constructing a 30-story tower above the Fulton Street Center.

Nor does it ask why East Side Access, which now exceeds $10.8 billion and is taking upward of 60 years to complete, is worth the money. It does not even mention the rebuilt South Ferry station that was failing as soon as it opened and was destroyed by Superstorm Sandy, or how to prevent such occurrences from happening in the future.

It does not ask those questions nor many others, such as why are construction costs so much higher than elsewhere, or why do capital projects take so long to complete, or why doesn’t the MTA challenge the unions to reduce labor costs, as Ben Kabak asks in his review of the report.

Basically, the report is a big disappointment because it really says nothing new, and provides little specifics and where specifics are provided, they are not well thought out.

Blogger Alon Levy provides an in-depth analysis of the report, in which he criticizes it for relying heavily on buzzwords such as resiliency and redundancy, among other things. He asks, what is the MTA reinventing anyway?

Confusion Of The Mission

Should the report ask the MTA to reinvent how it provides transportation (as the governor’s letter to the MTA Chairman states), or is the MTA being asked to reinvent itself as the two co-chairs write in their letter to the MTA Chairman? No answer is provided. Without a clear mission, how can you have an adequate report? No wonder the report is a disappointment.

If the purpose of the report is as the two co-chairs believe, they seem to be bending over backwards to please the MTA and not criticize them. Do they fear that criticizing the MTA too much would be a poor reflection on the governor? If the purpose of the report is to provide real change to the MTA, you do not ask the agency you want to change how they can improve themselves. You appoint a thoroughly independent commission — not one chosen by the MTA.

If you ask the MTA how they should reinvent themselves, they will shift the discussion to why they cannot accomplish all they want, which is exactly what happened. That is why so much of the report is devoted to a discussion of funding mechanisms, since the MTA is interpreting the purpose of the report on how to reinvent transportation — not themselves. This is evident in their press release, in which they omit the word “MTA” from the title of the report, and keep referring to it as the Transportation Reinvention Commission, not the MTA Transportation Reinvention Commission as the commission calls itself. That is because the MTA does not believe it needs to be reinvented. It sees all the problems it faces as being the result of outside forces.

It is bold that the co-commissioners concluded in their letter to the governor that it is the MTA that needs to be reinvented and they should be commended for doing that. However, what they recommend is hardly a reinvention. They only recommend the MTA take significant steps to re-engineer its way of doing business. They also spend a good portion of the report describing what is going on in the rest of the world, merely assuming what works there would also work here.

Summary Of Commission’s Recommendations

1. The MTA must reengineer its way of doing business by creating a “new MTA” that is more efficient, transparent, and accountable to the public, including a new center of excellence to optimize project delivery and engage the private sector.
2. The MTA must accelerate and sustain core capital investment to bring its infrastructure into a state of good repair in order to maximize safety, reliability and resiliency.
3. The MTA must create a 21st century customer experience to provide all customers an information-rich, accessible, reliable, frequent and easy-to-use service.
4. The MTA must aggressively expand the capacity of the existing system both to alleviate constraints and to meet the needs of growing ridership, which will provide greater redundancy as well as fewer disruptions.
5. The MTA must make investments designed to serve existing and emerging population and employment centers not well served by the existing system, pursuing new flexible service alternatives and operating modes.
6. The MTA must forge partnerships with its local, state, and federal economic development and planning partners, as well as the private sector, to drive the region’s economic growth; and it must establish more collaborative working relationships with other transit agencies to better integrate regional transit.
7. The MTA must have a balanced, stable and reliable long-term funding plan that includes dedicated revenues and contributions from all who benefit from MTA services, directly or indirectly. The MTA must implement a comprehensive program to cut costs, and embrace a more entrepreneurial approach to revenue generation.

Next week: How the report suffers from a lack of specifics.

The Commute is a weekly feature highlighting news and information about the city’s mass transit system and transportation infrastructure. It is written by Allan Rosen, a Manhattan Beach resident and former Director of MTA/NYC Transit Bus Planning (1981).

Disclaimer: The above is an opinion column and may not represent the thoughts or position of Sheepshead Bites. Based upon their expertise in their respective fields, our columnists are responsible for fact-checking their own work, and their submissions are edited only for length, grammar and clarity. If you would like to submit an opinion piece or become a regularly featured contributor, please e-mail nberke [at] sheepsheadbites [dot] com.